Eastbourne Corporation
1951
AEC Regent III 9613A
Bruce H30/26R

This AEC Regent III 9613A with Bruce H56R body was new in 1951 and our first view shows her inside the bus depot. Actually, that isn’t where we see her, as any Eastbourne enthusiast might tell you! She is, in fact, passing through the garage area at the back of Winchester Bus Station whilst taking part in the King Alfred Running Day on 1 January 2012. The second view shows her fleetname and crest.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

29/10/15 – 06:36

Thank you Pete Davies for letting us see this picture of Eastbourne Corporation, Fleet No.42 – AHC 442.
This bus brings back happy memories of my time at Derby Borough/City Transport from 1975 to 1980.
Why I hear you ask, should an Eastbourne Corporation bus remind me of Derby, as they never operated such vehicles.
Well the answer is this.
At that time, 42, was owned by the late Gerald Truran the Chief Engineer at Derby, and was garaged at either Ascot Drive Depot or Osmaston Road Depot, depending on where there was space for it.
During the Summer months of the Rally season, we used to take it to many a rally, and I used to share the Driving with Gerald. It was a superb bus to drive, the Driving position was second to none and Gerald kept it in first class condition, and it could achieve a fair turn of speed, (not just downhill), and the gearbox, once mastered, was a delight in itself. The body and paint work were superb and I recall leaving a few rally fields with silverware on board.
I left Derby in June 1980 to work at Darlington Corporation Transport, and whilst we had our own Daimler deckers still in service they were not the same as that AEC.
I never saw 42 again until a couple of years ago,when I was at the Worthing Seafront Bus Rally, and whilst I was allowed on board to take a few pictures, permission was not forth coming to climb up into the cab to sample that pleasure again (simple things please and amuse old Busmen).
It is nice to see her again if only in print, and brings back happy times, not just driving her, but of my 5+ years at Derby.

Stephen Howarth

29/10/15 – 15:45

A bit of serendipity as this picture comes on the day that I had a query from an ex-colleague as to whether there are still any instances of bus garages being used as bus stations. This arose from some pictures of Worksop where a new bus station has recently replaced the stands outside the former East Midland MS garage which doubled for many years as the town’s bus station. (I would have uploaded my shot of Tiger Cub R39 in this location except that it would more or less duplicate this existing picture on this site at //www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?p=2817)  
I get the impression that at Winchester the stands are not inside the main building, but does anyone know of anywhere where a building is still shared by garage and passenger facilities?

Alan Murray-Rust

29/10/15 – 17:14

What memories there are in this photo as I began my 42 years on the buses with Eastbourne Corporation at Churchdale road depot in August 1961. In those days everyone started as a conductor and when the chance arose went on to the driving school, undertaken in your own time, where Leyland PD1/Bruce No 15 JK 9113 awaited your tender touch. Having passed my test at the first attempt in April 1962 I progressed to the drivers roster after some tuition on the various different types then in the fleet which of course included the Regent III’s like No 42.
At that time they were often referred to as the "Hampden Park" buses as they were used almost solely on the 7, 7a, 9 and 9a routes which were tightly timed and interworked as their lively performance was a great help with time keeping which made them very popular with all drivers and one of everyone’s favourites.
I have to agree with all Stephen Howarths favourable comments regarding these buses which were solid reliable and comfortable, No 42 is now owned by a group in the Portsmouth area one of who is a friend Clive Wilkin.

Diesel Dave

30/10/15 – 06:37

What about Marlborough St Bristol that used to be one.

Roger Burdett

30/10/15 – 06:38

I loves Eastbourne’s livery of this period. As bright as a seaside funfair and most ususual in keeping the under canopy and bonnet top the same colour as the sides – a very ‘thirties feature. All-round, a very attractive vehicle.

Chris Hebbron

30/10/15 – 06:39

Thanks for your comments, chaps. Alan, you are correct in thinking that, in Winchester, the garage is at the back of the Bus Station. Make the most of it, though, as redevelopment looms!

Pete Davies

01/11/15 – 05:59

Roger, "used to be one" is correct – now completely redeveloped as a bus station only. But, yesterday, I alighted from a trentbarton "seven" inside the "old" Belper bus station/depot – the (upper) maintenance bay is now used by a tyre company, but if buses still overnight in the (lower) bus station area . . .

Philip Rushworth

02/11/15 – 06:48

My first memory of these fine vehicles was as a child in 1953 somebody in my street in the old town area of Eastbourne hired a corporation bus to take us to a fireworks display on the seafront to celebrate the Queens Coronation and it was one of these 40 types as Diesel Dave has said these buses had a distinctive tone. As Dave has said every body on Eastbourne Corporation started as a conductor so when I started in 1968 it was the same for me when I entered the driving school in 1969 the training bus was 42s sister vehicle 47 that was the start of a very interesting career for me I followed Dave to Southdown though it was a NBC Southdown Dave and I worked the early days of National Express I’m now still driving Working for one of the major companies on a part time bases working in and out of one of our big cites I’m now just starting my 47th year as a bus driver.

Tony Grover

02/11/15 – 06:49

Last time I was there, Malton still seemed to be a combined bus station/depot

Michael Keeley

02/11/15 – 06:50

Yes, they do. I think it is still 7 ’55’ reg. Scania L94/Wrights for the "sixes" service, and 2 Solo for the "sevens" service. Recently, a new roller door has been installed, headroom stated at 14′, so no more highbridge double deckers!

Allan White

Southampton Corporation
1965
AEC Regent V 2D3RA
Neepsend H37/29R

This AEC Regent V with East Lancs (Neepsend) H66R bodywork was new in 1965 to Southampton City Transport with fleet number 371. Some of this delivery (358 to 370) were to have been 358 HCR to 370 HCR, but were caught in the change to year suffix numbers. Indeed, some of them even failed to have their booked BTR …B marks, and gained BOW …C plates instead. BOW 507C isn’t one of those so marked in the fleet history by A K MacFarlane-Watt. In this view, on the soggy afternoon of 1st February, 1979, she has been repainted in the 1930’s livery and renumbered 100 for the operator’s Centenary, and is being positioned outside Civic Centre for the Committee inspection. My then boss, the City Architect, said he had commented to the Transport Manager that it looked very nice, but asked "Why the P&O advert?". He said that Bill Lewis replied, "They paid for the repaint."

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

13/10/15 – 06:43

At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal preference. I’m not a lover of tin fronts, most tend to look a bit harsh, and some are positively brutal in appearance, but the AEC seems to buck that trend. A few round edges and a bit of bright trim makes all the difference. Mind you, when a bit of neglect sets in where badges go astray, or trim is painted over, or bits are removed and not replaced, well that’s another matter entirely.

Ronnie Hoye

13/10/15 – 08:58

Thank you, Ronnie. I suppose that – having grown up with the Regents of Morecambe & Heysham corporation – the arrival of the Regent V was something of a shock. I wonder if this is why some places didn’t go for this ‘new look’ and stayed with the exposed radiator on their Regent V fleets.

Pete Davies

14/10/15 – 16:10

I always think that there was something Macho about the preference for exposed radiators- a touch Mack or Peterbilt, or deferring to the traditional Atkinson. Doncaster only ever had fibre-front CVG’s- Leyland and AEC deckers were exposed radiator until the half cab was bustled away.

Joe

15/10/15 – 07:21

Thanks, Joe. A "real" Scammell, perhaps, or the Thornycroft Mighty Antar, with the snout, rather than those designer products from their latter years . . .

Pete Davies

Chiltern Queens
1963
AEC Reliance 4MU3RA
Park Royal C49F

This AEC Reliance of Chiltern Queens is seen outside Reading General Station on 9 September 1981. I don’t know anything about her, but I suspect she came from Aldershot & District. I’m sure someone will advise.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

24/09/15 – 06:07

Yes, this is one of the batch of fifteen such vehicles delivered to Aldershot & District in 1963, though the first one, 466 FCG, was displayed at the 1962 Earls Court Show. A&D always had a small engine policy, and these 36ft long coaches had the 7.685 litre AH470 engine driving through the Thornycroft designed six speed constant mesh gearbox. The correct chassis designation for these vehicles is 4MU4RA. Despite their modest power, these coaches were nice to drive provided one took the trouble to treat the gearbox with respect. In 1966 came a further batch of five 49 seat Reliance coaches of very similar appearance, though this time the bodies were built by Weymann, and the 6MU3RA chassis employed the then new 8.2 litre AH505 engine driving through the AEC five speed synchromesh gearbox. The picture shows the last of the earlier batch, 480 FCG, in a dark green and cream livery, leading 467 FCG through Farnborough on an excursion to Hampton Court in 1969. This must have been a hot day as both vehicles are in motion with the doors open, a practice that was then, as now, illegal.

Roger Cox

24/09/15 – 16:17

Thank you, Roger. It has always puzzled me a bit that Chiltern Queens, as with a number of other operators, had completely different liveries for buses and coaches, rather than the ‘reversed’ style. Their choice, of course!

Pete Davies

24/09/15 – 16:18

I’m sure Roger Cox knows a lot more than me about these things, but was it illegal to have the doors open while in motion? Some London Transport RFs had no doors while plenty of rear entrance deckers had either no doors or had manually operated ones that were rarely closed especially on town services.

Nigel Turner

24/09/15 – 16:19

Roger’s comment about the legality of running with doors open highlights the sometimes absurdity of UK legislation when one considers that the Metropolitan Police for years banned doors on another type of front entrance single decker – LT’s Central area RFs

Phil Blinkhorn

25/09/15 – 06:30

Comparing the two photos in this thread, someone had done a great deal of work changing the trim and the window vents.

Phil Blinkhorn

25/09/15 – 06:30

These have a passing resemblance to some Roe bodied Reliances of at around the same time although they were 30ft dual entrance examples.
The Metropolitan Police were a very conservative outfit being reluctant to sanction pneumatic tyres covered tops and even cab doors!

Chris Hough

26/09/15 – 06:00

On the question of doors on buses, the regulation seems to have been that, if fitted, these had to be closed when vehicles were in motion. This then raises the matter of conductor/hand operated doors at the rear of double deckers so fitted, which were regularly seen open in service owing to the impracticability of the conductor being able to operate them at every stop. In real life, the rules seem to have been enforced as much by each company’s disciplinary system as by the law. In London, the Metropolitan Police were always reactionary in their non acceptance of new engineering technology. To the list given by other contributors may be added four wheel brakes.
Phil has raised an interesting point about the greatly modified trim and fittings worn by the Chiltern Queens machine. A&D were very fond of Auster windows as seen on the Reliances in their original form, but replacing these with sliding vents would not have been a major task. The bodywork is another matter, however, and one wonders why anyone would go to such trouble. Not only have the trim lines been repositioned and the bumper removed, but the headlamps have been repositioned also. Unless this vehicle suffered front end damage necessitating a rebuild at some point in its life, the whole exercise must have been of decidedly dubious cost effectiveness.

Roger Cox

27/09/15 – 05:48

Looking around on Flickr the history of 474 FCG is confusing. It ran originally with headlamps as delivered to Aldershot and District but was later rebuilt as Roger noted and seen above. In the early shots the ventilators have all been replaced but in at least one later shot it had managed to acquire one of the Auster vents back. They also had 478 FCG (at least) which had the headlamp modification too, but on which only half the ventilators were replaced. It’s worth noting that both had their original coach seating replaced by bus seating.

David Beilby

27/09/15 – 05:49

If you look at the photo of the Chiltern Queens vehicle carefully, you will see that it has also been fitted with two piece power doors. The front dash appears to be a replacement of the original. I am therefore wondering if A&D (or AV) did in fact carry out the modifications themselves, when the vehicle was downgraded from coach work?
Ironically, the Captcha code I had to enter here included the letters "DP"!

Nigel Frampton

28/09/15 – 07:02

Initially, I thought that the 4MU3RA chassis designation in the heading was an error, as this batch of coaches were delivered to A&D as the 4MU4RA type. However, given the extensive alterations subsequently made, I wonder if the Thornycroft six speed constant mesh gearbox in 474 FCG might have been replaced with the five speed AEC synchromesh box, which would have been much easier to use on normal bus work.

Roger Cox

29/09/15 – 07:02

Looking through Buses magazine April 1975, under Alder Valley it was reported that "AEC Reliance 338 (474 FCG) a 1963 vehicle with Park Royal DP49F bodywork has been sold to Chiltern Queens, Woodcote". Buses magazine also records further ‘FCG’ withdrawals in 1976: 336 (472 FCG) with C49F bodywork, which went to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Crowthorne; 337/8 (473/80) also reported as C49F; fire-damaged 370 (466 FCG) which was recorded as being DP49F. It would appear that some of the batch were converted at some point to dual-purpose vehicles, which may explain the revised trim on 474 FCG. However, on Flickr ‘hivemind’ there are two photos which show 474 FCG operating for Chiltern Queens with and without folding doors. Unfortunately they are both offside shots, but no folding doors are visible on the black and white photo, whereas they are on the colour view. So it would appear that the powered door conversion, and probably the bus seats conversion, were carried out while the Reliance was with Chiltern Queens. Unless as the saying goes "someone knows otherwise!".
Reliance 474 FCG can be viewed at this link:
//flickrhivemind.net/Tags/474fcg,parkroyal/Interesting

Brendan Smith

03/10/15 – 13:37

On the question of the legality of leaving doors open while the bus was in motion, I have no idea. The LT Central area RFs were without doors and I was working in the PSV section of the Metropolitan Traffic Area in 1963 or 1964 when a call came through saying that a passenger had been killed alighting from an RF while the bus was moving. At that time, it was common for many, usually male, passengers to jump off as the bus was coming to a stop. That was OK with rear entrance and forward entrance vehicles, but the front entrance RF was turning left at the time and the front nearside wheel was sticking out and caught the poor man before the driver could stop. Horrible! I only hope it was quick.

David Wragg

07/10/15 – 06:29

This might be something on which Chris Youhill could comment: in response to complaints about poor ventilation/over-heating in Leeds’s (fixed/panoramic-windowed) 33ft "Jumbos"/"Tommy Lord Boxes" the GM, Tom Lord, informed the "Evening Post" that in hot weather drivers would be allowed to run with the front doors open . . . a stiff reprimand from the Traffic Commissioner’s Office followed.

Philip Rushworth

07/10/15 – 15:49

Talking about poor ventilation, last year I travelled on a new Blackpool tram. It was May and not an unduly warm day, but the tram was uncomfortably warm and I noticed the conductors were in shirts//blouses. When I remarked that aircon would have been useful, especially as it was electrically driven, they said that the drivers’ cabs were going to be fitted with it, but not the passenger compartments!

Chris Hebbron

08/10/15 – 07:20

That’s quite correct, Mr Hebbron – the passengers don’t matter to most operators. After all, they only keep the firm going and pay the wages!

Pete Davies

09/10/15 – 07:24

Neither do they care about the conductors, Pete D, who have to work on the trams all the time, whereas the passengers do, at least, get on and off!

Chris Hebbron