Tag: Roe

Tynemouth and District – Leyland Atlantean – FFT 757 – 257


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

Tynemouth and District
1962
Leyland Atlantean PD1/1
Roe H44/33R

The early PDR1/1 and PDR1A/1 Leyland Atlantean’s have long been a point of discussion, and I was never a fan of them. The NGT Group had around 250 and the majority were Roe bodied, but they also had Weymann and Metro Cammell as well as the early and later type Alexander, then after NBC was formed they were allocated a hand full of ECW’s. Before depot fleets started to be changed around, Percy Main had 22 in total, 9 Metro Cammell, CFT 936/44 – 236/44 (240′ is posted elsewhere on this site), and 5 Roe DFT 245/9 – 245/9 all came in 1960. then another 8 Roe’s arrived in 1962, FFT 754/61 – 254/61; one Metro Cammell ‘236’ and two Roe ‘254/5’ carried the Wakefields name. The rest of the group continued to order Leyland, but in 1963, Percy Main became the first to order the infinitely superior Daimler Fleetline. I never heard any adverse comments about the build quality of either body, and at first glance the did look rather similar, but to me the Metro Cammell looked more balanced and better proportioned than the Roe, but both did look rather smart in Northern’s livery. As for NBC, well the poppy red was bad enough, but this version of Tyne & Wear PTE yellow didn’t do anything any favours. 257 seen above still carried the Tynemouth name, and all NGT subsidiary names were made defunct in 1975, so the photo predates that, but look how far the standards of the one immaculately turned out Tynemouth and District fleet have fallen post NBC. e.g., on this one the wheel trims are missing, on others badges and body trim weren’t replaced when repairs were carried out, and sometimes repaired areas stuck out like a soar thumb, and in general the fleet just looked shabby. I don’t know if this was common throughout NBC, but it certainly was in this area, and both NGT and United suffered. Was it because pride in the company had been lost, poor management, cost cutting, or a combination of all of those factors? The current Northern ‘Go Ahead Group’ management seem to be making an effort and the fleet seems to be well cared for, but the glory days are long gone.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

09/04/13 – 16:50

NBC became to stand for No Body Cares – at least as far as vehicle looks were concerned. This was apparent from the start with an eminently forgettable and fadeable poppy red, the dullest green in living memory and a dirt attracting white being chosen for the fleet colour choices. After that it was all down hill.

Phil Blinkhorn

09/04/13 – 17:43

Superior Daimler Fleetline…………did you drive these vehicles? The Daimler Fleetline was a very poor bus compared to a Leyland Atlantean. The Fleetline may have been more economical but when you could get an engine to perform as poorly as this it’s bound to be more economic than the Leyland which was superior in every way.

Michael

10/04/13 – 06:50

The early rear engined buses were all “inferior” in their own way but only the PDR1/2 excelled the PDR1/1 in the inferiority stakes. The improved AN68 tackled most problems and produced the best 1st generation rear-engined vehicle – and was succeeded by a real classic, the ON Olympian. The Fleetline was more reliable than the PDR1/1 and in almost every way superior to the PDR1/2. Leyland should have concentrated on the Fleetline, rather than the PDR1/2, for low floor buses. It was arguably better even than the VRT which was a late entrant and should have learned by its competitors early mistakes. Perhaps the best first generation line up should have been what almost happened. “Leyland” Fleetline available with choice of O.680 or 6LXB (which did happen) for low-floor and Leyland Atlantean AN68 or AN6LXB for standard height?

David Oldfield

10/04/13 – 11:06

David, the PDR1/2 first appeared in 1964 with a drop centre rear axle bought from Daimler. Why Daimler allowed its, at the time, only serious competitor to purchase what could be seen as its major competitive asset, especially in the race for NBC Group sales, is probably down to the attitude of Sir William Lyons to Daimler as a whole and to Jaguar’s need to improve cash flow in an area in which it had no previous expertise and which it perceived as a piece of saleable engineering rather than a proprietary product to be protected.
Leyland didn’t get its hands on the Fleetline until 1968 when it merged with Jaguar/Daimler’s then owners British Motor Holdings. By then Leyland, as the major component of the merged company, was working on the design of the AN68 and, having added the Fleetline to its stable, had no need to do anything other than support the PDR1/2s in service, the type having been withdrawn from the catalogue in 1967.

Phil Blinkhorn

10/04/13 – 17:28

Sorry, Phil, but NBC did not embrace poppy red, leaf green and washday white liveries from the start. For the first three years, companies were left alone to run things much as before in most respects, including that of liveries. The rot set in with the appointment as chairman of glue manufacturer and failed Tory parliamentary candidate, Freddie Wood, in 1972. Centralisation then became the policy that apparently befitted “The Biggest Bus Company In The World”. Thenceforward, all material decision making was undertaken at the “top”, much of it in collusion with another over promoted egotist, Donald Stokes of Leyland. That’s when things went wrong, and the bus industry is plagued by the same attitudes today. Local managers of companies in the big groups have very limited freedom of manoeuvre. Profit margins form the only parameter of importance to the present day City driven transport groups. Profit first – passengers nowhere. After a working lifetime in the bus industry, I have now totally given up on my local bus operator and use my car. The northward extension of the much vaunted Cambridgeshire “Busway” service (on ordinary roads, that is) results in our village getting an hourly ‘service’ that runs anything up to an hour late. Letters to the local company go unanswered. NBC is dead. Long live NBC.

Roger Cox

10/04/13 – 17:28

I used to like the Jones of Aberbeeg NBC livery, Dark Blue with white lettering and on some vehicles, white trim. It was a subsidiary of Red & White but never bore those colours.

Orla Nutting

10/04/13 – 17:29

Within the Municipal fleets, politics had a great influence. Some would support only “ABC” because “ABC” buses were built locally, while some of their neighbours couldn’t stand the things and bought only “XYZ”. They even refused to have demonstrators visiting. Such things have been discussed in these columns before.
My own local fleets in my formative years were Lancaster, Morecambe & Heysham, and Ribble. By the mid to late 1960’s, Lancaster was largely Leyland, but there were still some stragglers from Wartime deliveries. Next door, Morecambe & Heysham were very staunch AEC supporters and nearly all of us know about Ribble’s buying pattern!
In Birmingham, in my student days, most of the fleet was from Daimler, but Guy and Leyland were there as well. In Southampton, the Atlantean was arriving by 1970 when I moved down here, replacing the vast number of Guy Arabs. Southampton had only ever had one Daimler. The fleet history declares it to have been “unsatisfactory” and was returned to the maker. The Council didn’t want to know after that, although they did host visits by a couple of Fleetlines in 1964.
Coventry is famous for the dispute after Atlanteans were ordered rather than Fleetlines.
I like Ronnie’s comment about what the current management at Go Ahead are trying to achieve in respect of presentation. I am familiar with their operations in Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight. For the most part, vehicles are clean and tidy, but the liveries are a bit garish!

Pete Davies

11/04/13 – 07:43

Roger you are quite correct about the date of the livery introduction, something I have always known and which I always place as the start of NBC’s real hold over its constituents – something I should have made plain. Again you are correct about Wood and Stokes, two classic examples of the failure of the dogma, still existing in many businesses, that a successful manager in one industry can be equally successful in another even though they have little knowledge and experience in any other field but their own.

Phil Blinkhorn

11/04/13 – 07:44

Pdr/1 Atlanteans in the potteries fleet were on the heavy loaded services and also hilly services and also did express services during holiday times they were a drivers bus and very reliable. Fleet lines were to slow having problems with fluid throttle linkages and the driving position was very poor in relation to the swept area of the windscreen in the wet, all in all they were crapp.

Michael driver of 47 years experience

11/04/13 – 07:44

Pete mentions municipal buying policy my local operator Leeds triple sourced chassis and doubled sourced bodywork How much this kept the various suppliers up to the mark is anyones guess but it kept ones interest going.

Chris Hough

11/04/13 – 16:13

Yes, Michael, I have driven Fleetlines a mile or several thousand, and I don’t retract a word of what I said. The only PDR1’s we had were the 22 mentioned in my posting. I left T&D in 1975, just as the AN68 was coming into service, but they were mostly used on OPO routes and my experience of them is limited, so I cant comment. The Atlantean was faster than the Fleetline, and no doubt would be better suited to some routes, but the superior lower end torque of the 6LXB made the Fleetline a far better vehicle for the stop/start high volume routes we had at Percy Main. I can count on one hand with fingers to spare, the amount of times I broke down with a Fleetline, I lost count with the Atlanteans.

Ronnie Hoye

12/04/13 – 07:55

Phil,
The Atlantean PDR1/2 used the drop centre rear axle developed by Leyland for the ‘Albion Lowlander’. This had to be modified to allow the drive to come in from the offside rather than the nearside as on the Lowlander. What Leyland bought in from Daimler was the Fleetline gearbox, as the Leyland gearbox couldn’t be used with a drop centre axle. This changed with the PDR1/3, the successor to the PDR1/2, that had the same Leyland drop centre axle but used the rationalised Leyland pneumocyclic gearbox.

Michael Elliott

12/04/13 – 07:58

As well as allowing them to retain their names and liveries, NGT’s management of its subsidiaries also encouraged them to order what they wanted, rather than something head office said they should have; and so it was that in 1963 Tynemouth and District took a completely different course to the rest and became the first depot to take delivery of the CRG6LX Daimler Fleetline. They had 35 in total, the first 15 were Weymann bodied.
1963 – HFT 366/75 – 266/75 H44/35F
1964 – JFT 276/80 – 276/80 H43/32F
The stair layouts accounts for the different capacities.

JFT 280 is shown here in its original livery and is from the 1964 intake. I’ve mentioned before that T&D had very high standards, so at the time the photo was taken 280 must have been due for a repaint, otherwise, that replacement side panel next to the rear wheels would never have been left like that. Note the layout of the stairs, to me they are the wrong way round, and I doubt if they would be allowed today. Anyone ascending them is going towards the rear of the vehicle rather than the front. In a worst case scenario, if someone is on the stairs and the driver for whatever reason has to brake sharply, they have only one way to go, and that is in the direction of down, whereas, on a more conventional layout they will either fall ‘up’ the stairs or end up on their backside sitting on them. Apart from the added risk factor, the seating capacity has been reduced by four, so I don’t see the point. perhaps whoever thought of it looked on it like the invasion of Russia ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time’

EFT 694F

The remaining 20 had the superb H44/34F Alexander body.
1965 – AFT 783/9C – 283/9
1967 – DFT 290/2E – 290/2
1968 – EFT 693/702F – 293/302
If memory serves, the 1965 intake had electrically operated doors whilst the rest were air, but that apart their were very few differences between them. In 1966, T&D again broke ranks and adopted a much simplified version of the 1940/50’s NGT livery, other depots soon followed suit, and I believe one of the Routemaster’s is preserved in this livery. The 1968 intake were the last D/D’s ordered by T&D before they became part of NBC. As with all vehicles, some will swear by them while others swear at them, but very few drivers disliked them. The Fleetline were not the fastest buses in the depot, but they were perfect for stop/start town routes. The utterly reliable Gardner 6LX was arguably the best engine of its generation, and what it lacked in top speed, it more than made up for at the bottom, even with a full load, they were quick off the mark and never struggled to keep pace with traffic. The Alexander bodies were smart, well designed, and extremely well built; they had good all round vision with minimal blind spots, and switches and controls were all within easy reach, they also had a level of comfort that made them popular with both passengers and crew alike; The Daimler chassis had good brakes and light positive steering, it was very forgiving and exceptionally well behaved. This was a time when buses still had leaf springs, but the ride quality was as least as good as any of today’s buses. I left Percy Main shortly after the first AN68’s began to arrive, so my experience of them is limited, they were unquestionably better that the PDR1/1’s I had previously driven, but were they the best bus of their generation? The bus chassis division of British Leyland was an amalgam of AEC – Bristol – Daimler – Guy and Leyland, and while some would argue that the AN68 was a success because it sold in huge numbers, the creation of NBC meant it had a guaranteed market with little or no competition. Rather than being allowed to develop. BL saw the Olympian – Fleetline and FRM as rivals to the AN68 and couldn’t wait to kill them off, the same thing happened to any competition to the Leopard or National. I can only speak for myself. but for my money, up to 1975, the Alexander Daimler Fleetline, was, and still is the best rear engine bus I have ever driven.

Ronnie Hoye

12/04/13 – 12:17

Ronnie, re the stairs see my article Days Out with Martin Hannett.
Michael, I’ve done a check back and it seems that there are a number of instances in print from the time that allude to the axle being Daimler but The Leyland Bus states categorically that the axle WAS Leyland. The rest of the drive change was made by Daimler and was modified as you indicate. Thanks for the correction.
A bit more digging shows that the Daimler gear box was built to a design by Self Changing Gears, which Leyland owned, so Lyons was basically selling Leyland a product it actually owned – clever!

Phil Blinkhorn

12/04/13 – 14:43

With reference to Ronnie’s remarks on the orientation of the stairs on front entrance double deck buses, I recall travelling home to Jarrow from North Shields after a night watch. Having almost dozed off on the top deck I realised that the bus was approaching my stop and I needed to move with haste. From memory, and it was a long time ago now, I rushed down the forward facing stairs as the driver negotiated a slip road and braked for the stop with the result that I was propelled towards the exit at a rate of knots. Fortunately the bus stopped and the doors opened so that I was ejected on to the pavement past the waiting passengers without further incident, though some of the people waiting were neighbours who were a bit surprised at my sudden arrival. So I can only endorse the remarks about the dreaded “health and safety” and the positioning of the staircase.

Stan Zapiec

12/04/13 – 17:14

Yes, Stan – forward-facing stairs were always a safety hazard, but at least (in the case of the Fleetlines you referred to) a flying passenger would tend to hit the bulkhead behind the driver. On the infamous Wulfrunians, with their nearside forward-facing staircases, a passenger could end up straight through the windscreen. I have memories of being propelled forward on a number of occasions following an over-enthusiastic brake application. This, combined with their distinctive rolling and pitching movement, made life very interesting for unsuspecting passengers.

Paul Haywood

13/04/13 – 07:43

I’m not sure when forward ascending staircases were introduced on rear engine chassis. All the PMT double deckers up to and including the 1965 Alexander bodied Fleetlines were rearward ascending. Sheffield used rearward ascending until dual door double deckers became standard from 1969. In Huddersfield it was only the introduction of dual entrance bodies in 1970 that first saw the use of forward ascending ones. I suspect this was common with many other Operators. Once the fad for dual entrance buses faded the forward ascending type become the norm on single doorway buses.

Ian Wild

13/04/13 – 07:44

According to Alan Townsin, Phil, the Daimatic direct selection gearbox fitted to CV and Fleetline chassis was entirely a Daimler design which differed internally from the original Wilson principles, notably in respect of the brake bands. It is possible that these changes were made to avoid claims that the gearbox was a copy of the 1954 SCG gearbox design used by Leyland (Pneumocyclic) and AEC (Monocontrol). Self Changing Gears was not fully controlled by Leyland until 1957 when it bought a third of the company’s shares from Hawker Siddeley to add to the third it had owned since 1951. The Daimatic gearbox had weaknesses that were never fully resolved, and the much criticised redesign undertaken later by Leyland was an attempt to remedy some of the problems. On the subject of the relative merits of early Atlantean and Fleetline buses, in 1965 London Transport decided to evaluate the rear engined / front entrance concept, and, with fully characteristic open mindedness, ordered fifty Atlanteans and just eight Fleetlines. When the Fleetline revealed its superiority, the LT engineering top brass would not accept the evidence, claiming that Fleetline in Country Area service received a much easier life than the Central Area Atlanteans. The eight Fleetlines then went to the Central Area in exchange for eight Atlanteans which were duly despatched to the Country Area. In the Central Area, the Coventry product demonstrated its superiority even more convincingly, and the pro Leyland prejudice collapsed like a punctured balloon. Not that LT learned a great deal in the end – it then went sleepwalking into the DMS fiasco.

Roger Cox

13/04/13 – 07:45

Paul although the Wulfrunian was an idiosyncratic chassis. However the nearside staircase was also used by Tyne and Wear on their dual doored Atlantean.

Chris Hough

13/04/13 – 07:45

Surely all early front-entrance double deckers, and all forward-entrance ones, had rearward-ascending staircases, didn’t they? The first ones with forward-ascending were those with centre exits. In the meantime Manchester had invented the curved staircase (I think that was on the second batch of Fleetlines) in place of the original type with two right angles. Not only was this felt to be safer, but, since one-man operation of double-deckers wasn’t even on the horizon then, the inside of the curve gave the conductor somewhere to stand.

Peter Williamson

13/04/13 – 10:09

Roger, that information from Alan Townsin conflicts with that published in The Leyland Bus.
To quote Doug Jack on page 325:
“It was also necessary to replace the normal Atlantean gearbox by using a similar gearbox built by Daimler to SGC designs…. The use of an apparently Daimler gearbox was acceptable because Leyland had owned Self Changing Gears since 1956. However the Coventry subsidiary continued to build gearboxes for Leyland’s competitors and indeed allowed Daimler, AEC and Bristol to manufacture under licence.”
Whilst Alan is indeed a well respected expert, Doug Jack worked at Leyland from 1966 eventually becoming legal advisor and then Secretary of the Truck and Bus Division. The Leyland Bus was first published in 1977 whilst he was still Secretary so, presumably, he had full access to the company records.

Phil Blinkhorn

13/04/13 – 12:09

Not in our case, Peter, I’ve listed all Percy Main’s early Atlantean’s and Fleetline’s above, and only five ‘JFT 276/280’ had this type of staircase, the remainder had the more normal type where you are going towards the front when you go upstairs

Ronnie Hoye

13/04/13 – 18:37

Sorry folks, before anyone puts finger to key, I stand, or rather sit corrected. a quick memory check says the Atlanteans and Weymann bodied Fleetline’s both had rear ascending stairs, but I’m sure the Alexander bodies were forward facing, and had a luggage rack behind the driver which was over the wheel arch and under the stairs. The problem with 276/80 was that rather than two 90 degree turns, the stairs had a longer 180 degree half circle, so in effect there was nothing to stop anyone from falling from top to bottom

Ronnie Hoye

13/04/13 – 18:38

The problem I could add with forward ascending can be seen today- loss of space downstairs & that mysterious panelled space under the stairs. Driver’s bunk? What you gain in safety on the stairs you lose when “lower saloon” passengers are pitched forwards by the g force of dodgem driving. The old Roe platform staircase seemed very safe, as you fell onto a large half landing when unbalanced by the acceleration of a PD1…..

Joe

13/04/13 – 18:38

Sheffield’s early (1959-1968) Atlanteans and Fleetlines were all rear ascending.

David Oldfield

14/04/13 – 08:13

Didn’t some late-model Bristol-ECW Lodekka FLFs have forward ascending staircases? Would they have been the 31ft models? The evidence/answer must be on my bookshelves, but I’m away from home at the moment . . . I seem to remember rearward ascending staircases on Halifax/Calderdale NCME-bodied Fleetlines, then forward ascending staircases on WYPTE standard Roe-bodied Fleetlines and NBC Park-Royal/Roe Atlanteans, but ECW remaining faithful to rearward staricases on VRTs at least, and I think Atlanteans.

Philip Rushworth

14/04/13 – 08:13

It all just goes to show that buses with doors at the front and engines at the back are flying in the face of nature. It was never meant to be!

Stephen Ford

14/04/13 – 18:24

Phil, I note your comments, but all the preselector and two pedal semi auto gearboxes prior to the invasion of Allison, Voith and ZF type transmissions were built using the established epicyclic principles of Major Walter Wilson, who founded what later became Self Changing Gears with J.D.Siddeley in 1928, under the original name of Improved Gears. Leyland had no input, other than a financial holding from 1951 onwards, into those established designs, which were licensed to AEC, Daimler, Guy and Leyland, plus a number of car manufacturers. Leyland, like Daimler, may have chosen to modify some aspects of the design internals to suit its requirements, and the actuating system did differ between individual manufacturers, but the fundamental epicyclic gearing principle was wholly Wilson’s. Leyland took control of SCG in 1957, the year of Major Wilson’s death, not 1956, so the Leyland Journal has a factual error there. Sadly, the 1960s were a time when Leyland’s megalomania was at its height, so it comes as no surprise that it should endeavour to claim credit for almost everything under the sun during those years.

Roger Cox

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

15/04/13 – 07:24

On the subject of gearboxes, Roger, some of the early Atlanteans had an alarming habit of trying to break the high jump record whenever first gear was engaged from stationary. The way to counteract this was to engage second, then when you felt the gear go in, go straight through into first. Not best practice I admit, but it worked.

Ronnie Hoye

15/04/13 – 07:26

Roger, all you say about the genesis of the gearboxes is correct but I think you are missing the point I’m making. Leyland owned 100% of Self Changing Gears in 1964 so the purchase of a gearbox built under licence by a then competitor, the licence being granted by a company Leyland 100% owned, seems both a nonsense and a coup for Jaguar.
Is there any reason the SCG could not have built the boxes for the Atlantean themselves?
As to the date of Leyland’s 100% ownership, it seems curious that Doug Jack, given his position in Leyland at the time he first published what is acknowledged to be THE definitive volume on the Leyland Bus, didn’t correct his statement in either the 1984 or 1992 editions as, by the time the latter was published, he had had 15 years to correct his “error” and thousands would have had chance to point it out.
I wonder if there is some misunderstanding somewhere of arrangements between the parties and the formal, legal transfer.
As to Leyland’s megalomania, I think it very unfair to tar the company with that brush throughout the 1960s. When the “real” Leyland Motors bought into or bought out companies, it was part of the usual cut and thrust of competitive business. The megalomania only came in with the setting up of British Leyland which was a nonsense in every respect and would have been equally so had there been no car division. What the Wilson Government seemed to want to achieve is what Attlee failed to do in the nationalisation of 1948, i.e. nationalise the production of road transport vehicles along side the nationalisation of the greater part of the geographical spread of the public transport providers in the UK

Phil Blinkhorn

15/04/13 – 17:50

I cannot agree with your view of the underlying reason for the formation of BLMC in 1968. At that time, BMC was close to disintegration through inept economic management – for example, the Mini sold for less than it cost to produce – and poor market perception. Fearful of the wider economic effects of industrial collapse in much of the West Midlands, the Wilson government persuaded Donald Stokes to take over BMC. It formed no part of a longer term desire to nationalise road vehicle production, and Attlee certainly had no such objective. The subsequent state takeover became a necessity for survival when the BLMH empire in turn faced failure. The later Heath government, despite its trumpeted Selsdon “lame duck” policy, took a similar view when Rolls Royce faced collapse in 1971, and full nationalisation again seemed the only answer. The ultimate Leyland story is one of the great ‘might have beens’, but economic policies are always easier to apply with the benefit of hindsight.
Back on the gearbox discussion, Daimler had been making vehicle preselectors under SCG licence since 1930, and unquestionably contributed greatly to the financial security of the SCG company. In addition to its own vehicles, Daimler supplied the gearboxes for the London AEC fleet until Southall was able to manufacture for itself. Possibly, by the late 1950s, Leyland recognised the great experience of the Daimler company, and bought in these units rather than expand in house production which might have led to initial teething troubles. We can but conjecture.

Roger Cox

16/04/13 – 08:16

Without wanting to turn this thread into a debate on the history of UK politics, Attlee was elected in 1945 on a platform of nationalisation based on the later notorious Labour party Clause 4. Road transport was an area which proved particularly thorny to nationalise. As early as the end of 1945 the Cabinet dropped any thought of nationalising the vehicle industry en masse, hard fought campaigns by BET and municipal transport departments reduced the intended coverage of the 1947 Act so that the only chassis manufacturer to be included was Bristol and only the Tilling Group and London Transport were nationalised.

Phil Blinkhorn

Devon General – Leyland Atlantean – 901 DTT – DL901

Devon General - Leyland Atlantean - 901 DTT - DL901

Devon General Omnibus & Touring Co Ltd
1960
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Roe H44/31F

The ugly lines of the Park Royal inspired Roe bodies on the early Atlantean chassis are barely disguised by the Devon General livery in this photo taken in Teignmouth on a sunny day in July 1973. I suppose we should be thankful that it hasn’t yet succumbed to the insipid NBC poppy red colour scheme.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

04/01/16 – 06:27

I’ve seen plenty of examples of poorly located bus stops, but this one looks to be an extremely challenging stop to catch a bus from!

petras409

04/01/16 – 06:28


Copyright Unknown

Ian, I think a lot of the problem with the appearance of DL901 arises from the over-zealous use of front facing advertising literature coupled with the opening front lights which really squash up the windows. Sheffield had half a dozen similar Roe-bodied Atlanteans which I personally find quite pleasing to the eye bearing in mind it was early days for mass produced rear engine machines.

John Darwent

04/01/16 – 09:44

I think the stop in question was only for top-loaders, ie, those of “O (seating) (doorway)” layout.

Pete Davies

04/01/16 – 09:45

petras409 makes a fair point about the bus stop, if it is for the road on which 901 is travelling, but I think it could be positioned for buses using the road where the people (possibly aging bus spotters marking off numbers in their Ian Allan fleet book) are sitting. Perhaps a member of this site knows the location in question, and if buses traverted/traverse that section of road.
In today’s more disability conscious world I doubt if that bench would be allowed to be placed in the middle of the footpath.

Stephen Howarth

04/01/16 – 16:43

As suggested, the surroundings are more puzzling than the bus! As John D says, the design of early rear engined decker bodies was very much based on function, as Roe designs generally always were. Peaks, glass fibre mouldings, one piece windscreens and fairings came later. This bus has its traits exaggerated by- possibly- the camera angle and the white roof, plus as noted, the window vents. The interesting bit is the bus stop sign and the bench! Possibly the road was not wide enough for two buses of this width to pass (and had only one pavement?) and perhaps there was a one way system for them with a bus stop opposite the seat… but did people sit with their backs to the road? What was the view that demanded a seat to see it, over a busy, noisy main road? Odd.

Joe

04/01/16 – 16:44

The location is on the outskirts of Teignmouth, and the Atlantean is just descending the “ramp” to Shaldon Bridge, where it would cross the Teign, before heading off along the clifftop run to Maidencombe, St Marychurch and Torquay (present day route 11). The stop certainly relates to the road on the left, which is the main road to Newton Abbot – present day route 2 from Exeter via Exminster, Dawlish, Teignmouth – a journey that takes an hour and three-quarters, every 20 minutes throughout the day.

Stephen Ford

04/01/16 – 16:45

I think that the bus is taking the approach to the T’mouth to Shaldon Bridge and the road on the left is the one to Newton Abbott.
It is feasible that there was at that time a stop on both roads explaining the white sign to the left of the pole but the orange rectangle to the right of the pole doesn’t look like a bus stop sign.
The seat is, as you say, in the middle of the pavement but is facing that way because that is the view across the estuary.

John Lomas

05/01/16 – 06:03

The bus 901 is on the road to Shaldon via a road bridge and en route to Torquay via the coast road. The bus spotters or tourist are looking out over the River Teign from beside the bus stop for the number 2 to Newton Abbot which goes along beside the River, on the top road. A great shot of 901 in our traditional colours.

Iain

05/01/16 – 06:04

Thank you, Stephen and John, for informing us about the location. Has the stop been declared busy enough or exposed enough to warrant a shelter? One with a normal-sized roof must surely try attaching itself to any “unwary” vehicles coming the other way, up the hill. As my shelter supplier used to say, “It needs a fence panel with an ironing board as a roof.”

Pete Davies

05/01/16 – 06:05

I always thought that Devon General’s livery was superb. The Metro-Cammell bodied Atlanteans were far more attractive than these, especially when viewed from the rear.

Don McKeown

05/01/16 – 15:46

Here’s the approximate location on Streetview : https://www.google.co.uk/maps/

Stephen Ford

05/01/16 – 17:07

As seen in Stephen’s Google link, the site of the old bus stop is shown by the concrete post still standing near the seat just a few yards down from the present stop.

John Darwent

06/01/16 – 05:43

Although not too clear, there is also a bench in the same place as before, but facing the road this time, with not so impressive a view as before!

Chris Hebbron

06/01/16 – 05:44

Nice shot, even to the point of the Austin A40 (seen heading away from camera) being in matching colours to the bus. An extraordinary coincidence!

Grahame Arnold

06/01/16 – 16:38

The problem with this body design is that the upper deck windows are relatively shallow, and are also set high relative to the general level of the roof (i.e. the roof is also shallow). This ruins the proportions of the bus as a whole, particularly in the case of full height vehicles, and also has the additional disadvantage that the upper deck windows are too high set for small children to see out. I don’t think the opening front windows really make a difference, but the layout of the colours of the DG livery is not really flattering in this case.
The upper deck structure appears to be the same as those infamous Leyland Titans that Southampton CT purchased in the early 1960s, and it also looks the same as that on the early Weymann/MCW lowheight Atlanteans. The lower vehicles looked more acceptable, because the proportions were better balanced, with equal depth windows on the lower deck.
There may be good practical and functional reasons for having shallower windows on the upper deck, but the outward appearance can be compromised. The MCW Orion suffered in this respect, but at least the upper deck windows were set lower, and the deeper roof improved the overall look, compared to these PRV/Roe vehicles.

Nigel Frampton

07/01/16 – 06:15

Nigel, I have often wondered whether the shallower windows on the upper deck of such vehicles was an attempt by the bodybuilder(s) to standardise the upper deck structure for both lowbridge and highbridge models. Upper deck framing, window glasses, window rubbers, emergency exits and front and rear domes would then be identical regardless of overall height. Also, given that front and rear domes were increasingly being fabricated from GRP around that time, perhaps utilising only one shape for the front and one for the back would have made production easier, and/or reduced costs. The influence of the BET Group on bus design should not be underestimated either, and may well have played a part in some designs having a similar ‘look’, despite being from different bodybuilders. These are just thoughts mind.

Brendan Smith

07/01/16 – 06:18

John D – that’s a superb shot of Sheffield 945, looks as though it was brand new when photographed. Thanks for posting. Nigel, I’d not related the shallower roof of the Roe vs the MCW versions of the bodies on early Atlanteans – that makes the difference.

Ian Wild

08/01/16 – 06:42

I don’t have any records on Devon General’s early Roe bodied Atlanteans, but a shufti on Ebay and Flickr have thrown up interesting anomalies. Amongst the photos of the batch which are subject of this thread, are those of 898 898 DTT, 905 DTT and 901 901 DTT which are shown with the opening front windows on the upper deck and the destination indicator in a mid position between decks. Also shown are pictures of 908 908 DTT and 901 901 DTT (again) but without opening front windows and with the destination indicator moved to a much lower position. The latter two pictures show the buses with the awful NBC red. So, the question is, was there a partial rebuilding programme of this batch?

John Darwent

08/01/16 – 06:44

Brendan, I believe that you are correct. I have certainly seen the suggestion that the PRV/Roe bodies with shallow upper deck windows came about as a result of BET pressure on costs repeated elsewhere. Standardisation obviously brings benefits, and it certainly wasn’t invented by the NBC! The Tilling/BTC/THC group managed it as well, but with a lot more style than these PRV upper decks.
I presume, and I guess that you can confirm this, that there will be more common parts than just the windows themselves, but presumably some elements of the framework under the skin as well? As far as I can tell, the lengths of the windows on an ECW bodied F-series Lodekka, a VRT and an RELL, were the same, but the depths were different. I suppose, even if it was only the glass, there would still be scope for standardisation of window sliders and hoppers, but I can imagine the operators would have been looking for more.
The kings of window size standardisation seem to have been Ulsterbus. The X type body, fitted to Bristol RELL and Leyland Leopard chassis made extensive use of a standard plain glass, but the last side window was a different shape. The successor body (N type) went even further, using only that standard size, including the window in the rear panel. At around the same time, Ulsterbus were buying several secondhand Bristol REs, and they generally stuck to ECW bodies to ensure standardisation. I recall a comment from the management of the company, during a visit there around 1985, saying that they had also bought one (or possibly more) Bristol RESL-8s from Ribble, and they were most disappointed to find that the windows were a different length!

Nigel Frampton

08/01/16 – 10:49

John D,
The repositioning of the destination boxes on Devon General Atlanteans was the result of One Manning during the 1970s. They had all been delivered with conductor operation in mind, so the destination displays could be changed upstairs, in front of the front seats. Originally, they were nice and clear, with two lines of destination (ultimate and via points), as shown in the picture above.
But, as part of the conversion to OMO, the blind boxes were masked down to a single ultimate display and lowered, so that they could be wound from the diver’s seat.
This gave the front view a very unbalanced aspect and particularly disfigured the lovely Sea Dog convertible Atlanteans, in their cream and maroon reversed livery.
This OMO conversion didn’t affect the upper deck windows, as most of the Atlanteans continued to have opening front windows after the conversion. The pictures you have seen with plain glass may be the result of upper deck repairs following damage.
Western National also bought a large batch of MCW Atlanteans from Maidstone & District and similarly ‘uglyfied’ them too, with lower blind boxes.

Petras409

08/01/16 – 16:59

Petras409. Many thanks for the interesting explanation regarding the changed appearance of some of the batch.

John Darwent

King Alfred – Leyland Atlantean – REU 52E/HOR592E

King Alfred - Leyland Atlantean - REU 52E

King Alfred Motor Services
1967
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/2
Roe H43/33F

Here is a Leyland Atlantean PDR1/2 with Roe H76F body, from the fleet of King Alfred Motor Services, Winchester. EU was a Brecknockshire (or Breconshire) registration before 1974, when it passed to Bristol, and King Alfred Motor Services never bought any buses from an operator in that area, so what’s going on? It is really HOR 592E and it has carried VCL 461 as well, but it has reverted to the original plate since I captured this view on 25 April 1993. This was a running day to mark 20 years since the sale of the company to Hants & Dorset.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

03/06/16 – 06:41

HOR 591E

Here is fellow Atlantean HOR 591E seen re entering Winchester on route 11 from Basingstoke in 1970. My first experience of a journey on a Metro Scania (single decker) was on this route in the following year on one of the King Alfred examples. I was not greatly impressed with the rather wallowing standard of ride. R. Chisnell & Sons Ltd, t/a King Alfred Motor Services, ceased operation on 28 April 1973, and the three King Alfred Metro Scanias went to London Country for use on the Stevenage Superbus services. They only lasted until 1977/78, when they were less than seven years old.

Roger Cox

04/06/16 – 06:49

Fellow independents West Riding and South Yorkshire also had Atlaneans with this style of Roe body. All date from around the same time and I’ve often wondered if the small King Alfred and South Yorkshire batches were tagged onto the West Riding order.

Chris Hough

04/06/16 – 06:50

Thanks, Roger. One thing that many cannot understand about KAMS is the continuing use of a number on the destination blind after the introduction of a separate box for the number. I have read that the direction of any particular service was achieved through a simple half turn of the blind, and I’m supposing that it allowed for interchange of blinds between vehicles but, as I noted above, many find it an odd arrangement. The half turn of the blind was useful in a number of cases, such as a series of Hants & Dorset routes from Southampton, where we had Southampton Woodlands, Woodlands Cadnam, Cadnam Nomansland – all very easy for the skilled conductor to do!

Pete Davies

04/06/16 – 06:51

Pete,
King Alfred HOR592E was taken over by Hants & Dorset as number 2304 in 1973. Then passing to Bristol as number 8600 in 1979.
It passed to the newly formed Badgerline in January 1986 still as 8600 (HOR592E), being re-registered to VCL461 in May 1986.
Upon sale by Badgerline in 1990, it was re-registered to REU52E which was issued by Bristol LVLO.

Dave Farrier

05/06/16 – 07:17

In answer to Chrish Hough’s query about the similarity of livery, I suggest a look at Philip Rushworth’s views in respect of the KAMS Renowns. It seems that the good folk at Charles H Roe made more than one mistake!

Pete Davies

05/06/16 – 07:18

I think that the featuring of the route number within the destination display was simply a measure to allow standardisation of the blinds between single and double deck vehicles, and those double deckers that did not have a separate route number box, like the Guy Arab utilities. Once upon a time this practice might have been disparaged as being “overcareful wi’ munnie”, but it has since gone up considerably in the world and is now graced with the name of “Recycling”. There is an informative web page about King Alfred:- www.fokab.org.uk

Roger Cox

05/06/16 – 07:19

King Alfred bought a batch of four of these Roe bodied Atlanteans, as a result of a shrewd purchase, through the continuation of a batch in build for West Riding. HOR 589-592E all passed on to Hants & Dorset and, after four or five years, were transferred to Bristol Omnibus and subsequently Badgerline. 589 was numbered 8603; 590 was 8602; 591 was 8601; and 592 was 8600. Three of them were converted to open top in 1979 for service in Weston-super-Mare and later in Bath. The exception was 591 (8601), which retained its roof and seems to have been used as a driver training vehicle and general engineers’ runabout. I saw 591 at Lawrence Hill many years ago and it looked very down at heel.
In 1983, 589 was scrapped. In the same year, 591 was bought by the Friends of King Alfred Buses as a derelict wreck for £40. It was cosmetically returned to King Alfred condition for the running day in 1984. Subsequently, in 1990, FoKAB bought open top 592, which was in much better condition, both bodily and mechanically. But King Alfred had never operated open top buses, so the decision was taken in 1992 to dispose of 591 and transfer its roof to open top 592. This involved parking the two buses close alongside and all screws and fixtures were undone. Then a gang of volunteers lifted the roof and windows from 591 and slid it across to 592. Then a hasty clamber down the stairs of 591 and up the stairs of 592 to receive the roof and begin the process of fitting the roof. The story goes that, despite the two vehicles being from an identical batch, 591’s roof was about ¾ inch longer than the recipient 592. But it was persuaded into place and the remainder of 591 was scrapped.
592 had been re-registered VCL 461, but this registration was retained by Badgerline and subsequently used on a hybrid drive Mercedes minibus, which was experimentally used in Portsmouth, but that’s another story. So 592 was sold with the temporary registration REU 32E, until its proper HOR 592E could be reassigned.
So what you see in the pictures above are indeed 592, with the roof of 591, during the very short period that it operated without its proper registration. And, the lower picture, of the same roof on 591,but the rest of that bus no longer exists.
Finally, as a tailpiece the remaining member of the batch, 590 was acquired by FoKAB in 1987, but, as there are no more suitable roofs available, that remains in open top condition and is a favourite vehicle for rides around Winchester on sunny days.

Peter Murnaghan

06/06/16 – 06:46

Thank you Roger C and Peter M. It’s always good to read your thoughts. Is Peter M still attending “The Castle” or has he now retired from there? I retired from Southampton about 8 years ago.

Pete Davies

07/06/16 – 07:07

Thanks for your kind words, Pete. Now resident in Liskeard, Peter M was released from captivity in The Castle five years ago.

Peter Murnaghan

Huddersfield Corporation – Karrier E6 – AVH 497 – 497

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

Huddersfield Corporation
1938
Karrier E6
Park Royal H?/?R – rebuilt 1950 Roe H36/30R

Karrier E6 497 is seen in the mid fifties in Huddersfield Town centre on a through service from Brackenhall to Lockwood. This trolleybus formerly had a Park Royal body and entered service in 1938 but was withdrawn for a new Roe body fitted in 1950. The Corporation Transport Works carried out an extensive refurbishment work on the Karrier E6 chassis, control equipment and traction motor. Roe supplied an external body shell which was then internally finished by Huddersfield.
Twenty eight pre-war Karrier E6 trolleybuses were rebuilt in this way over a period from 1950 to 1954. Trolleybus 497 was in the first group of seven and coded class J1(R) and also one of a few with a narrow cream line rather than a cream band below the upper deck windows. Huddersfield continued this process of fitting new bodies to older chassis with their post-war Sunbeam MS2s from 1955 onwards up to 1962.
By 1963 all the Karrier E6 rebuilds were gone as route conversions to motorbuses took a hold. This rebodying process was always referred to by Huddersfield as a rebuild which was true for the pre-war Karrier E6s but perhaps not so for the post-war Sunbeam MS2s that received new Roe and East Lancs bodies.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse

07/01/12 – 16:03

This comment less pic looks lonely. Could I set the ball rolling by querying the Roe-ness of this body? It seems to have a seam up the middle as if it was made like an Easter-egg. The driver’s corner looks Roe, but what about those bumps/vents above the full windows on the lower deck, and where’s the “familiar” trunking for the electrics between the upper deck windows.. and then there’s the bumpers. Must have been a hot day although they’re still wearing jackets….

Joe

07/01/12 – 17:49

Definitely a Roe body Joe. A lot of people think that the beading up the middle of the front panel was a result of partial replacement of the panel due to accident damage but I’m not so sure. If you look at almost any picture of a post war bodied Huddersfield Trolley, be it Park Royal, Roe or East Lancs they all seem to have this seam up the middle, even on pictures of new buses therefore I think it was a specification of the corporation. The front (and rear) bumpers were also a specification of the corporation on most batches of postwar bodies with the exception of the final batch of new trolley’s, 1959 Sunbeam S7A’s with E/Lancs bodies which had a removable panel at the bottom for use with a swan neck tow bar. These bumpers had variations of between three and five polished strips along them as well as other minor variations, even among vehicles of the same batch. These bumpers were usually discarded at first body overhaul.
I think that on this batch of bodies the trunking for the electrics may have run down the middle pillar of the front windows. This could certainly explain the front dome being split by beading to facilitate maintenance. Many of Huddersfield’s Roe trolleybuses even had vents in the front dome, as did the batch of 1958 Roe bodied exposed radiator Regent V’s for the JOC.
As an aside, the locals of Huddersfield always referred to the Trolleybuses as “Trolley’s” and the diesel buses as “Petrol’s”. I can well remember an aunt of mine still calling the buses Petrol’s well into the 1970’s long after the trolley’s had gone.

Eric

07/01/12 – 17:56

Funny that Joe should say this. I hadn’t noticed any of those details, but what I did notice was that the upstairs rear emergency door window is divided in a manner that doesn’t look like contemporary Roe practice. I would have expected it to be either a single rectangular window, such as seen, for instance, on the internal shot of the “Ideal Service” Leyland PD2, or the earlier divided version in which the top frame of the two parts forms an arch, as seen on Ian Gibbs rear shot of the East Yorkshire (Beverley Bar) PD1. I guess there were many oddities with rebuilds. Does anyone have a rear view of one of these beasts?

Stephen Ford

08/01/12 – 07:55

Geoff Lumb’s excellent Roe/Optare book confirms the Roeness of the body. The two piece window in the rear emergency door was rare but not unknown. I think it was a Huddersfield quirk.

David Oldfield

08/01/12 – 07:56

Stephen, this is yet another oddity of Huddersfield. With very few early exceptions, ie: six NCB lowbridge Regent III’s delivered in 1949, almost all Huddersfield post war double deck bodies, be they trolleybus, motorbus, highbridge or lowbridge, Corporation or JOC, had divided rear windows on both decks until the advent of the first Fleetlines in 1967

Forgot to mention Stephen, whilst not of this particular batch of bodies there are a couple of rear views of the 1951 batch of Sunbeam MS2’s which had almost identical bodies when new, in the book ‘Huddersfield Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood published by Middelton Press in 2002

Eric

08/01/12 – 07:57

Stephen, to answer your query about the upper-deck rear window being divided, this was a feature specified by Huddersfield for all their post-war Roe bodies for both their trolleybuses and motorbuses.

Richard Fieldhouse

08/01/12 – 07:58

The twenty Rotherham Daimler single-deck trolleybuses that were rebodied as double deckers by Roe also had a divided emergency window, nothing like the standard single rectangular window that was fitted to three Roe motor bus bodies delivered to Rotherham around the same time, and which were followed later by many more.
What was most odd about the twenty trolleybus bodies, however, was the divided rear lower saloon window, definitely non-standard, but very eye catching all the same. I’ve often wondered who in the Crossgates drawing office dreamt that one up.

Dave Careless

08/01/12 – 07:58

Yet another interesting feature of Huddersfield Trolley’s was that the rear platform was at the same level as the lower deck floor, accessed by two steps on the platform edge, rather than the more usual lower platform and riser step into the lower saloon. Another unusual feature (am I boring you?) of the JOC motorbuses of this period was that the handrails on the rear entrances were insulated in black plastic, as per the requirement on trolleybuses, rather than the more normal plain aluminium. Right! I’ll shut up for now, (unless I think of something else) and hope my snippets have been of interest to somebody, somewhere.

Eric

08/01/12 – 16:35

When Wallace Arnold had the Daimler saloons acquired from Farsley Omnibus rebodied as double deckers they also had the large step flat floor to the platform layout.

Chris Hough

08/01/12 – 16:52

Yes, Eric, they are! The steps-up-to-rear-platform flat-floor layout was also found on some Roe motorbuses- eg Doncaster- in the fifties. Must be good for clippies.

Joe

09/01/12 – 07:28

3203

Here is a photograph of Huddersfield Daimler 431 at Holmbridge showing the two piece emergency exit. This was not unique to Huddersfield – Halifax’s Roe-bodied PD2s had this feature, in their case with each half containing a sliding ventilator.

David Beilby

09/01/12 – 07:29

Well Joe, you certainly got the ball rolling, the pic doesn’t look quite as lonely now!

Eric

10/01/12 – 07:15

I think you will find some reference to Halifax’s small batch of petrol engined AEC Regents in Geoffrey Hilditch’s excellent book Steel Wheels and Rubber Tyres Vol 2. They were delivered in April 1939 with Roe bodies and numbered 201-204, they were fitted with 9.6 litre twin carburettor petrol engines and proved more than capable of holding their own against the trolleybuses. A fuel consumption of around 3.5 mpg and war time restrictions saw them all receiving standard 8.8 litre diesels within a year of the outbreak of war. The above information is quoted from page 52 of the book mentioned initially.

Diesel Dave

11/01/12 – 06:40

Further to Eric’s comment on the level of the rear platform, I have a vague memory that this was due to the design of the Karrier chassis. I cannot now remember where I read this. If this is true, did Karrier trolleybuses for other users (eg Doncaster) have this feature? And did Huddersfield perpetuate the design on other makes of trolleybus chassis in order to maintain consistent passenger awareness, even if other makes would have allowed the more usual rear platform level? Maybe someone with a clearer memory or knowledge can deny or confirm this.

Michael Hampton

11/01/12 – 08:51

!cid_DSCN0214

In answer to Michael’s question, the Karrier E6 chassis operated at Huddersfield had spectacle frames at the rear end, so no drop frame was possible and a high platform was a necessary feature. Above is a photo of Huddersfield Karrier E6 frame ex 470 at Sandtoft which shows this spectacle feature. All Huddersfield’s post-war trolleybuses had a drop frame chassis but they continued to specify the high platform for continuity. The only trolleybus operated in Huddersfield with a low platform was the AEC 663T/EEC no 6 later renumbered 406 and delivered in December 1933. I do believe other Karrier E6 trolleybuses such as those at Doncaster had a double step rear platform.

Richard Fieldhouse

15/01/12 – 07:14

Joe,
I’ve had another look at the photo of 497 and looking at the front dome I don’t think it has been divided. What looks at first to be beading down the middle appears, on closer inspection, to be a shadow cast in the strong sunlight, possibly by an overhead cable.

Eric

Leave it with me for a while will do some close ups

497 close up 2
497 close up 1

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

15/01/12 – 16:32

I’m still thinking it’s a trunking or a moulding- very central- who knows?!
Going back to the step-up rear platform on motorbuses too- one example is the late Tony Peart’s Doncaster 122, an AEC/Roe with those funny cranked seats as well. I think there were other similar ones in the fleet around that time. Perhaps the idea came from necessity with these trolley rebodies.

Joe

16/01/12 – 07:39

Joe I remember asking Tony Peart once about the unusual seating arrangement in Doncaster 122 and he was able to explain to me the reasoning behind it.
Unfortunately I can’t remember what he told me.

Eric

16/01/12 – 07:42

West Riding’s Guy Arab IVs also had that platform layout – it was less obvious on the KHL-registered batch as they had folding doors which meant the platform step was set well inside and is very difficult to see on photographs. I have a theory as to why this layout was adopted and it relates to the combination of lowbridge layout and the safety staircase (which is why it only appears on Roe bodies). The problem with the safety staircase is that it tends to be longer as it’s largely straight. This is why early postwar Roe bodies have only 25 seats downstairs instead of the usual seat as the offside rear wheelarch seat was only for two.
This long staircase causes a problem with lowbridge bodies as you have difficulty getting to the rear seats. If the first step is incorporated in the platform, as with this design, that makes the staircase shorter and can help with the layout. As it was the penultimate row on the KHL Guy Arabs only seated two with the rear row seating three.

David Beilby

West Riding – Guy Wulfrunian – THL 898 – 898


Copyright Roger Cox

West Riding Automobile
1961
Guy Wulfrunian
Roe H43/32F

This shot is from the Roger Cox gallery contribution titled “West Riding Guy Wulfrunians” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments.
The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.

09/12/15 – 06:14

I remember the West Riding Wulfs which ran on the Ossett 20 which past our house on its way to Wakefield, I was very lucky to have a bus stop at the opposite side of the road to our house where I lived as a bus mad 7 year old. When we first moved in to the house the Wulfs were red and cream, colours that the trams used to have I think but during the time living at Sowood Lane there livery changed to green and cream, then the front seats upstairs went and older buses Guy Arabs and ex Midland General Bristol Lds appeared and then Lodekkas from Bristol and finally Fleetlines and Atleateans arrived happy days Ossettt bus Station with with Wulfs hissing assay and Yorkshire Woollen AEC Regent 5s. Isn’t strange that Volvo went to look at the Wulf and built something called Ailsa now that didn’t do too bad did it.

Dave Parkin

West Riding – Guy Wulfrunian – WHL 968 – 968


Copyright Roger Cox

West Riding Automobile
1963
Guy Wulfrunian
Roe H43/32F

This shot is from the Roger Cox gallery contribution titled “West Riding Guy Wulfrunians” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments.
The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.

West Riding – Guy Wulfrunian – WHL 975 – 975


Copyright Roger Cox


Copyright Roger Cox

West Riding Automobile
1963
Guy Wulfrunian
Roe H43/32F

These shots are from the Roger Cox gallery contribution titled “West Riding Guy Wulfrunians” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments.
The shots are shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.

West Riding – Guy Wulfrunian – BHL 369C – 1018


Copyright Roger Cox

West Riding Automobile
1965
Guy Wulfrunian
Roe H43/32F

This shot is from the Roger Cox gallery contribution titled “West Riding Guy Wulfrunians” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments.
The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.

Bury Corporation – Guy Wulfrunian – LEN 101 – 101

Bury Corporation - Guy Wulfrunian - LEN 101 - 101

Bury Corporation
1961
Guy Wulfrunian
Roe H43/30F

LEN 101 was the solitary Guy Wulfrunian purchased by Bury Corporation in 1961.(Fleet number 101.) It had Roe H43/30F bodywork, but carried a Park Royal manufacturers’ plate. This was to allow it to be exhibited at the 1960 Commercial Motor Show; as the Roe stand already had enough exhibits, there being strict limits on the number of vehicles each manufacturer was allowed to display. It had another unique feature, three part platform doors. Bury Corporation ran the Wulfrunian for only three years, and for much of this time it was relegated to peak hour use. It was sold to an independent operator in South Wales, Howell and Withers, who painted it grey and white, but only operated it for a short time before selling the bus to Wrights, Penycae in August 1964. Wrights operated it on their stage service into Wrecsam for five years.. Wrights painted the bus into this attractive two tone blue livery. It was with Wrights that I had my only ride on this bus. Eventually LEN 101 was sold again, this time to Berresfords of Cheddleton, who operated the bus for only a few days. Apparently drivers complained about the heavy steering; so proprietor Jim Berresford took it for a test drive, after which he dumped it in the field behind the Depot, where this photo was taken.
The Wulfrunian was eventually rescued by a group of preservationists from the Manchester area, with the intention of restoring it to Bury Corporation’s light green and cream livery. It was parked in the yard at the rear of Manchester’s Hyde Road depot, which was used for initial training by the PTE’s driving school. Sadly, one of the training buses reversed into the Wulfrunian, and it’s body was written off.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown

27/11/14 – 06:21

Apart from the grilles for the Cave-Brown-Cave system, the really fascinating thing about this bus is what on earth prompted Bury, a Leyland/AEC operator to plump for a Guy and without the Leyland engine option Guy offered. Further, how did the purchase slip past the Transport Committee.

Phil Blinkhorn

27/11/14 – 14:15

Looking at its one-off status and commercial motor show exhibit background, followed by Bury’s operational lack of enthusiasm, this may have been an offer that they couldn’t refuse, but then didn’t quite know what to do with it.

Stephen Ford

27/11/14 – 17:23

LEN 101_3

Further to Don McKeown’s post on the Bury Corporation Wulfrunian LEN 101, I attach a picture of it after being damaged in the Training School yard at Manchester’s Hyde Road Depot.
It was apparently a Mancunian which did the damage.
This picture is from my collection and is not my copyright.

Stephen Howarth

28/11/14 – 06:41

I think it is easy to overlook the high level of interest shown in the Wulfrunian at the time of its introduction. Operators were looking for a forward entrance high capacity bus but there was a lot of nervousness about the rear engine concept offered in the Atlantean. The two demonstrators were kept very busy and appeared with many of the large operators.
Bury was just about to start on a major fleet update to replace their fleet of early post-war PD1’s and PD2’s and 101 was probably bought as a test bed for a potential replacement vehicle. They could have saved a lot of money and heartache if they had taken one of the demonstrators for a spell.
I remember 101 with Bury and it seemed to spend most of its life parked by the doorway of the Rochdale Road garage. I was told by one of the fitters that it was disliked by drivers because of the heavy steering and very cramped cab. I did see it in service on the 9 (Jericho – Tottington) and 37 (Walmersley – Whitefield) occasionally.
It is a great pity that it was damaged in the collision at Hyde Road as despite its failings, it was a key part of the transport heritage of the north west. I believe the chassis still exists at Dewsbury Bus Museum. Can anyone confirm?

Philip Halstead

28/11/14 – 06:46

LEN 101_2

The chassis still survives, and is currently parked among undergrowth at a preservation site near Selby, where it is owned by Mr. Ian Hunter of Leeds. The above photo shows the chassis as it was in the summer of 2014.

Don McKeown

28/11/14 – 14:36

I am pleased to see that this rare chassis still survives, I hope it can be restored before it rusts away. I’m sure the steering will not feel so heavy without the bodywork.

Ron Mesure

29/11/14 – 07:16

I’ve got it in my head that Wright’s of Penycae were not the second Welsh independent to operate LEN 101, but the third. I could even suggest a third operator’s name – can anyone confirm?
As to why Bury didn’t insist on the use of one of the demonstrators (are we sure they didn’t have one?), the borrowing of a manufacturer’s demonstrator wasn’t something which was as easy as people probably imagine. A manufacturer needed to be sure there was an order in the offing before a demonstrator became a possibility. I have actually been in an operator’s office when the operator asked the rep if there was any possibility of having a vehicle on demonstration, and the response was an emphatic ‘no’.
As to whether the use of a demo would have helped depends upon how quickly the Wulfrunian’s failings made themselves felt. In view of how quickly operators generally disposed of them the answer would appear to be, very quickly indeed, yet West Riding continued to buy them until 1965.
Were West Riding simply stubbornly reluctant to admit they’d made a mistake, or were they obliged to buy a certain number as part of the original deal?

David Call

30/11/14 – 06:33

I remember in the 60`s Bury did have an Atlantean from Coventry, it was in the colours of Coventry, Blue with a white band. It was a surprise as I was going home from my then girlfriend from Bolton to Bury, I remember the driver telling me it was on loan from Coventry. I remember LEN 101, it seems a shame lying in the under growth with no body.

David Henighan

30/11/14 – 09:55

I know you can’t always rely on Wiki, but, the Wulfrunian article on there says that it was developed jointly by Guy and West Riding.

John Lomas

01/12/14 – 07:12

If that was the training bus that did the damage, then I’m hardly surprised that the poor trainee didn’t have full control of the Macunian. From the photo, it doesn’t look as though it’s got an engine !

Petras409

01/12/14 – 07:13

Referring to Philip Halstead’s post, scroll down here for several views of LEN 101 including one in colour of the bus on the 37 Whitefield. //jsh1949.co.uk/GUY%20WULFRUNIAN.htm

John Darwent

01/12/14 – 07:14

In the book ‘Forgotten Double Deckers’ by David Harvey there is a section on the Guy Wulfrunian and a piece that reads:
Quote
The Development of the “Wulfrunian”
Guy Motors were going to be left behind in the race to develop an up-to-date low height 30′ long chassis, until West Riding Motors of Wakefield, at the instigation of their chief engineer, Ron Brooke, approached Guys with an advanced specification for such a chassis.
Unquote

David Slater

01/12/14 – 07:15

In the mid 1950s, following the lead of General Motors in the USA, whose GMC type 4104 air suspended Scenicruiser had been adopted by Greyhound from 1953, Guy Motors became convinced that the future for successful passenger chassis sales lay in air suspension. This initial interest led to the underfloor engined Victory, which had air suspension all round, independent at the front, and air hydraulic disc brakes. The first Victory appeared in 1958, and during the model’s development, Ron Brooke, the Chief Engineer of West Riding, approached Guy with the idea of a low frame double deck chassis incorporating the air suspension features of the Victory, but employing a simple, straight drive line from a front mounted engine. This, it was thought, would give a reliable drive line and permit the entire interior of the lower deck to be used for passenger accommodation. At this time the early Atlanteans were suffering extreme problems with their rear engines/gearboxes and angled drive lines. It would seem that he had hawked his ideas round other manufacturers to no avail (I bet that all those sceptical makers breathed huge sighs of relief when the Wulfrunian’s troubles came home to roost). West Riding was a confirmed user of Gardner engines in its Arab fleet, and the 6LX was chosen as the power unit of the new Wulfrunian. Though not a heavy engine in comparison with its contemporaries from other UK manufacturers, the 6LX was physically large, and positioning it as far to the offside as possible to allow a respectable platform area resulted in a very narrow cab and footwell. To add to the driver’s woes, his/her left leg was unavoidably positioned hard against the engine cover panel, on the far side of which was the Gardner’s offside exhaust assembly. Because of the substantial weight at the extreme front of the overhang, the front wheels had a remarkable negative camber that contributed to the very heavy steering characteristics. The shrouding by the bodywork of the disc braking system sometimes caused the hydraulic fluid to boil, leading to a frightening loss of response. The subsequent history of the Wulfrunian’s operational career is well known, but it is surprising that the deficiencies of the design were not recognised and acted upon in the prototype stages. Looking at the chassis diagrams, it would seem that an answer might have been found by following the AEC ‘Q’ concept, and repositioning the engine to the offside close behind the front wheels. The transmission line would have had to be moved a bit, but the rest of the chassis could have stayed the same. The use of full air rather than air hydraulic for the brakes would have sorted out the braking problem at a stroke. Several modifications were made during the production run to try to fix the problems that arose, but the firm just ran out of money. We now know that Guy was already in severe financial difficulties at this time, following its agency debacle in South Africa, so it just stuck with a flawed design that had gained definite orders from West Riding, and turned a blind eye to the inevitable outcome.

Roger Cox

01/12/14 – 09:55

Petras409, either the photo or Stephen’s comment is misleading. The Training School used a variety of vehicles. Those on the public roads were normally dedicated vehicles, permanently marked with L plates. Within the grounds at Hyde Rd, this wasn’t always the case. It very much looks as if the GMT vehicle has done the damage. If so it looks as if it was a withdrawn vehicle being used ad hoc for basic training which has had its engine removed after the event, but it is a SELNEC/GMT Standard, not a Mancunian.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/12/14 – 14:07

A fascinating tale, Roger: the sad bit is that the design could have been developed in the way that you suggest: sitting in a modern megabus makes you itch to make use of the space under the stairs! You can see now the fundamental flaws in the Wulfrunian design caused by the desire to get a bulky engine, a driver, a staircase and a passenger platform in to 8ft. The curiosity is whether the driver was protected by the engine or couldn’t get into the saloon direct to deal with troublemakers: perhaps a good thing! We were in a time when men were men and standing up to turn the steering to full lock not unknown- but plonking all that weight at one end in the overhang was possibly worse than plonking it at the back. All would have been solved with your Q2 with a touch of Lodekka, perhaps.
What a link, John D to pics of so many Wulfrunians. Did Roe body all the “standard” ones? The Accrington version would have been a good test-bed for a lot of the technology without the overhang problems. Did the Victory have the same sort of problems? And what happened to all those West Riding Wulfrunians- straight to scrap with engines, too?

Joe

02/12/14 – 05:26

Joe, from reports I have read, most if not all of West Riding’s Wulfrunian engines (Gardner 6LXs) went into the ‘Wulfie’ replacement Daimler Fleetlines.

Brendan Smith

02/12/14 – 08:48

Brendan: I wondered about that… the subsequent West Riding VR’s used to gurgle like the Wulfrunians: why did West Riding buy up all those Wulfrunians? To get a load of cheap engines!

Joe

02/12/14 – 14:06

One of the perceived advantages of the Wulfrunian layout was the availability of the entire lower saloon for passenger accommodation. It was rather ironic that, when the excessive front end loading difficulties arose, West Riding removed the upper deck seats in front of the staircase, and barred off that area completely, thus totally negating the extra seating downstairs.

Roger Cox

09/12/14 – 06:17

I followed John D’s link above and….
At the risk of offending anyone on here, I think the only comment I’d make is that the Accrington rear entrance Wulfrunians (picture on John’s link Fleet Number 157 / Registration 36 VTF) deserve an honourable mention on the Ugly Bus Page !!

Stuart C

09/12/14 – 11:56

I’m a fan of East Lancs products (having lived in Stockport for many years that’s a given!) but will accept your nomination and would ask our leader to do the necessary!!

Phil Blinkhorn

10/12/14 – 06:21

Stuart C/Phil: I’ve seen worse- looks better as sold on with the “radiator” panel contrasted. See this link.
If you are putting this bus into Room 101, then you may have to add a BMMO D type- but which one? D7?
But then the D10 is the Wulfrunian that might have been…

Joe

11/12/14 – 06:32

Not the D7, Joe, but the D5, which, with its droopy, sad expression always suggested that it was about to burst into tears. I think that it would take quite a leap of the imagination to visualise the Wulfrunian metamorphosing into the D10:- low floor/high floor, front engine /underfloor engine, air suspension/rubber suspension etc.

Roger Cox

07/01/15 – 09:40

LEN 101_4

Here’s LEN 101 operating for Wrights, loading up in Wrexham Bus Station for Penycae just before 5 pm on 12 April 1969.

Tim Jeffcoat

14/12/15 – 06:22

I always thought most of the Wulfrunian’s failings could be addressed in the following ways:
1) Air operated drum brakes.
2) Steel suspension: At front: Routemaster, unequal wishbone with spring over shockers set up, with the addition (if room) of torsion bars to stiffen the whole thing up and the ability to adjust ride height. With this arrangement front wheel camber angles could have been normalised. On the rear: The coil spring set up as on the F series Bristol Lodekka.
3) Power steering (the contemporary Routemaster had it).
4) ASAP an 8’2 and a half” body, to give the driver.
Put all that together, although front brake and tyre wear are always going to be heavy with this set up, a it might have been largely OK.

James Fawcett

14/11/19 – 05:47

I used the 37 Bus to and from my home in Walmersley, as I as in school in Bury ( Bury GS). I remember the Wulfrunian well and often wondered what happened to it. Very sad, now I know!
Also, I vaguely remember ( the memory isn’t what it used to be!) an AEC Bridgemaster “on trial” around the same time and alsio used on the 30/37 route. Am I wrong?
PS Loved to ride on the two AECs BEN 176 and 177 and pleased one has been preserved. Loved that AEC engine whine!

Al

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

03/08/20 – 06:41

I travelled on LEN 101 to school whilst it was with Bury Corporation and invariably it meant I arrived late for school as the drivers did not like the heavy steering and therefore always seemed to lose time which they could not make up. I seem to remember that it was also owned by Byley Motors in Cheshire for a while at some stage after Bury sold it out of service.

Don Butterworth

Llandudno UDC – Guy Otter – CCC 596

Llandudno UDC - Guy Otter - CCC 596

Llandudno Urban District Council
1954
Guy Otter
Roe B25F

Llandudno UDC was one of Britain’s smaller municipal fleets, and unlike most municipalities, it’s services were aimed at tourists rather than local residents. A fleet of small buses was built up for use principally on the Marine Drive, a 5 mile scenic road around the base of the Great Orme, a 679ft high headland which dominates the local scenery. In the early fifties, a second tour was added which took in some of the inland countryside and then circled the Marine Drive. In 1951 a stage service was introduced which connected the town centre with St. Tudno’s Church, near the summit of the Orme. Two Foden coaches were purchased for this spectacular route; it was said that the journey took 17 minutes, of which nine minutes were in first gear!
CCC 596 was one of a pair of similar vehicles bought in 1954; they were small enough to operate the Marine Drive tour, but could also be used on the St. Tudno’s stage service at quieter times. Like the Fodens, they were fitted with “Spragg Equipment”, a safety device which apparently prevented the vehicles running back on the gradient. These were the last new buses to be bought by Llandudno UDC for fourteen years, until a pair of Dennis buses, based on a lorry chassis, were bought to replace the Fodens. in 1968.
On summer Sunday mornings an open air service was held in St. Tudno’s graveyard, and virtually the whole fleet was pressed into service to carry the crowds; the smaller vehicles ran round part of the Marine Drive before climbing a zig-zag road with easier gradients.
When new these buses, like the rest of the fleet, were painted maroon and cream. In the late sixties they was repainted blue and cream, a livery introduced on the Dennis’s. In 1974, Llandudno UDC was taken over by the new Aberconwy Borough Council, and the red and grey livery shown here was introduced. Bedford SB buses were purchased for the St. Tudno’s route, and several second hand Bedford VAS coaches took over the Marine Drive Tour. Later the stage service passed to Crosville, which resulted in Leyland Nationals climbing the Grat Orme. At this time the upper terminus was moved from St. Tudno’s to the Summit Car Park. After a spell with minibuses, Crosville’s successor, Arriva, now uses Dennis Darts, although only three journeys a day reach the Summit.
The size limit on the Marine Drive no longer applies, and nowadays Alpine Coaches run “Vintage” tours on the Marine Drive using Leyland Tiger Cubs, while the annual Transport Gathering in May sees a variety of old buses and lorries circumnavigating the Orme.
This view shows CCC 596 approaching St Tudno’s Church on the Sunday morning alternative route from the Marine Drive.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown

29/10/13 – 13:29

Nice view, Don, and a very interesting caption. Thanks for posting. I’ve only ever been to Llandudno once, on a boat trip from Liverpool. It was running so late that my parents and I just had time to disembark and join the queue for boarding again!

Pete Davies

30/10/13 – 07:15

I remember taking the Marine Drive trip in the mid 50’s but we had a small normal control Guy, definitely petrol engined but I don’t know what model.
I also remember the Fodens on the mountain route. Formidable looking machines!

Bob Hunter

30/10/13 – 11:54

Here’s a webpage with full details of all the early buses going to Great Orme.
I like the Guy Wolf, which had detachable sides. It states that a surprising number of these vehicles survive and there’s a photo of a selection on the GO at the bottom of the page.
Link to view: www.llantransfest.co.uk/l

Chris Hebbron

31/10/13 – 07:27

This is shown in Classic Bus 127 and described as a Dennis Stork school bus owned by the former London County Council!

Paragon

19/10/16 – 06:17

Nope this is one of only 2 Guy Otters new in 1954 to Llandudno and District Urban Council. They were fitted with a ratchet brake so as to stop them sliding back on the steep hill of the Great Orme.
They were registered CCC 596 and CCC 597.
As far as we know CCC 597 was used as a hen hut.
CCC 596 was bought by Alpine Coaches of Llandudno in about 1992 and Mike Jones an Alpine Mechanic (and my brother) spent over a 1000 hours restoring it.
We travelled to many shows in the 90’s with it and won many trophies.
Alpine still own it but it doesn’t get out much these days.

David Jones