Copyright Barry Cox

Portsmouth Corporation
1937
AEC 661T/English Electric
Craven H26/26R

Portsmouth Corporation had 115 trolleybuses in its fleet.
The first 15 (1934) were a motley collection of chassis/electrical equipment and bodies, four and six wheelers, bought for evaluation.
The next nine (1935/36) were, to me, the most handsome of them all, were AEC/EE ones with English Electric bodies. Unable to move under their own power, they lived a shadowy life, latterly neglected and shabby. See here for a ‘smart’ photo of one.
The last 15 (301-315), BUT9611T, with Burlingham bodies, were the last delivered, in 1951, for a route extension.
294, from the third order, in the range (225-300), was the largest group delivered, in 1936/37. Amazingly, with not a Craven body appearing previously, these wore those bodies! They bore the brunt of the services and proved to be sound vehicles all round, although the ash bodies needed rebuilding during their 26/27 year lives.
In this rare colour photograph, 294 (like the Leyland PD1A/Weymann bus I recently posted), is also crossing Guildhall Square on tennis racquet-shaped route 17/18 from Eastney to the Dockyard, 17 anti-clockwise and 18 clockwise. The destination would be changed at Dockyard and Eastney. This photo was taken on an early Summer’s evening in 1963, on the cusp of the system’s demise on 27th July 1963. 294 lasted to the end.
Two trolleybuses have survived, but neither of them represents this range; a loss really, for I’m not aware of Craven using this body design for any other vehicles.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

———

Thank you Chris for another lovely Portsmouth photo of a very deserving type of trolleybus. The AEC 661T/Craven trolleybuses were the workhorses of the fleet and I have very fond memories of a visit to ride on them in 1963. I have always remembered the internal finish of the Portsmouth Cravens to be an excellent show of Civic pride.
I do believe similar Craven bodies were built for Kingston -upon-Hull on Crossley TDD4 trolleybus chassis nos. 27 to 46 in 1938.

Richard Fieldhouse

———

08/01/12 – 16:22

The Cravens (full title Cravens Railway Carriage and Wagon Company Ltd) bore similarities to the twenty Cravens bodied Crossleys delivered to Hull in 1938. the majority entered service on 2 September 1938, eight lasting until 3 February 1962. There was an option for a further 54 bodies which was not taken up.

Malcolm Wells

———

08/01/12 – 18:25

Thanks, Richard/Malcolm for the comments/photos about the similarly-bodied trolleybuses to the above example. I can see a likeness.
I always liked the inside décor and furnishings of Portsmouth’s pre-war buses. Mahogany bulkheads with bevelled-edge mirrors, leather-edged, comfortable seats with a flowery pattern more akin to art nouveau than art deco. Covered lights and lined-out ceilings completed the picture.
If you use the link I mentioned above, go to David Beilby’s website and scroll a few pictures back from the one on display, there are some examples of what I mean.

Chris Hebbron

———

11/01/12 – 06:44

When clicking on the link to one of the batch of nine English Electric bodied AECs of 1935, a picture of No 24 is displayed. A previous picture on that site shows No 21 of the same batch. The contributor there notes that the electrical support structure on the roof is enclosed on No 24, but is open framed on pictures of the others in the batch. I suspect that the reason for this is that No 24 was exhibited at the 1935 Commercial Motor Show, and was built thus for that purpose. Although presumably delivered to Portsmouth after the Show, it did not enter service until April 1936. It became the last of the batch to survive, being withdrawn in 1958. As far as the Cravens-bodied stalwarts are concerned, they were what a Portsmouth trolleybus was expected to look like – just as an RM or RT represents London! No 237 reportedly survived in a Portsmouth scrapyard near the erstwhile airport for several years – possibly even into this century? But I have not heard whether it still survives, and if so whether it is accessible. No 313, a Burlingham bodied BUT of 1951 (Portsmouth’s last to run in service on 27 July 1963) is in fine fettle at Carlton Colville, I believe. No 201 (Portsmouth’s first numerically) has had a more chequered preservation career, first at Beaulieu Motor Museum, then back to Portsmouth, and ended up at the Milestones Museum in Basingstoke. About two years ago, it looked rather sorry for itself, and at my last visit early last year, it was not on display. I would hope that it is out of display for some smartening up work at the very least.

Michael Hampton

———

11/01/12 – 10:33

Thx, Michael, for the interesting titbit about 24 being in the 1935 Comm. Motor Show. You mention one Cravens survivor hanging on in Pompey somewhere and I believe another one did for a few years as a public convenience in Bristol – I think I saw a photo of it once, painted white. I saw 313 only in October, but it was in the ‘garage’ and I was unable to see anything other than an impeccable rear: it wasn’t running that day. Were these distinctive Burlingham bodies replicated on other contemporary (trolley)buses? I can’t recall any others, off-hand. And you’re so right about the Craven’s ones. The comprehensive and intensive system Pompey had, meant that a trolleybus was barely ever out of sight and the 75 Cravens ones seemed to total more like 200, always popping up. Wherever you went, there they were! Fratton Bridge was a complex junction for the overhead and I used to happily spend 20 mins watching the poles picking their way across the wires and frogs. The last (evening) journeys were still by trolleybus, even when the system officially closed down, and that was my last ride on a Cravens. Happy days!

Chris Hebbron

———

11/01/12 – 13:19

I always thought that Cravens bodies were full of character, regardless of operator or application. Having waxed lyrical in many discussions about how I loved the Cravens RTs in London I’ve usually found that I couldn’t convince the opposition – sad really, because I think that they are missing something very attractive in the five bay construction within the RT classic outline – a magical combination in my view.

Chris Youhill

———

11/01/12 – 17:08

I have a prejudice in favour of Cravens because they were from my home town (Sheffield) and provided many STD buses from the mid thirties until 1950. [At this point they left bus building until they bought East Lancs in 1964 – and also formed Neepsend Coachworks.]
The last Cravens (1950 Regent IIIs)were among my favourites – and I thought amongst the most attractive of the immediate post war designs. They were almost identical to the RTs – but minus the "Londonisms".

David Oldfield

———

12/01/12 – 06:01

I always liked the Cravens’ RT’s, too. They were nicer to look at, in all respects, save for the hunched back and, if I recall correctly, the emergency windows and lower rear window did not match up, either. Nevertheless, they made a good stab at making a pseudo-RT body from a standard design shell. Surprisingly, there are only two postings of Cravens’ bodied vehicles on this website, which should be rectified! Perhaps David could post a photo of the 1950 AEC Regent III’s he mentions. It would make an interesting exercise to compare them with the Londonised RT’s.

Chris Hebbron

———

12/01/12 – 06:07

Copyright P R Doughty

The latest comment by David Oldfield on the Portsmouth Cravens trolleybus has reminded me of this slide, taken by a friend of mine when we visited Sheffield in December 1966. I guess this is the batch he is mentioning

Bob Gell

———

12/01/12 – 06:05

Re above posting from Chris H, Here is a picture of the rather unfortunate Portsmouth ‘bus that ended it’s days in a rather unusual service role. It was used as such for many years, maybe around fifteen or even more! It was in use during 1961 and as far as I am aware it disappeared about 1980 //farm8.staticflickr.com/  
No 313 has survived in fine condition and can be seen in running order here. //www.youtube.com/

Richard Leaman

———

12/01/12 – 10:38

Bob’s slide is most pleasing, and shows well the very attractive upper saloon front bay and roof dome which I’ve always found to be a particularly classic outline.
Richard’s comparison of the two latter careers of the Portsmouth trolleybus are heart warming, and the visitors to Carlton Colville are obviously flushed with enthusiasm at the relaunch.

Chris Youhill

———

12/01/12 – 10:39

Thx, Bob, for the Sheffield bus photo, from which I can see something of the ‘RT’. Did these bodies have the hunched back that the ‘RT’s’ possessed?
And thx, Richard, for reassuring me that my memory of the ‘Ladies’ trolleybus wasn’t faulty! I think we can say that preservation of it was not an option by this stage! And it was nice to see 313 in action, too. I was surprised to read that this vehicle, after being saved, went for scrap and was rescued a second time.

Chris Hebbron

———

12/01/12 – 10:41

Thanks, Bob. This is indeed the batch. [Strange how vehicles which spent most of their lives with grey roofs looked bald when repainted without it. Apparently this grey was called "smudge" – an STD concoction from mixing paint.] Put a London cab and London opening windows in and they are more or less identical styles.
This vehicle was departing the small Bridge Street Bus Station for the borders of Ecclesfield which, at the time, was actually in the West Riding. [It became part of Sheffield after the 1974 Government reorganisation.] Bearing in mind the common 13 year life of STD buses, 1966 was very late for a bus of 1949/50 vintage, but occasionally vehicles reached 16 – and exceptionally 20 – years service.
Please note, in the distance, one of the Neepsend bodies I mentioned earlier. STD had about 40 on the atrocious PDR1/2 Atlantean between 1964 and 1966.

David Oldfield

———

13/01/12 – 07:21

Chris Y, Chris H, David – Thanks for your kind comments; pleased to help. David, thank you also for identifying the location, which I wasn’t sure of.
A nice co incidence getting two Sheffield bodied vehicles on the same shot.

Bob Gell

———

24/01/12 – 05:59

Michael Hampton recalls that No. 237 languished in a Pompey scrapyard for many years. I’ve found a photo of it on David Bradley’s excellent website, having just arrived at Jordans Scrapyard and it can be found at the link below. Apparently, it survived until about 2000 and a Sheffield group of Craven’s enthusiasts looked into saving it, but it was too far gone. The majority finished up in a quarry on Portsdown Hill where a cutting was made some years ago to bring the A3(M) through to join the A/M27.
David Bradley’s website  //www.trolleybus.net/

Chris Hebbron

———

25/01/12 – 05:13

Here’s a three minute ‘collage’ of Portsmouth trolleybuses, both Craven and Burlingham-bodied types, along with glimpses of Southdown and Corporation buses, especially some Bedford OWB’s. The first scene shows the brilliant acceleration, (driver showing off?) despite the sounds of old age, creating a tram-like whine. You can also hear the ‘twang’ of the overhead wires at one point, something I’d forgotten about. See HERE: //www.youtube.com

Chris Hebbron

———

07/02/12 – 16:37

Thanks to Chris H for more info and the links to other sites re the one that ended up in a "convenient place" in Bristol, and the evocative clip of several swishing their way through Portsmouth streets. Many places still recognisable, but with subtle (and not some not so subtle) changes.
In an earlier contribution (11th Jan), I mentioned that pioneer trolley 201 (AEC/EE) had been in a rather down-at-heel condition at the Milestones Museum in Basingstoke, and had disappeared from there at my last visit. A friend handed me a cutting from a recent local paper (The News, Jan 31, 2012) which has a few paragraphs reminiscing about the trolleybuses. Most importantly, it states that from June 2009, 201 has been in the care of the City of Portsmouth Preserved Transport Depot, at Portchester (nr Fareham, Hants). So it’s good to know that it’s disappearance from Basingstoke is not sinister, and that it’s still being looked after.

Michael Hampton

———

08/02/12 – 06:21

That’s good news, Michael. I would think that it’s in much the same state as the London ‘Diddler’ by now – delicate!

Chris Hebbron

———

28/04/12 – 07:57

As a Sheffielder I well remember the Cravens batch of AECs. I thought they had nice simple clean lines. Cravens later effort on the only Bedford ever in the Sheffield fleets, number 11 KWA 811D was an ugly beast by comparison. What a shame that no Sheffield Cravens Regents were ever preserved.

Les Dickinson

———

28/04/12 – 08:54

Oh how I agree with everything you say, Les.

David Oldfield

———

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

15/10/12 – 07:41

Recent pics of Trolleybus 201 can be found here www.cpptd.co.uk

Tony Hawes

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

Huddersfield Corporation
1938
Karrier E6
Park Royal H?/?R – rebuilt 1950 Roe H36/30R

Karrier E6 497 is seen in the mid fifties in Huddersfield Town centre on a through service from Brackenhall to Lockwood. This trolleybus formerly had a Park Royal body and entered service in 1938 but was withdrawn for a new Roe body fitted in 1950. The Corporation Transport Works carried out an extensive refurbishment work on the Karrier E6 chassis, control equipment and traction motor. Roe supplied an external body shell which was then internally finished by Huddersfield.
Twenty eight pre-war Karrier E6 trolleybuses were rebuilt in this way over a period from 1950 to 1954. Trolleybus 497 was in the first group of seven and coded class J1(R) and also one of a few with a narrow cream line rather than a cream band below the upper deck windows. Huddersfield continued this process of fitting new bodies to older chassis with their post-war Sunbeam MS2s from 1955 onwards up to 1962.
By 1963 all the Karrier E6 rebuilds were gone as route conversions to motorbuses took a hold. This rebodying process was always referred to by Huddersfield as a rebuild which was true for the pre-war Karrier E6s but perhaps not so for the post-war Sunbeam MS2s that received new Roe and East Lancs bodies.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse

———

07/01/12 – 16:03

This comment less pic looks lonely. Could I set the ball rolling by querying the Roe-ness of this body? It seems to have a seam up the middle as if it was made like an Easter-egg. The driver’s corner looks Roe, but what about those bumps/vents above the full windows on the lower deck, and where’s the "familiar" trunking for the electrics between the upper deck windows.. and then there’s the bumpers. Must have been a hot day although they’re still wearing jackets….

Joe

———

07/01/12 – 17:49

Definitely a Roe body Joe. A lot of people think that the beading up the middle of the front panel was a result of partial replacement of the panel due to accident damage but I’m not so sure. If you look at almost any picture of a post war bodied Huddersfield Trolley, be it Park Royal, Roe or East Lancs they all seem to have this seam up the middle, even on pictures of new buses therefore I think it was a specification of the corporation. The front (and rear) bumpers were also a specification of the corporation on most batches of postwar bodies with the exception of the final batch of new trolley’s, 1959 Sunbeam S7A’s with E/Lancs bodies which had a removable panel at the bottom for use with a swan neck tow bar. These bumpers had variations of between three and five polished strips along them as well as other minor variations, even among vehicles of the same batch. These bumpers were usually discarded at first body overhaul.
I think that on this batch of bodies the trunking for the electrics may have run down the middle pillar of the front windows. This could certainly explain the front dome being split by beading to facilitate maintenance. Many of Huddersfield’s Roe trolleybuses even had vents in the front dome, as did the batch of 1958 Roe bodied exposed radiator Regent V’s for the JOC.
As an aside, the locals of Huddersfield always referred to the Trolleybuses as "Trolley’s" and the diesel buses as "Petrol’s". I can well remember an aunt of mine still calling the buses Petrol’s well into the 1970’s long after the trolley’s had gone.

Eric

———

07/01/12 – 17:56

Funny that Joe should say this. I hadn’t noticed any of those details, but what I did notice was that the upstairs rear emergency door window is divided in a manner that doesn’t look like contemporary Roe practice. I would have expected it to be either a single rectangular window, such as seen, for instance, on the internal shot of the “Ideal Service” Leyland PD2, or the earlier divided version in which the top frame of the two parts forms an arch, as seen on Ian Gibbs rear shot of the East Yorkshire (Beverley Bar) PD1. I guess there were many oddities with rebuilds. Does anyone have a rear view of one of these beasts?

Stephen Ford

———

08/01/12 – 07:55

Geoff Lumb’s excellent Roe/Optare book confirms the Roeness of the body. The two piece window in the rear emergency door was rare but not unknown. I think it was a Huddersfield quirk.

David Oldfield

———

08/01/12 – 07:56

Stephen, this is yet another oddity of Huddersfield. With very few early exceptions, ie: six NCB lowbridge Regent III’s delivered in 1949, almost all Huddersfield post war double deck bodies, be they trolleybus, motorbus, highbridge or lowbridge, Corporation or JOC, had divided rear windows on both decks until the advent of the first Fleetlines in 1967

Forgot to mention Stephen, whilst not of this particular batch of bodies there are a couple of rear views of the 1951 batch of Sunbeam MS2’s which had almost identical bodies when new, in the book ‘Huddersfield Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood published by Middelton Press in 2002

Eric

———

08/01/12 – 07:57

Stephen, to answer your query about the upper-deck rear window being divided, this was a feature specified by Huddersfield for all their post-war Roe bodies for both their trolleybuses and motorbuses.

Richard Fieldhouse

———

08/01/12 – 07:58

The twenty Rotherham Daimler single-deck trolleybuses that were rebodied as double deckers by Roe also had a divided emergency window, nothing like the standard single rectangular window that was fitted to three Roe motor bus bodies delivered to Rotherham around the same time, and which were followed later by many more.
What was most odd about the twenty trolleybus bodies, however, was the divided rear lower saloon window, definitely non-standard, but very eye catching all the same. I’ve often wondered who in the Crossgates drawing office dreamt that one up.

Dave Careless

———

08/01/12 – 07:58

Yet another interesting feature of Huddersfield Trolley’s was that the rear platform was at the same level as the lower deck floor, accessed by two steps on the platform edge, rather than the more usual lower platform and riser step into the lower saloon. Another unusual feature (am I boring you?) of the JOC motorbuses of this period was that the handrails on the rear entrances were insulated in black plastic, as per the requirement on trolleybuses, rather than the more normal plain aluminium. Right! I’ll shut up for now, (unless I think of something else) and hope my snippets have been of interest to somebody, somewhere.

Eric

———

08/01/12 – 16:35

When Wallace Arnold had the Daimler saloons acquired from Farsley Omnibus rebodied as double deckers they also had the large step flat floor to the platform layout.

Chris Hough

———

08/01/12 – 16:52

Yes, Eric, they are! The steps-up-to-rear-platform flat-floor layout was also found on some Roe motorbuses- eg Doncaster- in the fifties. Must be good for clippies.

Joe

———

09/01/12 – 07:28

Here is a photograph of Huddersfield Daimler 431 at Holmbridge showing the two piece emergency exit. This was not unique to Huddersfield – Halifax’s Roe-bodied PD2s had this feature, in their case with each half containing a sliding ventilator.

David Beilby

———

09/01/12 – 07:29

Well Joe, you certainly got the ball rolling, the pic doesn’t look quite as lonely now!

Eric

———

10/01/12 – 07:15

I think you will find some reference to Halifax’s small batch of petrol engined AEC Regents in Geoffrey Hilditch’s excellent book Steel Wheels and Rubber Tyres Vol 2. They were delivered in April 1939 with Roe bodies and numbered 201-204, they were fitted with 9.6 litre twin carburettor petrol engines and proved more than capable of holding their own against the trolleybuses. A fuel consumption of around 3.5 mpg and war time restrictions saw them all receiving standard 8.8 litre diesels within a year of the outbreak of war. The above information is quoted from page 52 of the book mentioned initially.

Diesel Dave

———

11/01/12 – 06:40

Further to Eric’s comment on the level of the rear platform, I have a vague memory that this was due to the design of the Karrier chassis. I cannot now remember where I read this. If this is true, did Karrier trolleybuses for other users (eg Doncaster) have this feature? And did Huddersfield perpetuate the design on other makes of trolleybus chassis in order to maintain consistent passenger awareness, even if other makes would have allowed the more usual rear platform level? Maybe someone with a clearer memory or knowledge can deny or confirm this.

Michael Hampton

———

11/01/12 – 08:51

In answer to Michael’s question, the Karrier E6 chassis operated at Huddersfield had spectacle frames at the rear end, so no drop frame was possible and a high platform was a necessary feature. Above is a photo of Huddersfield Karrier E6 frame ex 470 at Sandtoft which shows this spectacle feature. All Huddersfield’s post-war trolleybuses had a drop frame chassis but they continued to specify the high platform for continuity. The only trolleybus operated in Huddersfield with a low platform was the AEC 663T/EEC no 6 later renumbered 406 and delivered in December 1933. I do believe other Karrier E6 trolleybuses such as those at Doncaster had a double step rear platform.

Richard Fieldhouse

———

15/01/12 – 07:14

Joe,
I’ve had another look at the photo of 497 and looking at the front dome I don’t think it has been divided. What looks at first to be beading down the middle appears, on closer inspection, to be a shadow cast in the strong sunlight, possibly by an overhead cable.

Eric

Leave it with me for a while will do some close ups

———

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

15/01/12 – 16:32

I’m still thinking it’s a trunking or a moulding- very central- who knows?!
Going back to the step-up rear platform on motorbuses too- one example is the late Tony Peart’s Doncaster 122, an AEC/Roe with those funny cranked seats as well. I think there were other similar ones in the fleet around that time. Perhaps the idea came from necessity with these trolley rebodies.

Joe

———

16/01/12 – 07:39

Joe I remember asking Tony Peart once about the unusual seating arrangement in Doncaster 122 and he was able to explain to me the reasoning behind it.
Unfortunately I can’t remember what he told me.

Eric

———

16/01/12 – 07:42

West Riding’s Guy Arab IVs also had that platform layout – it was less obvious on the KHL-registered batch as they had folding doors which meant the platform step was set well inside and is very difficult to see on photographs. I have a theory as to why this layout was adopted and it relates to the combination of lowbridge layout and the safety staircase (which is why it only appears on Roe bodies). The problem with the safety staircase is that it tends to be longer as it’s largely straight. This is why early postwar Roe bodies have only 25 seats downstairs instead of the usual seat as the offside rear wheelarch seat was only for two.
This long staircase causes a problem with lowbridge bodies as you have difficulty getting to the rear seats. If the first step is incorporated in the platform, as with this design, that makes the staircase shorter and can help with the layout. As it was the penultimate row on the KHL Guy Arabs only seated two with the rear row seating three.

David Beilby

Copyright Roger Cox

W Gash & Sons
1952
Daimler Freeline D650HS
Burlingham C41C

After the posting of a W Gash & Sons T.I.M. ticket and the very interesting copy from Stephen Ford on the Old Bus Tickets website yesterday here is the Old Bus Photos contribution to the W Gash & Sons of Newark, Notts weekend.

It is a shot of one of the first two production D650HS Daimler Freelines that went to W Gash & Sons in 1952, who registered them NAL 782/3. They had Burlingham C41C Seagull bodies and remained with Gash until 1967, when they were apparently sold to Trent Concrete for staff transport. Seen here, in the summer of 1961 just departing Huntingdon Street Bus Station, Nottingham, is the second of the pair NAL 783 with Daimler CVD6/Massey KAL 580 in the background.

The very high driving position is clearly visible in this close up shot.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

———

01/01/12 – 07:17

What a wonderful sight to greet the New Year – low flying Seagulls! From personal experience I find the high driving position preferable. [At the time AEC had a high position but Leyland’s was almost uncomfortably low.]

David Oldfield

———

01/01/12 – 07:22

I visited Huntingdon Street last week and then seeing the shot above I thought an update may be of interest. Whilst the area formerly occupied by the bus station is still discernible, it is now completely covered by new buildings. The old bus station stands were in two parts which could perhaps have been described as southern half and northern half. The southern half is now completely built over with a multi-story apartment development (!) and the northern half is now occupied by a Staples office store. Surprisingly, the old factory type building seen in the background of many a Huntingdon Street Bus Station shot still survives.
A pleasing note to record is that the rather nice art-deco style Barton garage is now in use again as a motor service centre after a long period of disuse and similar premises on the adjacent corner which I understand was once the garage of Robin Hood Coaches before being taken over by Barton are also back in use. The impressive Huntingdon House opposite the former bus station which were once Trent’s Nottingham office, booking office and chart room are still in use as specialist retail units. Like I have said before on other postings, a dead area now but visions of a wonderful former age can still be conjured up!

Chris Barker

———

01/01/12 – 13:55

They really did have high driving positions, didn’t they!
A very evocative scene – was the sign ‘PLATFORM 4’ another way of saying ‘BAY 4’?

Chris Hebbron

———

01/01/12 – 19:11

If it’s 1952, does it have a quadrant change pre-select box?

David Oldfield

———

05/01/12 – 07:20

Alan Townsin’s book on postwar Daimlers states that the Freeline used "a CD650-style gate preselector". A photo of a 1949 CD650 clearly shows that this is the same arrangement that was used on later CV models, with a horizontal lever on the left of the steering column, similar to the AEC Regent III. However, the book also states that the Freeline had a 5-speed gearbox, so presumably the detail of the gate would have been unique to that model.

Peter Williamson