Bradford Corporation Transport 
1961
AEC Regent V
MCW H39/31F

After my lengthy piece re the Routemaster yesterday I will keep the information on today’s bus to the point. It is a straight forward AEC Regent V with an AEC 9.6 litre engine, monocontrol four speed direct selection gearbox and air brakes, nothing controversial there unless you can come up with something, leave a comment if you do.

A full list of Regent V codes can be seen here.

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

———

I lived in Eldwick in the 60s. The village was originally served by the West Yorkshire services 62/62A from the forecourt of Bingley railway station. At some time these routs were extended through to Bradford and became jointly operated with the municipality. West Yorkshire ran its trusty FS Lodekkas and Bradford Corporation its Regents. The Service runs up the side of the Aire Valley escarpment to Eldwick on gradients of varying severity. The Lodekkas had vastly superior hill climbing qualities to the Regents. When Bradford dual sourced Daimlers and PD3s the Neepsend bodied Daimler CVG6LXs were a far better proposition for this service in respect to the hill climbing potential afforded by the Gardener engine.

Charles in Australia

———

Charles, greetings!

I lived in Eldwick from 1957 until 1983 and have fond memories of the 62/62A service, which for many years terminated in the car park at the Acorn Inn.  In time this had to move to Spring Lane where buses had to undertake a very tricky reversing manoeuvre.
When West Yorkshire made application to extend the service to Bradford the Bradford Corporation sought licence for a rival service to the village.  Eventually joint operation was agreed and I remember vividly the Bradford City Transport AEC Regents appearing in the village on driver route familiarisation duties.  They made very heavy weather of the climb from Beck Bottom towards Dick Hudson’s.
When the joint service began on 6 March 1966 the Bradford City Transport used Regents (which were housed at Saltaire Depot).  The period of Regent operation was quite brief as in the autumn of 1966 the Corporation received a batch of 15 Daimler CVG6/30 with East Lancashire (Neepsend) bodywork. As you say, they were a far better proposition for the Eldwick route.  The first seven of the batch 226-233 (EAK 226-233D) were allocated to Saltaire Depot, the rest 234-240 (EAK 234-240D) going to Ludlam Street and later finishing their BCT-days at Horton Bank Top Depot where they were used on the 9/10/12 Buttershaw-Stanningly and 76/77 Bradford-Halifax services.
I was the last Junior Traffic Clerk to be employed by Bradford City Transport joining the undertaking on 1 October 1973.  As I recall the Corporation’s Monday to Friday vehicle allocation to the Eldwick route was 2 buses (0625 out of Saltaire Depot and 0645).  Saturday may have been different but Sunday was 1 bus (1005 out of Saltaire Depot).
The other interesting aspect about the Eldwick route that I recall is that prior to joint operation with Bradford City Transport the West Yorkshire allocation would often be a Keighley-West Yorkshire Lodekka.
In fact I recollect that in the autumn of 1966 not only did we have the new BCT CVGs but new Keighley-West Yorkshire Lodekkas (KDX 224-227).

Kevin Hey

———

15/08/11 – 13:32

This is No 123 one of the second batch of Monocontrol Mk V’s 121-125 which had the noisier dry liner AV590 engine rather than the previous A208 unit as used on the Mk III. They were reputed to be very thirsty and were outlasted by the previous 1959 batch of Monocontrol Mk V’s 106-120. With the arrival of new manager Wake from St Helens huge batches of St Helens spec synchromesh Mk V were ordered 126-225 to replace the trolleybuses. Bradford hills and ex trolleybus drivers made a lethal clutch destroying team and things got so bad two (224 225) were expensively fitted with Monocontrol and AV691 engines but with AEC fitting the heavy Mammoth Major clutch, things settled down and no more were done. Truly horrid things.

Kev

———

15/08/11 – 21:54

Well Kev, you have answered a question which has puzzled me for years, namely as to why the UKY batch were withdrawn before the PKY. Now I know!
I always thought the PKY series were much better quality vehicles than the later batches. They certainly gave that impression, and I was a regular Regent V customer. I well remember 224 and 225 being fitted with Monocontrol, and thought they were thereby improved, but, as a BCT enthusiast, the mark V Regents are, to me, probably best forgotten!

John Whitaker

———

15/08/11 – 22:02

Kev, the reliable AEC 9.6 litre engines up to A218 were all dry liner engines, and these were replaced from around 1958 by the wet liner AV590. All the Southall wet liner engines were a constant source of trouble, and AEC finally gave up the struggle with them and went back to dry liners with the AH505 and AV or AH691. When driving them, I always felt that AEC engines were inferior in the low speed torque area to Gardner and Leyland engines, yet the London RT was always a more lively performer on hills than the RTL. When some red RTLs were painted green and sent to the Country Area, they were quickly deemed to be unsatisfactory, and were sent back again to be replaced by RTs.

Roger Cox

———

16/08/11 – 09:00

I’m on record as acknowledging the weakness of the wet liner AH/AV590. However, I’m not aware of major problems with Sheffield’s series 2 Regent Vs. Bradford’s territory is no more punishing than Sheffield’s and I cannot comment whether they were nasty or not. Sheffield’s weren’t. Did Bradford lack the will to work with them (as LT did with more modern buses)? What were Bradford’s maintenance standards like? [I don’t know.]
Roger is correct about the characteristics of the three major engines. Noel Millier (respected PSV journalist of the ’60s and ’70s) calls the AECs the thoroughbreds, the Leylands and Gardners the reliable plodders. That is being realistically and honestly complementary to all three. OK, I am AEC man, but the PD2/3 is also one of my favourite buses. My experience with (albeit preserved) RTLs is that they move like slugs compared with RTs. Interestingly enough, experience driving RMs in service in Reading is quite the contrary. Reading Mainline’s Leyland powered RMs romped up Norcot Hill – so individual circumstances change constantly.

David Oldfield

———

17/08/11 – 07:21

Bradford were as good as anyone else at bus maintenance. The Mk Vs were purchased, I believe, as the cheapest option for mass trolleybus replacement. anyone connected with the City`s transport will tell you what horrors they were!
I too like AEC`s, David, but not from that generation!
They were noisy, juddering, rough riding and slow, and were hated by everyone in the City!

John Whitaker

———

17/08/11 – 07:24

David, it is a curious thing that London Transport always seemed to be the exception in proving any rule. The Fleetline debacle was probably the most extreme example, and much of the blame lay with the LT engineering system. Aldenham was designed to overhaul buses that could be dismantled like Meccano, and the RT/RTL/RTW, RF and RM classes were specifically designed to be taken to pieces and reconstructed accordingly. Other types like the Fleetline and Swift/Merlin, didn’t fit this bill. Yet LT, unlike many provincial operators, seemed to have very little trouble with the wet liner AV590 in the RM, though the story with the wet liner Reliance in LTE service was very different. The RW, RC and RP classes and their utilisation graphically demonstrated London Transport’s ability to waste public money.

Roger Cox

———

17/08/11 – 10:29

There is a clue in what John says. I recall, I think, that Bradford’s trolleybus withdrawal was not scheduled: do I remember that there was an accident- possibly a fatality- involving falling trolley booms and the Corporation took fright & withdrew the trolleys as quickly as possible? They may have then found that the plant- poles & wires- were in poor condition. This may have led to bargains being sought from manufacturers whose buses were going out of fashion? It would be typically Bradford not to embrace the "new" bustle buses, but look to tradition! Have I got my history right or are memories muddled?

Joe

———

17/08/11 – 13:22

Yes Joe, there was a trolley head fatality at Four Lane Ends which may have affected the abandonment schedule, but I think the main reason was the over hasty city centre redevelopment, most of which has itself now been demolished. BCT certainly utilised much second hand trolleybus equipment in the fifties and sixties, enabling it to last as long as it did, but events overtook them a bit, and they were faced with inflated motorbus demands.
AEC were probably the cheapest option, and the Mark Vs were very unpopular among the public, even amongst the "a bus is a bus" brigade. Letters were written to the Telegraph and Argus about Bradford’s latest monstrosities!
I am only an enthusiast, so cannot comment technically, and the Mark Vs did have some attraction to the enthusiast, even if it were just the unpopular aura which surrounded them! Were they really built by the same organisation who built the 1-40 batch some 12 years earlier?

John Whitaker

———

23/08/11 – 10:07

The Mark Vs in Bradford service had two major problems as far as I am aware. These were broken injector pipes, there being a fitter stationed at Forster Square to deal with these on a full time basis, and blown cylinder head gaskets probably caused by bad driving on steep hills where labouring the engine would cause this sort of problem. The injector pipe problem was of BCTs own making as the anti vibration clips were often not refitted at replacement. The problem was eventually cured by redesigning replacement pipes to something akin to a Gardner injector pipe so I was told by a gentleman who did this and later set up a business supplying pipes to Volvo for use on their engines. I have it on good authority from former chief engineer Bernard Browne that the difficulties in obtaining spares and the problems of day to day operation led to the later purchases of CVG6 and PD3A to enable replacement of early examples and provide more reliable motorbuses for the fleet

David Hudson

Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

London Transport
1962
AEC-Park Royal Routemaster
Park Royal H38/31F

Whilst on loan to Halifax Corporation this was London Transports first front entrance Routemaster, it also had a tow bar fitted so it could tow a luggage trailer when doing airport duty. I think there was a connection with ‘British European Airways’ somehow but not over sure of exact detail If you know, let me know, please leave a comment.
There wasn’t many front entrance Routemasters compared to rear entrance even the Green Line coaches were rear entrance although they did have platform doors, nice seats and fluorescent lighting. The Routemaster really was built for town work having 9.6 or 11.3 litre AEC engines or a 9.8 litre Leyland Engine with a gearbox that gave the driver the choice of semi-automatic or fully automatic. Put all that power and the automatic gearbox together in a light chassis less body And you have a very nippy bus.
In one of my reference books on buses which I use for information I came across the following sentence.
”London introduced front entrance Routemasters (FRM) in 1967 with a rear mounted A.E.C 11.3 litre engines and Park Royal bodies seating 41 on the upper deck and 31 on the lower deck, and a laden weight of 13.55 tonnes.”
A Rear engined Routemaster! now that’s a new one on me can not find any photos on line or any information anywhere. The book was published by the Blandford Press so I would of thought the content would of been carefully checked. So all you Routemaster followers out there let me know if you know something about this mystery rear engined AEC, please leave a comment.

An interesting article regarding the front entrance Routemasters is here.

FRM1 (there was only 1 built) it is still around, it is part of the London Transport museum collection and I think it is kept at Acton. This link should reveal all! //www.countrybus.org/FRM/FRM.html

If that dose not work search for IAN’S BUS STOP and click on the FRM in the list of London bus classes. Hope that helps.

Michael

The rear engined Routemaster FRM 1 was unique, as was the above pictured RMF 1254. It was used by British European Airways prior to the purchase of their front entrance Routemasters.
In addition to Halifax, RMF 1254 was also loaned to Liverpool Corporation and East Kent, whilst in London Transport ownership.
It was fitted with a Leyland engine before being sold to Northern General in November 1966, where it lasted until October 1980 and is also now in preservation.

Pete Cook

RMF1254 was exhibited at the 1962 Earl’s Court Commercial Motor Show, and was later involved in service trials with BEA. It did indeed tow a luggage trailer whilst with them, and the experiment proved successful enough for BEA to place an order for 65 short forward entrance models. These too towed luggage trailers. They were powered by AEC AV690 engines developing 175bhp for use on the M4 motorway. RMF 1254 (Routemaster Forward entrance) was later sold to Northern General, where it joined their fleet of 50 similar vehicles. The rear engined Routemaster FRM1 (Front entrance Routemaster) used approximately 60% of standard Routemaster body parts. It had independent coil suspension at the front with air suspension at the rear. It was powered by an AEC AV691 11.3 litre engine developing 150bhp @ 1800rpm. A shame it was never allowed to enter production, as no doubt Northern General would have taken delivery of some. They were certainly impressed with the high standards set by the originals, which did not suffer the effects of corrosion encountered with their Atlanteans of a similar age.

Brendan Smith

With reference to London Transport’s tie-up with BEA, as an airline BEA didn’t want the overhead of operating passenger road vehicles and space to house them. So, while the vehicles were owned by BEA, they were operated by London Transport using LT drivers and were accommodated at the former Chiswick Tram Depot (later to become Stamford Brook bus garage). The service started initially with half-decker Commer Commandos; and continued into the early 1950s with a dedicated fleet of RFs (AEC Regal IVs with special Park Royal deck-and-a-half bodies).
Replacements were needed in the 1960s – larger aircraft now required larger vehicles. LT had conducted trials with double-deckers, one an AEC Regent V with a large rear luggage compartment and the other, RMF 1254, with a trailer.
The RMF trials having been successful, BEA ordered a fleet of 65, together with 88 luggage trailers (by Marshall). These RMAs differed from RMF1254 in various ways:
• They were of the standard Routemaster length, 27ft 8in.
• They had the standard engine but were geared for 70mph motorway operation.
• They were equipped with paraffin heaters to keep the interior warm during the sometimes lengthy waits at terminals.
• The destination displays were eliminated (as passengers knew where they were going)
• An illuminated panel above the front entrance advertised the airline, as did a matching panel on the offside.
• The drivers front window was of the single pane non-opening variety.
They went into service between the West London Air Terminal at Cromwell Road and Heathrow Airport from October 1966 after a brief trial period.

(Information adapted from Ian’s Bus Stop website.)

Trevor Haynes

25/09/11 – 18:02

When London Transport and Green line started to run down the Routemaster fleet they became scattered far and wide, but if I’m not mistaken Northern General were the only other operator who had Routemasters of any type from new. They were bought for the routes between Newcastle and Darlington, Hartlepool, Stockton and Middlesbrough. The Sunderland/Bishop Auckland route run by Sunderland & District (Northern General) used Burlingham bodied PD3’s fitted with rear doors.

Ronnie Hoye

08/10/14 – 06:58

I joined London Transport at 19 as a conductor on the trolleys at Stonebridge park garage, when we took over the Routemaster they were in a new world like a dream. I conducted then passed out as a driver, these buses were still in the experimental stages, some had Dunlopillow suspension that made the poor conductor feel sick. We had one that I reported for break problems RM1144 it frightened the life out of me one day, when I took it over the driver said watch the brakes, well as I was pulling up at a bus stop the brakes suddenly went off I put more pressure on the pedal and was thrown over the steering wheel, with a bit of practice I found if that if you left your foot where it was the brakes came back on. They were the most wonderful vehicle that was ever designed, we were told to drive our ones in auto all the time, Cricklewood were told to drive theirs in manual as it saved so many litres of fuel. As one of you comments about the sound of the engines, ours were AEC.

Brendan, you are right about the roar of that Leyland engine, wonderful a few more bits about the Routemaster, most of the Routemasters were governed at 44 mph, they were numbered in SLT, VLT, WLT, RM1000 was the odd one out with 100 BXL if I remember. I think it came from Brighton, then they went on to CLT and so on, some were fitted with moving advertising boards on the lower deck. I asked an instructor at Chiswick about taking one on the skidpan, and was told that at that time if it went into a skid it went into neutral gear but if it hit something it went back into gear, I was told on my test to pull up the dip in Chiswick put it in second gear and pull away, I found that was the only gear that it wont pull away in when the bus suddenly ran back down the slope. I have got great memories of my days on London Transport, my colleagues and the public, the old char ladies on the night bus from Edgware to London Bridge were great to chat to and we did not have much trouble at all.

Bix Curtis

17/11/14 – 08:36

Here is an updated picture of this vehicle. The preserved vehicle is seen at the LVVS running day.

Ken Jones

07/01/16 – 17:03

If you read this, Bix, I’d love to hear more recollections of RMs and also of trolleybuses. The trolleys must have been quite difficult to drive, especially when compared to a fully automatic RM.

Ernie Jupp

04/07/20 – 07:35

Short bodied RMs were designated 5RM5 and longer RMLs designated 7RM7. Does anyone know what the RMFs were designated. I believe the shorter BEA Routemasters were 9RM9, but what about RMF 1254 and the Northern vehicles?

Martyn H. Taylor

Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee
1954
AEC Reliance MU3RV
Park Royal C41C

As it is Sunday again it is another coach, this time an Halifax Corporation AEC Reliance, this coach was bought from Holloway Coaches of Scunthorpe in 1965. But it was delivered new to Bourne & Balmer of Croydon in 1954 I presume they were the only two owners before Halifax. When this coach entered service it was numbered 260 but at the time of this photo it was fleet number 200 so the date of this shot is late 1966 or early 1967 as it was renumbered 256 and rebodied by Plaxton to a C41F in 1967.
The double decker next to this coach by the way is a 1948 Leyland Titan PD2/1 with a Leyland H30/26R body.

The PD2 alongside became Oldham 467 in 1965.

Keith Jackson

The following is from the August 1965 edition of ‘Buses Illustrated’.

AEC Reliance MBY 347 was originally owned by Bourne & Balmer Croydon later used by Timpsons the owners of Bourne & Balmer and latterly owned by Holloway Coaches of Scunthorpe.

Trevor

It was actually bought to provide seats for a duel purpose conversion project, I think it cost £300. Having been in an accident on Standedge or somewhere equally difficult it returned to the body shop at Halifax and was evaluated and they decided it could be reinstated. Surely one of the best bargains EVER, it ran years on contracts, tours, private hires and was rebodied later, good bus, I travelled many miles on it.

Christopher