Copyright P J Marshall

Portsmouth Corporation
1939
Leyland Cheetah LZ4
Wadham B32R

Portsmouth Corporations fleet number 46 was the last of a batch of 6 Leyland LZ4 Cheetahs, 41-46 (BTP 941-946), with locally-built Wadham bodywork, new in 1939. 41 and 42 were withdrawn in 1941, after suffering war damage. This view of 46 at Eastney Depot was taken about 1954 when the remaining four of them were withdrawn from service and were awaiting disposal. Note the sad appearance, bald front tyres and single wheels only on the rear! Although I only holidayed in Portsmouth and Southsea from 1949-1956, I never recall ever seeing these buses in service.
Note the bus is surrounded by some of the nine 1944 Duple-bodied utility Daimler CWA6’s of which virtually no photos seem to exist. In 1959, the chassis were thoroughly overhauled and they were despatched to be re-fitted with Crossley bodies, some of the last Crossley bodies built, only to be scrapped in 1965! With only nine pre-selective gear change vehicles in the fleet, they were greatly abused, with inexperienced drivers using the gear change pedal as a clutch pedal, with lots of juddering. As a visiting Londoner, living in the Daimlerland Merton/Sutton area, it made me cringe!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

———

The Cheetahs were bought for the Southsea Sea Front Service, but of course this ceased in September 1939. The bodies had sunshine roofs and a total of six destination screens to inform the tourists of the attractions on the route. The bodies were reportedly heavy for the lightweight chassis, which was fine for a ride down the promenade, but a problem on normal services.After the war they were used on peak time specials when the fleet was understrength, but very little else. Interestingly there is a record of No.43 running on mileage equalisation duties on Southdown Service 138 from Fareham to Cosham over Portsdown Hill. That would have tested its Leyland 4.7 litre engine.

Pat Jennings

———

It’s true the bus behind is one of the CWA6/Duples, as all nine were withdrawn in 1954 to go to Crossley for new bodies, being returned in 1955. Thus they did 11 years with original, and 11 years as rebodied, being withdrawn in 1965/66. But those at the side of the Cheetah are Craven-bodied TD4s of the 131-160 batch. These would be either early withdrawals, or set aside for a work-shop rebuild. CPPTD carried out a lot of rebuilding work on the Cravens bodied TD4s and the trolleybuses from c. 1949-1957/58, although not every member of these batches received such work.

Michael Hampton

———

I agree with ‘Michael Hampton’ with regards to the re-bodying of the ‘Daimler CWA6’. A rather elderly Bus Book I have from 1963 states that they were re-bodied in 1955 by Crossley.
I think it would have been a lot to ask, that a Double Deck ‘Utility’ body last fifteen years, (unless heavily rebuilt), with the dreadful quality Wartime materials allowed by the ‘Ministry of Supplies’ for Bus Bodies. Even the paint allowed was little better than ‘coloured water’!!
Credit must be give to ‘C.P.P.T.D’ for managing to keep the Utility bodies in service for eleven years. Before the eventual & inevitable – re-bodying process.

John

———

Does anyone have a photo of the CWA6’s as re-bodied? I can’t think of any Crossley bodied Daimlers (with exposed radiators that is).

Chris Barker

———

Oldham had fifteen Crossley-bodied CVD6 (322-336) and Manchester had fifty CVG5 with their characteristic body (4000-4049). Also Lancaster had a solitary (I think) CWG5 rebodied by Crossley.
However, it is possible you are thinking of the later Park Royal-designed Crossley body and I have to say I can’t think of any other examples.

David Beilby

———

No, actually I was thinking of the earlier type of Crossley body of the style with the stepped rear windows, which may be called ‘true’ Crossley bodies. The Portsmouth fleet list on Classic Bus Links states that they were re-bodied in 1959, very late for a wartime chassis to be treated, I thought that T Burrows ex London Daimlers were the last to receive new bodies in 1957. Anyone know which date is correct? If it was 1959 as stated by Chris Hebbron above, they would of course have had the Park Royal style of body, still worth seeing with the exposed radiator and strange if they only lasted six years as such.

Chris Barker

———

Chris Barker – I will post a photo of a re-bodied Daimler shortly. They were pleasant enough, but nothing like any other Crossley bodies I’ve seen. What I’m actually after is a photo of one of them BEFORE they were re-bodied! Such photos are be very rare. Any holders of one out there?

Chris Hebbron

———

The date of 1959 cannot be correct for the rebodying as the Crossley factory had been closed over a year by then. In fact they entered service in September and October 1955.
It turns out there were not many batches of Daimlers bodied postwar by Crossley. In addition to those I listed the remaining ones were the nine Portsmouth examples, 250 for Birmingham (2776-2900 and 3103 to 3227) and 35 for Aberdeen (175-204 and 210-214).

David Beilby

———

Thank you, David, for clarifying the revised date to 1955. I, too, took the Classic Bus Link date of 1959.
I notice that Birmingham’s Daimler CVG6 3225 survives and the Crossley bodywork gives only the merest nod to their standard Corporation design!

Chris Hebbron

———

Chris Hebbron has actually sent me a shot of a Portsmouth Crossley rebodied exposed radiator Daimler CWA6 it will be posted in its own right Wednesday 19th January.

Peter

——— Top of this posting ———

Photo reproduced with kind permission of Alan Lambert.

Copyright Reading & Co

Portsmouth Corporation

1949
Crossley DD42/5
Reading H52R

Portsmouth had four Crossley DD42/5’s (11-14) delivered in 1948 and two (15 & 28) in 1949. The first four had German Imperial Navy-type crosses on the radiators: the last two had CROSSLEY plates on them. They all had Brockhouse Turbo-transmitters and, according to Michael Hampton (who commented on a photo of a DD42/7 I submitted earlier) retained them to the the end of their service days. The locally-built Reading bodies they wore had also been fitted to 6 Leyland PD1/1A’s delivered earlier, in 1947/48. They bore some resemblance (especially at the front) to the Craven-bodied trolleybuses Portsmouth had at the time, there is a shot of one here.
As I recall, and unlike the DD42/7’s, they seemed to be very coy buses in the fleet, usually working routes needing only one bus, or peak-time reliefs or, as here, at Clarence Pier, Southsea, working the Sea Front Service on a cloudy or chilly day in May 1961, in place of the open-top TD4’s.
Incidentally, since only a few months separated the delivery of these 42/5’s from the 42/7’s, were there ever any DD42/6’s?

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Thanks for posting the two Portsmouth Corporation Crossley’s. My how they bring back memories. When both these Crossley’s ran, I lived on the ‘Tipner Estate’, in Tipner Green. We always seemed to get the Buses on this route (service ‘O’ & ‘P’ that later became service ’13’ & ’14’), that were near their withdrawal time. The ‘Reading’ bodied Crossleys did indeed keep their Crossley Engines & Brockhouse Turbomotor Transmitter’s to the end.
As a kid, I would spend hours at ‘Range Green’ (their ‘Tipner’ terminus) as they used to reverse into the beginning of Range Green, to face the correct way in Tipner Lane for the return journey. You would often see the Driver standing up in the cab trying to move the stuck ‘direction’ lever, which looked just like a normal Gear lever which you pushed forward to go forwards and pulled back to reverse, between these was neutral. The trick for an easy change of direction was to knock the lever into neutral just before coming to a halt, then stop, then using the ‘Heel Pedal’ under the Drivers seat which was supposed to (but rarely did) stop the transmission from turning, snatch the direction lever quickly to the direction you want to go.

John

The O & P route was just the sort of quiet route these vehicles trod for year in and year out. Oh, and we always called Tipner, Tipnor – strange how it had two spellings.

Chris Hebbron

As it seems empty (look upstairs), do we take it that the rear suspension is a bit, shall we say, tired, or someone has left a very heavy parcel under the stairs? Or are all the passengers standing on the platform?

Joe

I love the thought of 52+8 standing, 60 folk crammed on the platform (probably having to leave the conductor behind!) but it may be that the bus is pulling away from the bus stop and causing the apparent tilt backwards and perhaps towards the camera a little, too.

Chris Hebbron

This is true,’Tipner’ was the correct spelling for that Estate, but there was also a ‘Tipnor’ spelling for a road just off ‘Twyford Avenue’ (probably doesn’t exist after the placement of the ‘M27’ Motorway build in the 1970’s).

John

The Reading bodywork was a very ‘handsome’ affair with clean cut lines, and polished interior woodwork with  half drop ventilator windows but sadly, this body, was not the most rugged or durable in practice. This would explain the early withdrawal of the Crossley’s and the PD1/PD1A with these bodies. This may also explain why the ‘Reading’ Bodied vehicles kept their troublesome Crossley engines & Brockhouse/Salerni Turbomotor/Transmitter Converters to the end.

John

Yes, I always had a soft spot for the looks of the Reading-bodied vehicles.

Towards the end, even the Crossley bodies on the DD42/7’s suffered from body problems. I can recall sitting in the front downstairs saloon seats and noticing that fatigue cracks were appearing in a central spar which ran below the windows. Several buses had had the ‘dodgy’ part covered in varnished wood, one must hope after welding work had been done!

Chris Hebbron

The number of dodgy bodies – and coachbuilders – from the end of WW2 to 1950 is legion, for the most part due to or contributed to by the lack of quality parts and materials as a consequence of the war.

Interestingly enough, you could say that Crossley bodies were of two distinct types – both generally regarded as of high quality.

Due to immense Manchester Corporation influence, the majority of pre-war – and post-war to 1950 – bodies were on Metro-Cammell frames (then regarded as by far the best and most reliable all metal frames). This, of course, made them compatible with most of the rest of MCT’s fleet of Met-Camm bodies. After the AEC/ACV take over, most Crossley bodies were on Park Royal frames (another quality product) but made them (like similar Roe bodies) into PRV clones.

A prime example of dodgy coachwork was Windover which was luxurious "in the extreme" but fell apart rapidly with it’s "green" wood frames.

David Oldfield

I have to admit, I did not know that C.P.P.T.D. Had had trouble with the Crossley Bodies too ! I do remember, as a kid, aiming for the single seat on either side which was located in the centre of the lower saloon (only on those that hadn’t been up seated to standard layout). The rore of the transplanted 8.6 Litre Leyland Engine, and whine from the 1930’s (ex) TD4 ‘crash’ Gearbox’s. I never remember any of them breaking down even though the engine and gearbox was over twenty years older than the rest of the Bus !!

John

I don’t think the comment about Metro-Cammell frames is quite right. Pre-war yes, Manchester had vast numbers of "Crossley-MetroCammell" bodies. But both of the seminal works by Eyre and Heaps ("The Manchester Bus" and "Crossley") state that post-war Crossley bodies used Crossley’s own framing, and speak very highly of it.
The Park Royal framed Crossley bodies should have been of high quality, but many of them weren’t, because by then Crossley was in its death-throes, morale was low and nobody was interested in quality. Preston is one operator that had to do substantial rebuilding work on these bodies.

Peter Williamson

In my copy above, I posed the question as to whether there had ever been any Crossley DD42/6’s. By chance, I’ve found out that, in 1949, Birmingham Corporation took delivery of eight DD42/6’s and one DD42/6T. This was just before their great influx of Daimlers, Guys and Crossley DD42/7’s in 1950. So if Portsmouth’s DD42/5’s were delivered in 1949 and B’ham Corp’n’s were DD42/7’s in 1950, not many DD42/6’s could have been made in the interim, but some were.

Chris Hebbron

The comments from Chris Hebron about the DD42/6 Crossley’s, reminded me of an almost identical scenario with the pre-war Leyland Titans.
There were TD1 – TD5 Chassis then a handful of TD6’s for one operator, before the arrival of the TD7 in 1942. The War stopped further production ’til the post-war PD1 with its rather ‘clattery’ E181, 7.4 Litre Engine.

John

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

21/02/13 – 06:14

I recall reading once that Leyland’s 7.4 litre engine was originally developed for use in wartime tanks!

Chris Hebbron

21/02/13 – 07:14

Yes, Chris, and used in tandem – two at a time, like DMUs.

David Oldfield

21/02/13 – 08:43

Interesting. It may well be then, David, that all 7.4 powered buses were secretly part of the UK’s strategic military reserve!

Chris Hebbron

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

Copyright CPPTD

Portsmouth Corporation
1927
Karrier WL6/2
Brush H32/28R

Portsmouth Corporation, primarily a tram operator at this time, having dabbled with some Thornycroft J’s, Guy J’s, Dennis 50 cwt’s, an LGOC B Class, Dennis E’s and a Karrier CL, then decided to go for some big boys, buying eight Karrier WL6/2’s registered in two batches, in 1927. Here is a photo of No. 46 (TP4835) with Brush H32/28R bodies. This was during a brief era when 6-wheel buses were ‘de rigeur’, with higher seating levels and, when front-wheel braking was uncommon, four wheels with brakes at the rear were better than two. However, Karrier was not the company to buy them from! Geoffrey Hilditch in his excellent book ‘A Look at Buses’ recalls that Karrier had not realised that it was necessary to have a crown wheel and pinion BETWEEN the two axles, which set up mechanical stress and continual breakdowns. On one occasion a lady with two children was walking along the downstairs bus aisle when a flailing drive shaft came through the floor, narrowly missing them. Karrier’s policy was not to bother to keep spares for its products for much longer than production ceased, adding to the users’ problems and, no doubt, prejudicing repeat orders for the company’s products, when Leyland/AEC were becoming the leading lights. Suffice to say, that when the Huddersfield company finally started to produce some quite capable models, such as the Chaser and Consort around 1930, sales had dropped right off and, with the Wall Street Crash causing a slump, never really recovered, leading to Rootes taking over the firm in 1934. As for those in Pompey, they were persevered with for one year longer, until 1935. The lining-out of the bus is extensive, yet surprisingly simple for the period, with no fiddly work at the corners which was often prevalent at that time, Portsmouth being no exception. In latter years, simple lining out became the order of the day again, as you can see from the Crossley DD42/7 I posted recently. I assume the colours were maroon/white, as the tram and later bus livery.

And the Knight & Lee store (“Still a Foremost for FASHION – Second to None for VALUE”), advertised on the side poster? Not exactly in the category as Binns of Newcastle, either in store size or bus advertising presence, it nevertheless still exists under the more famous ‘John Lewis’ name! More staying power than the bus!

And a question – something is sticking out in front of the radiator. Is it a headlamp? At, say, 9” diameter and therefore the same depth, plus a bit more space, it would seem to be sticking out about 15” beyond the radiator front and, if not actually fouling the starting handle, making the use of the handle more difficult than otherwise would be the case. Blowing that part of the photo up to 400% does not, sadly, help provide an answer.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Headlamp is clearly visible on the offside mudguard. As a suggestion, might it have been an audible warning device? After moving on from rubber bulb horns, it could have been some sort of patent mechanical klaxon. Or a fog light maybe?

Stephen Ford

It’s a headlamp!

The lamp on the offside wing is a sidelight, despite it size.

Buses as late as (if I remember correctly) 1967 didn’t have to have two headlamps, and if they did, they were not required to be of the same size or height from the ground. That’s why early pictures of Routemasters often show them with only one headlamp lit: they were on separate switches! Also, in the early post-war period you often saw buses (notably Manchester Corporation ones) with one original full-sized lamp and one tiny, former blackout lamp.

David Jones

13/02/11 – 06:38

I enlarged the picture & brightened it which then seemed to show that the headlamp was not in front of the radiator but mounted on the offside chassis dumb iron by a clumsy looking bracket.

Brian

13/02/11 – 18:34

Well done, Brian, that settles it. The headlamp is certainly formidable-looking!

Chris Hebbron

14/02/11 – 09:46

What a wonderful old vehicle this is!.
Did PCT have some with EE bodies as well?
The Brush version seen here is a FC version of the CX Guys supplied to Leicester. Forward control 6 wheel double deckers!
The fascination of buses from this era is their close tramcar ancestry, and the swift development in design between 1928/9, and 1932 is dramatic!

John Whitaker

Leicester`s CXs were, of course Normal control. My enthusiasm went ahead of my typing fingers!

15/02/11 – 06:24

Yes John, CPPTD took delivery of another six, 48-53. in 1928, with English Electric bodies, these lasting until 1934, with 52 being the very last of them all to be withdrawn, in 1936. You are so right in your mention of the huge leap in body design in that five years or so.
BTW – If anyone wonders about Portsmouth Corporation’s coat of arms, it is a star with a moon underneath, cupped upwards. The motto is: ‘Heavens Light – Our Guide’. And in English, too – no fancy Latin for Pompey!!

Chris Hebbron

18/06/12 – 11:57

Chris, you are obviously as fascinated as I am by this bus generation! I think it is because it is just past my recollection, as my earliest bus memories were during WW2, and anything of an earlier generation was just "out of reach" if you follow me!
This rear view is particularly valuable, as such views were quite rare, and it gives me some indication as to what the rear end of a Leicester Guy CX would have looked like. A similar body although modified for fitment to a normal control 6 wheel chassis.
The English Electric version was quite similar, but I do have recollections of that family of buses, as I can (just) remember the Bradford English Electric "Paddlers" of 1929. See David Beilby`s galleries, where other, similar delights are to be found!  Wonderful stuff!

John Whitaker

19/06/12 – 11:38

You’re right, John W, it was a period of fast change, which soon saw some early competitors off, especially with the Wall Street Crash of 1929. And with six-wheelers, Guy/Karrier got it wrong and AEC/Leyland got it right when it came to needing a diff between the twin axles. With the rear view of the bus, it clearly shows the tram influence, with the two side bulkheads aft of the saloon and the round-shaped winding staircase.
A rounded back, door between bulkheads, a controller and brake handle and it could pass for a tram end! And the internal view of the EE bodies for similar vehicles on David B’s excellent website, shows two enormous floor traps to gain access to those troublesome rear axles! Glad the photo was useful to you: it was to me, too.
I’d love to have ridden on them!

Chris Hebbron

03/11/12 – 17:15

Here’s a rare and lovely photo of four Karrier WL6/2’s parked around the side of Portsmouth’s Guildhall, possible awaiting a concert crowd to take home.
If any Northerners think the building looks familiar, it’s an exact copy of Bolton Town Hall. However, it was gutted in the war and rebuilt many years after in a much more simplified style, losing much of its original glory.

Chris Hebbron

04/11/12 – 15:43

Chris, it was a delight to see your latest WL6 photo in Pompey, and it has served to re-ignite my fascination for this era. There seemed to be a "punctuation mark" in development stages, between this era, and the more rounded style post 1930/2. This "mark" was probably the TD1 Titan, and both sides of it are fascinating in a different way.
My nearest actual memory glimpses are the Bradford "Paddler" trolleybuses, which were direct relations of the English Electric bodied variant of the WL6 at Portsmouth. Similar bodies were built for Oldham on Guy FCX chassis, and, of course, good old Dodson reigned supreme in producing bodies to this classic style. A photo of the Portsmouth and Southampton (Thornycroft) 6 wheeler EE bodies would be of great interest, and, I am always amazed that the wonderful Wolverhampton fleet of the 1920s, in both petrol and electric format, does not generate more historical enthusiast interest. How fascinatingly different was a normal control 6 wheel motorbus!
The whole 1920s 6 wheel idea was a step too far, too quickly, in the drive for seats in the tram replacement climate, but when it comes to enthusiast content and memory, then unsuccessful they were NOT!!
Come on you OBP followers. Lets have more of the really old stuff! Or is it me getting longer in the tooth than anyone else? !!

John Whitaker

05/11/12 – 17:19

It really was a time of great change then, John, with petrol to diesel and open staircases giving way to enclosed platforms and open cabs to enclosed ones, especially in London. Boxy bodies giving way to more rounded, streamlined ones (now they’re boxy again). The second photo (rear of bus) has a bulge for the lower deck, which I’ve seen called ‘tumbledown’ in the past. Anyone know why – was it the type of staircase that necessitated the bulge or passenger risk, or what?
I really must try to trace a photo of the 1928 batch of Karriers, with EE bodies. they seem more elusive although there were 6 against 8 of the others, almost even.

Chris Hebbron

06/11/12 – 06:37

Hi Chris. These Brush bodies are very similar to the Leicester Guy CXs, which had a similar rear tumbleholme/tumbledown, but which does not commence its inward bend until first stair riser level, so I think it was purely a "fashion", and very common. The staircase was a half landing type, but Dodson bodies of this era had tramway style "half turn" or direct stairs to the tramway spiral style, and consequently , in plan view, the enclosed bodies had a much larger off side radius at the rear, compared with the near side. EEC bodies were very similar to the Brush design. I will try to gain access to the Brush Archive at Leicester Museums, to see if I can get access to photos of these Karriers, and others built by Brush. There were also batches of six wheel Maudslay Magnas for Coventry which were superb, magnificent machines!
Hall Lewis also built bodies for Karrier WL6, as did Roe, on Karrier and Guy, and also Short Bros.
Northampton had some Guy FCX with locally built Grose bodies too, but all in good time John…slow down a bit!

As an afterthought on the Karrier 6 wheel double deck motorbus theme, does anyone know the correct designation, as most photo captions refer to the double decker as "DD6", and the single decker as WL6/1 or 2. Also, was the maximum length for these buses, prior to 1931/2, 28ft, corresponding with the 25 ft for 4 wheelers? I never did know, but think the single deck could be built to 30ft,and the decker 28ft, this rising to 26ft and 30ft. in 1932 (viz ST to STL). Many trolleybuses were built to 30ft. length, as represented by AEC type 664T (663T for the shorter option), but were there any post 1932 30ft. 6 wheel motorbuses? I cannot think of any, but that means nothing!
It would seem that a resurgence of interest in "full size" motorbuses was about to materialise c.1939, with Leicester purchasing batches of "Renowns", and there was a Daimler COG6/60 chassis, due to be demonstrated to Leicester, destroyed at Daimlers works in the blitz. Please correct me if I say these were not 3o footers.
Also interesting is the fact that both EE and Brush, the first and second main supplier of tramcar bodies in the UK since 1900, were so prominent in the concept of "large capacity" motorbuses in the 1920s, and that both voluntarily abandoned this business during, or soon after WW2. The third supplier of tramcar bodies, Hurst Nelson of Motherwell, never really got into bus building at all.
I wonder if we could get together to make a list of all known pre-1932 6 wheel dd. motorbuses. An interesting read?

John Whitaker

26/07/13 – 17:42

I mentioned above a near-miss accident with one of these buses, but have found a news clipping about an horrific fatal accident with Wallasey Corporation Karrier DD6, a variant of the WL 6/1 & 6/2. Sadly, both Karrier and Wallasey Corp’n got away without being blamed. You’ve got to feel greatly for the husband. SEE: www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/

Chris Hebbron

27/07/13 – 07:41

This horrific accident was mentioned in a history of Wallasey Corporation published c.1958 in Buses Illustrated. The author stated that as a result, all the Wallasey Karrier six-wheelers were withdrawn from service immediately. As I remember it, there was a hint that the cause was prop shaft failure, due to the stresses of the inadequate design of the twin rear axle, and that this accident also caused some other operators to get rid of this make of six-wheelers sooner rather than later.

Michael Hampton

27/07/13 – 09:08

Portsmouth, in its usual way, kept them going until 1935, probably the full span of their lives, for the time!

Chris Hebbron

28/07/13 – 07:34

I remember that article, Michael, and I also attended an illustrated talk in the mid 1960s given by my then boss, Geoff Hilditch at Halifax. He mentioned this tragic event, and later, writing as ‘Gortonian’, covered it in one of his Buses Illustrated articles. It was reprinted in his book ‘Looking at Buses’. These Karriers did not have a safety bridle on the shaft linking the engine to the gearbox, and when two of the three connecting bolts sheared off suddenly, the third held, causing the shaft to flail around and up through the floor with devastating results. Karriers never fully recovered their reputation after that accident.

Roger Cox

29/07/13 – 07:45

Doncaster received four AEC Renowns in 1935 and three Leyland Titanics in 1936 all with Roe H60R bodies.

Malcolm J Wells

29/07/13 – 14:46

To show both body types on the same chassis, here is a rare photo of CPPTD’s Karrier WL6/2 No.50 (TP 6874), delivered 1928. These sported EE bodies very similar to the Brush ones, with the same seating capacity. The most obvious difference was the top deck’s far less neat side-sliding windows on this body. In this photo, the bus clearly has two headlamps Of the batch, 52 lasted the longest, until 1936. (Copyright: English Electric)

Chris Hebbron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

16/11/13 – 10:50

I’ve come across a 1928 advert, making great claims about their WL62 chassis.
I’ve no idea in whose livery the bus in the photo is (someone may know), but I am intrigued about the unusual non-cutaway section of platform on the rear of bus. I’ve never seen such an example before and it might be an added clue.

Chris Hebbron

07/08/16 – 06:55

Re: 1928 advert.
the livety is for Liverpool. they bought 6 two wheel chassis, and had the bodies built in the tram works.

Art

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

11/07/17 – 06:53

This is in response to Chris Hebron’s message of 26/7/13 (!) with its link to an article about a passenger disappearing through the floor of a Karrier six wheeler and being killed by the machinery underneath. Over the weekend I was looking at the floor of the Bournemouth 6-wheel Karrier single decker LJ500. My usual experience of bus floors is ECW and Beadle products where the floors are 1" or 7/8" T&G boards. The lightweight Bristol SC, where everything was skinned down as much as possible to save weight has floorboards 5/8" thick. The Hall Lewis body on LJ500 has boards a smigen over 1/2" thick. The saving grace for the SC is that the distance between supports is a lot less than those on the Karrier – 18" or so compared with 3′ or more. I have to say that standing on the floor in LJ500 it didn’t feel all that safe and having now read Chris Hebron’s comments and the Wallasey article I understand why.

Peter Cook

12/07/17 – 07:24

On 6/11/12 (was it that long ago!), John Whitaker was interested in compiling a list of pre-1932 double deck buses manufactured. I’ve had a quick go and come up with the following, a couple of them are single deck ones.
AEC Renown (single and double), Bristol C (two chassis, only one of which bodied), Crossley Condor (one only), Guy CX & DD, Karrier DD, WL6 (both), Clipper (single) & Consort, Leyland Titanic (TS6T/TS7T single), Northern General SE6 (single), Sunbeam Sikh.

Chris Hebbron