Tag: Roe

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

Darlington Corporation – Guy Arab III – THN 357 – 45

Darlington Corporation - Guy Arab III - THN 357 - 45

County Borough of Darlington Transport Department
1953
Guy Arab III 5LW
Roe B41C

The small operation of Darlington Corporation does not seem to be mentioned on the Website.
I have only been to the town once back in 1968. I took just one photo probably as it was unusual even in those days to see a passenger ready to leave the centre entrance whilst the bus was still in motion. A single deck Guy Arab III was also unusual for me.
I have recently rediscovered this old slide taken with a very basic camera, I hope it may be of interest.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Keith Newton

13/08/15 – 08:15

I don’t think the Roe West Riding Red AEC’s had doors to their centre entrances, either. This made the rear saloon a chilly place- and as you suggest the elfansafety doesn’t bear thinking about- the step backwards system of alighting from a moving bus platform was impossible and twisting sideways must have been just right to fall against the rear wheels. End of an era, here.

Joe

13/08/15 – 08:51

EMW 903

I attach a bought slide of a Swindon Daimler CV single decker with a similar centre entrance/exit arrangement. How popular was it, exactly? I know some of Blackpool ones in the 1930s, and we all know about their PD2/5 fleet, but single deckers like this seem very rare.

Pete Davies

13/08/15 – 11:53

Not centre-entrance and a decker, but London Transport’s Country Area STL’s posed the same hazards as the other two vehicles. LPTB’s 1936 (ex-STL 1470) offering was lauded by them as ‘draught-free’, a statement, from personal experience, I heartily disagreed with, despite the angled front bulkhead and rear partition to entrance! Note the staircase opposite the entrance. LINK: www.flickr.com/photos/

Chris Hebbron

13/08/15 – 13:55

Joe, I think the West Riding centre-entrance Regents had doors. However, like you, I also remember being cold in their rear saloons so they probably spent most of their time open (to save the conductors’ time).
This photo seems to show the door in a closed position. //www.bus-and-coach-photos.com/picture/number5402.asp  Some photos suggest they were double doors, hinged outwardly opening. If only 111 had survived beyond early preservation.

Paul Haywood

13/08/15 – 14:40

Municipal conservatism at work with these Guys? By 1953 underfloor engined saloons were well established and virtually the norm so these purchases seem a bit of an anachronism. Doncaster and Burnley, Colne and Nelson were other operators that stuck to half-cab single deckers well into the 1950’s with BCN taking PS2 Tigers right up to 1955. More examples of those little things that make our hobby so interesting.

Philip Halstead

14/08/15 – 11:51

Hunter of Seaton Delaval had two TS7 Leyland Tigers, JR 4901, from 1935, and JR 6600, 1936: both Burlingham B35F. In 1953 and 54 respectively, they were rebodied by Roe as B39C, they were very similar to this Darlington example, but differed slightly in that they had doors which were flush with the side of the bus when shut, but I cant for the life of me remember if they were two single doors, or a two piece folding type. The only thing that let them down, was that they had been rebodied as 8ft on a 7’6″ chassis, which tended to make them look a bit unbalanced.

Ronnie Hoye

16/08/15 – 06:35

Must have been a job keeping them clean,,,,

Mike

16/08/15 – 06:36

The last conventional half-cab saloons (both complete buses and new bodies for old chassis) date from 1955, after which only a few specialised vehicles were built on chassis normally bodied as double-deckers – a Leyland PD2 for West Mon, eight Regent Vs for South Wales Transport and two more as non-PSVs registered in Leeds.

Geoff Kerr

01/09/15 – 07:43

FET 821

Rotherham Corporation ran a large fleet of Bristol L5G and L6B buses mostly with central entrance. FET 821 f/n 121 was one of the last delivered in 1951 with an East Lancs body and makes an interesting contrast to the standard ECW bodies which never -to my knowledge – offered this option. It was photographed in 1970 in Carlisle clearly on a school outing but from where and who was the operator- perhaps owned by the school itself?

Keith Newton

02/09/15 – 07:02

Keith, thanks for John Kaye who gave me this information regarding Rotherham 121 (above).
It was withdrawn by Rotherham in September 1968 it is recorded with Army Cadet Force, Dearne Valley Area, Wath (later Wakefield) in January 1969 and sold for scrap 1970.

Paul Haywood

02/09/15 – 07:03

This bus appeared on the SCT61 site and the discussion following the photographs gives some explanation as to why the bus would have been in Carlisle: //www.sct61.org.uk/rr121

David Beilby