Photo by unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Hebble Motor Services 1956 AEC Reliance MU3RV Willowbrook B44F
I can recognize that this photo was taken outside the Hebble depot at Walnut Street in the depths of the terrace streets of north Halifax. They also had a depot in Bradford at Park Lane, the garage was big enough for 50 vehicles and Yorkshire Woollen District buses were stationed in the same depot when working the Bradford area. Hebble was one of if not the smallest B.E.T. operator and by the reading of Peter Gould’s history of Hebble Motors they did have a tendency to flaunt the rules a bit. To read Peter Gould’s history of Hebble Motor Services and it is well worth doing so click here.
Chesterfield bought this bus from London Transport it was RW1 in their fleet. Roof windows were more likely to be found on dual purpose or coaches rather than on a bus but this bus had them. It also had a dual entrance with, as usual at London Transport a front entrance and centre exit, I am not sure if Chesterfield changed it to front only doors. If you know, let me know, please leave a comment.
Nice photo of the RW, Chesterfield had just gone one man and from then until the mid 70s bought a lot of 2 door buses (about 75) double and single deck. The RWs (Reliance/Willowbrook) was the standard bus for several years in Grimsby-Cleethorpes, London tried 3 but then went for Swifts and Merlins.
David Harrison
Chesterfield obviously liked the RW Reliances as they were followed by a fair number of Neepsend/East Lancs Reliances. All of them had centre exits, which the RWs also retained. They were then followed by Daimler Roadliners – total disaster – and Leyland Panthers. All of these were also dual door.
David Oldfield
As an aside, what is the part-view single-decker with the stepped side windows on the right of the RW?
Chris Hebbron
I think the bus behind the Reliance is ERA 95. A pre-war gearless Leyland Tiger that had been given a manual gearbox and converted into a mobile canteen. If not it could be one of the single deck Crossleys, but they were all withdrawn when the Reliances arrived as they were their replacements.
Ian Couzens
BBF5 (1965 edition) shows 12 Crossley single-deckers on the fleet strength as well as the RWs, which arrived in 1963. The part of the body visible looks identical to the Crossley body on the preserved Chesterfield Leyland PS1. I should be very surprised if anything prewar had a stepped waistrail like that, since it appears to be derived from the post-war Manchester double deck design.
Peter Williamson
Glimpsing that Crossley-bodied single-decker I assumed the chassis was also Crossley, but the rear hub (had to look hard!) identifies as a postwar Leyland, two of which I understand are preserved. I 1966 I arranged for a college nr Reading to buy NRA 717 and later became a part-owner. We passed it on to Alan Smallie of Worksop as a source of spares for his sister ships. Is either of them on the rally circuit?
Ian Thompson
One or two of the Crossleys survived quite late, although I think in some instances at least not in passenger service. Chesterfield had Crossley single-deck bodies on PS1s, SD42s and, uniquely, on AEC Regals but I have never seen a picture of the AECs
David Beilby
Leeds also used roof line windows on single deckers in the nineteen fifties. Their small fleet of saloons were all centre entrance with vertiginous steps and carried 34 seated and 20 standees. The windows were so standing passengers could see the outside world! Leeds first dual door saloons Roe bodied AEC Reliances did not have the feature but it reappeared on the Roe bodied AEC Swifts in the late sixties. These were eventually painted over in PTE days
Chris Hough
In answer to David Beilby, there was a booklet; Tramlines to Fleetlines, a history of Chesterfield Transport, published by the Council and Transpire, the Chesterfield bus society which contained a picture of one of the Regals, JRA 653 (credited to R Marshall) It was one of four, I too thought they must have been unique! Not sure if the book is still around today, perhaps Transpire could help.
Chris Barker
Nice pics of Chesterfield Crossley-bodied Leyland PS1 JRA 635 on YouTube: Novawheels.
Ian Thompson
I’ve just noticed that the Reliance is described as MU3RA. Bus Lists On The Web has it as 2MU3RA. However, I once met one of these buses later in life with Brutonian, and it was semi-automatic, which would make it 2MU2RA. Does anyone have a definitive answer to this? I’ve made an enquiry about the Transpire book. Meanwhile those interested in Alan Smalley’s Crossleys may like to take a look at this slideshow. (No, neither of them is on the rally circuit.)
Peter Williamson
I’m told that the best place to enquire about the booklet “Tramlines to Fleetlines” would be Terminus Publications. Contact details at here.
Peter Williamson
Tramlines to Fleetlines refers to the early post war single deck vehicles all having Crossley bodies:- 2 x Leylands 4 x AEC Regal 20 x Crossleys There were also 30 all Crossley d/deckers The two Leylands were converted on withdrawal as PSV’s to a mobile canteen and a driver trainer – I suspect that it may be one of these two that feature in the photograph
Andrew Charles
09/02/11 – 06:33
I drove this bus for Chesterfield Corporation the lights were terrible not fit for rural work and it mainly worked the colliery routes around Chesterfield
Colin Ellis
24/03/11 – 06:31
These buses would regularly pick us up from school for our weekly visit to Central Baths on Ashgate Road in about 1971/2. They were often used on the more rural routes to places like Calow Green and Barlow etc. As a kid, I wondered why the upholstery of these buses was finished in red where other Corporation buses had the usual green upholstery.
Michael Ashley
24/07/12 – 18:19
When I was a small boy in Sheffield in the 1950s, my mum worked for Stephenson Blake, typefounders in Sheffield. For many years, the Stephensons took the staff and family members for a summer Saturday afternoon out to Hassop Hall in Derbyshire where they lived. On the occasions that I was taken we always travelled from Sheffield to the hall in Chesterfield Corporation single deck buses. It sticks in my mind that they were Crossleys and that they struggled a bit on some of the Derbyshire hills with their full load! We had a bit of a tour round before arriving at the Hall for the afternoon. Sorry this isn’t very technical but I hope someone finds it of interest. Presumably the buses were hired from Chesterfield because they were cheaper than Sheffield?
Stan Zapiec
25/07/12 – 07:01
The three RW class Reliances entered service with London Transport (Country Buses and Coaches) in August 1960, about the same time as I did – I started work from school at Reigate South Divisional Office on 29th August. Having standardised from 1952 on the dependable RF Regal IV for full sized single deck requirements, LTE started to make a cautionary appraisal of the Reliance, first with the RW, and then, in 1965, with the 36ft RC class (a fiasco that deserves a posting of its own on the site). The three RW buses had Monocontrol gearboxes and were thus of the 2MU2RA type, as Peter Williamson has correctly pointed out. The Willowbrook bodywork was added on to a production order for Grimsby Cleethorpes, and was of B42D configuration in line with LTE’s increasing interest in dual doorway buses. Inevitably, the serious shortcomings of the AH470 engine soon became evident, and the inflexibility of the LT maintenance system built entirely round the removal of defective parts and replacement by Chiswick reconditioned units exacerbated the difficulty. LT garages did not have the expertise at local level for analysing and fixing engineering problems, a feature that was to emerge even more seriously later with the DM/DMS Fleetlines. The RWs were tried out on rural routes round the Country Bus system – I rode on them on the hilly 440 service between Woldingham and Salfords (near Redhill) – where the dual doorway concept proved to be something of a liability in constricted stopping places. After a mere three years in service, the entire class was withdrawn in October 1963, and then sold to Chesterfield in December of that year. Astonishingly, two of these buses still survive. Only RW1 featured in the picture above ended up in the scrapyard. The restoration of RW2 and 3, though entirely creditable, does illustrate yet again the distorted bias of the preservation movement towards LT vehicle types.
Roger Cox
26/07/12 – 14:15
RW3 (497 ALH) has been much in the news this year, having made its preservation debut at Cobham and subsequently taken part in the Brighton run. Its owners have undoubtedly done a first-class restoration. But this is how I remember it: as number 15 in the fleet of the Brutonian Bus Company of Bruton, Somerset, with whom it ran from 1978 to 1987. Seen here in the yard in 1983.
Michael Wadman
27/07/12 – 08:29
…..but I remember it as a Chesterfield bus.
David Oldfield
21/01/13 – 17:27
As a youngster I can well recall our journeys on the Owler Bar to Fox House part of the Summer Saturday and Sunday only Chesterfield – Fox House route 7. In those days, the route was via Cordell Valley, with a stiff climb up to Owler Bar. The Leylands (PS1’s) would growl and snarl their way to the top. the Crossleys (SD42’s) would struggle and my dad would often ask the conductor in jest if we could mash a pot of tea. The drivers had a struggle in getting away from the Owler Bar stop – no auto boxes then. I recall a visit to Derbyshire in the early 70′. The route was renumbered No. 4 and re routed via Holmesfield, an extension of the existing run from Chesterfield. Perhaps the buses of the 70’s were not man enough for the climb from Cordwell Valley To Owler Bar. I don’t think the route exists any more
Jerry Wilkes
22/01/13 – 06:42
Had a meal with my brother and sister in law at the Peacock, Owler Bar, just after Christmas. I well remember the Chesterfield buses on the Fox House runs – and Cordwell Valley was a favourite childhood haunt. The Panthers and Roadliners might not have been man enough for the job but the Neepsend Reliances were regular performers.
David Oldfield
14/09/14 – 07:13
I used to be a bus driver for Chesterfield Corporation Transport from 1966 to 1884. I drove all these buses on Homes Field Barlow the reason they used these buses was because the other buses was 36 feet long these was a lot smaller they had small buses on No9. Spiral run as well. I really enjoyed working as a bus driver with the Chesterfield transport until they brought in one Manning it took all the thrill out of working on the buses.
Brian Nicholls
11/09/16 – 07:28
Remember, the Crossley bus was on route to Fox House on Whit Monday 1965 1967.
Geoff
13/10/17 – 06:24
Please can anyone remember the mystery tours I believe on Sunday afternoons from Chesterfield East Midlands bus station!!…They went around the Peak District!! In mid 1960s….
Lyn Davey
18/01/18 – 09:09
I have only just found this site and find it very interesting as i worked for Chesterfield Transport for 39 years.I drove the 2 old ex-London buses and as i recall they spent a lot of time on Chesterfield to Spital route via Eyre Street, and had to do a reverse at the far end of Spital Lane. I can also remember the old Leyland that was converted to the Mobile Canteen. I worked on this old bus for 3 years.When it was converted it was driven as H.G.V.instead of P.S.V.
A. Ward
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
04/05/19 – 06:38
I went to school on ex-Chesterfield Weymann bodied PD2 (221 GRA and 229 LRB) both owned by Mulleys Motorways, of Ixworth, Suffolk. Both registrations were transferred onto newer coaches.
Rochdale were always a good customer for AEC vehicles especially single deckers all from 1940 were AEC. Front engined Regals to start with to rear engined Swifts with the very dependable underfloor Reliance in between, the above does look quite smart with its Willowbrook body. I do like the roof windows I should imagine that they made the bus feel quite bright and airy. This vehicle passed over to SELNEC on the 1st of November 1969 and probably did many years service with them. The Reliance coding is bit tricky to understand a MU2RA had a synchromesh gearbox and vacuum brakes, what the 6 stood for I do not know, engine size perhaps, if anyone knows all the Reliance coding and what they all stood for please let me know and I will put them on the abbreviations page.
Photograph contributed by Ian Beswick
Thanks to David Oldfield for putting together the codes for the AEC Reliance which can be seen here.
The 6MU2RA had Monocontrol gearboxes and air brakes as had all Rochdale’s Reliances. In the AEC code no 3 stands for Synchromesh and ‘V’ for vacuum brakes. Also Rochdale’s Regals were not front engined but underfloor engined Regal IV’s. They were 1-7 with East Lancs bodies (1951) and 8-15 with Burlingham bodies (1953). All were delivered as B42D but were converted in the late 1950’s to B44F. Four (11/13-15) were sold to Lancaster City Transport around 1957 as the Healey route 2 was converted to double-deck operation and Rochdale had less need for saloons.
Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
The Northern General Transport Company 1957 AEC Reliance MU3RV Willowbrook B43F
When it was new in 1957, this Willowbrook bodied AEC Reliance was one of three in the Tynemouth and District fleet, FT 9916/8 – 216/8 the livery was always all one colour but they never carried adverts. They were originally DP41F’s, but when they were transferred to Northern General they were re-seated as buses and I think the capacity was increased to 43. They had a lever operated manual door, and believe me your arm got rather tired if you had one of these on a busy local service route, so needless to say the door spent a lot of time left open on warmer days. As I remember them from their days at Percy Main, they had a lower trim on the front, similar to the Venture bus to the right of the picture, and they also had a trim that ran from the rear of the front wheel and right round the back of the vehicle at the same height as the top of the inspection panels, but 40 odd years on it may well be that the memory is playing tricks.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
12/03/13 – 13:16
I have to say the lack of any form of relief – trim or paint – reminds me of some other operators in the BET group. It just goes to show the level of tolerance for “individuality” that once prevailed (or still does) in some groups. The relief Ronnie mentions, even if it’s only the trim as seen on the Saro Tiger Cubs Ribble had, or the front end on the Venture vehicle in the picture, does make a lot of difference.
Pete Davies
12/03/13 – 14:08
Pete, I’ve just been talking to a former colleague of mine from Percy Main, and he reminded me of something I had quite forgotten. When they were about six or seven years old, one of these (unknown) caught fire and was extensively rebuilt, it may well have been this one, and that would explain the lack of trim.
Ronnie Hoye
12/03/13 – 14:58
It would indeed, Ronnie. Thanks for the update.
Pete Davies
18/05/14 – 06:28
The registration makes it look older as most registration offices had progressed much further in their issues by 1957 ie 3 letters, 3 numbers and some were well into reversed series. Yes, Tynemouth had its own vehicle registration office issuing one mark (FT) and up to 1957 had only issued 9917 marks!
Western Welsh Omnibus 1961 AEC Reliance 2MU3RA Willowbrook DP41F
Delivered in 1961 to Western Welsh, WKG 284 is a dual purpose AEC Reliance with Willowbrook body. WKG 284 would last with the company until 1972 when it then passed to Gelligaer UDC. It has been restored by the RE-Liance Bus Preservation Group and was photographed from an open top vehicle arriving at the recent rally at the G & W Railway at Toddington.
Yet another beautiful restoration. With the PMT Leopard we also revisited the problems with the AEC wet-liner engines (470 and 590). What needs to be reiterated is that, especially with the 470, the engines pre-dated universal motorway usage and for all their foibles they were sufficient unto the day. AECs virtues always far outnumbered their vices.
David Oldfield
16/09/13 – 06:35
As David O says, another beautiful restoration, captured admirably by Ken. What has always puzzled me about this operator name was that I only ever saw services in south east Wales, not in the west. I see from that encyclopaedia site that there were operations in Tenby and parts of the West Country in the early days. I suppose they were hived off in the interests of “rationalisation”.
Pete Davies
16/09/13 – 09:15
The “Western” in the company’s name refers to the Great Western Railway who were a major shareholder and contributed their existing services to the Combined operation. The same logic applied to the naming of Southern National (part owned by the Southern Railway), Southern Vectis (ditto), and Western National, plus of course Eastern National where LNER were a major owner.
Neville Mercer
16/09/13 – 13:10
In 1929, Great Western Railway bus services in South Wales were merged with those of a company called South Wales Commercial Motors. A new company, Western Welsh Omnibus Co. Ltd, was formed with a GWR share-holding. This was during the period of large-scale acquisition of bus interests by the railways.
Geoff Kerr
17/09/13 – 05:10
Thank you, Neville & Geoff!
Pete Davies
17/09/13 – 05:12
The AEC 470 engine vehicles didn’t need a motorway to show up problems, David! On service work, minor cylinder head gasket failures, not enough to affect performance, would instantly cause an air lock in the heating system with the inevitable bookings of ‘cold heaters and demisters’. Oh that the cause could be rectified as quickly as the report could be written. The horizontal 470 was the bane of many an operations engineer’s life – wonder if the vertical version was any better? I never came across one to find out.
Ian Wild
17/09/13 – 05:14
Does anybody know (or care to suggest a reason) why, when Western Welsh elected to display route numbers, they chose yellow-on-black rather than white-on-black? . . . whilst retaining white-on-black for destination blinds?
Philip Rushworth
17/09/13 – 08:55
Philip, it’s an interesting question, especially as most indicator displays are now of the dot matrix or led system, and yellow on black. Why, indeed, would Western Welsh have gone the way they did? When, roughly, did they go to this formation? For the latter half of my working life, I was dealing with bus operations in particular but other elements as well, of traffic management in Southampton. Some of that work was dealing with disabled parking bays. One of my colleagues, the signs specialist, observed one day about the need to place a white or silver stripe round some (strangely, not all) sign posts, for the benefit of folk with defective eyesight. According to the manual, for instance, a bus stop pole ‘shall’ be either black or silver. How many of other colours do you see? Quite a lot, especially if operators provide and maintain their own. Some still do! It provided a contrast. This is why many steps have an edge of different colour. One “Circular” he received mentioned the fact that, in conjunction with RNIB, it had been found yellow was an even better contrast, especially at night. A lot of people say they are waiting for “the number 62”. They don’t want any others in the range of bus services that might serve a particular part of their town. They want the “62”. Could Western Welsh have been among the first operators to realise that the yellow gives a better contrast when prospective customers are looking for a certain number? Could they, perhaps but unlikely, have been the guinea pig operator for testing blinds? No, surely not, as this firm and Red & White had by then been merged into National Welsh.
Pete Davies
17/09/13 – 16:48
The smaller AH410 revealed the same problems as its larger capacity cousin. The Aldershot and District Reliances repeatedly incurred air locks in the cooling and saloon heating system, due, in no small measure, to the failure of the seals in the wet liners. Driving one of these buses on the very busy Cove services during a wet winter night with ineffective, cold demisters was, almost literally, touch and go insofar as forward vision was concerned. That a firm the size of AEC should prove incapable of producing reliable wet liner engines suggests a significant malaise in the design department. The much smaller Dennis company managed to make trouble free wet liner engines in petrol and diesel forms from the 1930s onwards to the end of its engine production programme. The first AEC wet liner engine was the “bootlace” or A172 motor of 6.754 litres which appeared in 1935, and this design, which had had a reputation for wet liner and gasket failures throughout its life, was the basis for the postwar AEC family of wet liner engines. It now seems incredible that, in decades of development, AEC could never cure the faults.
Roger Cox
18/09/13 – 05:41
One of our Depot Engineers with quite a number of Reliance 470s on his allocation became so desperate that he acquired two of those windscreen heaters with two rubber suckers used on cars in pre-demister days. These were duly fitted one to each screen of an errant Reliance, wired in series (couldn’t get 24volt versions) in an attempt to warm the cold air being pumped out by the demister and thus provide some degree of windscreen clearing. Not a success!! (but 10/10 for innovation!) Let’s not forget that the Leyland 0.350 fitted to the Tiger Cub etc was not too successful in the head gasket department either, made worse by the use of a single cylinder head.
Classy livery and practical too. NBC had a lot to answer for!
Ian Wild
25/09/13 – 07:27
Western Welsh used yellow route numbers to denote one-man operated services.
Nigel Utting
26/09/13 – 06:40
Thanks Nigel! But I’m now going to leaf through “Glory Days: Western Welsh” and “Shades of Red, White and Grey” to see if I can find any Renowns or crew-operated Atlanteans with yellow number blinds . . . which would put paid to your idea! (Although I hope it doesn’t.)
Philip Rushworth
27/09/13 – 06:55
You probably will, Philip – although that was the original intention, in time it rolled out across the fleet. Seemed a strange way of doing things, but there we are.
Nigel Utting
03/10/15 – 03:58
Western Welsh introduced 3 digit Route numbers in 1959. The first digit identified the depot the route was primarily operated by e.g., 2XX worked by Bridgend 8xx Haverfordwest. The 24 Leyland Tiger Cubs with Park Royal B43F bodies SBO 240 to 263 Fleet Numbers 1240 to 1263 were the first fitted with destination indicators containing number roller blinds. Western Welsh used yellow route numbers from the outset. Services worked by OMO carried a black triangular flap with yellow lettering on the nearside front which could be inverted when working conventionally with a conductor.
Western Welsh’s operating territory covered the whole of South Wales and Monmouthshire with the notable exception of Swansea (South Wales transport). At its formation in 1929 the Great Western Railway services were based in Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire, North Pembrokeshire, Neath, Abergavenny and Brecon. Those of South Wales Commercial Motors were based in Cardiff and Bridgend. Expansion into the Eastern and Western Valleys of Monmouthshire was achieved in 1933 and South Pembrokeshire as late as 1956 with the acquisition of Green’s of Haverfordwest. The only service into England was the Brecon to Hereford 730 service introduced in 1962 following closure of the Rail service and was an extension of the Brecon Hay on Wye service hitherto.
Stuart Davies
14/12/15 – 06:27
I worked as a turner at Ely garage in the seventies, and since then have wondered what the strange type of red the buses were painted was called. Anybody know? Also most of the buses had a diamond painted on their rear showing which depot they “belonged” to. Yellow was Ely, blue either Barry or Bridgend, Cross Keys black.
Ed
28/06/16 – 06:27
The colour the buses were painted in the 1970’s was National Bus Company ‘Poppy Red’. This was one of the two standardised NBC liveries (but there were exceptions) introduced from late 1972 under Chairman, Freddy (later Sir Frederick) Wood. Although these two NBC colours were actually British Standard colours and should have been the same on all vehicles, in practice, due to differing paint suppliers used by different companies there was actually some discernible difference between fleets.
Rob F
13/11/16 – 07:05
The BS Code for Poppy Red is 04 E 53
Paul Lloyd
03/11/17 – 07:35
A belated thanks to Paul Lloyd and Rob F. for their answer to my ‘What colour question’. Poppy red it is and shall be so evermore.
Ed
04/11/17 – 06:46
Well, Ed, not for evermore, because the Poppy Red usually faded into a strange and slightly odd pinky colour with the effluxion of time!
Chris Hebbron
04/11/17 – 06:47
Until it began to fade, as it very quickly did, and degenerated into “poppy orange”.
Roger Cox
05/11/17 – 07:19
Regarding the yellow route numbers, the suggestion that they were specifically intended to identify one-man-operated services seems unlikely. You have to remember that, at that time, OMO (or OPO) was being introduced gradually – very gradually, in the case of some Western Welsh depots – so that it was very unlikely that any bus would have been used solely on OMO work. Even into the mid-1970s, the unions at some depots refused to allow OMO with any vehicle with more than 45 seats; at other depots, such as Cardiff, the larger single deckers could be OMO, but there were several crew workings which also used these vehicles, particular at less busy times. Most of the early Atlanteans were rarely, if ever, used for OMO. I suspect that the better contrast of yellow against a black background would have been the reason for using yellow numerals – although it would have been more logical to use it for all of the content of the destination blinds. However, it may have been more complicated to produce – as I understand it, the traditional blinds were white linen, with black paint. Thus, at night, the lights shone through the blind – but using yellow linen might have been more complex, or more expensive. Probably the latter!
Nigel Frampton
20/11/17 – 06:46
Yes Roger Cox and Chris Hebron, you are correct, I Forgot the Post Office van syndrome. I live in North Rd. Cardiff, and very occasionally I see a Western Welsh double decker heading Northward. Usually in the evening. Laugh you may, but to see this machine trundling out of the mist, a machine which was an integral part of my young days, and, I thought, gone forever, can be a little bit scary. Is this bus known to any of you bus people? I’d like to have a close look at it. See where we ‘fitters’ used to sit in the top deck, eating our sandwiches.
Ed
22/11/17 – 07:22
Nigel Frampton and others earlier on, mentioned coloured blinds versus white lettering on a black background. Just after the war, London Transport’s Green Line services had traditional white on black blinds, with GREEN LINE added. Before long, the blinds changed to black lettering on a yellow background (minus GREEN LINE) and remained so thereafter. Of course, these services also had unique buses/livery/route number ranges/bus stop style, all of which would have helped potential passengers to use them.
Potteries Motor Traction 1955 AEC Reliance MU3RV Willowbrook B45F
Nine of these AEC Reliance MU3RV’s with Willowbrook B45F bodies had been ordered by City of Oxford Motor Services for delivery in 1955. Registered in Oxford as WJO 736-744, the last three were instead diverted to PMT which numbered them S5624-5626 and placed them in their Wells Motor Services Ltd. subsidiary fleet, painted in Wells’ green and cream livery. The Biddulph-based 20 vehicle Wells business had been acquired in 1953, and was absorbed into the main fleet in 1959, whereupon the trio of Reliances received standard PMT red and cream fleet livery. It is pictured here outside Biddulph depot on a dismal day in late 1971, probably not long before withdrawal.
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer
19/11/13 – 05:45
Ah, memories, memories. ‘PMT – NorWestern, Biddulph Depot’. Foreman Tommy Chell complaining regularly about the rubbish that Paddy Grimes, his opposite number at NWRCC Macclesfield Depot sent him! (Not that it prevented Tommy from having a drink with Paddy most Friday nights!) For NWRCC, Biddulph was an outstation of Macclesfield, PMT carried out the necessary maintenance on the North Western contingent. As for S5626, well very much a Biddulph machine. The trio had a sad appearance, rather high front waist with consequent shallow windscreens. One thing is certain, it wouldn’t be long before it suffered a head gasket failure!!!5626 was the last of the three to be withdrawn, in 1972 passing to Martin, (Weaverham), Dealer in December that year.
Here is a photo of S5626 in service in Biddulph on 8th March 1971, looking rather neglected. Note that the standard PMT blind display is too deep for the aperture.
Ian Wild
19/11/13 – 15:22
It seems to me to be unusual for vehicles intended for one operator to be diverted to another before entering service, and then keep their allotted registrations. My experience – admittedly limited – is generally that the booked registrations become void and are superseded by ones relevant to the new “home” territory. It is of course an entirely different story if a vehicle is passed from one operator to another after service, such as a Ribble PS2 going to Southport for further service. How wrong am I???
Pete Davies
22/11/13 – 08:01
In 1965 Bristol Omnibus received four MWs originally built for Eastern National. These were delivered to Bristol in ENOC livery with Essex registrations in the JHK-C series, before being reregistered in Bristol with BHW-C marks.
Geoff Kerr
22/11/13 – 10:02
Thanks, Geoff
Pete Davies
22/11/13 – 10:03
The vast geographical area covered by the United Automobile Services Empire contained literally dozens of registration options, but they had a policy that vehicles new to them were all registered in Darlington, and so had an HN index. On the other hand, Northern General vehicles usually had the mark of the area to which the vehicle was first allocated, so they could be either a County or local authority registration.
Ronnie Hoye
09/03/16 – 06:55
North Western’s Biddulph depot was a depot in its own right and was so from July 1936 until March 1972 when the Biddulph depot work, together with Macclesfield and Northwich depots passed to Crosville. North Western outstations were at Castleton (Derbyshire) and Warrington plus for a very short time Congleton.
John Dixon
10/03/16 – 05:02
With reference to the comments above regarding new vehicles diverted to different operators, I think it depends when the vehicle is first registered/taxed. In 1977, Trent exchanged VRs for Nationals with Northern General – the VRs had already been registered by Trent (UTO 830-7S) but had not entered service when they went to Northern General; the Nationals had not been registered by Northern General, so they were registered by Trent as VCH 473-80S. Another example is the G regd Willowbrook Atlanteans intended for Devon General – some at least were photographed at Willowbrook with Devon General fleet names, fleet numbers and Devon registration numbers in the OTT-G series; at the last minute they were diverted to Yorkshire Traction, who put them into service in Devon General livery, but with local Barnsley registrations in the RHE-G series.
Bob Gell
30/05/17 – 06:47
I remember these vehicles arriving at Well’s and that they had the name of a leasing company in Oxford painted in small letters on the lower body just behind the door.
Potteries Motor Traction 1958 AEC Reliance 470 Willowbrook C41F
PMT had five of these coaches plus one similar acquisition on a Leyland Tiger Cub chassis from the takeover of Dawsons, Ash Bank. They suffered as always with AH470 engines with cylinder head gasket and wet liner seal failures. This is why this photo was taken adjacent to Llandrindod Wells Railway Station on a summer evening in June 1971. A similar Reliance had taken a party of Scouts on a weeks expedition to Tenby and inevitably the engine had failed in South Wales. I was summoned at short notice to take a replacement vehicle arriving at South Wales Transport Ravenhill Depot shortly before midnight. I chose the scenic route rather than the M6/M5 as I didn’t fancy becoming another engine failure casualty at the side of the Motorway. During 1971 and 1972 three of these Reliances were modified for one man operation and repainted in bus livery. The conversion included jack knife doors the motor for which would only fit in the space occupied by the nearside front passenger seat hence reducing the capacity to 39. As the vehicles were 13/14 years old by this time one wonders if it was really worth the effort. I recall 762 which was allocated to Biddulph Depot put in some quite respectable mileages as an omo saloon.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
16/11/14 – 09:44
An odd design which seems to transition from the early 1950s at the front to the late 1950s at the rear.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/11/14 – 11:21
Northern General had a batch of very similar C37F Willowbrook Viking coaches on an AEC Reliance 2MU3RV chassis, so as I understand it, they would have had the larger AH590 engine. Delivered in 1959, they were JCN 445 to 454, numbered 1845 to 1854. About 1967, it was decided to convert them for use as OPO vehicles, but the changes were far more radical. I don’t know if the conversion was carried out ‘in-house’ or whether they went back to Willowbrook to be done, but the whole front end was chopped off, and a new service front grafted on, I believe they were also up-seated to 41. Here is an example of the end result, I believe they remained in service until around 1975
Ronnie Hoye
16/11/14 – 18:03
Were the gasket/liner problems eventually cured by AEC?
Chris Hebbron
17/11/14 – 06:47
In a word, Chris – No! AEC’s involvement with wet liners began in 1935 with the introduction of the ‘6.6’ A172 engine (actually of 6.75 litres) in the lightweight Regal II. This engine proved to be decidedly troublesome, and the wet liner problems were carried through into its postwar ranges developed from about 1953. In the end, AEC reverted to dry liners in the AV/AH 505/691/760 engines. By contrast, Dennis employed wet liners in its ‘Big 4’ petrol and O4/O6 diesels from the mid 1930s onwards, and all were generally free of the troubles that plagued the AEC efforts.
Roger Cox
17/11/14 – 06:47
2MU3RV was still the AH470, Ronnie – 2U3RA was the AH590. Both of these had wet liners and gasket head problems. The AH691 and AH760 were new dry liner engines which did not have the same problems. Sadly the reputation was tarnished and many did not return to AEC. Also, like the later Leyland Panther, others persevered and overcame the problems.
David Oldfield
17/11/14 – 09:51
Thx, Roger. It’s amazing, from what you say, that folk continued to buy AEC’s with these engines, if they were so troublesome, although I admit that post-war distress purchasing would retain undeserved loyalty to a large extent. Were LTE’s engines of this type? I’ve never heard of problems with those Incidentally, did AEC/Leyland ever offer ‘outside’ engine options at ordering stage, such as Gardner? I’ve never heard of any, but who knows? David O, strange that, following on with gasket/wet liner problems, which existed for decades, AEC cured Crossley’s engine breathing problem within months!
Chris Hebbron
17/11/14 – 11:37
The AV (vertical) engines never suffered to the same extent as the horizontal AH engines and substantially LTE had no problems with RMs (once the teething problems were ironed out) – including the AV590. Neither did Sheffield with its Regent Vs and Bridgemasters. [In passing, the AV version of the AH691 was actually a wet-liner and really an “out-boring” of the AV590.] It is surprising that they carried on so long before they eventually reverted to dry-liners – and as I said lost friends along the way. Those who stayed were rewarded by the AH691/760. AEC were not alone in having problems with putting an engine on its side. I am a “fan” of the O.600/O.680 – but this was not without its problems either – as Stephen Barber has alluded to in his Wallace Arnold Books. Conversely, there was enough faith in the later AEC engines to offer them, initially, as an option, in Series 2 REs and VRTs. The famous Werner Heubeck at Citybus who force BL to continue the RE for Northern Ireland was known to be very interested in an AH691 RE but BL back out at the last minute and cancelled the option – much to Heubeck’s anger. [Something similar is thought to have happened with the VRT – when someone showed interest, the option was withdrawn.] As for Gardners, there were the famous Rochdale D2RAG Regent Vs and the less famous Glasgow and Aberdeen D2RVG Regent Vs.
David Oldfield
17/11/14 – 16:50
Huddersfield JOC took delivery of 16 Regent’s and 37 Regal’s with 6LW engines between 1935 and 1939.
Eric Bawden
17/11/14 – 17:19
Forgot those, Eric. Crossley engines were another, and simpler, matter. AEC basically knew the problem – Crossley refused to pay royalties to Saurer and so mangle the design of the piston/cylinder head to make it different. AEC simply came up with a design which solved the problem without infringing the rights of Saurer. [I’m not an engineer, so I cannot elucidate.]
David Oldfield
18/11/14 – 06:23
As I have always understood it, the bored out 11.3 litre version of the AEC AV590 wet liner engine was the AV690, which was introduced at the same time in 1958. It was most commonly employed in commercial vehicle models such as the Mammoth Major V and in many export PSV’s, but was optional in the 2D version of the Regent V, and in horizontal AH690 form in the 2U and 4U larger Reliances, though it was not differentiated in the model designation. The AV/AH691 was the 11.3 litre dry liner engine which was announced in late 1964 at the same time as its smaller equivalent the AV/AH505. The AV691 was then offered as an option in the Regent V and Renown, models, which were then designated Regent 691 (prefixed 3D) and Renown 691 (prefixed 4B) though none of the latter were built.
John Stringer
18/11/14 – 06:23
David, the wet liner 11.3 litre was the AV/AH 690. The 691 was a dry liner in vertical and horizontal formats. Even the switch to dry liners did not resolve AEC’s engine reputation. The AV/AH 505 in particular soon revealed weaknesses in service. A cover plate was fitted on the top of the block under the cylinder head, and this plate was held in place by a number of set screws. The inevitable expansion and contraction of this component in service caused the screws to fail, leaving a hole that allowed coolant to escape. This, if not spotted and remedied, could result in a seized engine. The design defects were progressively eliminated, but AEC’s reputation as an engine builder was not enhanced.
Roger Cox
18/11/14 – 06:24
Ronnie – that’s a proper bus conversion done by Northern, however as they were done in 1967 they would operate for quite a few years to get the money back. We only started conversions in 1971 and as I said, perhaps a bit late in the day – but don’t forget PMT had the largest fleet of Roadliners in the world and anything had to be tried to mitigate the chronic unreliability.
Ian Wild
18/11/14 – 06:25
Chris, for a short period in 1956/7 the AEC Regent V was offered with the option of a Gardner 5LW or 6LW engine. There were only three takers; Glasgow and Dundee Corporations bought examples with vacuum brakes and spring operated preselector gearboxes (model D2RV6G,) and Rochdale Corporation had examples with air brakes and air operated preselector or semi-automatic gearboxes, model D2RA6G. The Rochdale examples were described in my article on this site.
Don McKeown
18/11/14 – 10:19
The prototype Crossley HOE7 engine design came about when the firm’s engine designer, W.C. Worrall was diagnosed with tuberculosis prior to the outbreak of WW2. He was sent to Switzerland to recuperate, and, whilst there, visited the Saurer factory, where he himself had once worked. Saurer gave him permission to use the company’s advanced four valve head and toroidal piston cavity in his new engine design. Shortly after Worral’s return to Britain, war broke out, limiting Crossley’s commercial options, but three prototype engines were constructed with combustion chamber detailed design being made by Leslie Bennett, a mathematician and combustion specialist. Thus Crossley had done all the right things and succeeded in a designing a powerful and reliable unit. Then, as the new SD/DD42 chassis production began to get under way in 1944, Saurer, entirely reasonably, asked for a royalty or licence payment in recognition of the fact that the Swiss company’s patents were employed in the head design. The exact details of the fees involved have since been buried in the passage of time (probably deliberately). The Crossley MD, Arthur Hubble was having none of this, and refused to comply, instead ordering that the cylinder head of the new engine be redesigned completely to avoid any payment to Saurer. The new head had two valves per cylinder instead of four, and the toroidal piston cavity was reshaped with sharp concentric ridges, the (misplaced) theory being that these would improve the swirl effect. The new head was married up with the original block intended for the Saurer type head, and the result was a motor strangulated by hopelessly contorted airflows. In addition, poor coolant circulation led to overheating and high back pressure in the crankcase. This ill advised redesign ended the involvement of Saurer, but left Crossley with a exceptionally poor engine. When AEC took control of Crossley, it lost patience with Gorton’s refusal to attend to the cylinder head deficiencies and undertook remedial design itself. It is an overstatement to suggest that AEC simply solved the problems with the Crossley engine. The downdraught cylinder head was not a cheap conversion, and, although it did improve the airflow characteristics and reliability issues to a very great extent, the HOE7 could never be turned into a truly good motor. What baffles me somewhat is the fact that Dennis used a four valve head and toroidal piston cavity in its O4 and O6 diesels, yet no payment was ever made to Saurer. Presumably the Dennis design differed sufficiently to escape the Saurer patents.
Roger Cox
18/11/14 – 15:50
Aberdeen Corporation did have five Gardner engined AEC Regent V’s with Crossley bodies (205 – 209). In 1959 they purchased five AEC Regent V’s with AEC engines and Alexander bodies (271-275). By 1963, they also had been fitted with Gardner 6LW engines. I seem to recall that Maidstone and District also converted some coaches in the same manner as that done by Northern General.
Stephen Bloomfield
19/11/14 – 05:57
Stephen, I think the Maidstone vehicles you refer to had Harrington bodies but the end result was quite similar.
Ian Wild
24/11/14 – 17:03
On the subject of seized AEC Reliance engines I Drove for Stanley Gath Coaches of Dewsbury in the late 1970s. Due to a vehicle shortage one weekend a AEC Reliance/Plaxton was hired from Kirby Coach dealers of Sheffield. Returning from Blackpool on the Saturday night the engine seized up on the M62. Rather then owning up to this, a visit was made to a scrappers at Barnsley and a similar engine was obtained and shoe horned in. I dare say no one was ever the wiser.
London Transport 1960 AEC Reliance 2MU2RA Willowbrook B42D
497 ALH, AEC Reliance 2MU2RA with Willowbrook B42D body, dates from 1960. She is, of course, better known as seen here in London Transport’s RW3 guise, although she spent some time with other operators – notably Chesterfield with her two sisters. She’s seen at the Alton Rally on 21 July 2013.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
29/03/15 – 17:36
Given the widespread use of this combination within the BET empire, was it just the apparent “not designed in Chiswick” attitude that stopped this type from becoming the successor to the RF in both London Country and Green Line service.
Phil Blinkhorn
29/03/15 – 17:36
This is another example of a manufacturer’s standard type that didn’t last long in London Transport service despite giving good service to many other operators across Britain. Rochdale to name one had some virtually identical vehicles that had full service lives. Where London Transport’s operating conditions so much different from the rest, particularly in the outposts of the Country area, that they seemed unable to sustain vehicles that ran happily for years with other operators?
Philip Halstead
30/03/15 – 08:04
Phil and Philip, I suspect you are both right. I’m sure Mr Cox will have something to say on this!!!
Pete Davies
30/03/15 – 08:05
There is already a post of RW1, when in service with Chesterfield Corporation and a very useful post by Roger Cox explaining why it was not popular with London Transport. It’s recorded that the engine/fluid flywheel/gearbox, being mounted in one piece, suffered from overheating problems. Obviously, this was overcome by either LTE or Chesterfield Corp’n, for these vehicles to have had such long subsequent lives. However, removing the unsuitable centre-exit was an expensive option for just three vehicles, hence LTE’s likely disposal, although they could just have been disconnected! LINK: //www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?p=584
Chris Hebbron
30/03/15 – 08:06
These buses have been discussed on OBP before – see Chesterfield Corporation “AEC Reliance – 495 ALH – 18”. The three RW buses joined the London Transport (Country Buses & Coaches) department at the same time as I did – in August 1960. They were LT’s first experience of dual doorway buses, and drivers strongly disliked the feature. On rural routes, where stopping points were often just hard standing cut beck into the hedgerow at the stop post, the central door opened to reveal an impenetrable barrier of vegetation. They were tried out all round the Country area to a universally stony reception, not just from the operating staff but from the engineers as well. At this time London Transport ran a fleet of totally standardised, bespoke vehicles tailored to the rigid Chiswick/Aldenham maintenance system. LT bus garages did not have “engineers” in the sense understood by Company and Municipal operators. LT employed “fitters”. If something went wrong with a vehicle at LT, the offending component was removed and sent to Chiswick, and a fully overhauled part fitted in replacement. The RW buses were London Transport’s first experience of the new breed of AEC wet liner engines, and garages just lacked the knowledge and skills required to remedy the faults that arose in daily operation. The traditional ‘send the part to Chiswick’ mentality couldn’t apply. LT simply capitulated to its absurdly inflexible maintenance system and got rid of the three RWs. However, a virtual carbon copy of the whole sorry saga took place again in 1965 with the Reliance RC class of Green Line coaches. Nevertheless, the ponderous maintenance system still persisted, later showing its deficiencies with the DM/DMS Fleetlines, deemed “unreliable” by LT despite being of a type that ran entirely successfully with everyone else in the land. The MB/MBS/MS/SM types suffered similarly. Strangely, the only exception in this sorry tale proved to be the original eight XF Fleetlines operated by the Country area from 1965. These ran until 1981, proving the soundness of the basic design (i.e. free of LT meddling modifications). They outlasted all the other ex LTE types in LCBS service. The scandalous squandering of public money by London Transport was a national disgrace.
Roger Cox
30/03/15 – 08:06
There are some thoughts here: //www.countrybus.org/RW/RW.htm Overheating is mentioned, together with difficulties with the centre exits in rural locations.
Peter Williamson
30/03/15 – 14:34
I remember these 3 buses coming to Chesterfield for use on one man services however it was common for them to be used as crew buses. I remember this one was no20 I conducted it one day on the Barlow routes.
Ken Wragg
31/03/15 – 06:53
It’s rather surprising they bothered with the centre exit for the country area. Even taking on board all Roger points out, single door vehicles for the country routes, a dual purpose equipped single door version for Green Line and a dual door version for the central area would likely, with any other operator, have been seen as ideal. Instead they spent money and kept the drawing office busy by updating the RFs.
Phil Blinkhorn
31/03/15 – 10:12
Thank you, gents, for your further thoughts on this shambles. As Roger says, it has been discussed at length in the past. It was not just LT who didn’t like the DM/DMS Fleetlines, however. Readers may recall that a fair number came down to Wilts & Dorset and Hampshire Bus. Stagecoach bought Hampshire Bus and decided that the Southampton area was not profitable enough, so they sold it on to Solent Blue Line, along with the allocation of vehicles. Among that allocation were Fleetlines. The then manager of SBL decided he didn’t want them, and arranged an exchange with the former Ribble “high” Bristol VR fleet at Carlisle. One of my friends was among the SBL drivers on the exchange visit. He told me at the time it was the fastest the Fleetlines had ever moved, so eager were the local drivers to do the exchange. Following on from that, we had VRs with Cumberland and Ribble fleet names trundling around Southampton for several months, for the legalities to be sorted out. I was told that not a single one of the Fleetlines moved away from Keswick Bus Station until a scrapper removed them, but the appearance of an EFE model in the ‘deregulation’ Hampshire Bus livery but with Carlisle fleet names suggests otherwise.
Pete Davies
31/03/15 – 15:55
10 DMs and 8 RMs went to Cumberland in part exchange for the highbridge VRs in 1987. The DMs retained their Hampshire Bus numbers 1917-1926 and as far as I am aware most if not all received the attractive CMS Cumberland livery of ayers red and oatmeal. They were placed in service in Carlisle and survived until October 1988 when Stagecoach replaced them with new Olympians. There were also 4 ex SYPTE Ailsas involved in the deal which were not popular and only lasted a couple of months or so. I have never seen a picture of one of the Ailsas in service so perhaps these were the buses that languished at Keswick Pete?
Update on those liveries after trawling the web. It seems the DMs entered service in Carlisle in a mix of poppy red(?), Hampshire Bus blue, white and red, and in CMS ayers red. Its a pity EFE didn’t choose the latter! There are also a couple of pics of the Ailsas working so that doesn’t explain the Keswick conundrum either!
Mike Morton
01/04/15 – 06:22
Thank you, Mike. So that’s where the Ailsas went! I did wonder. I have a photo of one of them in HB livery in Southampton. If you’d like one, I’ll send it to Peter and ask him to forward it. It, clearly, isn’t suitable for this site!!!! I see the captcha code is MW49, or is that MW4G – a bit under-powered, perhaps!
Pete Davies
02/04/15 – 06:26
Whatever the merits or otherwise of these Reliances, surely the point is that LT didn’t actually need any more single deck buses at this stage, being full up with RFs. Agreed, the RFs were very heavy and thirsty and perhaps a case could have been made for some replacement by lighter and more fuel efficient buses, but even that seems unlikely. Was this more a case of a manufacturer trying to interest its customer in something than the customer actually having a need for something new? LT didn’t actually buy any more single deck buses (as opposed to Green Line coaches) until the Merlin/Swift era.
Richard Delahoy
02/04/15 – 06:27
I wonder why LT specified quarter-lights. I see that Chesterfield painted over them.
Geoff Kerr
02/04/15 – 16:51
Peter, would love to see the Ailsa. Much appreciated.
Mike Morton
03/04/15 – 05:36
Chesterfield did not paint over the quarter lights.
Ken Wragg
04/04/15 – 06:36
Must be an optical illusion, Ken. Other photos show them still in use.
Geoff Kerr
10/06/16 – 16:43
In answer to Roger Cox view about the operation of the Reliance class (RW) during their brief but fruitful stay with London Transport over the three years… It was nothing to do with the servicing of these vehicles at the garages but purely the economics that came out of the research programme. Many of London Transport country routes in the 1950 and 60s had interworking schedules not like the LT central area where one bus would work a number of different routes during a roster. This provided challenges as some routes such as LTs 383/384 at Hitchin would be in town for a period and then out into to remote countryside. The routing and operational challenges here were often loadings, terminating agreements, and the remit to go to one person operation where in some instances a conductor was required to facilitate the reversing based on vehicle size. In addition, LT wanted to increase the capacity of their vehicles and reduce route timings to improve efficiencies (debatable as history shows). There were initial issues with the running of this type….. Overheating and the reliability of the doors were just two but generally they went well in comparison with the Regal Four (RF) and Regent (RT) double deck types. LT found quite soon that operation of the slightly wider body in narrow lanes and two the door arrangement proved unpopular with staff and passengers (as Roger highlighted) in country locations when the vehicle was positioned to pick up passengers at the stop…. the centre doors would be out of position for alighting. Drivers by default would have to double stop to let passengers on and off making the centre doors redundant and increase schedule timings as a result. Councils who had responsibility for the stopping points were not willing to fund widening or a new alighting point without subsidy. LT in the end decided that it would not be feasibly at that time to continue with this arrangement. This is just a potted history of events and there were other political / operational issues besides. Hope this helps
Colin Rivers (one of the fortunate owners of RW 3)
Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd 1963 AEC Reliance 2U3RA Willowbrook B53F
S 3 was among Maidstone & Districts first 36ft long vehicles being an AEC Reliance 2U3RA with a Willowbrook B53F body delivered in September 1963 as part of a batch of four, the body was to the early BET design with a curved rear dome and the four piece flat glass windscreen. The style of which was later fitted with first the curved windscreen and later still the peaked rear dome, overall I did like the BET design. The distinctive Maidstone & District livery always looked good on any type of body, with it’s cream “moustache” below the windscreen and cream bands below and above the side windows, that above the windows having a subtle light green edging which combined with the dark green main colour looked pure class. This was one of very many fine liveries lost to NBC’s corporate dead hand (and head) now only seen at rallies etc. Todays colour schemes, I refuse to call them liveries, nearly all scream TAT, never CLASS, there that is my rant for today!!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave
24/08/15 – 06:04
I agree entirely Dave about modern colour schemes. I’ve just been to Blackpool for the first time in many years and the once smart fleets of cream and green buses and trams have been replaced by a mish-mash of black and yellow on the buses and purple and white on the new trams. To compound the felony most of the vehicles in both fleets are festooned in hideous adverts all over the vehicles including the windows. There were two of the Balloon trams running on the day of my visit on Heritage Tours in the original liveries and again compared to the modern stuff they looked sheer class.
Philip Halstead
25/08/15 – 06:19
PMT had two similar batches of buses, ten like this on AEC Reliance chassis, the other ten on early Leyland Leopards. They squeezed in 54 seats (I seem to remember an inward facing single behind the entrance door). Thinking back, they must have been a bit cramped for leg room or maybe people were smaller generally in those days. I agree entirely that the later BET design with curved front and rear windows was a true classic – even this version had a touch of class about it.
Ian Wild
26/08/15 – 05:50
NGT’s Percy Main depot “Tynemouth & District” had two 49 seat D/P versions from 1962, FFT 812/3 – 262/3. They were on a Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R chassis. On Saturdays during the summer months, drivers on 0800 spare would often find themselves doubled up with a Northern driver doing a Dup to Blackpool. The bodies were stylish and well built, and the Leyland wasn’t a bad vehicle, however, I always found them to be a bit on the clumsy side, perhaps it was the low sitting position, or the lack of power steering.
Ronnie Hoye
26/08/15 – 05:50
One of these days someone with clout within the hierarchy of a significant operator, is going to (1) tell the PR/Marketing gurus to go and play with an alligator, (2) bring back a modest dignified livery, not invented by “Toys R We”, and (3) restore windows (and former window apertures), to the purpose for which they were invented – looking through! He (or she) might even throw out stupid punning route descriptions, and substitute a series of proper route numbers that starts at 1 and carries on until all the routes have been covered – usually without getting anywhere near the 3-digit variety, let alone the 500, 600, 700 etc. series.
Stephen Ford
26/08/15 – 17:24
And so say all of us, Stephen.
David Wragg
26/08/15 – 17:24
Absolutely spot on, Stephen, and magnificently put.
Steve Crompton
27/08/15 – 06:36
I fully understand what Stephen F means. But let’s not forget that traditional London Transport used route numbers up to the 700s well before this site’s 1970 date. It seems that 1-199 were red bus routes, 200-299 were single-deck routes, 300-499 were green bus routes, 500-699 were trolleybus routes, and 700-799 were Green Line routes. At the trolleybus conversions, though, some were renumbered into the 200 series. Southdown also had an “area scheme” for their route numberings, such as the 40’s in the Portsmouth area, and the 50’s in Chichester and Bognor. If these overran, the equivalent 100 series were used. But there were no 200’s until after NBC took a hand, and 700’s were used for Limited Stop services. I remember BMMO and Crosville had letter prefixes to some services for local areas. So although there may be a case for using low numbers for bus routes, not all traditional bus companies followed that philosophy forty or fifty years ago!
Michael Hampton
27/08/15 – 10:45
Portsmouth Corporation befuddled many a holidayer by giving some routes a different route number for each direction – 18 one way and 19 on the return, for example. But, later, it stopped doing this, leaving two systems in place. As for route suffixes, it used them for the same route, but shortened sections. The highest I recall was the 143 which went up to 143F! Stagecoach West, my local operator, however, uses them for deviations on a basic route.
Chris Hebbron
27/08/15 – 17:06
Quite right Michael and Chris. Obviously big operators will in any case need to go into the hundreds. Midland Red was an obvious example (Lichfield-Stafford route 825 etc), and so were Western/Southern National. In my own local area the much-lamented Midland General used a letter followed by single digit number, which would in theory have given them up to 234 two-digit route descriptions – though, in fact, they never got beyond letter G! It seems strange that in the deregulated/privatised bus scene route numbers can be dictated by the dead hand of local government, because the public are not credited with enough intelligence to distinguish between a red number 25 and a blue number 25. Of course, it would help if all the buses operated by a particular operator were painted blue, or red, or whatever instead of random daubings of ginger-pink with yellow stripes (which is where I came in!…)
Stephen Ford
27/08/15 – 17:07
With the creation of T&W PTE, control of all services wholly, or where the majority of the route was within the boundaries of Tyne and Wear passed to the PTE. These services were operated by the former Corporation fleets of Newcastle, South Shields and Sunderland, as well as NGT group companies and United, and several independents who ran unnumbered routes. Having gained control, the PTE in their wisdom or otherwise decided that no two routes within their area would have the same number, and regardless of company, all vehicles on those routes would share a common livery. Former Newcastle routes remained more or less unaltered, numbers where then anything from 100 to 800 groupings, depending on the area. I suppose it made sense to someone, but the public didn’t like it at all, especially in areas which had previously been served by several different companies, all of whom had a different livery.
Ronnie Hoye
27/08/15 – 17:08
Just a small point. The route pairings on Portsmouth Corporation were different. 18/19 was not a route pair although 17/18 and 19/20 were. (Personally I always found this system more convenient than the the usual bi-directional system.) Incidentally, route numbers such as 143 covered journeys outside the city boundary and were from the Southdown series. Thankfully, there are now many books available covering the Portsmouth Corporation system for those looking for further information.
Andy Hemming
28/08/15 – 06:52
I should have known better than to mix up two trolleybus routes on which travelled frequently, Andy. Thanks for correcting me. I should also have mentioned, originally, that the corporation’s ‘local’ bus routes were lettered, too. The 1xx series, logically, covered areas some miles outside Portsmouth (Leigh Park, for example) and into Southdown territory, to which their buses could go, as they were building developments created especially for ex-Portsmouth residents displaced by wartime bombing.
Chris Hebbron
28/08/15 – 06:54
Philip, I have just been to Blackpool and I noticed some slightly smarter newer buses which are Grey with Lemon though of course their dark tinted windows tend to look blackish, much nicer than the Black and Yellow, but horror of horrors they have some of the heritage trams in that Purple, I hadn’t noticed them on previous visits. Bolton 66 was out and running on the limited stop heritage rides today.
John Lomas
28/08/15 – 06:54
The difference between a red 25 and a blue 25? Well, In the 1950’s/60’s, Southdown managed to run two routes designated 38! Fortunately they were about 50 miles apart, as one was in Brighton, the other in Portsmouth, so never the twain met. I haven’t checked this, but I think the Brighton one was eventually run by BH&D after the BATS scheme came into operation. Did any other of the larger companies have a pair of routes within their territory with the same number, but separated by a fair distance?
Michael Hampton
29/08/15 – 06:51
Manchester, up until the end of the trams, had trams, trolleybuses and buses, all with the same route number running through the city centre, all serving different destinations.
Phil Blinkhorn
01/09/15 – 07:37
You also had the phenomenon of a joint service on which each operator used a different number, e.g. Huddersfield – Bradford, where for a number of years Hebble used 12, Huddersfield JOC 38 and Bradford 64, or Gloucester – Hereford, where Bristol used 55 and Red & White 38.
Geoff Kerr
29/09/18 – 06:57
Southdown also had two routes numbered 15 when it became involved in Brighton area Transport services. It took over the Brighton service 15 from Brighton Hove and District when it was co-ordinated with the 13 route (which was already worked by Southdown). The other Southdown service 15 was Eastbourne – Hastings via Polegate, worked jointly with Maidstone & District Motor Services.
David MacBrayne Ltd. 1967 AEC Reliance 2U3RA Willowbrook DP49F
LUS 524E is a 1967 AEC Reliance 590 2U3RA with Willowbrook DP49F body. It was new to the legendary Scottish operator, David MacBrayne, fleet number 150. When MacBraynes ceased operation of bus services, it passed to Highland Omnibuses, being painted in that operator’s superb blue and red livery. Although the body is to the standard BET group design, it is unusual in having a one piece inward opening door, as was normal on contemporary coaches. This vehicle is preserved and is seen here at Brough, taking part in the 2016 Kirkby Stephen Running Day.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown
24/10/17 – 06:44
This vehicle appeared briefly in Northern Ireland as a “swap” for former Scottish Omnibuses SWS 671 which returned to Scotland. LUS resided with a church group around Gilnahirk in Belfast before returning to the mainland for preservation.
