Tag: Short Bros

Portsmouth Corporation – AEC Regent I – RV 719 – 35


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

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

25/05/12 – 07:48

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

Stephen Ford

25/05/12 – 07:49

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

Richard Fieldhouse

25/05/12 – 15:06

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

Paul Haywood

25/05/12 – 15:07

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

David Oldfield

26/05/12 – 06:38

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

Diesel Dave

26/05/12 – 06:39

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

David Oldfield

26/05/12 – 06:40

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

Chris Hebbron

26/05/12 – 06:42

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

Roger Cox

26/05/12 – 06:43

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

Chris Hebbron

26/05/12 – 16:52

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

Paul Haywood

26/05/12 – 16:53

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

Chris Hebbron

28/05/12 – 07:51

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

John Whitaker

28/05/12 – 07:52

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

Pat Jennings

29/05/12 – 06:49

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

Michael Hampton

30/05/12 – 07:21

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

Chris Hebbron

30/05/12 – 13:30

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

Michael Hampton

30/05/12 – 17:37

DSCN1173

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

Richard Fieldhouse

31/05/12 – 10:50

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

Chris Hebbron

Wakefields Motors – AEC Regent I – FT 2611 – 42


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

Wakefields Motors
1932
AEC Regent I
Short Bros – Northern Coachbuilders H56R (1945)

Featured elsewhere on this site is a posting of a 1931 Short Bros bodied AEC Regent of Portsmouth Corporation. Between 1931/2 Percy Main depot took delivery of 16 virtually identical vehicles, I cant be absolutely certain about the fleet or registration numbers, but my information suggests they came in two batches of eight, and were FT 2516/23 – 34/41 in 1931; and FT 2611/18 – 42/9 in 1932: In 1940, three of them, 39/41 were transferred to Northern. All 16 were rebodied by Northern Coachbuilders, the first was 49, that was during the war years and it received a utility body, it too was also transferred, but the remainder were done in 1945, and all as seen here. All the vehicles that remained at Percy Main retained their original fleet numbers, four of them, 42/5, carried the Wakefields name, but that apart they were all identical.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

28/07/13 – 07:36

These bodies were notorious for sagging (green wood in the frames) but this one looks smart – probably photographed when the body was new. Is that a retro-fitted post-war radiator? Looks a little long – certainly compared with Sheffield’s 1952 rebuilds of 1938/9 Regent I chassis which retained the original (short) radiators.

David Oldfield

28/07/13 – 10:37

The high gloss and standard of finish of this very attractive body suggests at least a repaint and possibly an overhaul, hence no sag! I notice it’s been given the later, longer, AEC rad, which always improved the frontal appearance.

Chris Hebbron

28/07/13 – 12:44

You mention the high gloss, Chris, even as late as 1967, when I first started at Percy Main, all vehicles were repainted every three years, they were hand painted, and the process was five coats, the last one being a clear varnish. But ‘here we go again’ that was pre NBC, and all the NGT group companies had a pride in their fleets, as did the vast majority of operators at the time.

Ronnie Hoye

29/07/13 – 07:47

There was some discussion on the SCT site a while ago about the NGT pre-war SOS which was rebodied with this style of NCB body in 1945. Noting that Ronnie states that these AEC’s were also rebodied in 1945 and taking that date to be correct, would that make NCB the first British coachbuilder to produce bodywork to full peacetime standards after WW2?

Chris Barker

29/07/13 – 14:53

I can’t help noticing that, disregarding the front end, the rest of this bus looks remarkably similar to Halifax Corporation/JOC’s Park Royal-bodied Regents of 1947-50. These were based on Park Royal’s wartime utility design with a prewar-style rear dome and the frontal profile modified to resemble the current postwar metal-framed design.
As I understand it, Park Royal were responsible for designing the original utility double-deck body for the MoS which other manufacturers then put their own interpretation on. NCB did build some utilities, so I wonder if these and their early postwar bodies were based on the Park Royal utility design.

John Stringer

29/07/13 – 17:39

Thanks for offering this, Ronnie. Another gem from your collection.
So far as pride in the fleet is concerned, it does seem to have carried forward into what is now the Go Ahead Group, if my experiences with Brighton & Hove, Oxford, and the “Go South Coast” members (Solent Blue Line, Southern Vectis and Wilts & Dorset) are any guide. The punters notice such things, too, with the local member of that group based in Aberdeen getting a far less favourable press than GA.

Pete Davies

30/07/13 – 07:19

Interesting to see such a modern-looking body on a chassis with semi-floating rear axle. The short bay ahead of the platform intrigues me too: did the chassis have the older 15′ 6½” wheelbase? A standard postwar NCB body would have been designed around a roughly 16′ 3″ wheelbase, so this one would have needed adapting.
Whatever the structural problems may have been, I still find these bodies very good-looking.

Ian Thompson

31/07/13 – 07:54

I submitted some thoughts too this Old Bus website in 2012 on post-war NCB design relating to the Bradford Corporation re-bodied AEC 661T trolleybuses 597 to 632 series from 1946 through to 1949 and resubmit my views to this debate. These views can be found on the OB site under Newcastle Corporation – Daimler.

Richard Fieldhouse

National Omnibus – AEC Regent I – GF 7217


Copyright V C Jones


Copyright Surfleet Transport Photos


Copyright J C Gilham

National Omnibus/LGOC/London Transport
1930
AEC Regent I
Short Bros. L26/24R

In LGOC days, it competed with independents as much in the rural areas around London as in Central London. Two of the main contenders were, in the South, East Surrey, based in Reigate, and, in the North, the National Omnibus and Transport Co. Ltd, based in Watford. Slowly, they integrated their services and were eventually bought by LGOC, nevertheless still ploughing their own furrows, even to the extent of choosing their own vehicles.
Both organisations suffered from routes with low bridges and bought lowbridge buses. National solved their problem with six AEC Regent I’s, with Short Bros. lowbridge bodies for the Watford-Chesham service (later route 336). Unusually, the 24 upstairs seats were 3-in-a-row bench ones, accessed by a sunken gangway each side.
They all went into service in May/June 1930 and lived a steady life until 1941, when the double-decking of the single-deck route 127 (Morden-South Wimbledon) caused some to be painted red and despatched to Merton Garage until mid-1943. Others went to Godstone Garage, Surrey, to assist in route 410 and Weybridge Garage, also with a low bridge problems. Not only did they wander about, but they were also “Londonised” during overhauls, but each one was done in different ways until not one looked like any of the others! They outlived all the other ST’s and were even re-engined with diesel engines around 1949-50 from scrapped STL’s, to extend their lives, until the eventual advent of RLH’s, which sealed their fate.
All were withdrawn in October 1952,, with some being sold on for further use. The last one (ST140) seems to have been finally withdrawn as a bus in August 1954, having served a very creditable 24 years service, for a wooden-framed body. Even then, it was spotted cut down as a lorry, in June 1955!

Photographs and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron (with help from Ian’s Bus Stop website)

20/07/15 – 05:42

The first photograph is almost certainly taken along the A320 near Staines, looking South with the bus heading North. The offending bridge is still there, and regularly struck by buses on charter and heading for Thorpe Park. The surrounding scene, unsurprisingly, has changed beyond all recognition.

Grahame Arnold

23/07/15 – 08:51

Always fascinating to see photos—and especially interior shots—of these twin-side-gangway deckers. Fine dignified design.

Ian T

24/07/15 – 05:44

I have heard about twin gangway lowbridge buses, but only ever had the doubtful pleasure of travelling on the single offside gangway type – mainly Hants & Dorset and Southern Vectis, but a couple of journeys on Seaview’s Titans. How was the nearside gangway reached once one got to the top of the stairs?

David Wragg

24/07/15 – 05:46

I remember the low bridge vehicles of Newcastle Corporation and United ‘among others’ they were a standard low bridge layout with four seats across, and a single sunken gangway down the off side which ran from the top stair, and had a step up over the drivers cab. Never having seen one of these before, how on earth did you get to the nearside gangway?

Ronnie Hoye

25/07/15 – 06:05

If I understand the drawings correctly there was a lower height gangway running transversely between the rearmost seat and the nearside gangway.
Incidentally National were not owned by General but had an area agreement with them. When the railways bought in to National, geographic names got added, Eastern, Southern and Western, but not Midland.

Stephen Allcroft

26/07/15 – 06:35

Further to Stephen’s comment on the area National names, I believe both Midland and Northern National were registered, to protect the names from use by others. However Northern was never used, there being no obvious company in the National empire, and Midland was not used, as it became an operating area of Eastern National, almost entirely separate from the main Essex Eastern National area. In 1952 it was transferred to United Counties, increasing that company’s size. Eastern National then regained size by the transfer of Westcliff on Sea Motor Services, and the take over of Hicks Bros and others in Essex at around that time. (Moores of Kelvedon survived for another 10 years or so).

Michael Hampton

27/07/15 – 06:42

Thanks Stephen, now we know how, the next question is, why? I suppose it made sense to someone, but I don’t understand the logic in having an extra gangway which reduces seating capacity, and would presumably be more expensive to build.

Ronnie Hoye

27/07/15 – 17:07

The conventional lowbridge layout must have been extremely inconvenient at busy times. If the person furthest from the gangway wished to alight, the other three passengers on that seat would have to unload themselves into the gangway and move forwards to let them out. If similar things were happening on the seats in front, the result could be the passenger equivalent of gridlock! Providing an extra gangway would completely eliminate this problem.

Peter Williamson

27/07/15 – 17:08

I guess the objective was to speed up boarding and alighting times, and perhaps make fare collection easier as well. Certainly being a conductor on an offside gangway lowbridge bus must have been a challenge.

David Wragg

30/07/15 – 06:14

I recall travelling on Hants & Dorset lowbridge Bristol Ks between Poole and Bournemouth on occasion. They had the gangway on the nearside upstairs IIRC, and it certainly was chaotic if the bus was busy. It must surely have led to delays, and issuing tickets to the passenger/s furthest from the gangway must have required some dexterity and conductors with very long arms!

Grahame Arnold

30/07/15 – 08:43

Did Leyland have some kind of patent on the single gangway design, or am I deluded?
In more prim & proper days it may have been felt undesirable with single gangways for gentlemen to be clambering over ladies’ knees to leave their seats? Still is, really. These designs always seemed a necessary evil, as big operators seemed to dispose of these types when bridges permitted- and hence the appeal of the Lodekka, although this presumably also gave an opportunity for standardisation in a limited market.

Joe

31/07/15 – 06:31

Unless I am mistaken, the bus in the top picture by V.C. Jones on the 461 route bears the registration GF 7214; this identifies the bus as ST 140.
In the late 40’s/early 50’s, Harrow Weald (HD) garage was host to ST 136, ST 141, ST 162 and ST 1090. At various times I rode on all 4 of these fascinating vehicles on Route 230, which had two low bridges, one of which was in Headstone Drive, Wealdstone close to the now defunct Kodak factory.

Jon Harry

31/07/15 – 06:32

As a youngster, I remember low bridge buses with an off side gangway, but instead of one seat going four across, they were staggered two by two, with the nearside pair being slightly further forward, but I cant for the life of me remember where I saw them. Newcastle had All Leyland PD2’s and Park Royal Regent V’s, and United had ECW Bristol KW’s, but I don’t think it was either of them. Moor Dale had a couple of Ex Ribble PD2 White Ladies? or it may have been whilst I was on holiday with relations who lived in Kilmarnock ‘Western territory’.

Ronnie Hoye

31/07/15 – 06:32

I seem to recall seeing photos of piano-fronted buses with about a 3/5ths wide central roof-bulge down the whole length, front to back. If this isn’t one of my wildest imaginings, was this the earliest variant of a lowbridge bus? I don’t think that they had anything to do with the Beverly Bar.

Chris Hebbron

31/07/15 – 09:03

Chris, what you describe would seem to have been early AEC Regents with the “camel roof” body design. This was a normal highbridge body that had the roof level lowered except for the central section over the gangway. I imagine that one had to be careful not to bang one’s head when leaving one’s seat. The reason for this rather futile idea was to give the visual impression of a low roof line to compete with the Leyland Titan lowbridge design. It was soon abandoned.

Roger Cox

31/07/15 – 09:03

Chris, perhaps they were ‘tunnel’ buses. LTPB had some for the Blackwall tunnel.

David Wragg

31/07/15 – 13:39

Ref : Tunnels.
Did Buses as well as trams use the Embankment to Kingsway tunnel?

John Lomas

01/08/15 – 06:33

Ronnie, in 1952 West Yorkshire experimented with staggered upstairs seating on a 1951 lowbridge Bristol KSW6B (830, later renumbered DBW12: KWU368). The original rows of bench seats for four were replaced by staggered rows, each offering their four occupants their own individual seat, each seat being staggered back from the one to the left of it. The bus was loaned to United Auto in December 1952 for evaluation, so could this have been the one you rode on Ronnie? (If this is the case, I’m sorry if I’ve given you’re age away!). West Yorkshire’s 1953 delivery of KSWs, to be their last, were delivered with staggered seating upstairs, these being KSW6Bs 853/854 (later renumbered DBW33/34: LWR419/420) and KSW6Gs 855-864 (later renumbered DGW1-10: LWR421-430).
I still have vivid memories of riding upstairs perched on the gangway end seat of WY’s earlier lowbridge KSWs, as they swung around the sharp lefthand turn from Otley Road into Market Street, Shipley, on their way to the bus station. Not an easy task when you have only your left buttock on the seat, whilst the right one hangs in mid-air, attempting to defy gravity with only its attached skinny schoolboy leg to offer support. I’d put up with this all again however, just to ride on such a wonderful beast.

Brendan Smith

01/08/15 – 06:35

No, John L, although an experimental trolleybus was built and run through a few times. It had a normal nearside open platform, with an offide entry/exit, too, with sliding doors, necessary because the subway ‘stations’ had island platforms. The trolleybus roof was too high for it to use its poles, so would have had to stow these, gone through on battey power, then put the poles back up! I also read once that turning circles inside were tighter than with trams. When the tramway system closed in 1952, the subway closed with it.

Roger C – You’ve hit the nail on the head, (the clever metaphor won’t escape you!). I’d forgotten that Leyland did Lowbridge and Hybridge bodies which took added advantage of the low TD1 chassis. AEC’s futile camel-roof design was probably one reason for poaching Rackham from Leyland!

David W – The ‘Blackwall Tunnel’ buses were built much later than the ones I had in mind. They had conventional roofs, which were slightly more rounded. One feature they had was tyres with reinforced walls to extend life, since they rubbed along the kerbs of the two tunnels. Perhaps they even swopped the tyres offside/nearside periodically to further extend life. John H – Route 230, along with the 127 Morden-South Wimbledon, were the only two lowbridge routes in LT’s ‘red’ Central Area. The 230 was usually served by the unique ‘unfrozen’ lowbridge STL’s of 1942, whereas it was usually the green Country Area buses from Reigate which covered the 127 until 6 (later another 6)’austerity’ Daimler ‘D’s’ appeared in 1944.

Chris Hebbron

01/08/15 – 07:06

I recall travelling on Uniteds route from Newcastle via Bedlington to Ashington in Northumberland in 1963 I knew of United having 2 ECW Bristol’s KW’s In its fleet. Seating being 4 across always seemed to cause problems when full to capacity.

Alan Coulson

06/04/16 – 16:24

Ronnie, re your comment 31.07.2015 my apologies for this delayed reply but I am a newcomer to this group. North Western RCC had such a layout on a batch of 10 PD2/21s with Weymann bodied Orions KDB 671-670. There was quite a bit of publicity in the Stockport newspapers at the time about the technological “advances” with these staggered seats and the next time I was in Mersey Square I went inside one to have a look. Frankly, I couldn’t see what the fuss was about. According to Glory Days these buses were not liked by the crews.

David Revis