Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee 1954 Daimler CVG6 Roe H33/25R
This bus is a “CV” series Daimler the “V” stands for Victory meaning the chassis was built after World War II whereas the preceding series “CW” was for chassis built during the War when the “W” stood for war. As this bus is a “CV” series it had what was called a “Birmingham Tin Front”, similar to the previous K.H.C.T. AEC Regent III. If it had been a CS/CC series built 1955 onwards the radiator would of been different, and would then of been called a “Manchester Front”. Is there a Tin/Fibre Glass front expert out there that can sort out this radiator business once and for all. When does a “Birmingham” become a “Manchester”. There is a link to a video of a preserved Halifax Daimler “CV”, all be it two years younger than this bus here please note the difference in the destination boxes from the bus in this photo and the one in the video, more on that at a later date.
The Manchester front is the one with the headlamp mounted on the wing, the bonnet itself being narrower than the Birmingham version. It took a Mancunian to realise that short drivers couldn’t see the nearside wing on a Birmingham front so they were forever bashing things!The Birmingham front was also fitted to Crossleys, Guy Arabs and AEC Regent IIIs, whereas the Manchester type only ever appeared on Daimlers. There are two versions of the Manchester front, as CVG6s had a tapering front chassis frame with a 7′ 6″ front axle. CVG6-30s, CCGs & CSGs and the last few CVG6s all had straight frames and 8ft axles, hence a wider front.
David A Jones
29/05/11 – 07:51
Sadly these buses weighed a ton more than the mark III Regent and had 112bhp engines in lieu of 125bhp of the mark III as a result they had a lot of trouble, many were fitted with Leyland O.600 units and later 95 had a 6LXB Gardner whilst 93 had a turbo charged Daimler. So 95 became CVG6LX, 93 CVD6, most of the others CVL6 some retained the 6LW mainly the 116 etc group used on the flatter shorter corporation services.
This photo was taken at the old Huddersfield bus station of a typical front entrance Daimler of the time. This bus has the Manchester style front as opposed the Birmingham style front which can be seen here. It was taken over by W.Y.P.T.E. on the 1st of April 1974 and entered there service as fleet number 4114.
Yet another independent from the Doncaster area it would be interesting to know just how many there were in the heyday of bus transport. Rossie Motors mainly ran a regular service between Rossington and Doncaster jointly with Doncaster Corporation, Blue Ensign and East Midland must of been a busy route to make it worth while for four operators. The bus above was a thirty foot version of the Daimler CV series hence the 30 suffix code. From what I have come up with, when the 27 ft version of the CVD or G were built to the 30 foot length the code changed to CVD/G6-30 which makes sense. This vehicle is rather rare as the majority of Daimler CVs built around the time this one was were CVGs that is having the Gardner engine. In 1980 this bus transferred to the South Yorkshire PTE (SYPTE) and was numbered 1160 in their fleet. There are also references to the Daimler coding ending with “DD” which I presume stands for double decker, so that would make the above bus a Daimler CVD6-30DD.
I worked for Rossie Motors in mid/late 60’s. Loved this bus. Very strong & powerful engine. Good ol’ 220. A fav’ with all the crews at that time.
Andy
28/02/12 – 07:58
I believe 220 AWY still survives in the hands of Isle Coaches of Owston Ferry. There is a recent picture here //www.flickr.com/ Sadly, it appears to be deteriorating.
John Darwent
28/02/12 – 12:13
…..next to a Thurgood Commer, John?
David Oldfield
28/02/12 – 12:13
According to Bus Lists on the Web, this was the last Daimler engined CV series bus supplied to home operators. Another Doncaster area Independent, Leon of Finningley, took delivery of 432 KAL which had a Roe H41/32F body in July 1961, and this bus was described as CVD650-30DD, which indicates that it was powered by the larger 10.6 litre engine. By inference, this suggests that the Rossie Motors bus, like the few CVDs delivered after the heyday of the Daimler engine finished in the mid 1950s – Swindon (3), Coventry, Glasgow and Potteries (1 each)- had the 8.6 litre CD6 engine. This powerplant was never noted for performance in its naturally aspirated form, so Andy’s comment from personal experience about the “very strong and powerful engine” is interesting. Was this engine turbocharged, or did the bus have the larger CD650 motor? Geoff Hilditch always maintained that Daimler gave up too early on its diesel engine manufacturing, and further development would have yielded dividends. My own experience of the Daimler engine is limited to the turbocharged version fitted to one of the Halifax Daimler CVs, and that bus went up hills like a mountain goat with its posterior on fire, so GGH might well have been right.
Roger Cox
28/02/12 – 17:29
The PSV Circle Fleet History for Potteries states that Potteries H8900 originally had an ‘exhaust driven turbocharger’ fitted to its Daimler engine. It was fitted with a Leyland 0.600 engine in 1964 – making it unique as a CVL6-30?? It ran in this mode in a quite satisfactory manner, mainly on the 12/13 Hanley to Bentilee services whilst I was at the Company in the late 60s. Except that some crews disliked the inability for conversations between driver and conductor as they could on an Atlantean. Some wanted the glass in the small window between the cab and platform…..whilst others wanted it out!! Oh dear!
Ian Wild
28/02/12 – 18:06
The suspiciously Dennis Lancet-looking front hub of GWN 432 (next to the Daimler d/d in the flickr photo) caught my eye, and a quick google reveals that it is a Lancet. Wonderful chassis; pity about the styleless body. Is it a replacement?
Ian Thompson
29/02/12 – 07:13
If you go back to the owner’s photostream there’s a detailed history of both vehicles in a caption. Here is a quick link to view it.
David Beilby
29/02/12 – 07:17
Yes Ian, the body is apparently a Thurgood replacement as David spotted and it is a Dennis Lancet.
John Darwent
29/02/12 – 07:19
Yes, I think it was rebodied in the late fifties. I’m sure there was an article on it in Bus & Coach Preservation Magazine a year or two back.
Eric
29/02/12 – 07:20
Ian, the body on Dennis Lancet J3 GWN 432 is a Thurgood FC37F, and, as you indicate, it is a replacement, though what the original body was is difficult to establish. Gleaning info from the internet, it seems that the vehicle was originally owned by Super of Tottenham in 1950, and then later came into the ownership of Jenkins of Skewen who had it rebodied and re-registered, hence the Swansea reg plate. Like you, I find some of the full fronted bodies on vertical engined chassis decidedly uninspiring. The O6 engined Lancet was a masterpiece, and rebodying this one to look like a Bedford is the ultimate indignity.There is another picture of this coach at:- //www.flickr.com/
Roger Cox
29/02/12 – 07:24
Re Ian’s question regarding the Dennis, I see that the original flickr picture has a full description. Click on the large blue “Photo” word and the picture shrinks. It is a 1950 Dennis Lancet with a 1960 Thurgood body having originally been a half cab built by Yeates.
Richard Leaman
29/02/12 – 07:23
Its always most interesting to read the varied views of those in the know about the features of individual vehicle models. My experience of the Daimler standard engine fitted to the CWD6 and CVD6 examples was most favourable – at Samuel Ledgard’s we had two utilities with Duple bodies, and four heavier Brush models from Exeter, and of course the famous (or notorious) entire class of ten Brush ones from Leeds City Transport – the premature sale of the latter to be operated on the same roads by the independent rival caused a rumpus in the Council Chamber like Guy Fawkes would have loved to launch successfully at Westminster – an immediate resolution was passed that no such embarrassing situation should ever be allowed again !! I also drove several of the former Wallace Arnold coaches rebodied by Roe as double deckers. I always found them to be powerful and fast, and their only disadvantage was that the exhaust manifold was next to the cab and uncomfortably hot in good weather – but there again pleasantly warm in Winter – “you can’t have it all ways” as they say.
Chris Youhill
01/03/12 – 07:54
I’m sure GGH was right about the Daimler engine from an engineering point of view, but commercially there probably wouldn’t have been much point in further development. Interest in Daimler engines all but disappeared around 1950 as soon as Gardner were once again able to satisfy demand. I strongly suspect that Daimler would not have started updating the CD6 and experimenting with turbochargers if it hadn’t been for the secrecy surrounding Gardner’s development of the 6LX at the time the maximum length of double deckers was increased to 30ft. After the 6LX came on stream, the only way Daimler would have sold engines in any numbers would have been to withdraw the Gardner option. That of course is exactly what Albion did immediately after the war (with the exception of special orders) – and look what happened to them!
Peter Williamson
01/03/12 – 09:20
London Transport’s ‘D’ class contained around 10 CWD’s among a sea of CWA’s. They lasted about 4 years and, in this case, it was less to do with being non-standard and more of being more difficult to service, with the timing mechanism being at the rear of the engine. I have a feeling that the exhaust manifold was nearest the driving cab and ‘cooked’ the drivers in hot weather. However, one of these had a chalk notice above the windscreen ‘D???, the fastest ‘D’ of all’! Anyway, with AEC engines coming spare from scrapped STL’s, out they came.
Chris Hebbron
02/03/12 – 07:23
The pioneer, at least in Britain, of employing timing gears at the back of the engine was Dennis, who also went a bit further by employing four valves per cylinder. Oil engined Dennis Lancets were very popular with independent operators, who did not have the sophisticated engineering facilities of the larger companies and municipalities, yet the quite complex O4 and O6 engines earned an excellent reputation for quality and reliability. The location of timing gears only became an issue if other aspects of the engine fell short of acceptable reliability standards, when the removal of the entire power unit became necessary for rectification. Daimler, and later Meadows also used rear mounted timing gears, but, in both cases, the quality of design and manufacture failed to achieve the necessary degree of dependability. Albion, like Gardner, used a front mounted timing chain in their 9.0 and 9.9 litre engines, but, unlike Gardner, the chain of the Albion had a propensity to stretch, so that repeated and very difficult adjustment was required to maintain performance. In the early post war period, Sidney Guy sought to compete more strongly with AEC and Leyland by offering the Arab with a larger engine than the 6LW, and he asked Albion if they would supply him with the 9.9 litre EN243. In the event this came to nothing, perhaps because of the Albion’s timing chain shortcomings, though it is possible that merger talks were already under way with Leyland. Guy then turned to the Meadows 10.35 litre 6DC630 (with rear mounted timing gears) which also proved to be a broken reed. Not until the advent of the superb 6LX did the smaller makers have access to a motor of suitable size and quality that was able to take on AEC and Leyland. Gardners also had a right hand exhaust manifold to keep drivers warm!
Roger Cox
02/03/12 – 07:26
I seem to remember that when Rossie received their first two Fleetlines, this vehicle and the other, the ‘ordinary’ CVG6/30, BYG 890B, were dispatched to Charles H Roe for refurbishing and re-painting. When they came back, they had the nice ROSSIE MOTORS fleetname in gold letters (which they hadn’t had before) to match the Fleetlines. This gave Rossie four very good high capacity double deckers for a service which only required a maximum of two vehicles from each operator!
Chris Barker
05/03/12 – 07:38
Thanks, Roger and Richard,for the Flickr link. I’d better put cards on the table, head above the parapet etc and confess that I don’t like droopy-swoopy coach bodies, or any kind of “streamlining” for that matter, on traditional halfcab chassis. I feel they work better on underfloors, where the droop at the back is partly balanced by a slightly drooping front, and the Burlingham Seagull got it dead right. (Thanks to Neville M for that fine article.) Curved-waistrail bodies, with their plethora of window and panel shapes and sizes must have been far more expensive to make, repair and carry replacements for. Roger Cox’s words “…rebodying this one to look like a Bedford is the ultimate indignity” perfectly sums up my feelings about that Thurgood body and the attitude of mind that led to its being fitted. Those two recently-posted handsome Alexander Greyhound PS2s (MWA 761 and 761) exemplify to my mind how a halfcab single-decker should look, whether bus or coach.
Ian Thompson
06/03/12 – 08:24
I think everyone is being a bit harsh about the Dennis, possibly because the full story, which appeared in B&CP in September 2009, hasn’t been told here. The point is that by the time it came to be rebodied, it was already no longer a half-cab, but merely a chassis with the remains of a burned-out body sold to a dealer as an insurance write-off. At 10 years old, it is a tribute to the quality of the chassis that anyone wanted to do anything other than scrap it. Rebodying it as a halfcab in 1960 would have been ludicrous, and I’d hazard a guess that getting Thurgood to do the job, rather than a mainstream builder, made enough difference in the cost to make it worthwhile.
Peter Williamson
06/03/12 – 12:14
Very true Peter. I am a VW man and am very sniffy about people hacking (real Type 1) Beetles about. On the other hand, many of these HAVE been saved from the scrap yard and given a second life. That being the case, fine and dandy!
David Oldfield
06/03/12 – 12:15
I am sure that most of us would agree with Ian that the traditional half cab coach design was a classic in its own right, but Peter’s comments are valid. I believe that something of the order of 900 Lancet III chassis were produced, of which only a modest number survives, and, as with all half cab coaches and buses, many of these were disposed of prematurely with the advent of underfloor engines. That Jenkins of Skewen should have had sufficiently high a regard for this chassis to have it rebodied for further service in the then “modern” age is a testament to Dennis quality. Assuredly, had the operator not done so, this vehicle would almost certainly not be still with us today. In the context of its times, having regard to the dismal contemporary efforts of Duple, Plaxton and others on Bedford and Ford chassis, the Thurgood body is not too bad.
Roger Cox
09/03/12 – 17:30
Don’t get me wrong! I’m more than grateful that Lancet GWN 432 has been preserved and admire the present owners for the effort they put into its care. It’s just that the body’s too redolent of my pet hate, the Duple Super Vega, a topic I’d better keep off…
Ian Thompson
21/05/13 – 12:03
220 AWY is indeed with Isle Coaches at Owston Ferry, along with GWN 432 as part of their heritage fleet. They also have PUJ 783, a Burlington Seagull/Leyland Tiger Cub.
Kenton Rose
28/06/13 – 14:26
GWN 432 is now at Hornsby Motors Ashby and is to be restored for their centenary next year.
Tony Harrison
29/06/13 – 07:19
Just spotted the discussion re Thurgood-bodied Dennis Lancet GWN 432. We ran the story in B&CP, as gratefully acknowledged above, in 2009, when the coach was owned by my good friend, the late Nigel Woodward of Gainsborough. I have extracted the relevant paragraphs and included them below. As Peter Williamson has pointed out, at the time of the rebody, a ‘modern’ body was the only way forward. The work was carried out by Thurgood as it was ‘local’ to Horseshoe Coaches (Modern Super Coaches’ parent), which had bought the chassis, Thurgood having already carried out some rebodying in this style for companies in the Horseshoe Group. The similarity to a Duple Vega results from the inclusion of a number of standard Vega parts in the body, particularly at the rear. Behind the front dash, the original front dash from its half-cab days (below the driver’s windscreen) is still in situ, complete with circular aperture to accommodate the headlamp!
Philip Lamb
21/03/14 – 18:03
East Midlands took over the Rossington Doncaster service from Red Don,think in the very early 1960s.
Robert Durrant
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
26/08/17 – 07:32
Born and bred in and resident of Rossington from 1940 to 1965 I have many fond memories of Rossie Motors and their dedication to Dainler. From 1951 to 1957 I was, along with other Rossoites, transported by Rossie Motors to Maltby Grammar School a round trip of some 20 miles, usually by a double decker but on rare and welcome occasions by a luxury (to us) single decker coach. I still recall one occasion when overnight snow lay hard packed on the steep road at the entrance to the school. After the passengers alighted the driver was unable to set off as the drive wheels spun on the hard packed snow. The problem was solved by the erstwhile passengers pushing at the back of the bus to get it going, a practice that in the present days health and safety concerns would raise more than a few eyebrows.
This particular vehicle has appeared on this site before, but a comment came in from Stephen Ford requesting any rear or internal shots. So I thought I would oblige, no internal shot I’m afraid but it’s not a bad rear end. I notice on this particular vehicle there is no destination blinds at the rear I do not think it was as easy to have them on front entrance vehicles. I know they had rear destination blinds on the rear entrance Regent IIIs I used for school, the number of times I saw the 63 tootling merrily up the road resulting in me having a one mile walk home or wait an hour for the next one.
If you have any rear or internal shots please feel free to contribute them to the site for everyone else to see.
This bus ..114 was a Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee bus it was never fitted with rear number blinds … the Joint omnibus committee vehicles at the time were allowed to carry adverts .. and the space was available for advertisers . The similar buses that were owned purely by the Corporation had rear number blinds fitted up until 1966. The Corporation at the time did not allow any advertisements on the outside of its vehicles.
Colin
In my West Yorkshire gallery this difference is illustrated by a couple of consecutive rear end photos of (3202 and 3203) in the Holme Valley collection. See here
David Beilby
Interesting shots of the Roe rear ends David. I note that the lower rear panels from the axle back have been shortened to prevent them ‘grounding’ when negotiating junctions at the bottom of very steep hills. Bradford C T carried out this modification to the rear overhang of many of its MCW-bodied AEC Regent Vs for the same reason, with the rear chassis extensions being similarly visible. On the subject of rear ends, does anyone else wonder why some coachbuilders fitted (and some operators specified) such dated features as split upper deck emergency windows, on what were otherwise quite modern-looking front entrance buses? Even the ‘balloon roof’ Alexander bodies mounted on Atlantean and Fleetline chassis could be had with them, despite having very modern curved screens on both decks at the front!
It’s an August Sunday evening in 1967 at the Chapeltown terminus of the service from Rotherham. Huddersfield had batches of almost identical vehicles but these Rotherham ones were classy – they had hopper saloon windows! I never travelled on a Rotherham example but I hope they had more comfortable seats than the thin lightweight ones favoured by Huddersfield. As a bus, they were pretty indestructible in service although at 7 year recertification most had fractured rear body crossmembers. Enjoy the livery, swept away in the monolithic era of the PTE.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
19/02/15 – 15:57
Leeds City Transport also had a batch of five of these vehicles, two of which are preserved. I enjoyed a ride on one last autumn at the Skipton running day. The Leeds buses were bought specifically for a service which was operated jointly with Bradford Corporation, which used forward entrance vehicles. Leeds otherwise stuck to rear entrances until the advent of rear engined buses. I have never worked on forward entrance half cabs, but I wonder if there really was an advantage, or was it a case of following fashion? I have heard tales of conductors not liking them because there is nowhere to stand out of the way at bus stops. Certainly from the point of view of lower deck passengers, forward entrance buses had very poor forward vision. I’ve always liked Daimlers, and this one is enhanced by the “streamlined” livery. The service number blind looks odd, was there a large gap between the two digits?
Don McKeown
20/02/15 – 07:45
Don, Rotherham buses (certainly up to the mid 60s) always had the gap between the two numeral blinds. How could I have forgotten the similar Leeds Daimlers? Not only did I operate them at both Huddersfield and Halifax but 874 frequently operates the free Worth Valley Railway countryside tour service when the weather is unsuitable for the open top ex Southdown PD3.
Ian Wild
20/02/15 – 16:35
Derby also had separated digits to the route numbers – they even had completely separate apertures. Many Derby residents took this a bit literally. The no.11 to “Kedleston Road/Allestree Lane” often being referred to as a “one-one” rather than eleven.
Stephen Ford
22/02/15 – 07:53
Rotherham – Chapeltown was service 16, although I can’t make out what is actually being shown.
Geoff Kerr
22/02/15 – 07:53
Best I can do with what I have I’m afraid, I have sharpened it up a bit. Looks like route 2_6 to me.
Peter
22/02/15 – 14:02
My 1971 timetable and a photograph I took in 1970 at the same location both agree with Geoff, so unless the service had been renumbered the bus is showing the wrong number.
David Beilby
23/02/15 – 07:34
Leicester also had separate apertures for both numbers and a third for the destination.
Chris Hough
23/02/15 – 17:14
The 26 service was to Aston, on the other side of the town, so perhaps the driver has simply put the wrong digit up. The destination showing is ‘ROTHERHAM’, of course, which is what the corporation buses showed when working back towards town.
This former Northampton 267, JVV 267G, is seen here on a running day at Wellingborough on 22/4/17. This was the last CVG6 for the UK market, the last bus with pre-selector transmission, the last teak framed Roe body and, I believe, the last open rear platform bus delivered in the UK.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin
01/05/17 – 07:12
What a gem!
Joe
02/05/17 – 07:19
Last time I saw 267 it was looking a bit down at heel but in this shot it looks superb. Well done to the owner(s). I was led to believe that Northampton took the first post-war CVG6 to be built and as the caption states took the last one some twenty years later. All purchases in between were of the same mark and I understand all had Roe bodies. A great tribute to the products of these two companies and to standardisation. Also the shade of red is just awesome!
Philip Halstead
09/05/17 – 07:42
Sadly the modern digital photography has played havoc with the colouring! Although 267 is indeed very smartly turned out nowadays it is nowhere near as garish as this picture suggests. The Northampton red was actually Vermilion, which is an orangy red quite unique to Northanpton as far as I know. Several preserved Ex Northampton buses sport an assortment of shades but not all successfully capture it in my opinion.
Andrew Goodwin
09/05/17 – 17:39
A less gaudy photo of one of the same batch! The Drapery, Northampton.
Tony Martin
23/07/17 – 07:03
Just a small correction – the three buses in Tony Martin’s photo (09/05/17) are in fact in Mercers Row. NCT bought almost exclusively Daimler buses, there was also a small batch of Crossleys, one of which has been preserved. www.flickr.com/photos/
Norman
26/07/17 – 15:50
All the ‘lasts’ are correct except the last for which the credit goes to Stockport Corporation PD3 fleet number 91 registered on 1 January 1969.
FET 617 is a Daimler CTE6 of 1950, once in the fleet of Rotherham Corporation. Originally it had an East Lancs B38C body but in 1956 it was re-bodied by Roe to H40/30R and at the same time it was renumbered from 17 to 37. It was one of the last trolleybuses to be withdrawn in 1965 when the Rotherham system closed down. She’s seen on duty at the trolleybus museum at Sandtoft which, although it is noted as being near Doncaster, is actually just over the border in the part of Lincolnshire which was in Humberside for a while. She’s turning in the area between the depot and the parade of shops.
Note the reference on one shop front to a Transport General Manager who has been mentioned before in these columns! The photograph was taken on 30th August 2009, Bank Holiday Monday.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
28/05/15 – 06:30
Back in 1971 I was part of a small team that dragged this vehicle over the hills and moors to join in the HCVS Trans Pennine Run. One of my photos from the weekend features on my Flickr page. https://flic.kr/p/c5jjjN
Berisford Jones
29/05/15 – 07:55
As this was rebodied in 1956 when 3Oft twin axle double deckers were legal and were being built with five bay construction, I wonder why what was becoming an anachronistic six bay layout was chosen.
Phil Blinkhorn
30/05/15 – 06:59
Lovely photo Pete. Berisford. That was some journey, which must have been boring for whoever steered the ‘bus! It reminds me of all the ‘dead’ trolleybus movements which took place during the war all over the country.
Chris Hebbron
30/05/15 – 06:59
These Rotherham rebodies were very similar to the 70-seater Roe bodies on Karrier chassis for Huddersfield that were delivered just a few years earlier, which were also six-bay construction. The Huddersfield examples had the standard Roe waistrail though, while the Rotherham ones didn’t; the ‘poor man’s Roe body’, as a friend of mine likes to call it! Rotherham also saved some pennies by reusing the seats, where possible, from the scrapped single-deckers in the lower saloons of these new Roe bodies. When I was a kid growing up in Rotherham, I was fascinated with the corporation trolleybuses, though I don’t recall ever seeing one operating with the windscreen open the way 37’s is here! Rotherham just never seemed to get even close to warm enough for that to happen in those days!
Dave Careless
30/05/15 – 09:22
It’s called global warming, Dave. We don’t seem to have had that in our youth!
Pete Davies
30/05/15 – 18:05
Warming? Not right now! The story of these Rotherham tracklesses (as the dedicated site correctly calls them) is fascinating. The single deckers gave a continental atmosphere to Rotherham! Was the opening windscreen really for fog? I remember that Austin 10’s had this too.
Joe
30/05/15 – 18:06
So Dave, it was a case of Yorkshire tight fistedness, or what my Huddersfield born brother in law would call “being careful with t’brass”
Phil Blinkhorn
31/05/15 – 06:45
I don’t think they had a lot of choice, really, Phil, but to be watching the pennies at the time. Those 44 Daimler single-deckers that the corporation bought in 1949-50 apparently represented a quarter of a million pounds worth of investment, and by 1954, only four years later, after the conversion of the Maltby route to motor buses, they only had work for 36 of them, the other eight having already been delicensed and advertised for sale, for which at the time there were no takers. The General Manager, I.O. Fisher, who took over from Norman Rylance who had unfortunately passed away in December 1954, presented a report to the Transport Committee in July, 1955, in which he informed them that each of the fleet of single-deckers required approx. 850 pounds worth of work to put them into ‘first-class’ condition, which amounted to something like 37,400 pounds in total, which would have been yet another significant investment. Fisher estimated that rebodying 14 of the chassis with double-deck bodies to start with would cost somewhere in the region of 32,000 pounds, and operating double-deckers would then allow him to reduce frequencies and thus reduce the number of crews required, and still have more seats available on the main trolleybus service that he considered converting to double-deck first. The Transport Committee agreed that Fisher’s idea seemed to be the most favourable option, and I guess the rest is history. In the end, twenty chassis were rebodied as double-deckers by February 1957, eight were retained in service as single-deckers until March 1961, for the jointly operated services with Mexborough and Swinton, and one was prematurely scrapped, presumably for spares, which left fifteen delicensed single-deckers in the Rotherham depot for several years, covered in grime and looking very dejected, until eventually they were sold for further service in Spain in 1960, for the princely sum of 1,133 pounds each! Two of the eight that had been retained for the Mexborough work also joined their sisters in Spain a year later, these two only fetching 1,000 pounds each at sale, and the remaining six eventually ended up in the breakers yard, sold to Autospares of Bingley, and a steal at a mere 66 pounds apiece! In the end, Fisher’s decision to rebody the uneconomical 38-seaters meant that the corporation at least got their money’s worth out of twenty of the vehicles that they’d been so proud of just a few years before. They certainly got their value out of those original moquette seats anyway, if nothing else!!
Dave Careless
31/05/15 – 06:46
I believe opening windscreens were originally to do with fog as you say Joe, and were a legal requirement. I’m not sure when the practice of fitting them ended, or when the legislation changed, but looking at ECW as an example, the new MW coach body introduced in 1962 had fixed rubber mounted windscreens. However, the Lodekka continued with an opening windscreen until, from memory 1966, when rubber-mounted screens became the standard. With the Lodekka opening windscreen, the wiper motor spindle came through the top edge of the metal surround, whereas with the rubber-mounted screen the spindle came through the bodywork above the screen. Funny the little things we remember isn’t it?
Brendan Smith
01/06/15 – 07:24
That, Dave, is what can only be called a fascinating piece of transport and social history. Thanks for taking the time to relate it. Brendan, the change in Construction and Use to allow fixed windscreens on PSVs was promulgated in 1957. There had to be demisting equipment so many operators continued to specify opening windscreens. There was a halfway house that had been around for some years prior to 1957, being a single piece windscreen hinged at the top which a number of body builders offered on their double deckers.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/06/15 – 07:10
Thanks, Phil, I’m glad you enjoyed it. I can still remember my father, after his usual pre-Sunday dinner excursion to the ‘Shakespeare Hotel’, telling me that he’d seen a Doncaster trolleybus running along Fitzwilliam Road in Rotherham. I was seven at the time, and naturally went tearing off down there, about half a mile away, in the hopes of seeing it myself, which unfortunately I didn’t. Obviously, the borrowing of the Doncaster Karrier that day, June 19th, 1955, turned out to be a pivotal moment for the corporation, Fisher wanting to be absolutely sure that there would be nothing unforeseen to prevent double-deck trolleybus operation in the town before presenting his ideas to the Transport Committee the following month. What I find fascinating is that we’re still enjoying reading and writing about such events, almost exactly sixty years later! Sadly, although it’s been fifty years since the Rotherham trolleys disappeared for good, I can’t even imagine a seven year old being allowed to wander off that far from home in the hopes of catching sight of one in the enlightened world we inhabit today.
Dave Careless
02/06/15 – 07:11
Thanks for that Phil. The change in legislation took place earlier than I’d thought. BVB3
Brendan Smith
03/06/15 – 06:25
As an afterthought to my post yesterday relating how my father had witnessed the Doncaster Karrier running ‘on test’ under Rotherham wires in June 1955, apparently the Karrier was driven as far as Balby terminus, the southernmost part of the Doncaster network, where it was hooked up to the Rotherham Bristol towing wagon that had been despatched to fetch it to Rotherham, it being towed along the A630 as far as the nearest point on the corporation’s wires at the Thrybergh terminus. Intriguingly, with respect to the ‘opening windscreens’ discussion, the old Bristol wagon, a full-fronted machine, had both windscreens open by the time it got to Thrybergh, being well ‘on the boil’ after dragging the six-wheeler the nine miles or so from Balby!! Luckily, Doncaster enthusiast Geoff Warnes, a mere teenager back then, got wind of the event, and followed the convoy on his bicycle, taking his camera with him, and recording the activities for posterity as the Karrier was ‘trialled’ from Thrybergh to Kimberworth and around the town centre, as well as to and from the depot, with a tower wagon in attendance in case of problems. Story has it that although he was present himself at the Rawmarsh Road garage, Rotherham’s general manager had forgotten to arrange to have a photographer on hand to record the event, and seeing Geoff with his camera, I.O. Fisher invited him into the depot to photograph the scene. Sad to report that Geoff Warnes passed away just a few weeks ago, but due to his foresight that Sunday morning, we do have pictures of the event that led to Rotherham running double-deck trolleybuses for the last decade or so of electric traction in the town.
Dave Careless
03/06/15 – 15:26
In terms of Yorkshire canniness Doncaster’s reuse of trolley bus bodies on motor chassis must take some beating! On the subject of towed trolleybuses I was on the M1 heading north in 1970 and stopped at Woodhall services. In the parking area was Bradford 558 an all Leyland PD2 being used to tow former Nottingham Karrier 493 to the Sandtoft Museum I bet that caused other road users a few headaches.
Chris Hough
04/06/15 – 06:24
Chris- not only (new) motor bus chassis, but old trolley bus bodies rebodying old motor bus chassis too! Bodies which had rebodied trolleybuses were used to rebody motor bus chassis of similar age to the original trolley chassis. (still with me?)
J Wood & Sons (Mirfield) 1949 Crossley DD42/7 Roe H56R
Here is a view of J Wood & Sons of Mirfield preserved Crossley DD42/7 bought in 1953 from Baxter’s of Airdrie where it was delivered new in 1949. She sports a Roe H56R body from either 1954 or 55 there seems to be conflicting information on the actual date, can anyone confirm? New 1949 rebodied 1954/5, five or six years does not seem all that long, is there a story behind that, and does anyone know what the original body was? She is seen outside Winchester Guildhall on 1 January 2010, visiting the King Alfred Running Day.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
21/12/12 – 07:33
Just for information. The 2013 King Alfred Running Day will, as usual, be on New Year’s Day. Sometimes, the event is moved, but no disruption for this coming one. The restored Leyland Olympic should be back in service and one of the members is hoping to have his 1930’s Paris Renault on duty.
Pete Davies
21/12/12 – 07:34
I have some information about the Crossley of Joseph Wood. The original body was built by Scottish Aviation. Two elderly coaches were traded in to Comberhill Motors of Wakefield to purchase the bus. This was the first double decker for the firm. Mr Colin Wood (Joseph’s son) related the facts to me. He was serving in the army in Korea when he received an angry letter from his father to tell him that on its first test it had failed due to bodywork defects. Colin suggested that they had the bus rebodied. At the time Yorkshire Woollen were having their wartime Guy Arabs rebodied so it was arranged that the Crossley would have similar bodywork. In 1954 the company scrapped the body and the head driver Mr Sam Land drove the chassis from Mirfield to Crossgates. On its return it entered service and was used on the joint service from Mirfield to Dewsbury alongside J J Longstaff and Yorkshire Woollen. For the next twenty years or so it went through two engines on the service its only escape was when Huddersfield Town Football club was playing at home when it was used on the excursion to the ground. Eventually the day came when the Crossley was due for withdrawal and so the ex Leyland Atlantean demonstrator KTD 551C was purchased. The Crossley was parked up against the garage and eventually became a tyre store. Colin had always wanted to preserve the bus and for the next few years he worked on the bus and had it reupholstered. On completion the bus looked splendid and one Sunday he invited friends and former employees and the bus made two commemorative journeys. Then the bus was kept at Keighley Bus Museum and was rallied frequently. Eventually it was decided to sell the bus and it was sold to Quantock Motor Services and I read in Preserved Bus that the vehicle was for sale. If I win the Euro Millions Lottery it will be the first thing on my shopping list!!!
Philip Carlton
21/12/12 – 07:35
This bus is currently up for sale at Quantock Motor Services and they have it being re-bodied in 1952
Andrew
21/12/12 – 07:36
Beautiful – and beautifully preserved – bus. As a Roe man, my gut instinct says 1954 rather 1955. The upper deck would have been slightly different, but the archaic five bay lay-out muddies the waters. [I don’t have documentary proof, just instinct.]
David Oldfield
21/12/12 – 07:38
Pete, you have raised an interesting question about the original body on this bus, and, surprisingly, the comprehensive ‘Crossley’ book by Eyre, Heaps and Townsin does not give a specific answer as far as I can find. The authors do make reference to five single deck SD42s bought by Joseph Wood, and then go on to state that Wood “acquired a second hand DD42 which it had fitted with a new Roe body”, but neither the previous owner nor the original body are identified. The Scottish agent for Crossley was the Scottish Commercial Motor Co. of Glasgow, and it made the bodies itself on a number of its sales, but some were fitted with other makes of bodywork, including lowbridge examples by Roe. However, the following site www.sct61.org.uk/ confirms that the original body was, indeed, a Scottish Commercial product that was superseded by the current excellent Roe body in 1954. Clearly, some, at least, of the Scottish Commercial bodies must have been decidedly suspect to have given a life of only five years. Most of the wartime utilities managed rather better than that.
Roger Cox
21/12/12 – 10:33
Thank you, gents, for your comments on the origin of this bodywork. A fascinating read!
Pete Davies
21/12/12 – 12:48
I would say that the earliest the body dates from is 1954. I am basing this on deliveries to Leeds in that period all of which had deeper windows on both decks. By the arrival of the 1954 AEC Regents these were much shallower as seen here. However the bus is still an absolute gem and ideally should be repatriated north.
Chris Hough
21/12/12 – 12:49
I’m in complete agreement with David O, that it would have looked so much better with the Roe four and a quarter bay body, but I’m not sure if that style was available in 7ft 6in width, which this vehicle was. Around the same time, J W Moseley of Barugh Green, Barnsley had an ex-Sheffield utility Daimler rebodied with exactly the same style of Roe body.
Chris Barker
21/12/12 – 13:47
You may want to add this picture to the current discussion as it shows the vehicle from the front, and no reflections in the windows. Taken by myself at Taunton Railway Station on 1/5/10 during Quantock Motors running day,
Ken Jones
21/12/12 – 13:48
Chris The 4 and a quarter bay body was widely available so to speak from Roe Leeds standardised on 4 bays the half bay was (blanked off) from 1948 onwards and I think this was the Roe standard. One thing Roe often did for smaller operators was to tack their buses onto the end of a larger order which meant they got the same style of body but with a bit off the cost.
Chris Hough
23/12/12 – 07:19
It has to be said – a great looking vehicle even if it’s an ACV Crossley. Given the location of its owner, given the weather and, prior to smokeless zones, the output from household fires and woollen mill chimneys, the choice of colour scheme must have kept the bus washers busy.
Phil Blinkhorn
31/12/12 – 07:02
The Roe body dates from 1955 being completed on the 6th April that year.
Andrew Beever
01/01/13 – 11:33
The first photograph on this link shows EVD 406 prior to the 1955 Roe body being fitted www.jsh1949.co.uk/
Andrew Beever
18/02/13 – 08:29
Stephen Morris was driving this vehicle in service today [17/2/13] at the Hanley event. He expects to be driving it in service at the Kirkby Stephens event over Easter
Ken Jones
02/03/13 – 07:05
Was delighted to see this bus at Hanley but the engine was running flat no guts at all. Not sure what has happened to it recently but the last time I rode on it in 1999 at Keighley it had plenty of power then. Unfortunately the Hanley performance caused the running out in conversation all the usual Crossley negative traits. Shame after the effort myself with DBN 978 and the Birmingham 2489 Group have made to dispel this image!
Ralph Oakes-Garnett
14/03/13 – 16:06
A quick question if I may, when did Woods actually finish??
Peter Abel
15/03/13 – 08:33
The question of when Woods finished is around 1985 I forget the actual date. What happened is that they sold out to Abbeyways of Halifax who consolidated the Mirfield operation as Go Big Ltd and operations continued sometimes using buses from the Hyndburn hire fleet both double and single deckers but a bizarre purchase was a Leyland Leopard with an Alexander body that had once been a Leyland demonstrator abroad that operated on a Q plate. I remember that it had the destination for the Mirfield to Dewsbury service painted on the destination glass. Later on selling this bus the new owner had it rebodied by Plaxton.Eventually Abbeyways wound up the Mirfield operations and the depot at Lee Green Mirfield was sold to Ron Lyles who moved there from Batley. Later he moved his operations back to Batley and the depot was pulled down and Old Peoples flats were built on the site.
Philip Carlton
15/03/13 – 11:11
Thanks very much for info Philip. I will see if there’s anything in ‘Buses’ for that year.
Peter Abel
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
18/06/15 – 10:48
I believe this bus is now in the care of the Dewsbury Bus Museum. It turned up as a ‘special guest’ at their March open day, still in pristine condition. Unfortunately it was parked in a corner and my photo did not do it justice.
Although Northampton were well known for their liking of the Daimler/Roe combination, in the 1930s they had purchased several batches of Crossleys, so perhaps it is not surprising that they purchased a batch of ten DD42/3 chassis with Roe bodies in 1946. One of them, fleet number 146, VV 9146, has survived into preservation and is seen here in Great Houghton on an Heritage Weekend service, 9/9/17.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin
02/10/17 – 07:31
To put it mildly, this was a heap of junk before the present owners (one of whom is a former Crossley employee) started work on it. The dedication involving in restoring it to its present condition is unbelievable. It has to be said though, it isn’t very fast!
Two Crossleys in succession is quite a treat. Greatly enjoyed Peter W’s Youtube link, where the induction noise is more noticeable than on the Reading Crossleys, but the gearbox music is just the same. Superb piece of restoration, this Northampton bus. One of my very favourite bodies on what—despite its engine woes—is also a favourite chassis. Nice steering, brakes and clutch, dead easy gearbox. A real pity that the management didn’t fork out and pay Saurer the licence fees, but even then the weak crankshaft would still have posed problems, and the much lighter Morris-Saurer engines fitted to Hants and Dorset’s Morris-Commercials were apparently not that successful. I remember seeing them at Lymington, but never got a ride. Do any MC-Saurers (from any operator) survive?
Ian Thompson
23/10/17 – 06:02
I recall going into a shed in the 1980’s,which was part of Botley’s Park Hospital, Ottershaw, Surrey (which, like many mental institutions, had a farm, but long closed by then). I found three old vehicles in there, two complete and one being just a chassis, with Armstrong-Saurer on it. It looked more lorry than bus, but who knows. I reported them all to a vehicle preservation organisation and six months later, all were gone, but to where? So Saurer vehicles were made here on Tyneside for a period, from 1930-1937, according to Grace’s Guide.
Chris Hebbron
28/10/17 – 16:49
The Swiss firm of Saurer had a modest impact upon the British automotive industry. In the late 1930s the Crossley company embarked upon the design of a completely new passenger chassis that was to become the DD/SD 42. The company’s Chief Engine Designer, W.C. Worrall, was then diagnosed with tuberculosis, a very serious disease at the time, treatment for which entailed taking up residence in a completely unpolluted atmosphere. Industrial Manchester fell somewhat short of the qualities sought from a health resort, and Worrall was sent to recuperate in Switzerland, where he had worked previously for Saurer. Whilst there he visited the works of his former employer and was thereby stimulated to incorporate features of the Saurer four valve cylinder head design in his new Crossley HOE7 engine. The sad subsequent story of what happened later after Worrall’s return to Manchester, when Crossley Motors MD Arthur Hubble refused to pay a Saurer licence fee, is well known, and therein lay the essence of the company’s decline and demise. The only link between the Morris Commercial built Saurer diesel engines of 1948 onwards (which intimately became the Leyland 4/98 and 6/98 ranges) and the earlier Armstrong Saurer range of lorries was the licensed manufacture of engines to Saurer design. The Armstrong Whitworth saga is rather complicated. In 1904, Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth (primarily an armaments and shipbuilding company) took over the manufacture of the Wilson-Pilcher car which continued to be available until 1907, but the firm introduced its own car and commercial models from 1906, powered by engines between 2.4 and 7.6 litres. About 20 Armstrong Whitworth 32hp buses were delivered in 1906 to the Motor Omnibus Company of Walthamstow, better known by its trading name of Vanguard. This chassis type, which had a four speed crash gearbox and chain final drive, was also available as a three ton lorry, later uprated to four tons. By 1914 a one ton van with worm final drive had been added to the catalogue (figures refer to the payload, not, as today, the gross vehicle weight), but the firm’s commitment to automobile production was less than wholehearted. During the Great War Armstrong Whitworth concentrated on ships, armaments and aircraft – the aeroplane division was formed in 1912 – and from 1919 adapted its Newcastle Scotswood works for a determined assault into railway locomotive and road roller manufacturing. In 1927 Armstrong Whitworth merged several of its engineering interests with Vickers, when the aircraft and motor divisions of the former AW concern were sold off to J.D. Siddeley as Armstrong Siddeley. (Vickers already had its own aircraft manufacturing arm.) Armstrong Whitworth had earlier entered into a licence arrangement with Saurer of Switzerland in 1919 for the manufacture of diesel engines which were first fitted to diesel locomotives and railcars, but, in 1930, the firm decided to re-enter the automotive market with the Armstrong-Saurer range of lorries built at Scotswood. These massive looking, normal or forward control machines were available with four or six cylinder indirect injection engines coupled with four speed gearboxes in four, six or eight wheeled versions. Air brakes, overdrive or Maybach auxiliary gearboxes and double reduction final drives were optional. The main emphasis was on the diesel engined models which had names beginning with the letter “D” (Diligent, Defiant, Dauntless, Dominant, Durable, Dynamic, though later models were called Active, Effective and Samson), the much rarer petrol versions using “P” as the initial letter (Pioneer, Persistent, Powerful). Very few were bodied as buses or coaches, but, in 1932, a 13ft 2ins wheelbase, normal control Dauntless with the 6 cylinder diesel of 8.55 litres, producing 90 bhp at 1800 rpm (the alternative four cylinder engine developed 52 bhp from 6.8 litres) was fitted with a luxuriously appointed Ransomes, Sims and Jeffries single deck body for demonstration purposes. In 1933, Armstrong -Saurer declared that it was considering entering the single and double deck passenger vehicle market, but later that year the Armstrong-Saurer diesel engines were offered as options in the Dennis Lancet and Lance chassis. New direct injection versions of the Saurer engine appeared in 1934, a 5.7 litre four cylinder of 70 bhp and a 8.55 litre six of 120 bhp at 1800 rpm, and ten single deck Daimler COS4 and one double deck COS6 thus powered were delivered to Newcastle Corporation in 1935. They were converted to AEC engines during WW2. In 1934 Dennis produced its own direct injection four cylinder O4 diesel of 6.5 litres, which, like the Saurer, had four valves per cylinder, though the design must have differed from the Saurer patents because no license fee was ever paid by the Guildford firm. Despite its premium prices, the Armstrong-Saurer range earned a solid reputation with hauliers for quality, but sales were a struggle in the depressed 1930s. Railway locomotive production was also in decline, and the Scotswood workforce fell from some 3000 in the early 1920s to just 500 by 1935. Rumours concerning the future of Armstrong-Saurer production at Scotswood began circulating in that year. Despite official denials, these proved to be well founded, and the entire Armstrong-Saurer range was withdrawn in 1937 when the Admiralty bought the Scotswood works and leased them back to Vickers-Armstrongs in order to concentrate on military work in the rapidly worsening political climate of the period.
Roger Cox
31/10/17 – 07:10
I have challenged before, and will challenge again, the widespread notion that Crossley failed because of its engine problems. In the early postwar years, Crossleys sold as well as they did because there was a high demand for buses. When they became part of the ACV group, AEC engineers quickly sorted out the HOE7 engine, and if the demand had still been there, word would have got around and they would have continued to sell. But the fact is that the bottom dropped out of the bus market in 1950, resulting in over-capacity in the industry, and in that situation Crossley were uniquely vulnerable because buses were their only product. Daimler made cars, Bristol were protected by a guaranteed market, and every other bus manufacturer was also a lorry builder. Crossley were totally dependent on the shrunken bus market, and that is why they failed.
Peter Williamson
01/11/17 – 07:07
The Crossley DD/SD42 was a very sound chassis design, but quickly revealed deficiencies in the engine department and in its steering, which was very heavy. In the immediate post war period the demand for passenger chassis was exceptionally high, and, on the strength of the performance of the HOE7 “Saurer head” engine, orders for Crossley chassis poured in. 3119 chassis were built between 1945 and 1951, but the concentration of production was in the years before the weaknesses of the HOE7 engine became widely apparent. It is true that the demand for new buses fell off sharply after 1949, but I maintain that the poor reputation of the engine did contribute to the decline of the Crossley Motors company, particularly in the double deck field. Somewhat surprisingly, since Crossley had not been a significant player in the pre war coach market, the single deck SD42 sold quite well to independent coach firms, whose operations were less punishing than all day stop start work on heavily laden municipal bus routes, and whose drivers tended to be rather more respectful towards their machinery. The Crossley Motors board did read the market trends accurately from 1945, and seeking a more secure foothold, entered into negotiations with Maudslay in 1946, which dragged on into 1947 when AEC expressed an interest. In 1948 AEC took control and began reshaping the business in line with its own procedures, which were not entirely to the liking of the Crossley directors and employees. There is surely no doubt that the long term continuation of independent Crossley models was not part of the AEC plan. In the meantime, early purchasers of the DD42 were becoming more than a trifle disenchanted with their buses, and did not offer repeat orders. Notably Manchester, potentially a very valuable customer, did not come back again after its 1946/47 deliveries. Stockport, in whose area the Crossley new Errwood Park factory was located, strongly resisted taking any more vehicles from the firm, but eventually and reluctantly conceded another order after a rather suspect tendering process in which Crossley slightly undercut Leyland. Yes, in frustration over Crossley’s lack of progress in sorting out the HOE7’s problems, AEC did come up with the downdraught engine, but hardly quickly, for this did not appear, and then only spasmodically, until 1950, by which time the Southall die had been cast against the passenger vehicle dependent Crossley marque.
Roger Cox
04/02/18 – 07:13
I remember visiting a bus museum near Hall i’ th’ Wood in Bolton some time in the mid 1980s and a Northampton Crossley was one of the buses there, in unrestored condition. I donâ’t know which one it was, could it have been this one?
David Pomfret
05/02/18 – 16:57
Only just seen your post of 1/11/17, Roger. Although you only mention the directors of Crossley, Roger, I can only assume the Arthur Hubble was still there after the AEC takeover, since I recall you saying elsewhere that he caused friction with Gardner’s management at much the same time. I’m surprised that the senior management were allowed to stay when AEC took over, but, perhaps, it was more common then. Nowadays, they go willingly with a good handout, but then it was less likely, I imagine. But I’m sure in the bus industry, that Hubble’s truculent and mean-spirited attitude was well-enough known to have justified arranging for his rapid departure!
Chris Hebbron
06/02/18 – 13:39
Only really of relevance to those close to Colchester, a former Crossley employee (and joint owner of VV 9146) will be giving a talk on Feb 9th about his time with the company which promises to be very interesting. I doubt that there are many ex employees still around given how long it is since the company’s demise..
Nigel Turner
07/02/18 – 05:48
Chris, all the original Crossley Motors directors were of advancing years by 1948. Sir Kenneth Crossley was almost 70, Arthur Hubble 60, T.D. Wishart (chassis designer) retired in that year, Major Eric Crossley retired in 1948 and died in the following year. No doubt AEC retained the residual management at Crossley to see out the production of existing models, which, hopefully, faced a better future with the AEC designed downdraught engine of 1949. AEC’s longer term plan for Crossley can be only conjectured, but I doubt that the Stockport firm was seen as a continued supplier of complete vehicles in a declining market. As with Leyland then and later, the absorption of other companies was an exercise in reducing competition as much as expanding productive capacity.
Roger Cox
07/02/18 – 16:32
Nigel: many thanks for mentioning Tony Melia’s talk at Friends’ Meeting House, Colchester, 7:15pm Friday Feb 9. Sounds unmissable—well worth travelling the 220 miles from Oxford to Colchester and back. (By train and not in one day, of course!)
Ian Thompson
09/02/18 – 07:08
Thx, Roger. One wonders if the improved engine stimulated demand for a period. Whatever happened, at least the profits went to AEC.
Chris Hebbron
09/02/18 – 17:06
I see that we get again that all the Leyland closures were to reduce competition- try amending that to reducing losses and concentrating investment to compete against the rest of the world-which we still failed to do. As you can see from the Crossley thread there was precious little new engine development (as against evolving product) even pre-war as they bought in overseas development
Roger Burdett
18/02/18 – 06:17
Thanks again to Nigel Turner for mentioning Tony Melia’s talk on his time at Crossley Motors. Spellbinding! Not just Tony’s perfect recall of the works and vehicles, but a wonderful insight into how apprentices were treated in those days, how fairly inexperienced workers were expected to use their initiative to get round any problem that might crop up and—of course—a total lack of Health & Safety. Some good character studies, too. Plenty of laughs. Any Bus Enthusiasts’s Society lucky enough to secure Tony Melia for an evening has a real treat in store.
Ian Thompson
18/02/18 – 17:01
It was good to meet Ian Thompson at Colchester and I’m glad he enjoyed the talk by Tony Melia, actually I’m sure that everybody there did so. Despite being in his ninetieth year, Tony spoke fluently for two hours which is no mean feat. Some of his stories about road testing the bare chassis over the Snake Pass make you wonder how he survived to his thirtieth birthday let alone his ninetieth.
Lancashire United Transport 1954 Atkinson Alpha PL745H Roe B44F
When the BET subsidiary and previously staunch Bristol user North Western Road Car Co. found itself unable to continue buying its favourite make of chassis (due to the manufacturer falling under state-owned BTC ownership and only able to supply to other similarly owned companies), NWRCC management, not to be outdone, sought the services of the independent truck maker Atkinson Lorries (1933) Ltd. of Walton-le-Dale to produce an equivalent to the underfloor-engined Bristol LS model which they would no doubt have otherwise purchased. The new model was christened the Alpha, and the first ones were duly delivered to NWRCC in 1951. However the BET Group were having none of it and stepped in to force its companies to stick to its preferred choice of Leyland Tiger Cub or AEC Reliance. Atkinson continued with the Alpha though, which was initially offered as a mediumweight model, fitted with a choice of Gardner 4, 5 or 6HLW engines, and either an Atkinson 5-speed overdrive constant-mesh or David Brown 5-speed direct top synchromesh gearbox. At the 1953 Scottish Show they displayed an Alpha fitted with Self-Changing Gears semi-automatic gearbox – quoted as being the first to be fitted to a PSV chassis (Leyland – owner of SCG – had a minority shareholding in Atkinson at the time). At the same time a lightweight version was offered. Apart from orders for 40 for LUT, and 20 for Venture of Consett, the rest were mostly supplied as coaches in small or single numbers. Production diminished throughout the 1950’s, the model’s swansong occurring in 1963 when Sunderland Corporation surprised everyone by taking three updated 33ft. long buses with semi-automatic gearboxes and modern-style Marshall bodies, but these were the last of the line. LUT took a batch of ten in each year from 1952 to 1955, and 528 (TTD 297) seen here at their Atherton Depot was a model PL745H with Roe B44F body, new in 1954.
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer
24/04/14 – 08:21
Weren’t the first NWRCC examples delivered with single rear wheels, but the road holding, or lack of it, lead to the more normal twin rear wheels being subsequently fitted? Did any other operator take single wheel Alphas?
Eric Bawden
24/04/14 – 08:22
If my memory isn’t faulty (and it often is these days) I have a feeling that Sunderland Corp’n took delivery of some earlier Alphas, with similar Roe bodies, in the mid-1950’s.
Chris Hebbron
24/04/14 – 08:22
A survivor from the three Atkinsons bought by Sunderland Corporation. I took the photo at the 2013 N.E.B.P.T rally at Seaburn, which is to the north of Sunderland, so no doubt the bus would have been used on services in the area at some time during its working life.
Ronnie Hoye
24/04/14 – 11:37
Sorry folks, in my haste I forgot to add the fleet and registration numbers for the Sunderland Atkinson. WBR 248 fleet number 48. More photos of the vehicle were posted in my Metro Center May 2013 gallery.
Ronnie Hoye
24/04/14 – 11:38
The NWRCC Alphas did have single rear wheels, something the company tinkered with on and off in the 1950s.
Phil Blinkhorn
24/04/14 – 11:39
Copyright Chas. H Roe
Here’s an official photo of one of the earlier Alphas, with Roe bodies, which Sunderland Corp’n bought and I mentioned earlier.
Chris Hebbron
24/04/14 – 15:47
So upset was the North Western manager by the BET reaction he resigned and left the company.
Chris Hough
24/04/14 – 15:47
Just one minor point, John. Self Changing Gears did not succumb to Leyland control until 1957, when the Lancashire maker bought the Hawker Siddeley third of the shares in the company. Prior to that, the Wilson family, Hawker Siddeley and Leyland each owned a third. The Atkinson shown in Chris Hebbron’s picture was earlier one of two L644LWEXL long wheelbase models with front mounted vertical 4LW engines bought by Sunderland in 1956/7. The Leyland shareholding in the Atkinson company proved to be the decisive factor in the tragic sale of Atkinson to Seddon in 1970. Leyland decided to take the Oldham money and run.
Roger Cox
25/04/14 – 07:29
It is surprising that a large proportion of the Atkinson buses had unusual bodies. All the North Western Alphas had rear entrance bodies, and many of the Lancashire United examples had centre-entrance standee bodies, as did four of those for SHMD Board. The last three for SHMD had front entrance standee bodies, and the one-off double decker had centre entrance. Even the front entrance Roe bodied Alphas for LUT had an unusual (but attractive) appearance, and the driver had an offside cab door. Surely the two Sunderland Atkinsons bought in the fifties were not Alphas, but modified lorry chassis. Just think, if the BET Group management had not been so awkward, North Western might have bought a couple of hundred Atkinson Alphas instead of Royal Tigers, Tiger Cubs and Reliances of the FDB, KDB and LDB series.
Don McKeown
25/04/14 – 07:30
Strange isn’t it. You would expect Atkinsons with their quality and traditional reputation and low volumes to be an ideal manufacturer for the bus industry. No, it has to be Leyland or AEC. Eventually, they all eat each other, aided by too much direction- are rear engines or double deckers the answer to everything- so we now have over-large, wallowing buses with all the control subtlety of a dodgem. Am I being unfair?!
Joe
25/04/14 – 11:47
I tend to agree with Don’s comment about the lorry chassis. The layout is probably the most odd of all the Atkinson bus production as, to an extent, all the other body layouts followed traditional or, at least, accepted formats yet a long wheelbase with a double width door behind the front axle needs some explanation!
Phil Blinkhorn
25/04/14 – 14:24
The Atkinson L644 was a lorry chassis – L=Long wheelbase, 6=6 tonner, 4=4-wheel, 4=4cyl. The suffix LWEXL presumably means LW=Gardner LW (though this was not usually used on lorries, being taken for granted), EXL=Extra Long (being longer than the standard lwb lorry). I’ve only ever seen these on photographs, but always thought they looked rather good, and that Roe had made a very neat job of them. The double width door looks unusual on a front-engined single decker, and the grille looks like a throwback to the BMMO S6 or D5. It’s almost like a slightly longer and more substantial alternative to the Bristol SC. I’m told however that their appeal stopped with their appearance, and that they were rather unrefined in reality.
John Stringer
27/04/14 – 08:08
Although it was based upon a lorry chassis, one presumes that the frames of the Sunderland buses were dropped in the conventional psv fashion to permit a reasonable floor height. I entirely agree that the 4LW engine would have been a far from refined power unit, even with a flexible mounting. (Nonetheless, the prewar Dennis Lancet with four cylinder petrol or diesel power was noted for smooth running.) The 4LW had a capacity of 5.6 litres, almost exactly the same as the experimental 6LK engine made in the 1930s but not produced in volume. No doubt the 6LK would have been more costly to produce than the 4LW, but it would have given Gardner an effective, reliable, refined 5.7 litre 85 bhp high speed six cylinder engine, suitable for automotive applications where the 4LW was much too ponderous. An excellent opportunity was lost. Under Hugh Gardner’s autocratic management style the company’s production methods did not evolve with the passage of time, and were essentially very inefficient by the 1960s, a factor that was reflected in the level of output and the unit cost. During the 1968 strike in the foundry section, personnel from other parts of the Patricroft works stepped in to maintain production. It was discovered that the technique used for the sand core for one complex casting could be simplified, reducing the manufacturing time from 40 minutes to 12 seconds. No doubt similar economies could have been effected in other processes had the will been there to take a proper look. After the 1973 strike, during which some 600 skilled employees left the Patricroft firm for employment elsewhere, the continued demand for the LX series engines had to be met by ending production of the 4LK and 4/5/6LW ranges for which markets still existed. When, in the following year, Rolls Royce decided to pull out of making diesel engines, Paul Gardner suggested that the Patricroft firm should buy the Shrewsbury factory, equipped as it was with modern manufacturing plant. Hugh Gardner responded by threatening to resign, and the project was dropped. Paul was told to apologise for wasting the board’s time. What might have been!
Roger Cox
27/04/14 – 12:58
Thx for the insight into Gardner’s problem boss. So many livelihoods affected, often those of talented people by such high-handed and misguided behaviour. Can you say, Roger, why the Gardner strikes occurred and why R-R pulled out of road vehicle engine manufacture?
Chris Hebbron
27/04/14 – 16:16
Chris, the comprehensive record of Gardner history is the 2002 book by Graham Edge. In August 1968, a certain shop steward in the iron foundry shop took it upon himself, presumably arising from some grievance, to cast the name ‘Gardner’ upside down on the crankcase of the large and expensive 8L3B engine. He was repeatedly warned to no effect and was ultimately suspended. The other stewards in the foundry then called a strike that lasted until September, when the action collapsed and the staff returned to work, having lost their centenary bonus. The initial troublemaker left the plant soon afterwards. The 1973 dispute was more serious, and fell within a pattern of strikes that plagued almost all the UK motor manufacturing industries of the time. By the end of 1973, when settlement was made, production of engines at Patricroft had fallen to a level, 2937 units, that was half that of the two previous years. This strike was instrumental in the move by those manufacturers traditionally employing Gardner engines towards fitting other makes of motive power. Hugh Gardner was an autocrat and must surely have been an unreceptive individual at every negotiating table with the trades unions. It is possible that an undercurrent of labour dispute arose from personal resentment by the union representatives, but the eventual outcome was yet another tragedy for British industry. The appointment of Clayton Flint as Chairman in 1975, the first ‘non Family’ person ever to hold the post, led to more flexible management of the company and improved production efficiency, particularly in the foundry shop. The rigid resistance to change ceased to be, and Paul Gardner, at last, was permitted to take Gardner engines into the world of turbocharging. Sadly, it was all too late, and even the sale of the business to Hawker Siddeley could not save Gardner. New engines were rushed into production too soon, and reliability, hitherto synonymous with the name Gardner, began to fall short. In the recession of the 1980s, during which the smaller independent commercial vehicle makers began to fall by the wayside, Hawker Siddeley lost interest in Gardner and sold off the company to Perkins. The writing was finally on the wall. Perkins disposed of Gardner by 1994, and automotive engine production ceased soon afterwards, followed by marine production three years later. The residual engine parts and support business became Gardner Avon, but this is now a non trading company. Today, the so called Gardner group is a supplier to the aerospace industry. It has several sites in the UK, but Manchester is not one of them.
Roger Cox
28/04/14 – 08:27
The North Western manager who resigned when BET refused to approve the purchase of further Atkinsons was Mr H S Driver, the company’s chief engineer. He had appealed to try to have this decision overturned, but without success. He later became Gardner technical representative for Australasia, and did not return to the UK.
David Williamson
28/04/14 – 08:27
Thanks, Roger, for that detailed, illuminating and depressing story, much of it so common in those days. That was when much of the Great went out of Great Britain!
Chris Hebbron
29/04/14 – 07:55
I’d been wondering what had happened to Gardner: there they were supplying engines, along came “uniformed service” and I sort of dropped out of bus-related business . . . then when I picked-up my interest again it was in a world without Gardner. I do remember reading somewhere that there was a specific reason why Sunderland ordered those long-wheelbase forward-entrance Atkinsons to that forma- but I can’t remember now what I read or where I read it. Something about a heavily-trafficked night/works service seems to ring a bell.
Philip Rushworth
29/04/14 – 07:55
Much of the BET Group’s vehicle policy was determined by the availability of bulk discounts. Atkinson would probably have been unable to provide the bulk, never mind the discount. NWRC’s Mr Driver had allegedly been responsible for the creation of the Alpha, and had certainly worked closely with the manufacturer to get the spec just so for the operator. But when he went to BET HQ to plead his case, he was told that Royal Tigers had already been allocated to NWRC from a Leyland bulk order, and that was that. (Info from Glory Days: North Western by A E Jones.)
Peter Williamson
30/04/14 – 07:26
Very grateful to Roger for the detailed account of Gardner’s sad slide into nothingness. Having no understanding of the business side of things, I went through life blissfully confident that Gardner’s products always had been, were and always would be the finest available on earth. Of course that was once true, but I had my illusion shattered one day at Dover, where a driver had open the back panel of his bus. (I can’t remember the make of vehicle, and was the engine a 6LXCT or did it have a slightly bigger bore?) I expected him to share my enthusiasm, but his tales were of woe, and I went away with a painfully updated understanding, although I still had no idea how long the problems had been festering. Also fascinated to read that a 6LK had actually been built. A friend used to fantasize about such an engine. It could have competed directly with the Perkins 6.354—though certainly not on price!
Ian Thompson
01/05/14 – 08:24
Thanks Roger for your detailed account of the sad demise of Gardner. I always had (and still have) the utmost respect for their products, which were built to a very high standard as is well documented, and were often known as ‘the crème de la crème of diesel engines’. (Indeed, when the 6LXB was announced, it was regarded as the world’s most fuel-efficient diesel engine at 40% efficiency). It is also well known that Hugh Gardner was most dogmatic in his views on engine design and how the company was to be run, which no doubt maintained standards, but in the longer term stifled Gardner’s ability to move with the times. As Roger says, Paul Gardner eventually started to take the company forward but it was somehow too late. Certainly the new Gardner LYT engine fell short regarding reliability, and stories of broken crankshafts began to circulate. This was something unheard of with the LW/LX/LXB engines (unless serious maltreatment had occurred), despite their crankshafts not being of fully-hardened construction. The 6LXB continued to have a strong following in the bus market, and the ’30 tons and under’ truck market well into the ‘eighties. Then along came bus deregulation and privatisation, causing widespread disruption to full-sized vehicle manufacturers’ orders following an unpredicted swing to minibuses by operators. There was also, if memory serves correctly, a recession in the construction industry, and haulage companies were also being squeezed by competition from European hauliers. The likes of Volvo, Scania and DAF were also making inroads into the truck market, with more comfortable cabs and higher output engines. Such manufacturers built their own engines which did not help Gardner’s plight. It really is sad how the mighty have fallen. Forty years ago who would have predicted that Gardner, Leyland, Foden, ERF and Seddon-Atkinson would no longer exist in the early 21st century?
Brendan Smith
01/05/14 – 08:25
Many Gardner engines had an afterlife, they were snapped up by showmen who converted them for use as fairground generators. Ironically, since the regulations for silent running generators came into force, many of those that didn’t end up going abroad have been sold to preservation groups, some for spares, but I know of one that will go into a bus which was bought minus and engine, and is currently being restored.
Ronnie Hoye
01/05/14 – 08:25
Ian, following the apocalypse of deregulation, and the acquisition of the “split up” NBC companies by profiteers, I found myself, after five years in non psv work, working at Viscount, Peterborough, the western division of the Cambus outfit. One of the Olympians there was equipped with a 6LXCT engine for the Northampton service, which was operated jointly with Stagecoach United Counties. When outshopped from overhaul, it was often allocated to other services. If it was fully on song, this bus could really motor – I once reached an indicated 70 mph with it when endeavouring to recover lost time on the A1 route to Huntingdon – but the turbocharger arrangement was sadly lacking in durability, and regularly failed. The brakes on this bus were truly dreadful, well up to the tradition of PD3s of the past, and this also tempered one’s inclination to indulge in maximum power. In trying to catch up with other manufacturers in the brave new world of turbocharging, the later Gardner efforts were under developed and under capitalised. The eyes of the top brass at Hawker Siddeley moved instinctively to the net result figure at the bottom of the P/L sheet. The past industrial environment of steady development testing had irretrievably gone, and, after nine years of ownership, Hawker Siddeley lost interest. The sale of Gardner to Perkins in May 1986 was the final kiss of death. Perkins had already taken over the Rolls Royce diesel range, and serious investment in Gardner development was deemed commercially unrewarding. The introduction of the Euro emission regulations was the final blow. Perkins disposed of Gardner in August 1992, by which time most of the output consisted of engine remanufacturing/reconditioning. Perkins/RR and Cummins then ruled the roads and the waves, but they, too, were soon to be seriously threatened by the continental onslaught.
Roger Cox
01/05/14 – 11:48
Scania and DAF both based their success on developing the Leyland O.600/O.680, which they both originally built under licence. There is also uncorroborated evidence that there was a similar beginning to the Volvo story. Another case of the Thatcherite selling off of the family silver.
David Oldfield
01/05/14 – 11:49
….and who, Brendan, would ever have foretold that the lone survivor of all the British mid/heavy transport manufacturers would be Dennis, albeit mainly in the bus field! Perkins is still around, but not in the transport field. Such proud names consigned to history. How lucky we were to have been around to experience and enjoy their products. Oh dear, I’m at risk of becoming maudlin!
Chris Hebbron
01/05/14 – 18:16
David, if you listen to a Scania you can hear the Lancashire accent!
Phil Blinkhorn
02/05/14 – 07:35
You’re right Chris, who indeed would have thought Dennis would rise to such a prominent position in the bus world bless ’em? And where did Wright’s spring from all of a sudden? Nice one Phil. I’ll listen more closely to Yorkshire Tiger’s Omnicity on the Bradford service next time I’m in Harrogate bus station.
Brendan Smith
02/05/14 – 07:36
I first noticed the Lancashire accent driving a new Scania K113 in 1995, Phil. [Especially driving up the hill toward the Air Balloon – leaving Gloucester in the Cirencester direction.]
David Oldfield
02/05/14 – 10:19
The accent is most noticeable on tickover. I can well understand how driving up towards the Air Balloon would bring out the Leyland in a Scania.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/05/14 – 10:20
Brendan. Wrights were around for years building school buses, welfare vehicles and libraries for appropriate “boards” in Northern Ireland. Their joint venture with GM to produce an advanced coach probably first brought them to attention here but it was almost certainly the Handibus – on the Dart – which set things flying. The use of Alusuisse and quality work didn’t harm them, either.
David Oldfield
02/05/14 – 15:17
Thanks for the info David. I am aware of the Handibus/Dart connection, but I had not realised that their history went quite so far back with vehicles produced for what we would probably term ‘Local Authority’ departments. They appeared to really take off following the arrival of the attractively styled Cadet/Renown-type single-deck bodies. The Wright-bodied vehicles for Blazefield certainly seem well put together and have stood the test of time in the various fleets. In some respects it could be argued that long term, Wright’s have taken up the slack left by the closure of ECW. I must admit however that I much preferred the styling of the latter.
Brendan Smith
06/09/14 – 06:30
Regarding the North Western Atkinson Alphas being rear entrance I understood this was because many queue barriers etc were designed, at that time, for rear entrances (which had been standard until then). For example an allocation of Alphas were needed at Urmston to service the 22 (Levenshulme-Eccles) which was joint with Manchester Corporation, who used rear entrance Royal Tigers, as the very substantial barriers at Eccles Bus Station, Davyhulme Nags Head etc. were positioned to suit rear entrances.
Richard Ward
24/04/15 – 06:22
May I ask through this column, for more information (or where to find information) about the BET Preferred Suppliers list. I find this aspect of PSV history quite disturbing, that private companies could be dictated to in this way. One wonders how many BET group managers would have preferred to take Gardner engined products, and how different PSV history would have been given a level playing field.
Allan White
24/04/15 – 13:34
Allan, I’m not sure of your premise. BET owned each individual company. As owner it could dictate policy to its constituents which, though each had its own General Manager, was really a branch of the main company with a small degree of autonomy. The individual operating companies were not private companies and, as BET was a FTSE listed company, their results contributed to the group balance sheet and affected the share price. Nothing unusual in that in just about every sector of business. The classic case of North Western and Atkinson may be the case in point which has sparked your comment. BET had decided that the group would buy Leyland Royal Tigers and later, Tiger Cubs. The deal was financially beneficial to the group as a whole. The fact that NWRCC had its own preference that was overruled may well have been a bad operational decision where financial gain perhaps overcame common sense but in my long experience of working for and with companies within groups, in a number of industries, this is by no means unusual.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/04/15 – 07:05
The Aldershot & District Traction Company was owned in equal third parts by the BET, the THC (ex Southern Railway shareholding) and private shareholders, and this gave it some latitude in its vehicle choices, predominantly Dennis until the influx of the all conquering AEC Reliance. I don’t know if any other BET group companies still had an element of private shareholding up to the 1968 sell out to the government. The ‘delisting’ of certain suppliers, fundamentally in favour of AEC and Leyland, was prompted purely by the economies achievable through bulk ordering. Whether or not BET got the best vehicles through this arrangement is arguable. For example, some BET companies, notably the Northern General group, East Kent and, to a lesser extent, Southdown amongst others, were well satisfied with the Guy Arab, probably the most reliable and economic bus of its time, and they must have been less than pleased when further purchases were vetoed from ‘above’. Even so, individual companies still had some input into the specification of their orders. The Southdown full fronted PD3s, often called ‘Queen Marys’, were unlike anything else in the BET group, apart from the roughly similar Ribble machines. I am sure that other contributors can give similar examples.
Roger Cox
ps I should have added the East Kent full fronted Regent V ‘Puffins’ to the list of distinctive individual orders.
28/11/15 – 06:01
Harking back to Gardner for a moment, were any engines ever fitted to diesel trains, British or foreign? I’m only ever aware of mainly AEC ones and, later, Cummins and possibly the odd Leyland, but it seems to me that the ever-reliable Gardner, which, on the surface, would have seemed the ideal choice, never penetrated the rail market. Or am I wrong?
Chris Hebbron
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
30/12/20 – 10:47
Atkinson Alpha BPL745H with Willowbrook B45F built in 1955 for The Venture Transport Company. They must have proved able workhorses as Venture bought twenty four over a period of two years. The operating area was mostly west Durham and consisted of difficult hilly terrain south of Newcastle and the Tyne valley.
Part of the second batch of six purchased was RUP 434 fleet No.173, the others being RUP 433/8 and numbered 172 – 177. The 1956/7 versions received a more simplified livery and less maroon to the front and sides and straight cab side windows. Photo from my collection, photographer unknown.
