Copyright Robert F. Mack

Rotherham corporation
1940
Bristol L5G 
Bruce B32C

Quite awhile ago we had a posting of a Rotherham Corporation Bristol K6B double decker which was contributed by Ian Wild. The vehicle actually started life in 1949 as a L5B single deck vehicle but after only three years it was rebodied, naturally as comments were made the obvious question came up, what happened to the original saloon bodies?

Thanks to Andrew Charles for sending in the above shot and the following copy:-
The above L5G chassis was built in 1940 and when new carried East Lancs B32C bodywork.
In 1951 the chassis was modernized and rebodied with the two year old body (Bruce on East Lancs frames) from the 1949 L6B which in turn was rebodied as a double decker. An obvious visual indication was that although this chassis was originally built with the high mounted KV radiator – more familiar on JOG type chassis, this vehicle had received on rebuild the later style PV2 radiator with its associated lower bonnet line.
An example of a 1939 L5G still carrying its original radiator can be seen parked behind number 160 and that vehicle had also lost its original East Lancs B32C body. It isn’t possible to identify the specific vehicle shown here but a number of chassis in this batch received new bodies in 1952/3. Built by either Bond (B37R), East Lancs (Bridlington) (B35R) or, in two cases, the Rotherham Corporation Transport bodyshop (B37R) – in all cases they were built on East Lancs frames. In some cases the chassis was lengthened to 29’ prior to receiving the new body.
The vehicle seen to the left of the photo appears to be one of the later L5G of 1950/51, also fitted from new with East Lancs (Bridlington) B32C bodywork.

Rotherham may have got their money out of the 1940 chassis but I am not sure about the 1949 bodies. The withdrawal dates are as follows 159 rebodied again 1956, 162 – 1957, 161 – 1954 and the above vehicle 160 – 1957. At the best the longest surviving body was eight years old when it went for scrap, but the worst is that of 161 at only five years. Another interesting point is that the rest of the batch of L5Gs that kept there original 1940 bodies were withdrawn over the same period 157/8 – 1956, 163/4 – 1957 and 165 – 1954.

Andrew has also put together a Fleet list of Rotherham Corporation Bristol L Types listing all rebodies undertaken. There is a web version here but you will need a wide screen or view at 75%, if you would like an .xls spreadsheet version please contact me in the usual way.

Photograph and Information contributed by Andrew Charles

20/02/11 – 18:42

The postings regarding the Rotherham Bristol conversions from single to double-deck make for most interesting reading. I left Rotherham for Canada many years ago, but have retained a considerable interest in the Corporation fleet of that era, and have collected many photographs over the years over which to reminisce about the "good old days" of Rotherham Corporation buses.
The nine L6B’s that were rebodied as double deckers had been originally bodied by East Lancs (112-4) and Bruce Coachworks (179-184). The three East Lancs bodies were distinguishable from the Bruce examples by having a sliding cab door, whereas the Bruce bodies had a hinged example.
I did some considerable research years ago into the rebodying exercise that went on with respect to these buses, and came to the conclusion that the PSV Circle information is not quite correct as to exactly which L5G’s that originally had Cravens bodies were the recipients of the newer East Lancs/Bruce coachwork. The PSV Circle quotes fleet nos. 137/40/2/3 and 159/60-2/5 as being the nine pre-war and wartime buses that were rebodied. In my collection of Rotherham photographs, I have clear evidence that nos 163 (CET 446) and 168 (CET 564) both received new post-war bodywork in the 1950’s, and am of the opinion that of the buses that the PSV Circle quotes as being rebodied, both 137 and 142 (BET 513/518) actually weren’t rebodied at all, but retained their Cravens structures until withdrawal in 1955, which was considerably earlier than the other seven rebodies. Also, it is worth noting that when 137/42 were eventually withdrawn and sold, the only trace of the pair is of 137 ending up as a showman’s lorry in Montrose, Scotland. 142 disappeared, presumably for scrap, whereas the other seven rebodies, as one would expect, all found further work after being pensioned off by Rotherham, except for 161 (CET 444) which was scrapped prematurely in 11/54 after sustaining accident damage.
Incidentally, of note are 143 and 159, which were two of the rebodied examples. These two actually collided with each other in Rotherham, and both ended up being rebuilt and lengthened and fitted with rear entrance sliding doors, their seating capacity subsequently increased to 37. Remarkably, they both ended up being sold to T.D. Alexander (Greyhound) and ran side by side on contractor’s services in Sheffield, until both ending up in the same Worksop scrapyard together in 1964.
With respect to the reason for the rebodying, one can only assume that when it was decided to operate double-deckers on all routes where practical, apart from rural services to small outlying villages or those routes on which double deck operation was impossible, these nine having six-cylinder engines would have been perfect candidates for rebodying as double deckers, the still relatively new single deck bodies able to be fitted on to older five-cylinder L type chassis that still had several years life left in them but whose original bodies were well past their ‘best by’ date.
I note the comment posted with respect to Rotherham’s only female driver of the era. That would have been Miss Winifred Hallam, whom I believe was the only woman in the country at the time who was licensed to drive trams, trolleybuses and motor buses!! She could indeed handle those Crossleys, and I have a very strong childhood recollection of seeing Miss Hallam being forced to back her Bristol down an icy Doncaster Gate in the town one snowy afternoon, as she was unable to climb the hill due to the severe wintry conditions; seeing the head of curls sticking out of the open cab door as she gingerly inched her way back down on to the flat terrain has been, and likely always will be, an abiding memory!! I hope these comments have been of interest.

Dave Careless

20/02/11 – 20:19

Thanks to Dave for such a comprehensive and interesting feedback.
I would be interested to know if during his research he could clarify a further area regarding the BET xxx chassis that were rebodied with B–R bodies.
The PSV Circle records that I used for the fleet list show specific vehicles of those that were rebodied as having lengthened chassis. Was it genuinely the case that the vehicles included in this exercise were rebuilt with bodies to two different lengths or is the data simply lacking detail in respect of some entries and in fact all were lengthened?

Andrew

21/02/11 – 06:31

What an evocative photograph! Taken at Rotherham’s Rawmarsh Road Depot, the buses are so typically Rotherham. I don’t recall these CET registered buses but remember the very similar post war FET registered ones quite well which must have been amongst the last Bristols supplied to Rotherham. The local independent, Greyhound, mentioned by Dave Careless had a most interesting fleet split between Sheffield and Arbroath, just imagine driving a 5LW engined bus between the two locations! Vehicles were often exchanged between them.

Ian Wild

22/02/11 – 06:22

Thanks for your appreciative comments about the posting, Andrew. With respect to the rebodying of the 1938 L5G’s, 147-55 (BET901-9), and the lengthening exercise that went with it, that all seems a bit vague at best. Apparently the contract for the rebodying of these nine vehicles was awarded to East Lancs at Bridlington, with the bodies being built on steel frames supplied from Blackburn. While the work was in hand, and with four vehicles completed, the decision was taken sometime in 1952 to wind up the Bridlington operation, and according to an article I have in my files, “ …… the vehicle bodies in hand were built in skeleton form and transferred to S.H. Bond of Wythenshawe, Manchester for completion. Wouldn’t they have been a sight to see, being driven from Bridlington to Manchester!!
With respect to the lengthening, I have ‘official’ views of an East Lancs bodied example just completed at Bridlington and a Bond bodied one that looks to be about to set out for Rotherham, and after comparing them carefully, can’t see any noticeable differences, the overhang at the rear looks to be the same in both cases. The only slight difference could possibly be at the front end, where the sloping cab front looks to be slightly more upright on the Bond bodied one, but even that might be a trick of the camera, it’s hard to say.
In yet another article entitled ‘Out of Bond’, published in Transport World for April 1953, there is a write-up on the delivery to Rotherham on February 26th of that year of the first of the five rebodies, in which, and I quote: “The new bodies, which represent the completion of five single-deckers from an order of nine originally placed with East Lancashire Coachbuilders (Bridlington) Ltd., have been mounted on rebuilt 1939 Bristol chassis which originally seated 32 passengers. The chassis rebuilding and modernizing was carried out in the Corporation works and the body design was then modified to take advantage of the new length regulations, so that the vehicles can now seat 35 passengers.”
The PSV Circle Fleet History on Rotherham Corporation lists the five dealt with by Bond as being increased in length and fitted out as B37R, with the four dealt with at Bridlington not being mentioned as lengthened and listed as B35R. It’s hard to imagine that East Lancs would have received an order from Rotherham to rebody nine chassis, but with instructions to only lengthen five of them, these five seating 37 and the four unlengthened ones seating just two less, that would seem pointless. Considering that they both appear to look the same, and with the reference in the ‘Out of Bond’ article referring to the rebodied buses they completed as being 35 seaters, if I were a betting man I’d say that all nine were lengthened, and their revised seating capacity was 35, despite what it says in the PSV Circle Fleet History. I recall reading somewhere that the sliding rear doors on these rebodies proved troublesome, the severe overhang of the body caused some slight distortion and some of the conducting staff found the doors quite difficult to open and close. Hopefully there might be somebody out there who can confirm beyond reasonable doubt the seating capacity of all nine of these rebodied machines.
For the record, these lengthened saloons were quite often to be found on the Sheffield – Rotherham – Doncaster service, route 77, until the route was revised to clear a low bridge at the Sheffield end in 1956, and became the preserve of a batch of seven Weymann bodied Daimler CVG6’s that lasted on there for years. The BET-saloons ended their days on school journeys and colliery extras, and six of them were withdrawn in late 1957 following the delivery of an equal number of AEC Reliances, Rotherham’s first underfloor engined single-deckers. Hope this is of interest.

Dave Careless

12/06/15 – 06:07

Just found out a titbit about Bruce. They were originally called Air Dispatch (Coachbuilders) Ltd. in Cardiff, but were renamed Bruce Coach Works in September 1948. They seemed to consistently build bodies on East Lancs frames.

Chris Hebbron

Copyright Ian Wild

Rotherham Corporation
1949
Bristol K6B
East Lancs H30/26R

Rotherham was an enthusiastic Bristol operator until they became no longer available to non Tilling Companies. 180 is one of a batch of four Bristol L6B originally with Bruce B32C bodies delivered in 1949 and all rebodied in 1951 (only two years later) by East Lancs as H30/26R double deckers.

The photo was taken in August 1967 at the Chapeltown terminus of service 16. My information doesn’t include any withdrawal dates but the bus was a creditable 18 years old at the time.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

———

180 lasted in service until 1967, one year later than the other three.

Chris Hebbron

———

Ah! Blue and cream – almost as good as cream and blue (Sheffield).
Living in the far South West of Sheffield, I lived just about as far from Rotherham as I could be and the 69 went to Exchange Street, not Pond Street Bus Station. I am a fan of Bristol engined Bristols but wasn’t aware of Rotherham’s Bristols until long after they had gone. It was the AECs and Daimlers that I remember – and of course the AECs were actually in the minority.
Ironically, Rotherham was to become significant to me – as a musician – in later years, and still is today.

David Oldfield

———

What a coincidence, David. I too lived on the south west side of Sheffield. I was at a training centre in Rawmarsh for 6 months during the winter of 1962/3 and travelled daily by bus. The 69 of course was a joint Sheffield/Rotherham service, Rotherham’s contribution almost exclusively being a Crossley. Rotherham had one single lady driver which was unusual in those days but she was a complete master (mistress?) of the Crossleys. Sheffield used their three ‘stock’ all Leyland PD2s (601-603), with their none standard destination displays on the 69. I seem to remember them having a brown seating material rather than Sheffield standard.
From Rotherham I travelled to Rawmarsh by Mexborough and Swinton. Their lowbridge Atlanteans were quite unusual to my eyes although later I worked for a fleet with 105 of them! Best thing about M&S was the almost exclusive use of conductresses, many of them rather attractive!!
Does anyone have any photos of the M&S Atlanteans?

Ian Wild

———

The interesting question is, why were these vehicles re-bodied after only two years? It’s inconceivable that the Bruce bodies would have been unserviceable after such a short time, I believe Bruce had a good reputation and weren’t they associated with East Lancs? Was it the case that Rotherham suddenly had a desperate need for double deckers? and were the original bodies re-used on other chassis?
Did the fact that they were single deck chassis have any effect on the rear platform of the re-bodied vehicles, such as the Wallace Arnold re-bodied Daimlers for Kippax and Farsley with their two-step platforms?

Chris Barker

———

And it wasn’t a cheap conversion, either. They were delivered as Bristol L6B’s, which were single decker chassis. The Bruce bodies were classified B32C’s which suggests that they were originally coaches rather than single-deck buses. The chassis were then rebuilt to K6B standard and fitted with the East Lancs double decker bodies. It’s likely that even the gearbox/axle ratios needed changing. But, as Chris B says, what were the ‘coaches’ originally planned for?

Chris Hebbron

———

Two-step platforms: there was a fashion for these in the early 50’s: Doncaster had some new Roes in the 120’s with two step platforms and cranked seats- was it a way of dealing with 7ft 6in widths for narrow streets (or narrow washers depending which version you prefer)?

Joe

———

I wonder if it was something to do with Rotherham getting wind of the impending loss of access to new Bristols. They may have taken whatever they could get hold of before the stable door was finally locked and bolted, on the basis that a 6B is a 6B, whatever happens to be sitting on top of it. It is quite probable that there would be a second-hand market for four good-quality coach bodies no more than two years old. From an accounting point of view it is quite likely that the subsequent rebodying would be done through the maintenance budget. So there would be few questions asked (however much it cost), compared with the approval process for purchasing new capital stock.

Stephen Ford

———

PSV Circle fleet supplement P71R dated October 1963 provides further information. Eight 1949 Bristol L6Bs were rebodied with double deck bodies in 1951, fleet numbers 112-114 and 179-184. The displaced single deck bodies were fitted to prewar L5Gs fleet numbers 137/140/142/143 of 1938 and 159-162 of 1939. Of these, at least 137 etc originally had Cravens bodies. All were withdrawn in 1957/1958. Please note these B32C bodies were bus bodies (not coach)- the C refers to central entrance which seems to have been a Rotherham speciality as the Cravens bodies were of the same configuration.

Ian Wild

———

Following on from Ians comment, centre entrances were very common in this area. Rotherham also ran many centre entrance single decker Daimler trolleybuses, a number of which were rebodied at a very young age with Roe double deck bodies. Rotherham were the joint operator with Mexborough and Swinton on services between Rotherham and Conisborough via Mexborough. Most of the ‘tracklesses’ operated by the Mexborough system were centre entrance with only a few very early examples and some wartime second hand vehicles bucking the trend. One of the latest centre door vehicles that I can think of in that area was a Doncaster CT Regal IV that from new was equipped with a centre door body albeit rebuilt to dual entrance later in life.

Dates relevant to the bus shown in the photo above are:-
Date into service – March 1949 (original body was by Bruce on East Lancs frames)
Chassis modified from L6B to K6B and rebodied by East Lancs in April 1951
Withdrawn October 1967 it passed to Autospares of Bingley for scrap in December 1967.
The original single deck body was used to rebody the refurbished chassis of a 1940 L5G of the CET 44x batch numbers 159 – 162

Andrew Charles

———

27/02/11 – 12:00

Some interesting comments here, but does putting a double-deck body on a Bristol L make it a K? I grew up in Bristol and remember all the rebodying that went on but Bristol Omnibus never did a single to double deck conversion. The L chassis was 27′ 6" long, the K 26′ but, by the time of Rotherham’s rebodying, double deckers were allowed to be 27′ long. So how long was 180? Rotherham went on to buy the KS chassis, the only non-Tilling operator to do so; comparing photo-graphs of the two, 180 is almost certainly 26′ long, so the chassis had to be shortened to fit the new double deck body.

Geoff Kerr

——— Top of this posting ———

Photograph from The late Robert F Mack collection.

Samuel Ledgard
1945
Bristol K6A
ECW L27/26R

As featured in ‘An Arresting Experience’ by Chris Youhill on the ‘articles’ page here we have the vehicle in question. This vehicle was ex-United Automobile Services fleet number BAL 8 new to them in 1945 acquired by Samuel Ledgard in 1959 and served a further six years before being withdrawn from service in 1965.  
The Bristol K series was first produced in 1937 and had the high bonnet line as in the shot above until 1946, when the more familiar lower bonnet line was introduced as in the shot to the right.
The above vehicle was one of 251 built after the recommencement of production in 1944 and were the wartime W1 and W2 series all of which had the AEC 7·7 litre six cylinder diesel engine hence the K6A code. As from 1946 the K series was also available with the Gardner 5LW and Bristols first diesel engine the AVW which was a 8·1 litre six cylinder unit. I am not sure what AVW and its successor the BVW stood for, I could guess that the V stood for vertical, if you know please leave a comment. The K series carried on in production until 1950 with over 3000 being built until the one foot longer KS version was introduced.

Photograph contributed by Chris Youhill

Am I right in believing that the difference in bonnet height is the post war "invention" of dropped front axles- and who thought of it first?

Joe

Sorry Joe but, as far as I can glean from publications on the Bristol "K" series, there is no difference at all in the front axles of the low and high radiator "K"s. Dropped front axles were virtually standard on all buses long before WW2. As you say, the apparent dramatic lowering of the radiators and bonnets would suggest some major structural redesign but seemingly not so – the improved appearance must have been achieved by cleverly reducing the clearance above the engine and by a pleasing new radiator design and mountings.

Chris Youhill

As an AEC man, it always struck me that the perfect bonnet line, as aspired to and achieved by London Transport in the RT, was only achieved in the provinces on the post-war Bristols and Guy Arabs.

David Oldfield

And Crossleys, surely?

Peter Williamson

As I signed off the last comment, a Manchester Crossley popped up on a picture and I thought……..and Crossleys!

David Oldfield

There cannot have been any structural difference in the "high" and "low" radiator K chassis, since after the war, many pre-war and wartime utility Bristols were rebodied,and the exercise frequently involved fitting the low radiator to modernize their appearance. Preserved West Yorkshire KDG 26 is a case in point.

David Jones

The ‘low’ radiator is a bit of a trick. The bottom of the working bit of the low radiator is no lower than the high version. If you examine one you will find that the bottom 4 or 5 inches of the low radiator is just decorative. I think I’m right in saying the higher top of the ‘high’ radiator is simply a result of the fact that petrol engines were a lot taller than diesels. When diesels replaced petrol from mid-1930’s there was a lot of fresh air under the bonnet. Hence the line of the bonnet was lowered and with it the top of the radiator.

Bristol’s parts code. The last letter refers to what it is – thus ‘W’ is an engine. The first engine would have been an ‘AW’. In the early 1930’s the ‘JW’ and ‘NW’ were respectively 6-cyl and 4-cyl petrol engines. Once they got to ‘ZW’ then they started again with ‘AAW’ an awful lot of the codes must have been either minor variants or omitted or design studies which were never built. I have no idea how they got as far as ‘AVW’ but that is how the code was arrived at.

Peter Cook

Bristol AVW. the "V" stands for Vertical, and the "W" stands for Water-cooled. The "A" & "B" were the series. AVW’s had dry liners, by far more reliable, and the BVW’s had wet liners, and known for self-destructing, more so when cooled by the diabolical Cave-Brown-Cave system

EE59051

Thanks to the enigmatic EE59051 for his comments. I have a enormous soft spot for Bristol engined Bristols, but it is interesting to note that they seemed to have similar problems to AEC a propos wet liner and dry liner engines.

David Oldfield

Thanks to EE59051 for that very justified comment on the dreadful Cave-Brown-Cave system. In the first place its ugly radiator apertures completely disfigured the vehicles to which it was fitted. More importantly it was absolutely dangerous to drivers in the event of any leakage, especially at full speed, and even at the tiny WYRCC depot at Ilkley there were instances of scalding in the one year that I worked there.

Chris Youhill

I’ve often wondered why companies persevered with the Cave-Brown-Cave system as long as they did, as it never quite seemed to work as the inventor intended. My grandma (a very forgiving soul) would often complain on her family visits, about the freezing cold journeys she had endured from Bingley to Harrogate. The culprits were usually observed to be CBC ‘heated’ Lodekkas. My brother and I would empathise as we often suffered the same discomfort when we visited her, travelling on the same type of bus.
Airlocks seemed to be the main culprit, and could give rise to the strange phenomenon of passengers complaining of how cold their bus was, whilst at the same time said bus was observed boiling away merrily at the front end!
As a West Yorkshire Central Works apprentice, I spent three months working at Grove Park depot, and if a Lodekka was taken out of service as a result of boiling, it was just parked up in the depot and allowed to cool down. It was then topped up with water, whilst someone else worked the engine to try and circulate it around the system. All being well, it would then be deemed ready for action again. The Lodekka water filler cap was still in its original position just above where the traditional radiator would have been. However, as the CBC radiators were set several feet higher on the top deck, many of us thought this to be the cause of the water circulation problems.
Although the BVW engine had its faults – and with hindsight maybe Bristol might have been better staying with dry liners – later versions were generally viewed by West Yorkshire as being decent workhorses. The bottom-end seemed pretty bullet-proof, with many of our examples covering 300,000 miles or more between overhauls, without any crankshaft or bearing problems.

Brendan Smith

Cave-Brown-Cave heating is within my experience, just, but what type of heating was evidenced by a round chrome’y-grill’y protrusion from the front downstairs bulkhead of some buses and coaches and did the system do upstairs, too?

Chris Hebbron

Ah- Memory Lane again: those funny round "heaters" (Clayton Dewandre?- do I imagine that?) on Yorkshire Traction Leylands. Did they ever give off any heat…? Was there a box too under a seat upstairs? They were presumably like the car heaters of the day- a pipe off the cooling system?

Joe

You’re right about the make, Joe. I don’t think that their output was very inspiring, from my limited experience.

Chris Hebbron

The large round heaters with mesh fronts and a chrome "hood" were indeed made by Clayton Dewandre Limited of Titanic Works, Lincoln. They had an electric expulsion fan to blow out the warm air, and warm it certainly was providing that the water circulation was in order, and that the engine was running at a reasonably high temperature. The "boxes under the seats" were usually the excellent and efficient "KL" models, which also had a powerful electric fan. Wiring in both types was usually arranged so that the fans either stopped or slowed while the engines were ticking over at stops. When Samuel Ledgard acquired second hand buses in the later years of the Company it was the practice to install "KL" boxes in both saloons – normally two downstairs and one at the front of the top deck. All of these "retro fitted" heaters were highly efficient and were much appreciated by passengers and conductors alike. In particular I remember the ex Exeter Daimler CVD6/Brush models, where I’ve known passengers plead for them to be turned off in mid Winter – JFJ 55 being the hottest – courtesy of the hot running Daimler engines.

Chris Youhill

Clayton Dewandre indeed, but only for those who sat inside. Sheffield’s first upstairs heating was the horrendously noisy system on 1325 – 1349 (Regent V/Roe).

David Oldfield

I like your ‘inside’ and ‘upstairs’, David. Reminds me when I was young, after the war, there were still a lot of older conductors who shouted at boarding passengers, ‘Plenty of room outside’ even though open-top buses were long gone!

Chris Hebbron

Its an absolute delight reading all these posts about Sammy Ledgard. My memories go back to before Sammy died, and the "exors" were formed. In many ways, this was a more interesting period as the fleet had more "corporate" character, with its "standard" Leylands going way back. This is all in the days before grey came into the livery. Many had Green roofs.
It was certainly an enthusiasts paradise after 1953 with the amazing variety of second hand purchases, but I think my most precious Sammy memory is the Butlers scrapyard just below the "Fox and Hounds" near Menston. In 1953/4, and for some time after, this was full of withdrawn Ledgard buses, some going back to the 1920s. They had been stored at Armley for years, Sammy never disposing of "owt" which might come in useful!

John Whitaker

29/03/11 – 07:35

I am pretty sure that the first Sheffield buses delivered with underseat heaters in the top deck were the ECW bodied PD2s of 1957 (1152/3 and 1292-1294). I recall travelling on the 12 to Chesterfield on one when virtually new and being most disappointed that the noise from the heater drowned out the note of the O.600 engine.

Ian Wild

29/03/11 – 13:22

Significant that they were JOC buses. I never remember them on the 12, nor do I remember 1152/3 without doors. Having never travelled on any of these buses, I bow to your superior knowledge.

David Oldfield

29/03/11 – 13:30

I was most interested in John Whitaker’s nostalgia about the Butler scrapyard at Eller Ghyll, Menston where a large number of Ledgard vehicles were dismantled after years of storage. It was a place where mixed feelings were always aroused – revelling in the range of vehicles which languished there, and yet incredibly sad at the same time.

Here is one of my early snapshots (if only digital had been around !!). The larger vehicle is one of the ex B & B Leyland Lion LT1/Burlingham pair, KW 7944/5. No prizes for identifying the other two buses – they are 40% of the fleet of five heroic little Bedford OWBs which served so valiantly at the Yeadon (Moorfield) depot. It is impossible for those unfamiliar with the territory to imagine how much heavy work those little champions handled on two of the most intense and heavily patronised routes – and of necessity overloading was common which made their performance even more remarkable and creditable. I’ve driven OB coaches myself and never failed to marvel at how these tough little classics performed – unashamedly noisily while "getting up to speed" in the first three gears and then with dignified very quiet tones in "top." I still can’t believe how 28hp petrol engines (many private cars today have greater capacity and technology) could produce such splendid results under heavy pressure. What a crying shame that more souvenirs were not saved from these vehicles as I’m quite sure that Butler’s would have been amenable to the cause. The final sad insult to the little Bedfords was to have to languish there in full view of their successors, as their former lifetime route was less than a hundred yards away on the road above !!

Chris Youhill

30/03/11 – 06:07

1294 and 1295 (the first of the three contemporary Roe bodied PD2/20) were allocated to Leadmill Road Depot hence 1294 turning up frequently on the 12 to Chesterfield. I don’t remember the Roe trio (1295-1297) being delivered with saloon heaters. There was a restricted height bridge at Dronfield on service 12 and not all buses could be used on the Chesterfield service. I suspect the ECW bodies were of slightly lower overall height than the Roe bodies on the similar chassis as I never remember seeing 1295 on the 12 although the standard vehicles for the route at that time were Roe bodied Regent III 1251-1282. Different chassis make, slightly lower build?

Ian Wild

30/03/14 – 12:54

Imagine an engine block in profile and standing next to it a tall radiator. Hot water rising from the engine passes thru a large hose to the top of the radiator. Movement air passing thru the radiator cools the water which slowly sinks returning via the bottom hose to the engine block whence it rises again. This is the simple thermo-syphon system with the of necessity tall radiator which was fitted to most pre-war vehicles. It had many disadvantages. Big improvements were made. At atmospheric pressure water boils off so the cooling system was pressurised to raise the boiling temperature. A cooling fan was fitted to draw air through the radiator even whilst the vehicle was stationary. A thermostat controlled the temperature of the cylinder head. Most importantly, an impeller pump was fitted to increase the cooling water circulation speed thus vastly increasing cooling efficiency. Efficient radiators could be made much smaller and lower. This was a boon to the bodywork designers wishing to offer attractive lower profiles. This is the reason why lower outlines became possible. It has nothing to do with the engine which can be tilted or even, as in the Commer TS3 design, laid flat.

Peter Woods

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

05/02/16 – 06:33

Back to radiator height, I believe on the high radiator access for the crank handle was below the radiators bottom tank, whereas on the low radiator everything was lower because it was possible for the shaft of the crank handle to pass between the radiators tubes. This was not a new arrangement as Tilling Stevens B10s of the late 20s had this style of radiator. Bonnet height was often determined by whether air filters were fitted above the engine.

Bob Cooper