Portsmouth Corporation

Portsmouth Corporation – Leyland Cheetah – BTP 946 – 46

Copyright P J Marshall

Portsmouth Corporation
1939
Leyland Cheetah LZ4
Wadham B32R

Portsmouth Corporations fleet number 46 was the last of a batch of 6 Leyland LZ4 Cheetahs, 41-46 (BTP 941-946), with locally-built Wadham bodywork, new in 1939. 41 and 42 were withdrawn in 1941, after suffering war damage. This view of 46 at Eastney Depot was taken about 1954 when the remaining four of them were withdrawn from service and were awaiting disposal. Note the sad appearance, bald front tyres and single wheels only on the rear! Although I only holidayed in Portsmouth and Southsea from 1949-1956, I never recall ever seeing these buses in service.
Note the bus is surrounded by some of the nine 1944 Duple-bodied utility Daimler CWA6’s of which virtually no photos seem to exist. In 1959, the chassis were thoroughly overhauled and they were despatched to be re-fitted with Crossley bodies, some of the last Crossley bodies built, only to be scrapped in 1965! With only nine pre-selective gear change vehicles in the fleet, they were greatly abused, with inexperienced drivers using the gear change pedal as a clutch pedal, with lots of juddering. As a visiting Londoner, living in the Daimlerland Merton/Sutton area, it made me cringe!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

The Cheetahs were bought for the Southsea Sea Front Service, but of course this ceased in September 1939. The bodies had sunshine roofs and a total of six destination screens to inform the tourists of the attractions on the route. The bodies were reportedly heavy for the lightweight chassis, which was fine for a ride down the promenade, but a problem on normal services.After the war they were used on peak time specials when the fleet was understrength, but very little else. Interestingly there is a record of No.43 running on mileage equalisation duties on Southdown Service 138 from Fareham to Cosham over Portsdown Hill. That would have tested its Leyland 4.7 litre engine.

Pat Jennings

It’s true the bus behind is one of the CWA6/Duples, as all nine were withdrawn in 1954 to go to Crossley for new bodies, being returned in 1955. Thus they did 11 years with original, and 11 years as rebodied, being withdrawn in 1965/66. But those at the side of the Cheetah are Craven-bodied TD4s of the 131-160 batch. These would be either early withdrawals, or set aside for a work-shop rebuild. CPPTD carried out a lot of rebuilding work on the Cravens bodied TD4s and the trolleybuses from c. 1949-1957/58, although not every member of these batches received such work.

Michael Hampton

I agree with ‘Michael Hampton’ with regards to the re-bodying of the ‘Daimler CWA6’. A rather elderly Bus Book I have from 1963 states that they were re-bodied in 1955 by Crossley.
I think it would have been a lot to ask, that a Double Deck ‘Utility’ body last fifteen years, (unless heavily rebuilt), with the dreadful quality Wartime materials allowed by the ‘Ministry of Supplies’ for Bus Bodies. Even the paint allowed was little better than ‘coloured water’!!
Credit must be give to ‘C.P.P.T.D’ for managing to keep the Utility bodies in service for eleven years. Before the eventual & inevitable – re-bodying process.

John

Does anyone have a photo of the CWA6’s as re-bodied? I can’t think of any Crossley bodied Daimlers (with exposed radiators that is).

Chris Barker

Oldham had fifteen Crossley-bodied CVD6 (322-336) and Manchester had fifty CVG5 with their characteristic body (4000-4049). Also Lancaster had a solitary (I think) CWG5 rebodied by Crossley.
However, it is possible you are thinking of the later Park Royal-designed Crossley body and I have to say I can’t think of any other examples.

David Beilby

No, actually I was thinking of the earlier type of Crossley body of the style with the stepped rear windows, which may be called ‘true’ Crossley bodies. The Portsmouth fleet list on Classic Bus Links states that they were re-bodied in 1959, very late for a wartime chassis to be treated, I thought that T Burrows ex London Daimlers were the last to receive new bodies in 1957. Anyone know which date is correct? If it was 1959 as stated by Chris Hebbron above, they would of course have had the Park Royal style of body, still worth seeing with the exposed radiator and strange if they only lasted six years as such.

Chris Barker

Chris Barker – I will post a photo of a re-bodied Daimler shortly. They were pleasant enough, but nothing like any other Crossley bodies I’ve seen. What I’m actually after is a photo of one of them BEFORE they were re-bodied! Such photos are be very rare. Any holders of one out there?

Chris Hebbron

The date of 1959 cannot be correct for the rebodying as the Crossley factory had been closed over a year by then. In fact they entered service in September and October 1955.
It turns out there were not many batches of Daimlers bodied postwar by Crossley. In addition to those I listed the remaining ones were the nine Portsmouth examples, 250 for Birmingham (2776-2900 and 3103 to 3227) and 35 for Aberdeen (175-204 and 210-214).

David Beilby

Thank you, David, for clarifying the revised date to 1955. I, too, took the Classic Bus Link date of 1959.
I notice that Birmingham’s Daimler CVG6 3225 survives and the Crossley bodywork gives only the merest nod to their standard Corporation design!

Chris Hebbron

Chris Hebbron has actually sent me a shot of a Portsmouth Crossley rebodied exposed radiator Daimler CWA6 it will be posted in its own right Wednesday 19th January.

Peter

Portsmouth Corporation – Leyland Atlantean – 224 BTP – 224

Portsmouth Corporation
1963
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Metro Cammell H43/33F

The production Atlantean appeared in 1958, but the early examples proved troublesome and expensive to maintain. Nevertheless, the concept appealed to several operators, and, by 1963, Portsmouth Corporation, long time devotees of the Leyland marque, must have thought the risk to be worthwhile, for it bought a batch of 35 PDR1/1 buses in that year, followed by a further 10 in 1964 and 9 more in 1966. All members of the Portsmouth PDR1/1 fleet carried the very plain Metro-Cammell H43/33F body design. The Corporation subsequently switched to the PDR1/2 version and finally to the AN68. Seen on 13 August 1967 at Portsmouth Harbour, known locally as “The Hard”, is No.224, 224 BTP, one of the 1963 deliveries, displaying the superb Portsmouth livery to good effect. I doubt if trips round the harbour are now offered for 15p (3/-) but, unlike the late 1940s/early 1950s when I lived in Alverstoke, the current Royal Navy could almost be accommodated on the Serpentine in Hyde Park, so there isnâ€™t much to see these days.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

17/04/17 – 07:49

Mixed feelings about this photo.
The Atlantians were the mainstay of my trips to school on the 143 but their arrival marked the end for the much loved trolleys.

Dave French

18/04/17 – 07:44

So typical of CPPTD’s pride, four years old and yet still looking brand new! Even if they were troublesome in their early days, the department was well up to coping with whatever was thrown at it. IF I recall The Hard for anything, it was the Mudlarks rummaging on the muddy foreshore which passed as a beach there, with them searching out coins thrown at them by passers by! Not forgetting the three lines of trolleybuses parked there at the terminus, awaiting the dockers coming out, at least those that weren’t on a bike. It was always like the beginning of a bike race here at coming out time! This was a time of transport change in the area. Not long after, the electric ‘Nelson Stock’ trains acquired their half yellow fronts, then later went from dignified green to plain blue, not even with any grey to relieve the monotony, as other trains . My other abiding memory, when coming into Havant rail station during my 1957-59 National Service days, was hearing the announcer, in broad Hampshire ‘burr’ saying, ‘avant, this is ‘avant. Change ‘ere for the Broighton Loin, change ‘ere for ‘ayling Oiland!”. Now, they all talk like Londoners. (I am a Londoner!). Reminiscing? Not I!

Chris Hebbron

18/04/17 – 10:44

Wonderful memories Chris, but they were dockIES, not dockERS – they didn’t load and unload ships they built and repaired them.

Pat Jennings

18/04/17 – 17:04

They were commonly known, the ones on the bikes at least, as Dockyard Mateys!

Philip Lamb

18/04/17 – 17:06

Yes, a great picture of a Portsmouth bus still proudly presented. The Corporation seemed to be forward thinking in these days, with the trolleybus conversions using some one-person operated saloons (noteworthy for urban use at the time), and then the use of Atlanteans for the final conversion. Other south coast municipalities were generally slower to move to rear-engined buses, I recall. However Portsmouth waited for other pioneers to iron out initial difficulties – Reading had used O-P-O saloons a year or two before them, and Hastings’ trolleybus conversion with Atlanteans was back in 1959 (although a BET operation, it was somewhat municipal-like in its scope). The result was that Portsmouth’s Atlanteans were of the “Mark II” variety, introduced that year. In fact I think the first few were delivered in original format, and were returned to the maker for modification to the new format. Also, the bodywork contained the “Manchester staircase” as opposed to the original Met-Cam design.
Dave mentions their use on route 143 – this was previously route C/D, which used to change the screens on route because of its length. When it became 143, the whole route detail was squeezed on to the via screen, with the final destination in the smaller screen below. The result looked extremely squashed, and rather spoilt the overall appearance in my view.
The terminus has also changed it’s name in recent years. Just plain “Dockyard” sufficed when the picture was taken. Much later it became “The Hard Interchange”, and nowadays it’s “Gunwharf Quays”. I always felt that “The Hard Interchange” was a little unfortunate, bearing in mind that one could change from a bus or coach to the Gosport Ferry or London/Southampton/Brighton line trains – was it really that hard? We all hoped not!

Michael Hampton

19/04/17 – 08:13

One minor correction to the text is that Portsmouth did not have any PDR1/2 Atlanteans – this was the version with a drop centre rear axle, intended for low height bodies, although some operators used it to permit additional headroom in the lower saloon.
After the PDR1/1s, Portsmouth’s next Atlanteans were the PDR2/1 single deckers – the PDR2 being the longer wheelbase version of the chassis. The next double deckers were Alexander-bodied AN68s.

Nigel Frampton

19/04/17 – 08:14

This is a great view of a Municipal bus in traditional livery, even to the lining out. The light upper paintwork, white or cream or whatever depending on which fleet is in question, has often been regarded as difficult to photograph. With a blue sky, it stands out. Thank you, Roger, for posting.
Like, Mr Hebbron, I am a Londoner, but by default, since my parents were living there when I was born, but I am of Lancashire origins. Between “The Hard Interchange” and “Gunwharf Quays”, Michael, was it not simply “The Hard”?

Pete Davies

20/04/17 – 06:16

Pete, it may well have been just plain “The Hard” at some point. I do remember “The Hard Interchange” being used on the AN68 Alexander bodied Atlanteans. But when de-regulation came in and there were so many changes, it may well have become “The Hard”, perhaps depending on the operator, and/or size of destination screen. I don’t have ant specific memories of those more recent times!

Michael Hampton

20/04/17 – 06:18

There is an sameness about these earlyish Atlanteans and Fleetlines- or am I not observant enough? They were all boxy, with separate windscreens right and left and no sign of any overall design or even “styling” features that may be found on an older half-cab. They all seem to be built from the same standardised components and carrying over the half-cab liveries. Only later, or even much later, came shrouded bustles, one piece screens and larger window bays. Was Liverpool the first to introduce a complete “new look”..? that’s a provocative question.

Joe

22/04/17 – 07:03

It used to be ‘DOCKYARD’ in the 1950s and early 1960s. ‘Hard’ was the Hampshire term for the first bit of dry land one came to from the sea. Across the harbour, Gosport Hard was known to Provincial as ‘GOSPORT FERRY’ and the Hants & Dorset as simply ‘GOSPORT’, and the same applied to the solitary Southdown rout, that from London Victoria Coach Station via the Meon Valley.

David Wrag

22/04/17 – 07:05

The bus is either operating route 148A or 148B. At that time, routes crossing the City boundary had Southdown rather than Corporation numbers.

Andy Hemming

22/04/17 – 09:50

The route is 148A.

Roger Cox

27/04/17 – 06:00

In answer to Joe, I think that in the beginning the overall appearance of the Atlantean, however bodied, was so revolutionary that no-one noticed that the detailed styling was derived from the MCW Orion (which itself wasn’t very old at the time). The Park Royal/Roe version was clearly a copy, and even the Alexander used similar window dimensions, while Northern Counties used their own halfcab styling in the same way that MCW used the Orion’s.
So yes, the Liverpool Atlantean was the first example not to be based on either halfcab styling from the same builder or someone else’s Atlantean/Fleetline. Strangely, only Liverpool, Bolton and Bury took it, all other MCW customers staying with the Orion-based design, with or without a prettified front end.
It was quickly eclipsed by the copy that East Lancs did for Bolton, enhanced by a stunning new livery, and I would also like to raise a flag for the restrained elegance of the first Warrington Fleetlines, which slipped on to the scene completely unsung in late 1963: https://flic.kr/p/DQQWky

Peter Williamson

27/04/17 – 10:50

Bury, after its flirtation with MCW Liverpool style bodies, continued to look for something more attractive and went to East Lancs which produced almost identical bodies to those of Warrington. The Warrington bodies were built by the East Lancs sister company, the Sheffield based Neepsend, who built the same design for Sheffield on Atlantean chassis and shared an order for Coventry with East Lancs on Fleetline chassis, 13 bodies being built by Neepsend, 9 by East Lancs.

Phil Blinkhorn

28/04/17 – 07:11

In between the Liverpool style Atlanteans and the East Lancs Fleetlines Bury took 15 Fleetlines with Glasgow style Alexander bodies but with the Midland Red style vee windscreens. These were very attractive buses and to my eyes were the best looking of the three manufacturer’s products for Bury.

Philip Halstead

28/04/17 – 16:55

Not sure what happened with my post on this topic yesterday. My original post overnight Wednesday/Thursday included a mention of the Alexander bodied Fleetlines prior to those from East Lancs and was listed when I checked the site at around 08.00 on Thursday. Clicking the link to the comment revealed that it had not been added to the thread. I sent an email regarding this and a truncated version of my original then appeared.

Phil Blinkhorn

02/03/19 – 06:58

I digress from Pomopey buses, but want to add to Chris Hebron’s memories of station announcer accents. At Portsmouth & Southsea station for many years I always heard “Portsmouth and Saysey, this is Portsmouth and Saysey, remain on the train for Portsmouth arbor, the Oila Woyt and Gosport ferries.” Now it’s electronic in perfect clipped accentless English.

Jules

05/03/19 – 06:54

We are way off the subject but I was told that a good Station Announcer could announce the intermediate stations for a stopping train to Waterloo in one breath,

Andrew Hemming

06/03/19 – 07:09

When I was a driving instructor I had one pupil with a quite extreme stutter/stammer, he was employed as a station announcer and I never heard him mis-speak at work.

John Lomas

Portsmouth Corporation – Karrier WL6/2 – TP 4835 – 46

Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Copyright CPPTD

Portsmouth Corporation
1927
Karrier WL6/2
Brush H32/28R

Portsmouth Corporation, primarily a tram operator at this time, having dabbled with some Thornycroft J’s, Guy J’s, Dennis 50 cwt’s, an LGOC B Class, Dennis E’s and a Karrier CL, then decided to go for some big boys, buying eight Karrier WL6/2’s registered in two batches, in 1927. Here is a photo of No. 46 (TP4835) with Brush H32/28R bodies. This was during a brief era when 6-wheel buses were “de rigeur”, with higher seating levels and, when front-wheel braking was uncommon, four wheels with brakes at the rear were better than two. However, Karrier was not the company to buy them from! Geoffrey Hilditch in his excellent book “A Look at Buses” recalls that Karrier had not realised that it was necessary to have a crown wheel and pinion BETWEEN the two axles, which set up mechanical stress and continual breakdowns. On one occasion a lady with two children was walking along the downstairs bus aisle when a flailing drive shaft came through the floor, narrowly missing them. Karrier”s policy was not to bother to keep spares for its products for much longer than production ceased, adding to the users” problems and, no doubt, prejudicing repeat orders for the company”s products, when Leyland/AEC were becoming the leading lights. Suffice to say, that when the Huddersfield company finally started to produce some quite capable models, such as the Chaser and Consort around 1930, sales had dropped right off and, with the Wall Street Crash causing a slump, never really recovered, leading to Rootes taking over the firm in 1934. As for those in Pompey, they were persevered with for one year longer, until 1935. The lining-out of the bus is extensive, yet surprisingly simple for the period, with no fiddly work at the corners which was often prevalent at that time, Portsmouth being no exception. In latter years, simple lining out became the order of the day again, as you can see from the Crossley DD42/7 I posted recently. I assume the colours were maroon/white, as the tram and later bus livery.

And the Knight & Lee store (“Still a Foremost for FASHION – Second to None for VALUE”), advertised on the side poster? Not exactly in the category as Binns of Newcastle, either in store size or bus advertising presence, it nevertheless still exists under the more famous “John Lewis” name! More staying power than the bus!

And a question – something is sticking out in front of the radiator. Is it a headlamp? At, say, 9″ diameter and therefore the same depth, plus a bit more space, it would seem to be sticking out about 15″ beyond the radiator front and, if not actually fouling the starting handle, making the use of the handle more difficult than otherwise would be the case. Blowing that part of the photo up to 400% does not, sadly, help provide an answer.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Headlamp is clearly visible on the offside mudguard. As a suggestion, might it have been an audible warning device? After moving on from rubber bulb horns, it could have been some sort of patent mechanical klaxon. Or a fog light maybe?

Stephen Ford

It”s a headlamp!

The lamp on the offside wing is a sidelight, despite it size.

Buses as late as (if I remember correctly) 1967 didn”t have to have two headlamps, and if they did, they were not required to be of the same size or height from the ground. That”s why early pictures of Routemasters often show them with only one headlamp lit: they were on separate switches! Also, in the early post-war period you often saw buses (notably Manchester Corporation ones) with one original full-sized lamp and one tiny, former blackout lamp.

David Jones

13/02/11 – 06:38

I enlarged the picture & brightened it which then seemed to show that the headlamp was not in front of the radiator but mounted on the offside chassis dumb iron by a clumsy looking bracket.

Brian

13/02/11 – 18:34

Well done, Brian, that settles it. The headlamp is certainly formidable-looking!

Chris Hebbron

14/02/11 – 09:46

What a wonderful old vehicle this is!.
Did PCT have some with EE bodies as well?
The Brush version seen here is a FC version of the CX Guys supplied to Leicester. Forward control 6 wheel double deckers!
The fascination of buses from this era is their close tramcar ancestry, and the swift development in design between 1928/9, and 1932 is dramatic!

John Whitaker

Leicester`s CXs were, of course Normal control. My enthusiasm went ahead of my typing fingers!

15/02/11 – 06:24

Yes John, CPPTD took delivery of another six, 48-53. in 1928, with English Electric bodies, these lasting until 1934, with 52 being the very last of them all to be withdrawn, in 1936. You are so right in your mention of the huge leap in body design in that five years or so.
BTW – If anyone wonders about Portsmouth Corporation’s coat of arms, it is a star with a moon underneath, cupped upwards. The motto is: ‘Heavens Light – Our Guide’. And in English, too – no fancy Latin for Pompey!!

Chris Hebbron

18/06/12 – 11:57

Chris, you are obviously as fascinated as I am by this bus generation! I think it is because it is just past my recollection, as my earliest bus memories were during WW2, and anything of an earlier generation was just “out of reach” if you follow me!
This rear view is particularly valuable, as such views were quite rare, and it gives me some indication as to what the rear end of a Leicester Guy CX would have looked like. A similar body although modified for fitment to a normal control 6 wheel chassis.
The English Electric version was quite similar, but I do have recollections of that family of buses, as I can (just) remember the Bradford English Electric “Paddlers” of 1929. See David Beilby`s galleries, where other, similar delights are to be found! Wonderful stuff!

John Whitaker

19/06/12 – 11:38

You”re right, John W, it was a period of fast change, which soon saw some early competitors off, especially with the Wall Street Crash of 1929. And with six-wheelers, Guy/Karrier got it wrong and AEC/Leyland got it right when it came to needing a diff between the twin axles. With the rear view of the bus, it clearly shows the tram influence, with the two side bulkheads aft of the saloon and the round-shaped winding staircase.
A rounded back, door between bulkheads, a controller and brake handle and it could pass for a tram end! And the internal view of the EE bodies for similar vehicles on David B”s excellent website, shows two enormous floor traps to gain access to those troublesome rear axles! Glad the photo was useful to you: it was to me, too.
I’d love to have ridden on them!

Chris Hebbron

03/11/12 – 17:15

Here’s a rare and lovely photo of four Karrier WL6/2’s parked around the side of Portsmouth’s Guildhall, possibly awaiting a concert crowd to take home.
If any Northerners think the building looks familiar, it’s an exact copy of Bolton Town Hall. However, it was gutted in the war and rebuilt many years after in a much more simplified style, losing much of its original glory.

Chris Hebbron

04/11/12 – 15:43

Chris, it was a delight to see your latest WL6 photo in Pompey, and it has served to re-ignite my fascination for this era. There seemed to be a “punctuation mark” in development stages, between this era, and the more rounded style post 1930/2. This “mark” was probably the TD1 Titan, and both sides of it are fascinating in a different way.
My nearest actual memory glimpses are the Bradford “Paddler” trolleybuses, which were direct relations of the English Electric bodied variant of the WL6 at Portsmouth. Similar bodies were built for Oldham on Guy FCX chassis, and, of course, good old Dodson reigned supreme in producing bodies to this classic style. A photo of the Portsmouth and Southampton (Thornycroft) 6 wheeler EE bodies would be of great interest, and, I am always amazed that the wonderful Wolverhampton fleet of the 1920s, in both petrol and electric format, does not generate more historical enthusiast interest. How fascinatingly different was a normal control 6 wheel motorbus!
The whole 1920s 6 wheel idea was a step too far, too quickly, in the drive for seats in the tram replacement climate, but when it comes to enthusiast content and memory, then unsuccessful they were NOT!!
Come on you OBP followers. Lets have more of the really old stuff! Or is it me getting longer in the tooth than anyone else? !!

John Whitaker

05/11/12 – 17:19

It really was a time of great change then, John, with petrol to diesel and open staircases giving way to enclosed platforms and open cabs to enclosed ones, especially in London. Boxy bodies giving way to more rounded, streamlined ones (now they’re boxy again). The second photo (rear of bus) has a bulge for the lower deck, which I’ve seen called ‘tumbledown’ in the past. Anyone know why – was it the type of staircase that necessitated the bulge or passenger risk, or what?
I really must try to trace a photo of the 1928 batch of Karriers, with EE bodies. they seem more elusive although there were 6 against 8 of the others, almost even.

Chris Hebbron

06/11/12 – 06:37

Hi Chris. These Brush bodies are very similar to the Leicester Guy CXs, which had a similar rear tumbleholme/tumbledown, but which does not commence its inward bend until first stair riser level, so I think it was purely a “fashion”, and very common. The staircase was a half landing type, but Dodson bodies of this era had tramway style “half turn” or direct stairs to the tramway spiral style, and consequently , in plan view, the enclosed bodies had a much larger off side radius at the rear, compared with the near side. EEC bodies were very similar to the Brush design. I will try to gain access to the Brush Archive at Leicester Museums, to see if I can get access to photos of these Karriers, and others built by Brush. There were also batches of six wheel Maudslay Magnas for Coventry which were superb, magnificent machines!
Hall Lewis also built bodies for Karrier WL6, as did Roe, on Karrier and Guy, and also Short Bros.
Northampton had some Guy FCX with locally built Grose bodies too, but all in good time John…slow down a bit!

As an afterthought on the Karrier 6 wheel double deck motorbus theme, does anyone know the correct designation, as most photo captions refer to the double decker as “DD6”, and the single decker as WL6/1 or 2. Also, was the maximum length for these buses, prior to 1931/2, 28ft, corresponding with the 25 ft for 4 wheelers? I never did know, but think the single deck could be built to 30ft,and the decker 28ft, this rising to 26ft and 30ft. in 1932 (viz ST to STL). Many trolleybuses were built to 30ft. length, as represented by AEC type 664T (663T for the shorter option), but were there any post 1932 30ft. 6 wheel motorbuses? I cannot think of any, but that means nothing!
It would seem that a resurgence of interest in “full size” motorbuses was about to materialise c.1939, with Leicester purchasing batches of “Renowns”, and there was a Daimler COG6/60 chassis, due to be demonstrated to Leicester, destroyed at Daimlers works in the blitz. Please correct me if I say these were not 3o footers.
Also interesting is the fact that both EE and Brush, the first and second main supplier of tramcar bodies in the UK since 1900, were so prominent in the concept of “large capacity” motorbuses in the 1920s, and that both voluntarily abandoned this business during, or soon after WW2. The third supplier of tramcar bodies, Hurst Nelson of Motherwell, never really got into bus building at all.
I wonder if we could get together to make a list of all known pre-1932 6 wheel dd. motorbuses. An interesting read?

John Whitaker

26/07/13 – 17:42

I mentioned above a near-miss accident with one of these buses, but have found a news clipping about an horrific fatal accident with Wallasey Corporation Karrier DD6, a variant of the WL 6/1 & 6/2. Sadly, both Karrier and Wallasey Corp’n got away without being blamed. You’ve got to feel greatly for the husband. SEE: www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/

Chris Hebbron

27/07/13 – 07:41

This horrific accident was mentioned in a history of Wallasey Corporation published c.1958 in Buses Illustrated. The author stated that as a result, all the Wallasey Karrier six-wheelers were withdrawn from service immediately. As I remember it, there was a hint that the cause was prop shaft failure, due to the stresses of the inadequate design of the twin rear axle, and that this accident also caused some other operators to get rid of this make of six-wheelers sooner rather than later.

Michael Hampton

27/07/13 – 09:08

Portsmouth, in its usual way, kept them going until 1935, probably the full span of their lives, for the time!

Chris Hebbron

28/07/13 – 07:34

I remember that article, Michael, and I also attended an illustrated talk in the mid 1960s given by my then boss, Geoff Hilditch at Halifax. He mentioned this tragic event, and later, writing as ‘Gortonian’, covered it in one of his Buses Illustrated articles. It was reprinted in his book ‘Looking at Buses’. These Karriers did not have a safety bridle on the shaft linking the engine to the gearbox, and when two of the three connecting bolts sheared off suddenly, the third held, causing the shaft to flail around and up through the floor with devastating results. Karriers never fully recovered their reputation after that accident.

Roger Cox

29/07/13 – 07:45

Doncaster received four AEC Renowns in 1935 and three Leyland Titanics in 1936 all with Roe H60R bodies.

Malcolm J Wells

29/07/13 – 14:46

To show both body types on the same chassis, here is a rare photo of CPPTD’s Karrier WL6/2 No.50 (TP 6874), delivered 1928. These sported EE bodies very similar to the Brush ones, with the same seating capacity. The most obvious difference was the top deck’s far less neat side-sliding windows on this body. In this photo, the bus clearly has two headlamps Of the batch, 52 lasted the longest, until 1936. (Copyright: English Electric)

Chris Hebbron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

16/11/13 – 10:50

I’ve come across a 1928 advert, making great claims about their WL62 chassis.
I’ve no idea in whose livery the bus in the photo is (someone may know), but I am intrigued about the unusual non-cutaway section of platform on the rear of bus. I’ve never seen such an example before and it might be an added clue.

Chris Hebbron

07/08/16 – 06:55

Re: 1928 advert.
the livery is for Liverpool. they bought 6 two wheel chassis, and had the bodies built in the tram works.

Art

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

11/07/17 – 06:53

This is in response to Chris Hebron’s message of 26/7/13 (!) with its link to an article about a passenger disappearing through the floor of a Karrier six wheeler and being killed by the machinery underneath. Over the weekend I was looking at the floor of the Bournemouth 6-wheel Karrier single decker LJ500. My usual experience of bus floors is ECW and Beadle products where the floors are 1″ or 7/8″ T&G boards. The lightweight Bristol SC, where everything was skinned down as much as possible to save weight has floorboards 5/8″ thick. The Hall Lewis body on LJ500 has boards a smigen over 1/2″ thick. The saving grace for the SC is that the distance between supports is a lot less than those on the Karrier – 18″ or so compared with 3′ or more. I have to say that standing on the floor in LJ500 it didn’t feel all that safe and having now read Chris Hebron’s comments and the Wallasey article I understand why.

Peter Cook

12/07/17 – 07:24

On 6/11/12 (was it that long ago!), John Whitaker was interested in compiling a list of pre-1932 double deck buses manufactured. I’ve had a quick go and come up with the following, a couple of them are single deck ones.
AEC Renown (single and double), Bristol C (two chassis, only one of which bodied), Crossley Condor (one only), Guy CX & DD, Karrier DD, WL6 (both), Clipper (single) & Consort, Leyland Titanic (TS6T/TS7T single), Northern General SE6 (single), Sunbeam Sikh.

Chris Hebbron

Portsmouth Corporation – Daimler CWA6 – CTP 180 – 179

Copyright D Clark

Portsmouth Corporation
1944
Daimler CWA6
Crossley H30/26R (after re-bodying in 1955)

The austerity Daimler CWA6 parked behind my earlier posting of Portsmouth Corporation’s Leyland Cheetah provoked some discussion and Chris Barker asked if anyone had a photo of one after re-bodying. Here is a nice one, shiny, shorn of adverts and looking fairly clean, despite the wet day. The bus is parked outside the art deco facade of Southdown’s Hilsea East Depot (outskirts of Portsmouth) and is facing in completely the wrong direction for the suburb of Paulsgrove. This, and the absence of passengers and driver, make me suspect that the bus was being used for business purposes, rather than being in service. Michael Hampton says that grey roofs were repainted white between 1959-1961 and the lack of adverts could suggest that the photo was taken not long after re-bodying. Although the different height of each headlamp slightly spoils the appearance, the design is quite pleasing.
Was this body design unique to these nine buses?

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Not really a Crossley body at all… just a Park Royal body built at a subsidiary company, a bit like the 30ft. Glasgow BUTs were built by Crossley to Park Royal drawings.
Very nice though!

John Whitaker

Yes, the tiny ventilators in the middle of the upper edge of the top deck windscreens cry out “Park Royal” don’t they?? This body has many outline similarities to the one fitted to the AEC Regent V demonstrator 88 CMV. The Portsmouth Daimler is a very handsome machine and the livery most dignified.

Chris Youhill

As I’ve said, many times before, when Park Royal were busy and needed more capacity for metal framed bodies, they farmed it out to their subsidiaries. Roe benefited from this and it kept the Crossley factory open for about eight years after the last DD42 and SD42 had been delivered. They were not just Park Royal designs, they were built on Park Royal frames.

David Oldfield

Remembering this is 1955, we are still with hinged driver’s door with those funny windows, including one for sticking a leather covered arm out- no trafficators of any sort, even then… and a starting handle…?

Joe

I think the last genuine Crossley rebodies were the 13 for Bradford in early 1952, built on reconditioned AEC 661T and Karrier E4 chassis. These were quite similar in outline to the CWG5 rebodied for Lancaster in (1951?)
Crossley “cleaned up” the body outline circa 1950 by omitting the wavy window features as shown on their designs for Oldham etc. on their own chassis.
I believe that most Crossley bodies from 1937/8, were built on MCW frames, or a variant of these, the original designs being for Manchester on Mancunian, TD4/5 or COG5 chassis. Details would be of interest if anyone knows.

John Whitaker

John, you’re absolutely correct. Crossley bodies – pre AEC/ACV ownership – WERE on MCCW frames.
Manchester were Crossley’s biggest customer and, as much as anything, having MCCW frames was a Manchester idea to help standardise bodies. It didn’t harm them that MCCW were the best quality metal frames available at the time. The peculiar window line was to give structural strength to a body, specified by Manchester Corporation, with a “self-supporting” platform.
[Colin Bailey was poached from MCCW by Leyland when their metal frames proved such a disaster and went on to provide Leyland with world beating design and quality in their bodies.]
Park Royal frames were introduced, and eventually replaced the MCCW, after AEC/ACV took over in 1948.

David Oldfield

I will say that the driver’s door, with its curved glass insert shape is a feature of Park Royal bodies of the period, and also of the immediate post-war Weymann bodies, usually the ones with flared skirts.

Chris Hebbron

The picture shows the bus at Hilsea Southdown Garage, and it is at the southern terminus of route 21, shown on the screen as “Hilsea Lido”. Passengers have alighted, the screen has already been changed for the return to Paulsgrove, Hillsley Road, but the bus has yet to turn to face northwards to take up its next journey. The 21 route was first introduced in 1955 as a feeder service from a newish area of the Paulsgrove estate to Hilsea, where passengers could change to other services onward into Portsmouth city. These Daimlers were frequent performers on it (although all 9 certainly would not have been required!). The bus is certainly working the route shown on screen. The route was the first Portsmouth Corporation motorbus route to have a number identifier (rather than a letter), and the first for many years to be the same in both directions. From c.1930, tram/trolleybus routes were numbered, eg outward “1”, return as “2”, and motorbus were lettered outward as “A” and return as “B”. When the trolleybuses finished in 1959-1963, all motor bus routes were redesignated from letters to numbers, although a significant amount had the paired numberings continued (e.g. G/H became 9/10). This was helpful in order to identify the direction of the several circular or loop services which were a feature of Portsmouth operations, given its geographical location as an island. I suspect that the picture shown was taken not long after both the introduction of route 21, and the return to service of the rebodied Daimler. The final clue to that is the gilt-edged fleet number on the front dash. This is to a large style, standard on early post-war to 1950’s. By c.1958, the same style gilt-edged numbers were being applied, but in a smaller size. The 21 route was absorbed into a converted trolleybus route (3/4) in September 1960 when this was converted to motorbuses, and extended from Cosham to Paulsgrove. The all-Leyland PD2/10s (58-82) then became the most frequent performers on this route. First Hampshire still operate a route 3 (uni-directional numbering) from Southsea to Paulsgrove via Fratton, but it serves a different area of Paulsgrove now. Sorry, lots of minute detail here, but some might find it of interest.

Michael Hampton

Many thanks to Chris Hebbron for posting this, I knew instantly that I have never seen a picture of one of these before. It is indeed a pleasing design but I’ve always felt that any bus so treated, not just Daimler but some others, would have benefitted from improved front wings to cover the dumb irons/springs in to give them a much more ‘post war’ look. In fact, one wonders why some manufacturers didn’t offer full width bonnet conversion kits!

Chris Barker

Thank you David for your Crossley clarifications, Much appreciated…I always thought the “funny windows” were just a fashion fad.
Amazing too, the difference in Leyland build quality after Colin Bailey was poached from MCCW. As well as with EEC metal bodies, Burnley C and N joint committee had all sorts of problems with their Leyland “V” fronts, and Ledgards had to rebody theirs as you probably know.
Which other fleets had severe problems with these early Leyland bodies…do we know?

John Whitaker

More to the point, John, who didn’t have problems with their Leyland V front metal-framed bodies?
Ironic, therefore, that Portsmouth was a rare example of a fleet keeping such bodies until the vehicles were withdrawn. [I cannot, however, remember whether there was any substantial rebuilding of the original bodies to keep them going.]

David Oldfield

I believe that the cost of rebodying resulting from the defective Leyland products was, quite rightly, borne by the manufacturers themselves – I cannot imagine the immortal Mr. Samuel Ledgard settling for anything less !!

Chris Youhill

Further to my last post ref: Leyland “V” front metal bodies, but still on the Portsmouth theme: PCT had batches of “V” front and EEC metal bodied TD4s.
Both of these types had given other operators problems of some magnitude, which is well documented elsewhere. Strange then, that PCT got such long lives from theirs!
Were PCT involved in major overhauling these buses in their early careers?
They certainly did not return to English Electric, or Leyland in pre war years , changing to Cravens, where a previous post hinted at body problems on the Titans. The AEC trolleys lasted well though (Craven).

John Whitaker

David Oldfield’s statement that Park Royal frames replaced MCCW when ACV took over is completely at odds with the information in the “Crossley” tome by Eyre, Heaps and Townsin, according to which ALL Crossley postwar bodies used Crossley’s own frames until the Park Royal design was imposed in 1954/5.
The Crossley metal framing system, which had been in slow development since 1937, came to fruition in 1944, when a prototype body was produced to a one-off design. This was intended to be fitted to the prototype DD42 chassis, but in the event a body swap took place and it ended up in obscurity atop a prewar Mancunian chassis in the Manchester fleet. Meanwhile Manchester was working on a new body design, with help from MCCW in the area of the platform supports as mentioned by David. The two things came together from 1946 onwards, with Crossley building more than half of Manchester’s 710 postwar standards using their new framing system, as well as adopting the Manchester design as the basis of its offerings to the outside world.
In 1948 Crossley produced a new design for Liverpool, and with further development and customised variations this became Crossley’s standard offering until 1954, again using Crossley frames.

Peter Williamson

The bodywork on the Portsmouth Daimler closely resembles the bodywork of Rotherhams last Crossleys delivered in 1952. It is both pleasant to look at and a comfortable ride. One of the Rotherham Crossleys is at the Science Museum collection at ?Wharton. It was for a number of years in the care of Leicester and was used on their open day in 1982 when they withdrew their last rear loaders. Also used was an ex JMT Leyland TD1 in Halifax livery and re-registered MJX 222J (I think but I may be wrong on that one)

Chris Hough

In my defence, Peter, what I said was “…..eventually replaced the MCCW, after AEC/ACV took over in 1948.”
This comment is true. I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that it happened immediately. If that it how it was read, I apologise for the ambiguity. I am very aware of the Liverpool variation as Sheffield had four of a “Liverpool” batch of Crossleys diverted to them in 1949 – and of course there were numerous Regent IIIs to this design.

David Oldfield

Apology unnecessary, David. I was just rather concerned that John might get the idea that there were no Crossley-framed Crossley bodies at all, whereas in fact they accounted for most of the postwar output. I am very interested in Chris’s observation of a resemblance between the Portsmouth rebodies and the last Rotherham Crossleys, because (according to the Crossley book) the former are Park Royal designed and framed, and the latter are Liverpool-style bodies with Crossley frames. I suspect some cross-pollination of features, with late Liverpool bodies incorporating PRV rear domes, and possibly the design of certain PRV (and Roe-built) upper deck front windows having come from Crossley/Liverpool practice.

Peter Williamson

Thank you, Michael H, for supplying the supplementary information of which I was unaware. At Hilsea, even then, it must have been a challenge for the driver to cross from nearside to the third lane within a 100 yds, then turn around into the 3-lane Northern carriageway and work his way across to the nearside lane again!
I said on the Leyland Cheetah submission that photos of the Portsmouth’s Daimler CWA6’s with their austerity Duple bodies are very rare. However, I have come across a rear-view photo of one in the North End Depot, showing that PCT retro-fitted a rear blind display sometime before 1949/50. Here is the link to view it.

Chris Hebbron

In the previous comments, John Whittaker asks if PCT were involved in rebuilding any of its EEC or Cravens bodied vehicles. The answer is yes, they certainly were.
My main source of information is the Portsmouth fleet list produced in 1964 by the Worthing Historical Commercial Vehicle Group. Here are some details –
Leyland TD2/EEC of 1933. Batch of 12 (16-27). Two withdrawn for tower wagon conversion, 1952, and three withdrawn 1953 for open-top conversion but never carried out, and scrapped later. The other seven remained in service until 1958, a very creditable 25 years’ service. The WHCV list does not mention CPPTD rebuild for this batch, but a photo in “Fares Please” (Eric Watts, 1987) p.78 shows TD2 No 25 stripped down for rebuild alongside one of the TD4/EEC (115-126 batch) on which renovation has been completed. The caption dates the photo to 1950.
Leyland TD4/EEC of 1935 Batch of 12 (115-126). Again, the WHCV list does not mention any rebuilding of this batch (apart from the 4 converted to open-top, which served until 1971/72, and all believed still preserved). But the photo in Eric Watt’s book above certainly shows that one, perhaps some were rebuilt. The intersting thing is that those that remained covered top were withdrawn 1955-56, before the TD2s! Two years newer, but out of service two years earlier, rebuilt or not.
Then there are the Cravens bodied vehicles. Portsmouth had 30 Leyland TD4s and 76 AEC 661T trolleybuses bodied by this company, as only this builder could offer such a large quantity at the time (they were for final tram replacement).
The WHVC List shows that of the 76 trolleybuses, 51 were rebuilt in the period 1948-1956. Of these rebuilds, one was withdrawn as early as 1953! Withdrawal of unrebuilt trolleybuses with Cravens bodies had begun in 1951, but were stored at the depot, perhaps pending rebuild decisions. I have read in another fleet history (The Trolleybuses of Portsmouth, Reading Transport Soc. 1969), that this caused controversy in the local paper when “expensive motorbuses” were being ordered, but these efficient vehicles were in store out of use!
Similarly, nine of the 30 Cravens bodied TD4s were rebuilt by CPPTD between 1949 and 1953. The rebuilds were withdrawn 1958-59, whereas withdrawal of unrebuilt ones started in 1955. But the last withdrawal of the batch (No 146 in 1960) does not feature in the rebuild list!
Then there are the four vee-front TD4s, Nos 127-130 of 1935. As other contributors have said, who didn’t have problems with this design! The BCVM and the PSV Circle produced an excellent study of this design (subtitled “The Great Disaster”) in 1997. The Portsmouth four were built just before the arrival of designer Colin Bailey, who instigated a re-design of the weak bulkhead which was incorporated into the final production of 1935, before his “new design” came on stream in the next year. But the Portsmouth batch would appear to have been built with the original design structure, and the WHCV list states that the bodies of all four were “rebuilt by Leyland” later in 1935 – no doubt at Leyland’s expense. They then continued to serve as a complete batch until 1958, when one was withdrawn. Two others (127-128) were then rebuilt by CPPTD itself that year, 1958. A very late rebuild, considering their age and history. One obvious change was the incorporation of the standard CPPTD destination screen layout. The other fleet member No 130 was not rebuilt, and continued in service to 1962 – a very creditable 27 years. It was sold for preservation but unfortunately scrapped later after vandal damage. Of the two rebuilt TD4s, No 127 (by then renumbered 129 – RV6370) survived until 30/06/1964 – 29 years. By this time, it was the last vee-front bodied Leyland in service anywhere.
Portsmouth usually got the most out of its purchases. I mentioned in an earlier contribution that Portsmouth persevered with it’s turbo-transmitter Crossleys longer than most, and the Reading bodied six (11-15/28) retained this until the end in 1964 – again another “last in service”, probably. The noteworthy exception was the batch of 14 Leyland Nationals of 1976, which were withdrawn at the outcome of the MAP exercise in 1981 – just five years. This was a shorter life than certain Karrier 6-wheeler motor buses of the late 1920’s – ‘Nuff said?

Michael Hampton

I’ll throw in some irrelevant trivia – which I have mentioned before elsewhere.

Portsmouth and Crossley! Leyland National was a dormant company (from a previous take-over) reactivated by British Leyland. Which one? Crossley, of course.

David Oldfield

Thanks Michael for the PCT detail which explains a lot. I referred to the 1935 EEC bodied TD4s, as I believe they were metal framed 5 bay bodies, the earlier 6 bay ones being composite. They were therefore contemporary with the Burnley ones, and others, and PCT and BCN both then shared the double misery of problems with Leyland “pre Bailey” and early EEC bodies. MCCW seemed to be the only reliable metal framed bodies in the period 1933-6. Good old Charlie Roe and his teak framing!

John Whitaker

Thank you, Chris for the link to the North End Depot scene, showing a utility Daimler – and also a utility Bedford, star of another entry on this site.

Michael Hampton

Michael Hampton, on the subject of frail vee-fronted EE bodies, mentions the chequered history of the batch of 12 (16-27) 1933 TD2’s. Only seven remained in service until 1958, a very creditable 25 years’ service, after renovation. A photo of one of these wonderful vehicles, No. 24, taken about 1950, can be found here, looking very chipper!

Chris Hebbron

11/02/11 – 07:02

Route 21 ran via Collington crescent and Colesbourne road, Blue Admiral would nip buses thru’ Collington on rare occasions and First have diverted buses thru’ there when the Paulsgrove Carnival is on, but route 21 would of had clear roads in those days, I have seen a picture of a Southdown bus in Hillsley road on route 21 on a joint mileage journey

Stephen Macdonald

11/11/11 – 07:43

There was talk above about the longevity of Portsmouth Corporation buses. Here is a link which shows 1932 Leyland TD1/EE-bodied bus crossing Guildhall Square, Portsmouth. 92 (and 94) were not withdrawn from service until 1952, a creditable 20 years! The shots are right at the beginning. (A trolleybus (300-series) creeps under Portsmouth & Southsea Station bridge). //www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxGi7tvNMhE

Chris Hebbron

22/04/15 – 07:18

I’ve just seen a photo of Southdown’s Hilsea East Depot (standing behind the Daimler CWA6 subject bus above) in its final stages of demolition in 2013, with not even the centre art-deco part of the building being retained.

Chris Hebbron

23/04/15 – 07:00

I have just visited Portsmouth for a weekend with friends, and drove past the site of said depot building. A new modern building is now nearing completion – sorry, not sure about new building’s purpose (residential, commercial, etc). Friend’s comments went on the lines of, “a vast improvement on the old building that was there”. However, they were thinking of the depot’s recent past, post Southdown/NBC etc, when it really did become run down looking. In it’s heyday, of course, it was an enthusiast’s delight!

Michael Hampton

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

17/03/21 – 06:40

Copyright The Omnibus Society

By pure chance, I recently came across a photo of 179 wearing its original austerity H30/26R Duple body, the only one I’ve ever come across of any of these nine 1944 vehicles. As ever, being a Portsmouth Corporation vehicle, it looks impeccable. It is wearing a non-standard nearside headlamp. These vehicles were retro-fitted with rear destination boxes and blinds: most unusual. No doubt Michael Hampton can say where the other terminus of the M/N bus route was.

Chris Hebbron

17/03/21 – 15:59

What a great photo Chris, at The Hard terminus I think. At this time the M/N terminus was at Farlington – a layby on the Havant Road at Rectory Avenue near the City boundary. The route was extended to the new housing estate at Leigh Park in 1949 and renumbered in the 148 group in 1955.

Patrick Jennings

18/03/21 – 06:35

Yes, Patrick, it is The Hard, which I forgot to mention in my eagerness to get the photo posted! Thx for the route details. I only recall it as the 143 route, moving to Pompey in 1956.

Chris Hebbron

19/03/21 – 12:14

Yes Chris, I can inform of the M/N service of Portsmouth Corporation. The bus is indeed at The Hard, but we never called it that in those days [although it was the street name]. It was always “Dockyard”, and only in the 1980s did it become known as “The Hard”, including on bus destination screens. [As the bus station was built over in the late 70’s / early 80s over the mud flats to make a better connection with the railway and the Gosport Ferry, it became “The Hard Interchange” on bus screens – geographically correct, but hardly a good advert for a new interchange!].
The M/N service came about either during or just after WW2. It ran initially from Farlington [Rectory Avenue] via Cosham, North End, Kingston Crescent, Guildhall, and to Dockyard. There was a pre-war M/N service, but that was a completely different item, with nothing in common. In 1949, the M/N service was extended to Leigh Park [Botley Drive], as this was an expanding council estate on the outskirts of Portsmouth – the largest in Europe at one time. There had been plans for it to become a trolleybus service, and T/B route 1/2 would have replaced it. Authorisation was given, but it was never carried out.
In 1955, the service M/N was renumbered 148, to link in with Southdown routes in that direction. 148 ran to Farlington, 148A ran to Leigh Park [Botley Drive], and 148B ran to Leigh Park [Crondall Avenue]. As the buses of the 1950s/60s just displayed “Leigh Park” as a final destination. you had to squint at the number to see if it was a 148A or 148B! This of course all changed with the advent of deregulation and the ending of the Portsmouth / Southdown co-ordination agreement.
I must have seen these Daimlers with their utility bodies, but don’t remember them. I only remember them with their Crossley bodies which were fitted in 1955. I remember them being used on the 21, the O/P, and the 3/4 [ex-trolleybus] routes, though they could turn up on other routes too – e.g. the 145 another route renumbered from R/S to link with Southdown routes heading west.

Michael Hampton

21/03/21 – 07:22

I have a slight correction to the above notes on the M/N service. Trolleybus route 1/2 was introduced in 1936, operating from Cosham Red Lion to Clarence Pier. During wartime there were a number of variations, including diversion to South Parade Pier, Dockyard, Eastney and elsewhere. By 1945 it had settled back to Clarence Pier. However in Sept 1946 it was diverted back to Dockyard. Then on 18/ May 1947 it was withdrawn and replaced by service M/N which was extended from Cosham to Farlington. The intention was to extend the trolleybus wires along Havant Road to Farlington, and convert it back to trolley operation as 1/2. However, this never happened, and the route’s history is as I described earlier. With the extensions into Leigh Park, the Farlington [Rectory Ave] destination was then always only a rush-hour short working.

Michael Hampton

27/03/21 – 06:17

Thx, Michael, for all that background information in your two posts, most of which I wasn’t aware. Your mention of mud reminds me of the Mudlarks of the 50s/60s; boys who used to paddle in The Hard mud searching for the coins which passers-by threw to them. The most confusing destination to me was Floating Bridge, which was mysterious to folk like us holidaymakers, before my family settled in Portsmouth and saw the ancient chain ferry crossing to and from Gosport from the High Street. The Corporation were lucky to get Duple-bodied austerity vehicles, probably the soundest bodies of the non-metal type. I recall that a ‘public-execution’ scenario loomed on one occasion, when Duple refused one delivery of a pile of green wood which they insisted was of unusable quality for bodybuilding! I’m not aware of Hants and Sussex getting austerity buses, and Provincial only had the one Regent/Regal which Reading bodied, their sole wartime effort. How about Hants & Dorset/Southampton Corporation?

Chris Hebbron

28/03/21 – 07:50

Thanks Chris for your note, especially the comment on Duple’s reaction to green wood! I read in a book a long time ago, that some wood was so green, that if the company livery was green, there was no need to paint the bus!
Hants & Sussex had two utilities, one was LDO51, ECG616, which was a Leyland TD7 with Brush UH56R body, new in 1942, and lasting until 1955. The second was GDO50, a Guy Arab I with Park Royal H56R body, new in 1943, and lasting until 1951. The fleet number looked very grand, but apparently meant nothing except to impress the uninitiated! [Presumably the letters meant Leyland [or Guy], Double-deck, Oil engine].
I think Provincial had other utility Guy Arabs, but haven’t had a chance to check my books yet. Also Southampton Corporation had utility Guy Arabs, but I don’t know the quantities. Corgi produced a model of one in their Original Omnibus series, and I have one of these with all the other 35 or so utilities sitting on my shelf! I don’t know what Hants & Dorset had. Will have to check.

Michael Hampton

30/03/21 – 05:23

Well Chris, I’ve been looking up a few things in books or on line! Utilities along the Solent? – quite a few! Here’s what I found [part 1] –
Hants & Sussex â€“ [PSVC fleet history PK21, 2020]
LDO51 [ECG 616]; Leyland TD7 / Brush UH30/26R entered service Feb 1942, and withdrawn Feb 1955. It was on loan to Cardiff Corporation 11/47 to 5/49. After sale it was later converted to a lorry in 1957, and then with a showman until 1962.
GDO50 [EHO 586]; Guy Arab [5LW] / Park Royal UH30/26R entered service Feb 1943 and withdrawn Oct 1951. It was also on loan to Cardiff Corporation 11/47 to 5/49. In 1950 it received an engine and gearbox from an ex-Plymouth Dennis Lance, one of several acquired by Williams in 1944. By April 1953 this Guy was derelict at the Emsworth garage, minus engine, and was scrapped on site later.
Hants & Dorset
Hants & Dorset were only allocated twenty utilities to their fleet in war-time. These were â€“
CD950-952 [FRU 7-9]; Guy Arab I / Strachan UL27/28R [1942] TD768-770 [FLJ 976-978]; Bristol K5G / Strachan UL27/28R [1942] TD771 [FRU 11] Bristol K5G / Duple UL27/28R [1942] CD953 [FRU 10]; Guy Arab I / Strachan UL27/28R [1943] CD954 [DCR 865]; Guy Arab I / Brush UL27/28R [1943] CD955-958 [DCR 866-869]; Guy Arab I / Roe UL27/28R [1943] TD772-773 [FRU 303-304]; Bristol K6A / Strachan UL27/28R [1944] TD774-778 [FRU3 05-309]; Bristol K6A / Strachan UL27/28R [1945]
All of these were re-numbered in the series 1093-1112 in 1951 when H&D got rid of their â€œclassâ€ system. All the Guys were at least re-seated, and some rebuilt early post-war, but were withdrawn between 1953-1956, some going on to serve with independents around the country. All the Bristols were re-bodied, some with new bodies, some with older pre-war stock transferred. Some became open-toppers â€“ a complex set of events over more than one generation of vehicles. All the Bristols were withdrawn between 1959 and 1969.
Southampton Corporation
Southampton ran a fleet of pre-war Guy Arab FD buses of the original style, although they later switched to Leyland TD4s and TD5s. Their post-war fleet was totally Guy Arab III with Park Royal bodywork [until some Albion saloons in 1957]. This post-war influx saw off all the pre-war Guys and Leylands. However I find that Southampton received just 8 utility Guy Arabs, but my source gave no details. I believe from what I read years ago that these utilities were withdrawn when the final Arab IIIs were purchased in 1954/55. The Corporation had persuaded Guy to produce a few final Arab IIIs, even though the Arab IV was by then the standard model.
End of Part 1 – …..

Michael Hampton

30/03/21 – 05:24

And here is part 2 for Solent area utilities – all on Provincial –
Provincial [Gosport & Fareham] â€“ [The Gosport & Fareham Story, Patrick Miller, TPC 1981]
54 [ECG 622]; Bristol K5G / Park Royal UH30/26R new 1942. Converted to O30/26R in 1952, withdrawn 1969. This was the only Bristol owned by Provincial until after the end of the Orme-White era.
55 [EHO 228]; Guy Arab I [5LW] / Weymann UH30/26R, new 1942. It was re-bodied by Reading H30/26R in 1955. Note â€“ this was NOT a full-front re-body, nor was it a Deutz engine conversion. It was the only Mk I Arab bought new by Provincial. It still exists, and the Provincial Society has launched an appeal to secure it for their collection.
56-61 [EHO 868-870/965/67/66]; Guy Arab II [5LW] / Park Royal UH30/26R, new 1943. Of these, 56 was converted to O30/26R and ran until 1969. 57 was re-bodied by Reading in 1953 to CO30/26R. This was known at the time as the â€œcoach busâ€ due to it’s seats and interior fittings. It also still exists as part of the Provincial Society’s collection. It is thought that it was never used in service in open-top form, but it’s not known whether the roof was ever raised in the depot, just to â€œsee if it worksâ€.
58 was re-bodied by Reading FH30/26R in 1962, and given a Deutz air-cooled engine. It was renumbered 75, and lasted until 1972. 59 had the same treatment in in 1958, but retained it’s original number, and ran until 1970. 60 became an open-topper in 1952, and was then re-bodied in 1956 by Reading as FH30/24RD, but was not a Deutz conversion. 61 was dealt with in 1959 with a new Reading FH28/26R body and a Deutz engine, lasting until 1970.
17-18/31-32 [EOR 875-878]; Guy Arab II [5LW] / Park Royal UH30/26R, new 1945. Of these, 17 was re-bodied Reading FH30/26R in 1958, but was not a Deutz conversion. It became No 28 in it’s final year, and withdrawn in 1971. 18 was rebuilt to O30/26R in 1955, and was withdrawn in 1969. 31 was rebodied by Reading FH30/26R in 1961, and converted to Deutz engine, being renumbered 73. It’s end came in 1971. 32 was re-bodied by Reading FH30/26R in 1957, but not re-engined. It became 27 in 1970, being withdrawn in 1971.
Then there are the two â€œspecialsâ€ â€“ certainly utility bodies, but the chassis were another matter! In 1943, there was an AEC Regal chassis of 1932, acquired from the War Dept. It may have been new to Yelloway, Rochdale. It was fitted with a Reading UH30/26R body and re-registered EHO 282, and numbered 15. This was Reading’s first double-deck body. It ran until 1959, when the body [modernised 1952] was transferred to 12, a post-war AEC Regent II. The chassis disposal isn’t known by me, but may have been used for â€œsparesâ€ in the common Provincial way.
The other â€œspecialâ€ was an AEC Mandator chassis, new 1932. Provincial converted it to forward control, and had Reading fit a UH30/26R body to it. It became 14 [EOR 251]. It ran in this form until 1960, with the body modernised in 1952. This body was transferred to AEC Regent II No 11 in 1961. Again, chassis disposal is â€œunknownâ€ by me.
These are the utilities bought new by Provincial, and as we can see were operating, usually in modified form in to the 1960s and 70’s.
There were two other utilities operated later by Provincial, one of which was 72 [HHA 84], acquired from Midland Red [2589] in 1957, a Guy Arab II [5LW] with a BMMO-modified NCME body [UH30/26R]. After use in this form, this was re-bodied by Reading FH30/26R in 1964, and fitted with a Deutz engine, retaining No 72. It ran in this form until 1971. The other Guy Arab II was acquired from a contractor in Gosport! It had been new in to London Transport as G276 [GYL 416], in 1946 and, fitted with a new Reading FH30/26R, and a Deutz engine, became 33, [CHO 449C]. It’s noted in other material, that this was the only London utility to be rebuilt and/or re-bodied to re-enter service with a year-suffix registration! After re-numbering to 61 in 1970, it was withdrawn in 1972.
So Provincial had 12 utilities bought new [11 Guy, 1 Bristol], plus two â€œodd-ballâ€ machines which had utility bodies. Through their various rebuild and re-body programmes, many of these lasted until the end of the Orme-White era in 1969/70. And there were the two second-hand acquisitions mentioned above, also similarly rebuilt. I haven’t covered the others acquired, being non-utilities, which was the focus of the original question. The fleet list I’ve used also mentions that some of the other Guy Arabs acquired c.1962/63 were Arab IIs, but these came from dealers, and chassis attributed to a 1947 date new, with no detailed notes on their origins. These may or may not have been utilities, but only saw service in modified form, and re-registered.
That’s all I can find for now…! – There was also King Alfred [Chisnell’s in Winchester, who had a few utilities, too. So maybe a little bed-time reading is in store.

Michael Hampton

30/03/21 – 10:31

Provincial bought one utilty Guy which originated in the Red & White fleet. Red & White 467 (EWO 467) was new in October 1942 with a L27/28R body. In 1951 it had its bonnet modified to the Arab III profile and was rebodied with a BBW L27/28RD body. Withdrawn in October 1963 it passed to Howells and Withers at Pontllanfraith, being sold to Provincial in February 1965. It became 77 in that fleet but is not believed to have entered service until October 1965.
Withdrawn in 1970 it passed through a succession of preservation owners, but sadly the body deteriorated to the extent that it is now on display in the museum at Barry as just a chassis/cab.

David Beilby

31/03/21 – 06:27

Extra note on King Alfred [R Chisnell & Sons, Winchester] utilities
Before WW2, King Alfred operated a wholly single-deck fleet in their area [apart from a mystery second-hand Thornycroft J bought from Southampton in 1925 and disposed of in the same year]. The demands of service personnel based in the area brought increased demands, and the following utility buses were allocated to the company.
ECG 639 â€“ Leyland TD7 / Brush UL27/28R, new 1942, withdrawn 1953. Sold 1954 to contractor Faulkner’s of Waterlooville.
EHO 130 â€“ Guy Arab I 5LW / Brush UL27/28R, new 1942, withdrawn and sold 1952. EHO 131 â€“ Guy Arab I 5LW / Brush UL27/28R, new 1942, withdrawn 1951, converted to tree-lopper 1953, disused from 1964, sold for scrap 1967.
EHO 686 â€“ Guy Arab II 5LW / Strachans UL27/28R, new 1943, withdrawn and sold 1951 to Creamline, Bordon.
EOR 579 â€“ Guy Arab II 5LW / Weymann UL27/28R, new 1944, withdrawn 1954, sold 1955.
EHO 132 â€“ Bedford OWB / Duple UB32F, new 1942, withdrawn 1955, disposal unknown.
EHO 133 â€“ Bedford OWB / Duple UB32F, new 1943, withdrawn 1952, sold 1955.
Also added later – FRU 149 â€“ Bedford OWB / Duple UB32F, new to Charlie’s Cars, Bournemouth 1943, acquired by King Alfred 1947, withdrawn and sold 1951. Later re-bodied and lasted with others until 1962.
FRU 150 â€“ Bedford OWB / Duple UB32F, new to Charlie’s Cars, Bournemouth 1943, acquired by King Alfred 1947, withdrawn and sold 1951. Later converted to a horsebox.
These were acquired to boost fleet demands in the immediate post-war period, while pre-war stock was being refurbished, and delivery of new stock awaited. They initially operated in Charlie Car’s brown livery.
There were several other local operators in the Winchester area at the time, and one, Greyfriars [Winchester] had Bedford OWB registered EOR555, new in 1943, and still with them in 1953. There may have been other Bedford OWBs in the area, too â€“ there certainly were across Hampshire, but only Aldershot & District had Guy Arabs and Leyland TD7s in utility form. No-one else apart from Portsmouth seemed to have Daimlers in the Hampshire area, although Wilts & Dorset had a few which might have ventured into some parts. Of course, Bournemouth Corporation was still in Hampshire then, and they had some Guy Arab utilities, some of which survived for longer periods as open toppers, and one even became an open top single-decker.
I hope all this info is of some interest!

Michael Hampton

Portsmouth Corporation – Crossley DD42/7T – EBK 572 – 35

Portsmouth Corporation
1949
Crossley DD42/7T
Crossley H28/26R

Not many Crossley buses ever found themselves too far from their natural habitat of the North-West, but a sprinkling of them worked on the South Coast. Having bought mainly Leyland TD’s during the 1930’s, and PD’s after the war, too, Portsmouth Corporation dabbled in Crossley DD42’s briefly. Four DD42/5T’s were acquired in 1948, with locally-built Reading bodies. Another two of these arrived in 1949, followed in quick succession by a further 17 DD42/7T’s, all with Crossley bodies with two stepped side windows ” very stylish!
The T suffix indicated that they were fitted with Brockhouse Turbo-converters, which performed rather like the Leyland Gearless buses in the 1930’s. I never knew why they were purchased without conventional gearboxes, because the trams were scrapped in the mid-30’s and the trolleybuses not until 1963, so the purchase was not catering to drivers without skills of gear-changing! When the buses pulled away, the engine note would rise up to the governor and stay there until the driver approached a bus stop. He would then take his foot off the throttle, the engine would then tick over and the bus would coast, freewheel-style, until the brakes were applied to stop. I never knew if these vehicles had a direct-drive ‘top’ gear which could be engaged ” maybe the bus stops were too close to each other and the terrain too flat for drivers ever to engage it ‘anyone know?’. Crossley buses always gave out a rather ‘woolly’ engine note, as if being slightly strangled in some way. When pre-war Leyland TD4’s were being withdrawn in the late 1950’s, their 20 year old engines and gearboxes were transplanted into the Crossleys, which made them sound very odd after that. It surely improved fuel-consumption, though! Seating was initially H28/26R, but most became H32/26R in 1959/60, the very time the Crossley 100bhp engines were replaced by the 93bhp Leyland engines! Good job all the routes were as flat as a pancake, bar one railway bridge! They were mainly withdrawn in 1966 and 1967, the engines being 30 years old by then!
Here is No. 35 (EBK572) in Edinburgh Road, just off the main shopping centre of Commercial Road, in 1965, by which time these buses were usually relegated to peak-time extras.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

The Turbo-Transmitter fitted to some Crossley DD42s did have a direct-drive top gear, but it was engaged automatically rather than by the driver.

Peter Williamson

Crossleys were, indeed, strangled, or at least the engines were. An innovative firm with no idea how to fully exploit this commercially, Crossley designed a very good engine for post-war production using Swiss Saurer technology. Crossley realised they needed to pay Saurer for the license to do so but were either unwilling or unable to do so. They took away the Swiss technology – to do with the “breathing” and fuel injection system – and ended up with a “dog”.
This had a domino effect. People only bought Crossleys, post-war, because they were available and people were desperate for anything in the late forties. It also led to their demise and take over by AEC. Birmingham Corporation were happy with their late Crossleys but they had had the benefit of AEC engineers modifying the engine.
Nevertheless, AEC still thought highly enough of Crossley to give them the task of developing the Bridgemaster. Not only that, the Crossley Coachworks – which outlasted the engineering by eight years – produced bodies of high quality. Latterly this was to Park Royal design and, like Roe, subcontracted from Park Royal to help when the London branch was already busy. (This included a batch of Diesel Multiple Units for British Rail which are known as the Park Royal class but were built for them by Crossley at Stockport.)
Many Crossleys, particularly in Manchester, were re-engined by Leyland power – often second hand. This extended their lives to a ripe old age.

David Oldfield

Perhaps worthwhile to mention that Crossley had another foray into the railway scene, with its 8-cylinder low-speed two-stroke engine fitted in the infamous “Metro-Vick” diesel electrics, which would have been Class 28 in BR terminology if they had lasted long enough. The locos were peculiar unbalanced machines with a six wheel bogie at one end and a four wheel at the other. I remember them working in pairs during the early 60s on St Pancras – Manchester expresses. Sadly they covered themselves in infamy, being afflicted with more problems that most, and having a tendency, as I recall, to burst into flames spontaneously! They were withdrawn after a service life of only 9 years.

Stephen Ford

Thank you for the comments regarding my Portsmouth Crossley posting.

Peter for answering the turbo-converter direct drive query.
David for your interesting information about the AEC Bridegmaster development being done by Crossley – quite unknown to me.
Stephen for your information regarding Crossleys other foray into the railway scene as you put it, to which I would like to add the following.

The loco itself was pretty sound, but, as stated above, the engines were awful (quelle surprise!). BR did consider re-engining them (it was done in other cases), but was probably not cost-effective with such a small number as 20. Surprisingly, one survives on the East Lancashire Railway, I used to see it parked in a short siding by Swindon Station in the 80’s and 90’s.

Chris Hebbron

Just to correct the quantity of Portsmouth Crossleys, there were 6 DD42/5Ts (1948-49, 11-15 and 28 with Reading bodies), and 25 DD42/7Ts (1949, 29-42, 47-57). The Reading bodied buses kept their Crossley engines and turbo transmitters until withdrawal in 1963/64 – possibly the last turbo-transmitters in service anywhere? It was the 25 DD42/7Ts which had their Crossley engines and transmissions replaced with pre-war engines and gearboxes from withdrawn TD4s. These were reputedly from the batch 131-160 (Craven bodies of 1936/37), but some may have come from the earlier (1935) EEC-bodied (115-126).
In the large “Crossley” book (Michael Heaps, A A Townsin, et al) I seem to remember that only 65 Crossley DD42s were fitted with turbo-transmitters of the whole production for the UK. Some of these were replaced within days or weeks! As 31 were supplied to Portsmouth, it seems they had the lion’s share of such vehicles, and quite possibly kept them the longest? Others might know more.

Michael Hampton

Sadly Crossley had a long and inglorious record of producing fragile diesel engines right back to the early thirties and carried out endless modifications in attempting to improve things. It is significant that at the start of WW2 Manchester Corporation actually had Gardner 5LWs on order for fitting to Mancunians then due for delivery (presumably as a result of happy experience with their Daimler COG5s). In the event delivery of some COGs was aborted because of the bombing of Daimler’s Radford Works and seventy Mancunians eventually got 5LWs, rather more than planned!

David Jones

Thanks for posting the two Portsmouth Corporation Crossley’s. My how they bring back memories. When both these Crossley’s ran, I lived on the ‘Tipner Estate’, in Tipner Green. We always seemed to get the Buses on this route (service ‘O’ & ‘P’ that later became service ’13’ & ’14’), that were near their withdrawal time. The ‘Reading’ bodied Crossley’s did indeed keep their Crossley Engines & Brockhouse Turbomotor Transmitter’s to the end. As a kid, I would spend hours at ‘Range Green’ (their ‘Tipner’ terminus) as they used to reverse into the beginning of Range Green, to face the correct way in Tipner Lane for the return journey. You would often see the Driver standing up in the cab trying to move the stuck ‘direction’ lever, which looked just like a normal Gear lever which you pushed forward to go forwards and pulled back to reverse, between these was neutral. The trick for an easy change of direction was to knock the lever into neutral just before coming to a halt, then stop, then using the ‘Heel Pedal’ under the Drivers seat which was supposed to (but rarely did) stop the transmission from turning, snatch the direction lever quickly to the direction you want to go.

John

Thanks, John, for the interesting comment about how to change from forward to reverse with the turbo-converters – it must have been a real bind for those drivers who weren’t ‘in the know’!

Chris Hebbron

I can remember the Crossleys all parked up at the back of the Central Transport Depot in the Eastern Road awaiting their fate it would have been July 1967. I can see the sign Leyland Diesel on the bonnets I had no idea the engines were from the TD4s, three still ground along the sea front at the time. The Crossleys also made a grinding sound as they trundled along no wonder with those old engines. I suppose they could get over Fratton and Copnor bridges and that was good enough they ran mostly on the circular routes 17 & 18.

Nick Ratnieks

The replacement pre-war ‘Leyland’ 8.6 Litre Engine, which was not the most powerful engine, was however, one of the most reliable. And as a ‘quick dieing’ engine, it made for quick change on the ‘crash’ Gearbox.

Are any of these Buses preserved or restored ?

I hope so !!!!

Anonymous

A couple of the Leyland TD4’s with open-top bodies have been preserved, Anonymous, but, sadly, no Crossleys.

Chris Hebbron

26/09/12 – 18:23

The Bridgemaster was originally marketed as a Crossley and the prototype was so badged.
Crossley engines also appeared in 90 of CIE’s 94 Metrovick diesel engines, delivered in the mid 1950s. They were two stroke V8s and were so poor in performance that eventually they were replaced, from 1967 onwards, with GE units. Their failure, and the success of GE powered engines meant that, for decades, Ireland sourced all its engines from GE in the US (though many were actually Canadian built)

Phil Blinkhorn

27/09/12 – 06:58

All four of the EE-bodied open-top TD4s survive, although to the best of my knowledge, none are currently roadworthy. No 5, originally 115, is privately preserved, No 6 (117) is at the Nort West Museum of Road Transport in St Helens, No 7 (125) is currently under restoration with the City of Portsmouth Preserved Transport Depot, whilst No 8 (127), owned by Portsmouth City Museums, is in exile at Milestones Museum, Basingstoke. I can think of no other instance in which a local authority has chosen to place its heritage on display in a museum some 40 miles away. This bus belongs in its home city!!!

Philip Lamb

27/09/12 – 06:59

Chris H’s comment about Crossleys not usually venturing very far from the North West. Up here in the back of beyond as some politicians refer to the North East, South Shields and Sunderland Corporations both had a sprinkling of Crossleys, but they were the exception rather than the rule, and off hand I cant think of any others in the area.

Ronnie Hoye

28/09/12 – 07:37

I’ve been informed that the N.E.B.P.T. Ltd collection has two of Sunderland Corporation’s Crossley’s. They’re 13 and 22, registrations GR 7100 and GR 9007. I don’t know what state of repair they’re in at the moment, but if they are being restored the trust sets very high standards and it will be interesting to see the end result.

Ronnie Hoye

28/09/12 – 18:09

A PS to my PS, if you go to your web search and type in GR 9007 there are several pictures of the restored no13 in the original red livery of Sunderland Corporation.

Ronnie Hoye

29/09/12 – 07:38

Sunderland 13 is preserved in Essex by Tont Melia and John Jackson. These restorers extraordinaire are currently working on a Northampton Crossley with Roe body.

Philip Lamb

29/09/12 – 12:23

Just to clarify Chris H’s point about Crossleys being unusual outside the north west, in the late ‘forties quite a few operators throughout the country bought one batch of Crossleys, partly because Crossley offered what turned out to be very optimistic delivery times, and partly because they were impressed by the performance of the demonstrator with the original cylinder head with Saurer features, performance that was of course not replicated by the production vehicles, which is why there were no repeat orders. In the south, for instance, apart from Portsmouth, Eastbourne, Plymouth, Reading, and Luton all had one batch of Crossleys.

Michael Wadman

05/06/17 – 06:56

Although some of the 25 Crossley DD42/7T’s received Leyland engines from scrapped Corporation TD4’s, I’ve recently found out that some were taken from ex-Yorkshire Woollen District TS’s, which were driven down to Portsmouth before the engines were removed and overhauled. The engineless remains were towed to J Strudwick’s scrapyard at Bedhampton Chalk Pit, where most of Portsmouth’s trolleybuses also met their fate.

Chris Hebbron

06/06/17 – 07:01

Chris – this has answered a question that has been in my mind for over 50 years. PSV Circle PH14 details only 23 TD4/Craven vehicles whose engines were used and the remaining TD4/Leylands were still operational until after the conversion.Despite many years of interest in this operator I had no idea that withdrawn Leylands were obtained to make up the numbers. Does anyone know what Yorkshire Woollen vehicles were used?

Pat Jennings

06/06/17 – 07:01

Chris, I’m not sure about that transfer being a Corporation exercise. Wasn’t this a Southdown exercise to convert petrol-engined buses and coaches to diesel?

Michael Hampton

07/06/17 – 05:31

I have also tried to work out how many TD4/Cravens buses donated their engines to the Crossleys. I have sometimes thought that the earlier TD4/EEC buses (those 8 not converted to open-top) were also used for this purpose. I once noted a Leylandised Crossley’s radiator, and it had a number stamped on the upper part of the radiator side. This was “122”, and I thought then that this was to show that it now had the engine from TD4 No.122, which was indeed one of the EEC-bodied batch of 1935. The PH14 book records this as withdrawn in March 1956, a little early for the conversion programme, but perhaps the engine was set aside for spares initially, and then used for the Crossley. At the time, I half intended to list these numbers, but I went away to College and never got around to it. I’ve never seen any fleet history mention engines coming from outside Corporation sources, although it would be fascinating if this was the case.

Michael Hampton

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

04/12/17 – 06:40

Further to Chris Hebbron’s comment of 05/06/17, various letters have recently appeared in ‘Broad Street Broad Sheet’ – the magazine of ‘City of Portsmouth Preserved Transport Depot’ regarding the Crossley buses receiving engines from scrapped Yorkshire Woollen District buses. It appears that this was incorrect information provided by someone at Strudwick’s scrapyard and that the the Portsmouth Crossley buses that were re engined received them from Portsmouth Leyland TD4’s

Andy Hemming

Portsmouth Corporation – Crossley DD42/5 – EBK 28 – 28

Photo reproduced with kind permission of Alan Lambert.

Copyright Reading & Co

1949
Crossley DD42/5
Reading H52R

Portsmouth had four Crossley DD42/5’s (11-14) delivered in 1948 and two (15 & 28) in 1949. The first four had German Imperial Navy-type crosses on the radiators: the last two had CROSSLEY plates on them. They all had Brockhouse Turbo-transmitters and, according to Michael Hampton (who commented on a photo of a DD42/7 I submitted earlier) retained them to the the end of their service days. The locally-built Reading bodies they wore had also been fitted to 6 Leyland PD1/1A’s delivered earlier, in 1947/48. They bore some resemblance (especially at the front) to the Craven-bodied trolleybuses Portsmouth had at the time, there is a shot of one here.
As I recall, and unlike the DD42/7’s, they seemed to be very coy buses in the fleet, usually working routes needing only one bus, or peak-time reliefs or, as here, at Clarence Pier, Southsea, working the Sea Front Service on a cloudy or chilly day in May 1961, in place of the open-top TD4’s.
Incidentally, since only a few months separated the delivery of these 42/5’s from the 42/7’s, were there ever any DD42/6’s?

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Thanks for posting the two Portsmouth Corporation Crossley’s. My how they bring back memories. When both these Crossley’s ran, I lived on the ‘Tipner Estate’, in Tipner Green. We always seemed to get the Buses on this route (service ‘O’ & ‘P’ that later became service ’13’ & ’14’), that were near their withdrawal time. The ‘Reading’ bodied Crossleys did indeed keep their Crossley Engines & Brockhouse Turbomotor Transmitter’s to the end.
As a kid, I would spend hours at ‘Range Green’ (their ‘Tipner’ terminus) as they used to reverse into the beginning of Range Green, to face the correct way in Tipner Lane for the return journey. You would often see the Driver standing up in the cab trying to move the stuck ‘direction’ lever, which looked just like a normal Gear lever which you pushed forward to go forwards and pulled back to reverse, between these was neutral. The trick for an easy change of direction was to knock the lever into neutral just before coming to a halt, then stop, then using the ‘Heel Pedal’ under the Drivers seat which was supposed to (but rarely did) stop the transmission from turning, snatch the direction lever quickly to the direction you want to go.

John

The O & P route was just the sort of quiet route these vehicles trod for year in and year out. Oh, and we always called Tipner, Tipnor – strange how it had two spellings.

Chris Hebbron

As it seems empty (look upstairs), do we take it that the rear suspension is a bit, shall we say, tired, or someone has left a very heavy parcel under the stairs? Or are all the passengers standing on the platform?

Joe

I love the thought of 52+8 standing, 60 folk crammed on the platform (probably having to leave the conductor behind!) but it may be that the bus is pulling away from the bus stop and causing the apparent tilt backwards and perhaps towards the camera a little, too.

Chris Hebbron

This is true,’Tipner’ was the correct spelling for that Estate, but there was also a ‘Tipnor’ spelling for a road just off ‘Twyford Avenue’ (probably doesn’t exist after the placement of the ‘M27’ Motorway build in the 1970’s).

John

The Reading bodywork was a very ‘handsome’ affair with clean cut lines, and polished interior woodwork with half drop ventilator windows but sadly, this body, was not the most rugged or durable in practice. This would explain the early withdrawal of the Crossley’s and the PD1/PD1A with these bodies. This may also explain why the ‘Reading’ Bodied vehicles kept their troublesome Crossley engines & Brockhouse/Salerni Turbomotor/Transmitter Converters to the end.

John

Yes, I always had a soft spot for the looks of the Reading-bodied vehicles.

Towards the end, even the Crossley bodies on the DD42/7’s suffered from body problems. I can recall sitting in the front downstairs saloon seats and noticing that fatigue cracks were appearing in a central spar which ran below the windows. Several buses had had the ‘dodgy’ part covered in varnished wood, one must hope after welding work had been done!

Chris Hebbron

The number of dodgy bodies – and coachbuilders – from the end of WW2 to 1950 is legion, for the most part due to or contributed to by the lack of quality parts and materials as a consequence of the war.

Interestingly enough, you could say that Crossley bodies were of two distinct types – both generally regarded as of high quality.

Due to immense Manchester Corporation influence, the majority of pre-war – and post-war to 1950 – bodies were on Metro-Cammell frames (then regarded as by far the best and most reliable all metal frames). This, of course, made them compatible with most of the rest of MCT’s fleet of Met-Camm bodies. After the AEC/ACV take over, most Crossley bodies were on Park Royal frames (another quality product) but made them (like similar Roe bodies) into PRV clones.

A prime example of dodgy coachwork was Windover which was luxurious “in the extreme” but fell apart rapidly with it’s “green” wood frames.

David Oldfield

I have to admit, I did not know that C.P.P.T.D. Had had trouble with the Crossley Bodies too ! I do remember, as a kid, aiming for the single seat on either side which was located in the centre of the lower saloon (only on those that hadn’t been up seated to standard layout). The rore of the transplanted 8.6 Litre Leyland Engine, and whine from the 1930’s (ex) TD4 ‘crash’ Gearbox’s. I never remember any of them breaking down even though the engine and gearbox was over twenty years older than the rest of the Bus !!

John

I don’t think the comment about Metro-Cammell frames is quite right. Pre-war yes, Manchester had vast numbers of “Crossley-MetroCammell” bodies. But both of the seminal works by Eyre and Heaps (“The Manchester Bus” and “Crossley”) state that post-war Crossley bodies used Crossley’s own framing, and speak very highly of it.
The Park Royal framed Crossley bodies should have been of high quality, but many of them weren’t, because by then Crossley was in its death-throes, morale was low and nobody was interested in quality. Preston is one operator that had to do substantial rebuilding work on these bodies.

Peter Williamson

In my copy above, I posed the question as to whether there had ever been any Crossley DD42/6’s. By chance, I’ve found out that, in 1949, Birmingham Corporation took delivery of eight DD42/6’s and one DD42/6T. This was just before their great influx of Daimlers, Guys and Crossley DD42/7’s in 1950. So if Portsmouth’s DD42/5’s were delivered in 1949 and B’ham Corp’n’s were DD42/7’s in 1950, not many DD42/6’s could have been made in the interim, but some were.

Chris Hebbron

The comments from Chris Hebron about the DD42/6 Crossley’s, reminded me of an almost identical scenario with the pre-war Leyland Titans.
There were TD1 – TD5 Chassis then a handful of TD6’s for one operator, before the arrival of the TD7 in 1942. The War stopped further production ’til the post-war PD1 with its rather ‘clattery’ E181, 7.4 Litre Engine.

John

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

21/02/13 – 06:14

I recall reading once that Leyland’s 7.4 litre engine was originally developed for use in wartime tanks!

Chris Hebbron

21/02/13 – 07:14

Yes, Chris, and used in tandem – two at a time, like DMUs.

David Oldfield

21/02/13 – 08:43

Interesting. It may well be then, David, that all 7.4 powered buses were secretly part of the UK’s strategic military reserve!

Chris Hebbron

Portsmouth Corporation – Bedford OWB – CTP 41 – 163

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

Portsmouth Corporation
1943
Bedford OWB
Mulliner B32F

The earlier photo I posted, of a Portsmouth Leyland Cheetah, surrounded by Daimler CWA6/Duple double-deckers, were neatly bridged by the delivery of 10 Bedford OWBs (1 in 1942, 7 in 1943 and 2 in 1944). All had Duple bodies, save 162 and 163, bodied by Mulliner, more aligned with bodying sleek, expensive Rolls-Royces and Bentleys!
I have to say that I never discovered any real reason for such little buses being allocated to CPPTD. Portsmouth’s bus services were already severely curtailed for the duration, with buses being kept away from the seafront and a greater reliance on trolleybuses than hitherto. They lent out double-deckers for periods. Upon delivery, at least some of them were painted grey, but whether this was through lack of maroon livery paint or the proximity of sensitive sites is debatable.
Whatever they did during the war, they led uneventful lives afterwards on quiet routes, although I have seen photos of them going along Commercial Road, the main shopping centre, which suggests that they were called out to perform on busy routes from time to time.
These small, but stout-hearted vehicles were all withdrawn in 1962-63, with 163 going in 1963. One (170 – CTP 200) survives in preservation.
One quirk unique to these buses were the number plates, which always had a tilde between the letters and numbers!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Super picture of that wonderful wartime bus, the OWB. Portsmouth must have been faced with extra wartime naval personnel transport duties to receive these, I would think, but they were regarded as “standard 32 seaters” in the wartime allocation system, being the only new single deckers available.
I well remember riding on Ledgards, and White Bus (Bridlington) OWBs, and the ring of their high pitched petrol engines and gear change lingers in my ears to this day.
Several other municipal fleets received OWBs, Bournemouth and Belfast coming to mind. Perhaps extra wartime duties were the common feature.

John Whitaker

What a lovely picture of the OWB! In the early post-war period, they were painted standard red/white, and with grey roofs. They were also given upholstered seats from withdrawn vehicles (probably the TSMs, Condors and TD1s, reducing to 27 seats.
One of their uses in the fifties was on mileage balancing with Southdown, and I have read that they were especially useful on the Havant / Hayling routes because they could safely use the Hayling Bridge.
Their use became much more intense in later life, as in September 1958 the Corporation introduced a PAYE route (22) between Lower Wymering and Upper Drayton. I well remember this as this was in my earliest days of bus enthusiasm, and the route was just one road away from my home! At peak periods they could be well-loaded, the supposed “eight” maximum often being exceeded. I remember squatting on a bodywork protrusion opposite the driver in the space in front of the front entrance, and the back of the bus was invisible due to the crowd on board! For this work, they were further down-seated to 26, to provide a luggage space for pushchairs.
The picture could probably be dated quite accurately by anyone who still has records. It has a white roof instead of grey, (repaints to white roofs for the fleet were carried out 1959-1961), but still has a semaphore trafficator (on the pillar behind the driver’s window). Later (c. 1962/63?) the fleet were given flashing trafficators, those on the OWB’s being fitted below the window line.
My class-mates and I who followed this interest used to keep detailed records of when we first saw a bus with a white roof instead of grey, flashing trafficators fitted, and re-seated vehicles (both single and double-deck vehicles). Unfortunately my own lists have long disappeared, probably consigned to a dustbin.

Michael Hampton

I was involved for quite a while in 1967/8 in work on the preservation in Leeds of CTP 200. One particular job that I remember doing was to reconstruct the destination blind box which had become badly corroded. Sadly, due to domestic circumstances at the time, I was no longer among the group who eventually put the splendid little vehicle back on the road. I need hardly remind those who know me that I am an ardent admirer of the Bedford OWB/OB – a model which is a modest and unpretentious but stout hearted little trooper if ever there was one.

Chris Youhill

30/04/11 – 15:30

Re OWB’s later life. Michael Hampton is quite right re their late use, but I remember their use for the start of the PAYE services between Wymering and Highbury Estate whilst the new Leyland single deck, twin entry/exit, buses were awaited for delivery and service. The doors were operated by a rod linkage between the driver and the doors!!

Bob Townsend

Portsmouth Corporation – Bedford OWB – CTP 200 – 170

Copyright Chris Youhill

Portsmouth Corporation
1944
Bedford OWB
Duple B32F

Perhaps this old snap may be of interest as we have had a previous posting of a sister vehicle whist in service with the above fine municipal operator. It was taken at Robin Hood on the A61 between Wakefield and Leeds in early 1968. At that time I was involved with a group who were initially preserving the vehicle and I did quite a bit of work on it many weekends, one difficult job in particular was to rebuild the rotting destination box assembly which can be clearly seen here. Sadly, due to domestic difficulties, I had to part company with the Group before the vehicle eventually took to the road in fine order and so I never actually rode on it and it was sold on shortly after that.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill

28/03/11 – 10:30

I recall you saying, Chris, that you’d put some hours in on this vehicle, and I also recalled I’d seen a photo of the finished article on the web somewhere. It’s here with the following caption:
1944 Bedford OWB 170 (CTP 200), pictured in wartime grey livery. Sold in 1963, the remains of the original body were replaced in the early 1990s with a replica body partly built by Ulsterbus, who were restoring a similar vehicle. Photographed in Upper Drayton, Portsmouth April 1996. (Photo and text Malcolm Audsley)
At least your efforts were to some avail in the end!
I was comparing my Mulliner-bodied example with your Duple example (and a few others). Superficially, both makes look the same, but the vents either side of the destination box are different, Mulliner having a cover over the apertures.
Thanks for posting it.
PS Is it you leaning nonchalantly on the front wing – what confidence that it would not collapse from rust corrosion!

Chris Hebbron

29/03/11 – 07:31

Yes Chris it is me leaning on the wing – my co- preservationist took the picture on my camera. You are right – it was indeed a risky pose to adopt, but I only weighed about “nine stone wet through” in those misguided heavy smoking days and so that no doubt saved me from an undignified descent into the mud !! We are amazed to hear of the subsequent rebuilding of the body and thanks very much for that additional information.

Chris Youhill

03/04/11 – 08:56

The bus itself, the mud, the dereliction in the background and the look of grim determination on Chris’s face all nicely sum up the early days of preservation, when finding covered accommodation was a nightmare and the transport “professionals” saw us as mad but harmless. Delighted that this project met with such success.

Ian Thompson

02/05/11 – 06:34

CTP 200 made the HCVS London to Brighton Run today Sunday 1st of May.
It is only the 2nd time out on a real run since we got it back on the road after a 10 year period of rest.
Apart from identifying a few little jobs to do she performed excellently.

Mike Elkin

02/05/11 – 12:53

Congratulations to Mike and friends on this achievement – my only surviving colleague from the original preservation group will be delighted to hear it. I’ve always been an ardent OWB/OB admirer, both in preservation and in full time public service, and the delightful lusty tones provided by these incredibly gutsy and totally honest little vehicles is music to the ear and comes into my mind very frequently.

Chris Youhill

02/05/11 – 12:56

Nice to hear from you Mike E and hear that she is in safe hands and putting in the occasional ‘public appearance’.
Perhaps you could fill in some of the gaps between Chris Y having to give up and near final completions, especially with regard to the Ulster part – how did this happen?

Chris Hebbron

04/05/11 – 06:56

Aside from the engine sounds, I always loved the sounds from Bedford gearboxes of that era – pure music!

Chris Hebbron

27/01/13 – 09:50

As I do from time to time I just randomly pick a page – often it helps me to at least try and understand what people are talking about. The posting of Portsmouth Corporation 170 registration CTP 200 has a mention of it attending the London to Brighton run in 2011. Above is picture taken by me as the vehicle passes Brighton pier.

Ken Jones

27/01/13 – 12:25

At the moment, she’s having some attention done to the engine and some repainting in the engine bay at the same time. Paintwork has been touched up, with some thought being given to something more extensive.

Chris Hebbron

30/05/13 – 06:00

CTP 200 is to shortly have some remedial work done to the front grille, front wings and bumper. A new rear registration plate is to be made up, the offside half-drop window replaced and the opening windscreen reinstated. Then she will be going away to be painted in the Portsmouth red and white livery, with grey roof.

Clive Wilkin

30/05/13 – 11:34

She’s also had to have the engine professionally rebuilt recently, essentially because of a badly scored cylinder bore. The engine bay has, concurrently, had a thorough clean and repaint and the body some touchups.
She should be really smart when repainted in maroon, white and grey roof, just as most folk would recall her in service.

Incidentally, nice seafront photo of her, Ken J.

Chris Hebbron

16/06/15 – 08:22

As indicated earlier this restored little bus is now back in it’s true colours of Portsmouth red and white, with a grey roof. It appeared at the Southdown 100 centenary event at Southsea Common on June 7th. It looked very smart, and drew many admiring looks from both enthusiasts and general public. It’s good to compare this with the original picture on this posting, when it’s restoration was at an early stage. Many man-hours (ladies too?) have passed since then to bring it to it’s smart looks today. Well done to everyone.

Michael Hampton

16/08/15 – 08:47

Copyright Kevin Warrington

To complete an all-round view, here are an offside and rear view of CTP 200 (170), taken on its first outing after a recent renovation. The photos were taken by Kevin Warrington, an active participant in CPPTD, who preserve Portsmouth Corporation vehicles. He allowed these photos to be posted here.”

Chris Hebbron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

26/10/15 – 06:53

Copyright Unknown

Voila! Another pre-restoration photo of CTP200 when first in the hands of CTTPD (City of Portsmouth Preserve Transport Depot): (renovation of the adjacent PD1 is well underway).

Chris Hebbron

27/10/15 – 06:41

Thank you Chris. I do remember seeing these two together somewhere near Waltham Chase in the early 1980’s, when taking my sons to band practice. There was never any opportunity to find out more. Now 170 is complete, and it’s good to know that the PD1 is also progressing.

Michael Hampton

28/10/15 – 06:58

What a tonic to see these two veterans side by side, and grand to know that the Bedford is already “better than new.” I’m sure that the gorgeous PD1 will be equally appealing in its own class when completed, and this picture of them standing side by side “in recovery” is delightful.

Chris Youhill

Portsmouth Corporation – AEC Regent I – RV 719 – 35

Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Portsmouth Corporation
1931
AEC Regent I
Short Bros. H26/24R

This vehicle was one of two early diesel-engined buses bought by Portsmouth Corporation in 1931, the other being a Crossley Condor. They were both bought as an experiment and compared with four Leyland Titan TD1, bizarrely, petrol-engined versions, because Leyland didn’t offer a diesel engine then!
This ‘snouty’ AEC Regent, the Condor and two of the four TD1’s, were bodied by Short Bros. The body exudes a light, airy feel about the inside. Note the grills above the front downstairs window and the destination blind in the rear-most downstairs side window. Sadly, this unique vehicle in the fleet was destroyed by enemy action in 1941. The corporation, shortly after purchasing it, standardised on diesel-engined Leyland Titans and no more AEC buses were ever purchased. There are some intriguing aspects to this photo – firstly, there are two plates affixed to the radiator. One may well say Regent, would the other one say “diesel”? Secondly, it has a starting handle (for a diesel?), and, thirdly, the upper structure still appears to be in undercoat, yet the lower deck is gloss painted and lined out!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

25/05/12 – 07:48

I’ve seen a few pictures of pre-war (and wartime) diesels with starting handles. I seem to remember Roly Wason, in his entertaining book “Busman’s View” mentions that in West Hartlepool they would put a rope on the handle so that relays of men could “flick over” a recalcitrant bus.

Stephen Ford

25/05/12 – 07:49

A lovely photo of the classical era when buses were evolving. I believe the second plate on the AEC “Regent” radiator is “Oil Engine”. This plate was fitted to many AEC “Regents” with diesel engines in the period up to about 1935. Bradford Corporation “Regents” 396 to 419 of 1935 with 8.8 litre diesel engines had their radiators fitted with a second plate with “Oil Engine” inscribed.

Richard Fieldhouse

25/05/12 – 15:06

This attractive bus raises many questions, probably unanswerable, but here goes….. Portsmouth buses traditionally had the lining-out on the upper deck panels also. Was this only on later models, or could this have been a “rushed” official photo? In warm weather, it must have been quite hot on both decks with such limited ventilation. Were they modified later? Never having ridden in one, was there extra leg room on the front upper-deck seats under the “piano front” or was it panelled off purely for the destination box? Finally, the upper deck seats seem very high in relation to the height of the roof. It almost has the proportions of a lowbridge bus. Were they high-back seats or was it just a very high upper deck floor?

Paul Haywood

25/05/12 – 15:07

…..and, of course, the legend “Leyland Diesel” adorned the bonnet side of PD2s and PD3s right up to the end – despite “Leyland Petrol” being a thing of deepest history!

David Oldfield

26/05/12 – 06:38

With regard to Portsmouth Corporation not buying any further AEC buses after the Regent 1 they did in fact buy a batch of Swifts in 1969 with Marshall B42D bodywork I believe they were numbered 175-188 but I am not certain of those numbers.
Some Regent Vs also had a badge on the bonnet side which said AEC Diesel.

Diesel Dave

26/05/12 – 06:39

Paul, although no more experienced in this era than you, two points. (1) In order to avoid patent problems with Leyland and their low-bridge design, AEC came up with the camel back – a hump all the way down the middle. (If this is one, the photo is washed out at the roof and wouldn’t show it.) (2) There was a period of full-drop windows. If this is one of those, it would not be self evident with the windows fully closed.

David Oldfield

26/05/12 – 06:40

Thx for confirming my ‘oil engine’ thoughts, Richard.
To answer your thoughts as best I can, Paul, all buses were lined out, top and bottom, and this never changed, although it was simplified post-war. I’m inclined to think this is a ‘rushed’ official photo, although CPPTD often had their ‘tween decks adverts painted on for a long-term contract and might have been prepared to receive the bus like this for such an advert.
The ventilation might have been better than appears, for many buses, of the time, had one-piece sliding windows which came down about two-thirds of the way, worked by a car-type handle. I didn’t recall this type of seat back being any higher than was normal for slightly newer buses, so low window bottoms or a high floor must have been responsible. There was no need for lowbridge buses within its territory.

Chris Hebbron

26/05/12 – 06:42

The nameplates on the radiator say “Regent” and below “Oil Engine”. This Portsmouth bus must have been an early recipient of the then very new 8.85 litre version of the AEC oil engine with the Ricardo Comet indirect injection system. This motor, which became successful and well known as the “8.8”, appeared from mid 1931 in replacement of the indifferently reliable Acro head A155 engine, which had a capacity of 8.097 litres. The retention of a starting handle was quite common on early oil engined Regents.
It is noteworthy that, at about the same time as it bought this solitary AEC, Portsmouth purchased an example of the Crossley Condor with the 9.12 litre direct injection engine, and this must have impressed the Corporation rather more than the Regent, since another 20 buses of this type were bought in 1932. The continued specification by Portsmouth of the Crossley direct injection engine was another interesting feature, as by then, the indirect injection VR6 version was much more widely favoured. In any event, contrary to the experience of operators elsewhere in the country, the Crossleys earned their keep, turning in an average fuel consumption of 9.5 mpg until they were withdrawn in 1947. Probably on the strength of this earlier experience, notwithstanding a subsequent very successful allegiance to the Leyland Titan, Portsmouth bought more Crossleys in 1948, but the DD42/5T type proved to be another creature entirely in the reliability stakes. I must acknowledge that the sources of my information above are the books “Blue Triangle” by Alan Townsin, and “Crossley” by Messrs Eyre, Heaps and Townsin.

Roger Cox

26/05/12 – 06:43

I should have mentioned in my first ‘blurb’ that the bus was blinded route ‘D’ and ‘Stubbington Avenue’.

Chris Hebbron

26/05/12 – 16:52

Thanks, David and Chris for your replies. Yes, Chris, if I tilt my screen I think I can just about make out a domed roof which would explain the upper-deck proportions. However, I’m still not convinced about it being highbridge. In 1931, Belfast Omnibus Co. bought a batch of Short Bros Regents which, to my untrained eye, look almost identical, but these were classed as lowbridge. There is a photo of one on page 9 of “The British Bus Scene in the 1930’s” by David Kaye. Could the confusion (on my part) be to do with them being “low height” as opposed to having a lowbridge sunken-gangway seating layout?

Paul Haywood

26/05/12 – 16:53

Thx, Roger, for that interesting info. I never realised that pre-war Crossley engines were direct injection and produced such good mpg figures. They should have updated it, rather than introduced the HOE one, which had such a poor reputation, after they stopped infringing Saurer’s patent. Incidentally, whilst most of them were withdrawn in 1948, the rest were withdrawn in ones and two’s, the last in 1951, at 20 years old. And CPPTD also bought some DD42/7’s after the 5’s above: what gluttons for punishment! Probably a distress purchase, such was post-war bus/coach demand.

Chris Hebbron

28/05/12 – 07:51

Many thanks Chris, for this superb posting!
This was a fascinating and speedy era in bus development, and Portsmouth Corporation was a standard bearer in that department. They had batches of TD2s TSMs, and Crossley Condors, all with the same composite EEC bodies, so, from the rear, they would all look alike, and even the first TD4s had a similar 5 bay metal framed version.
It was a truly fascinating fleet, to say nothing about the 6 wheeled Karriers of a mere year or two earlier.
I think this Short bodied Regent is one of the first of the style which replaced the camel roof type, and was very common, mainly on AEC and Leyland chassis, all over the country.
Obviously, PCT were not particularly impressed with the AEC “oil engine”, or Regents in general, as future orders, post 1933, were Leyland dominated, and one wonders why the trolleybus fleet became AEC based. Perhaps something to do with a liking for EEC equipment offered by the AEC/EE partnership?
Just imagine what it would have been like to be an enthusiast in Pompey in the 1930s, with such a fascinating bus fleet, and so many experimental trolleybuses too! Its the stuff that dreams are made of!

John Whitaker

28/05/12 – 07:52

I feel this must be an official view, taken I suspect by the bodybuilder, but why the upper deck painting was not complete is beyond me. This bus and all the other Short bodies bought by Portsmouth were highbridge, photos of all the others had the seat backs visible through the windows, they must therefore have had a high floor. This same characteristic is shown on Short bodied TD1 and TD2’s with Southdown.
A summer photo of one of Portsmouth’s Short bodied TD1’s shows 3 upstairs windows each side open a good half way, so ventilation would have been fine.
Finally Service C/D didn’t run to Stubbington Avenue, so I suspect the screen were set randomly for the official photo.

Pat Jennings

29/05/12 – 06:49

Just to confirm Diesel Dave’s comment about post-war Portsmouth AEC’s. There were 12 saloons, all of them Swift 2MP2R chassis, and had Marshall B42D bodies. They were numbered 176-187 (NTP176-187H), entering service in Aug/Sep 1969. They followed two batches of Leyland Panther Cubs, 12 with Marshall bodies, and 14 with Metro-Cammell bodies (all B42D, new March to Oct 1967, Nos 150-175). I recall reading that the AEC Swift and Leyland Panther shared the same chassis frame design, as AEC was part of the Leyland group from 1962. But I don’t know what similarities there were between the smaller Panther Cub and the Swifts delivered to Portsmouth, apart from overall length – Portsmouth did not want maximum size 36-footers for it’s city routes. It’s generally acknowledged that the Panther Cub was not a great success, and Portsmouth began withdrawal in 1977 – a mere 10 years – the final ones going in 1981. The AEC Swifts went swiftly however (oops! – sorry!) – The MAP project in 1981 saw the fleet significantly reduced, and the remaining Panther Cubs plus the 12 Swifts, (and 14 Leyland Nationals, only 5 years old) were all withdrawn and sold.
On a different note, the Portsmouth Regent No 35 with it’s Short Bros body could be theoretically compared with it’s Southdown equivalent. But Southdown’s version (also with Short Bros highbridge body of similar design) was petrol engined, and hired, not owned. It was their No 10, and was lettered on the sides for a route in Horsham. Thus it is very unlikely that the two were ever side by side at South Parade Pier!
It is one of those fascinating details that Portsmouth had two AEC double-deckers pre-war, both were numbered 35, and both had comparatively short lives. Our featured Regent was destroyed in the air-raid of 10 March 1941, and only the engine was salvaged and sold to Nottingham Corporation. The previous 35 was an AEC “B”-type purchased in 1926 from LGOC via a dealer(new c.1913) with a Dodson body, along with ten other Dodson bodies, which were used on the original 10 Thornycroft Js. It didn’t last long, but in it’s short career it was re-registered from LF 9344 to BK 2342 (transferred from a service vehicle), and had it’s body replaced by one of the Wadham bodies from the original Thornycrofts, albeit cut down to a single-decker! It was withdrawn from PSV use in 1927, and was used as a petrol tender until 1930 – probably to keep the thirsty Karrier 6-wheelers going in service.

Michael Hampton

30/05/12 – 07:21

Thank you, Michael, for the additional information, especially that of the first 35 and its interesting life.
You mention the air raid of 10th March 1941 (with the loss of quite a few vehicles, including two Crossley Condors) but I’ve never seen mention of which depot it was. I assume from the loss of buses, not trolleybuses, that it was North End and not Eastney.

Chris Hebbron

30/05/12 – 13:30

Thanks Chris for your kind comments. All the books and notes I have state that it was Eastney depot which was badly damaged on 10th March 1941, destroying ten buses, and damaging others. Both trolleybuses and motorbuses were kept at North End and Eastney depots. My source says that the incendiary bombs hit the bus garage and workshops. There was also damage across the city, and several major trolleybus routes had to be curtailed until wiring and road repairs were completed. There was bomb damage at North End depot, too (date not given), but this was restricted to store rooms, no vehicles apparently involved. But no trolleybuses received major war damage at either Eastney, North End, or on the streets.

Michael Hampton

30/05/12 – 17:37

Last year I visited the Transport Museum in Johannesburg a took a photo of an AEC Regent radiator mounted on a sub-frame with a 8.8 litre engine circa 1935.
The stored exhibit had lost its the AEC triangle badge but does have “Regent” and “Oil Engine” plates on the radiator wire mesh as well as the spline for a starter handle. I would have posted this photo sooner but made the previous entry when on holiday. Chris, please keep posting these lovely pre-war photos of Portsmouth Corporation.

Richard Fieldhouse

31/05/12 – 10:50

Well, Richard, what an unusual find and way to prove a point! As for other ‘Pompey’ photos, I’ve a couple more up my sleeve. The quick and sad end of CPPTD, I try to keep at the back of my mind!

Chris Hebbron

Portsmouth Corporation – AEC 663T – RV 4663 – 215

Photo from the T. Dethridge Collection

Portsmouth Corporation
1934
AEC 663T
Metro Cammell H32/28R

This impressive beast is Portsmouth Corporation 215 an AEC663T/Metro-Cammell H32/28R trolleybus from 1934. Originally delivered as 15, it was last of a group of trolleybuses of different makes of 2 and 3-axled chassis (AEC, Sunbeam, Leyland and Karrier), with different electrics and bodies (Metro Cammell and English Electric) to evaluate the most suitable for the future fleet. It was re-numbered 215 in 1938 and lent to Pontypridd UDC, along with some of its other non-standard stable mates, from 1942-46. Shown here in its maroon/white with grey roof livery, straight from the paint shop at Eastney Depot in 1949, it was scrapped in 1952. As for the evaluation, although the main fleet centred on 2-axled AEC/BUT chassis, most (100) were bodied with non-evaluated Craven bodies, with a sprinkling (9) of English Electric and, postwar, (15) Burlingham bodies! One non-standard (No.1) and one Burlingham example (No.313) survive, but, sadly, not one Craven example, the mainstay of the trolleybus fleet. The whole network was swept away, in 1963, by Leyland/MCW Atlanteans. The unexpected one-year delay in delivery of these, caused by a disastrous fire at Addlestone, resulted in a very sad-looking trolleybus fleet and a great maintenance effort to keep the vehicles in one piece and capable of moving!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

10/02/11 – 17:12

Portsmouth Corporation had a wonderful livery displayed to perfection by their paint shop work on 215 in 1949. I visited Portsmouth for a day in 1963 to ride on the remaining routes and still recall the wonderful livery of the AEC 661T/Craven and BUT9611T/Burlingham trolleybuses even at this time.
I wonder what decision criteria were used by the Portsmouth managers in 1934 to choose a 2 axle fleet rather than 3 axle fleet of trolleybuses. The 3 axle trolleybus was able to accept the higher starting forces from the traction motor but perhaps this was not recognised at the time. The single worm drive differential on a 2 axle trolleybus was always subjected to much greater forces than that on a motor bus.
I do believe that 3 axle trolleybus fleets had less trouble with drive failures than those with 2 axle fleets and these were compounded with the longer length 2 axle types which appeared in 1954. I do believe Sunbeam addressed this single axle drive problem by introducing a double reduction epicyclic differential axle. I do believe these appeared in Walsall, Glasgow, Belfast and Bradford. Can this be confirmed?
I do know these axles made a growling noise but nothing as loud as a Bradford AEC661T “Regen”.

Richard Fieldhouse

10/02/11 – 17:13

Thanks Chris for this wonderful shot of the 663T.
The early PCT experimental fleet was quite fascinating, as, although not unique by any means, early trolleybus operators tended to purchase “experimental” fleets, and PCT`s such fleet was quite extensive!
The MCCW bodies were obviously metal framed, whereas I believe, that the English Electric ones were composite. This gave them another feature to work out and study, as well as the chassis and equipment suppliers, giving them more reliable data before placing further orders.
The subsequent 9 English Electric 661Ts were metal (I believe), as were the Cravens, but I am wondering why the change to Cravens was made. Was it simply cost based, or did PCT have similar problems to other operators of EEC metal bodies. Perhaps they had picked up rumours, and were “scared off”. Who knows?
A fascinating post, for which many thanks.

John Whitaker

04/03/11 – 07:22

Lovely shot of this Portsmouth trolleybus, as repainted post-war after it’s war-time loan to Pontypridd UDC with the other three six-wheelers. Three of the four returned to service after loan, but one did not (212, an AEC 663T/EEC).
Incidentally all the 15 mixed test vehicles and the following 9 AEC 661Ts did not have manoeuvring batteries and were all stored from 1940 through the war on wasteland at Hilsea (apart from the six-wheelers sent to Pontypridd). They were all returned to service from 1945 onwards.
I have always been fascinated by the very mixed bag of trolleybuses taken as the experimental batch of 15 by Portsmouth. It was not an even spread of orders. Four AEC 2-axles, all with the same body make. Three Leyland 2-axles, also with the same body make. Then variety is brought in – Two Karrier 2-axle, each with a different body; Four Sunbeams, but two are 2-axle and two are 3-axle, and each pair has different bodywork, and two AEC 3-axle, also with different bodies. It doesn’t seem to give a fair spread to assessing the necessary qualities. And the choice of chassis make fell to the supplier of the highest quantity! (AEC).
It seems to have been common for municipals to try out an experimental batch of trolleybuses in the 1930s. But the rest had more “equal” fleets of trial vehicles. Take Belfast, which in 1938 took pairs of 3-axle Crossleys, Guys, Karriers, Leylands, AECs, Daimlers and Sunbeams. The bodywork contracts weren’t so evenly spread, but then Harkness might be expected to corner the market there.
Reading made do with just six in 1936, of which two were Sunbeam (but one I think was an ex-demonstrator, so that may have been an influence), and then one each of AEC, Guy, Leyland and Ransomes. All were two-axle and Park Royal bodied the lot. In spite of two Sunbeams the next bulk order went to AEC.
Bournemouth had just four trial trolleybuses in 1933, one Sunbeam 3-axle, one AEC three-axle, one AEC two-axle, and one Thonycroft single-decker – a very odd choice. But the point is that, compared to Portsmouth, there is a “one of each” approach going on. Both of the AECs were converted to a motorbus (petrol)in 1936, and the next bulk orders went to Sunbeam.
Walsall had two AEC and two Guy three-axle vehicles for their tests in 1931, again a fair share to trial – they then chose Sunbeam for their main orders!
It’s difficult to imagine what kind of committee sat down with manufacturer’s catalogues and selected the chosen makes for these trials in each city. But we can make sense of those that decided “one of each” or “two of each” – but the Portsmouth mix seems to defy any of that kind of logic! But it’s what keeps us interested as observers of these events of the past.
Incidentally I have never read any other account than that the Corporation chose Cravens for the batch of 76 plus the 30 Leyland TD4s because of obtaining appropriate delivery dates. No mention has been made of EEC build quality.

Michael Hampton

04/03/11 – 17:19

Interesting comments, observations and comparisons, Michael, much appreciated. As it happens, logical or not, their choice of bodywork for the main fleet, Cravens, was as sound as the bodies turned out to be, lasting around 25 years, although some re-building was necessary.
I never realised that the non-standard vehicles were parked on wasteland for the duration.
I also never realised that the other vehicles, especially the second batch, the 9 AEC 661T’s, lacked off-line manoeuvring ability. I always felt rather sad about them, living a rather shady life and always giving off an air of neglect – I’m not sure whether all of them were ever repainted. Considering the far less use they got, this was surprising. I always thought them the nicest looking of all the trolleys, even in comparison with the later Burlingham-bodied examples. The Pontypridd escapade fascinates me. Can you imagine the towing of these large six-wheel vehicles over to Bristol, over the Aust Ferry, then up the valley to Pontypridd, an estimated 150 miles without motorway or Severn bridges. Or, if the Aust Ferry wasn’t man for the job, a journey via Gloucester would have entailed a 190 mile slog! I daresay these journeys were not without incident!

Chris Hebbron

04/03/11 – 18:13

Don’t forget that every one of the Cravens trolleybuses would have been towed down the even greater distance from Sheffield! Towing trolleybuses would have been an everyday occurrence in those days – think about Glasgow’s with Weymann bodies!

David Beilby

06/03/11 – 08:13

And, of course, the chassis would have had to be towed to the bodybuilders first!

Chris Hebbron

06/03/11 – 09:16

Wartime loans fascinate me too Chris!
Bournemouth trolleys running in Newcastle, Southend in Bradford, Hull in Pontypridd. Quite a few examples and some interesting pre-motorway routes to plan!

John Whitaker

06/03/11 – 11:52

You raise in my mind an interesting point, John. If Pompey sent its four six–wheelers to Pontypridd and Hull also sent some, what was the reason? AS a UDC (Urban District Council), it’s hard to believe it had a large fleet of vehicles, especially trolleybuses, and enemy action seems unlikely to be a significant cause, was it an upsurge in coal production and colliers, mainly impressed (and probably unimpressed!) Bevin Boys?

Chris Hebbron

07/03/11 – 08:33

Re. wartime loans of trolleybuses.
Good point Chris.
I can only assume that the resort towns had surplus vehicles in wartime, whereas the industrial areas needed extra capacity. Where that leaves Portsmouth, itself a prime target for the Luftwaffe, I do not know. Southsea is, I suppose, a resort, but Portsmouth as a whole would have had quite a lot of industrial activity apart from the Naval dockyard (?)

John Whitaker

07/03/11 – 08:37

The bus fleet in Pontypridd exploded (if I can use that term) during the war. The fleet strength in 1966 was 53 yet during the war they received 21 utility double-deckers and 2 unfrozen double-deckers. There were also eight utility trolleybuses which became the postwar fleet but they were really used to replace the pre-war fleet which it must be remembered was mainly single-deck EE vehicles which later moved to Cardiff, as well as releasing the loaned vehicles. There had been 8 LT ST-types on loan as well.
This reflects the boom in demand during the war years, with local collieries and factories working flat out and therefore a greater need for transport. It’s probable that not only were more people travelling but also they were travelling further – there was certainly a lot of long distance travelling to the various Royal Ordnance Factories.
The trolleybus route served very little directly and the way the traffic on that route expanded was probably more complex. The southern end of the route at Treforest was a long way from Treforest Trading Estate which was a major source of employment at the time and therefore would not have been used to take people there. Maritime Colliery in the centre of Pontypridd would have generated some traffic but its location in the centre of town means workers could have come from anywhere. Albion Colliery was the only large colliery directly served by the route and was at the northern terminus at Cilfynydd.

David Beilby

07/03/11 – 09:27

John – Your post triggered something else in the back of my mind about Bournemouth trolleybuses on war loan. No fewer than 18 of them were lent to London Transport between December 1940 and September 1942, partly being relieved by some new ones destined for South Africa being diverted to London. Braking-wise, they were not up to the job of London’s demands. They had to go to Ilford Depot because of their exceptional height – 15′ 11″! Ilford had no routes which went under low bridges.

Chris Hebbron

08/03/11 – 06:05

John W – CPPTD lent some 3-4 TSM buses to London around the Blitz for six months and a couple more locally towards the end of the war. They lost several buses when Eastney Bus Depot was bombed (including the sole AEC Regent they ever owned!). They then took in 10 Bedford OWBs and 9 Daimler CWA6’s in the middle of the war, but I would say that they were well positioned with trolleybuses. They also had some Leyland Lynxes surplus from sea front duties, but I don’t know if they were ever used in anger! So the fleet just about remained the same or slightly larger. This doesn’t really answer the question about pressure in maintaining services, though.

Thx, David B, for a wonderfully detailed picture about Ponypridd’s situation in the war. It goes to show how a war can distort situations and produce hotspots which, in normal times, would never arise. I’ve seen photos of LT ST’s all over the place in wartime, but never any in Pontypridd, not even by that ubiquitous bus photographer, DWK Jones!

Chris Hebbron

Portsmouth Corporation1939Leyland Cheetah LZ4Wadham B32R

Portsmouth Corporation1963Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1Metro Cammell H43/33F

Portsmouth Corporation1927Karrier WL6/2Brush H32/28R

Portsmouth Corporation1944Daimler CWA6Crossley H30/26R (after re-bodying in 1955)

Portsmouth Corporation1949Crossley DD42/7TCrossley H28/26R

Portsmouth Corporation

1949Crossley DD42/5Reading H52R

Portsmouth Corporation1943Bedford OWBMulliner B32F

Portsmouth Corporation1944Bedford OWBDuple B32F

Portsmouth Corporation1931AEC Regent IShort Bros. H26/24R

Portsmouth Corporation1934AEC 663TMetro Cammell H32/28R

Portsmouth Corporation
1939
Leyland Cheetah LZ4
Wadham B32R

Portsmouth Corporation
1963
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Metro Cammell H43/33F

Portsmouth Corporation
1927
Karrier WL6/2
Brush H32/28R

Portsmouth Corporation
1944
Daimler CWA6
Crossley H30/26R (after re-bodying in 1955)

Portsmouth Corporation
1949
Crossley DD42/7T
Crossley H28/26R

1949
Crossley DD42/5
Reading H52R

Portsmouth Corporation
1943
Bedford OWB
Mulliner B32F

Portsmouth Corporation
1944
Bedford OWB
Duple B32F

Portsmouth Corporation
1931
AEC Regent I
Short Bros. H26/24R

Portsmouth Corporation
1934
AEC 663T
Metro Cammell H32/28R