Old Bus Photos

Pontypridd UDC – Bristol E – HY 2391 – 9

HY 2391
Copyright Brizzle Born and Bred

HV 2391_lr
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Pontypridd Urban District Council
1931
Bristol E
Beadle H60R

Some time ago, I posted an item about a Portsmouth Corporation trolleybus, one a several which were lent to Pontypridd during the war. Hull did so, too.
Pontypridd UDC had a fleet of trolleybuses which, during the life of the system, (between 1930 and 1957) in total, amounted to just 17 in total, initially with 7 all-English Electric single-deckers.
These were augmented by two double-decker demonstrators in 1930/31, eventually purchased in 1932, one being an all-Guy BTX.
1945 brought 4 Karrier W’s, bodywork shared equally between Weymann and Park Royal, and four more in 1946, two bodied by Weymann and two by Roe. The last eight formed the entire fleet from 1947 to the end 1957, bar the two with Roe bodies, which were withdrawn in 1955.
The other 1932 demonstrator (above) was a very rare bird indeed, a Bristol E with Beadle bodywork, which lasted until 1946. In 1929, Bristol developed two six-wheeler chassis, the C and E types. Despite six-wheel chassis being popular at the time, only two of each type were ever built and, of these four, only the two E-type were ever bodied. One went to Doncaster Corporation, the other to Pontypridd UDC, both in trolleybuses form, the only trolleybus chassis Bristol ever built!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron with acknowledgement to Peter Gould’s Fleet List website.

———

14/06/11 – 08:30

One of the two Bristol trolleybus chassis (E101) was fitted with a Roe body and delivered to the order of Doncaster Corporation (registered DT 2620). It ran on loan there from August 1930 until Feb 1932, when Doncaster purchased it as No 31. It had a BTH 60hp motor. Doncaster apparently encouraged the development of the trolleybus version of Bristol’s 6-wheel motorbus. But they did not buy any more, continuing to purchase Karriers instead for successive pre-war deliveries.
The other trolleybus chassis (E102) was constructed in 1930 by converting 3-axle motor bus chassis C101. This was fitted with a Beadle 60-seat body, and is the one shown as Pontypridd UDC No 9. It ran as a demonstrator at Pontypridd 1931-32, then purchased by them. It had a Bull motor.
In spite of their rarity, both led full service lives (Doncaster to 1945, Pontypridd to 1946/7).
Apparently one of each type (i.e. a 3-axle C-type motorbus and and a 3-axle E-type trolleybus) were exhibited in chassis form only at the 1929 Commercial Motor Show.
This is from information in Geoff Lumb’s "British Trolleybuses 1911-1972", supplemented by "British Trolleybus Systems" (Joyce, King & Newman).
It’s probable that Bristol wanted to concentrate more on the motorbus side, especially when the Tilling-based companies moved to support them strongly when they moved away from the Tilling Stevens marque in the early to mid-thirties.

Michael Hampton

———

15/06/11 – 07:06

Thx for that useful additional information, Michael. The Doncaster one was even more non-standard with the Bull electric motor, a make I’ve never heard of! The wonder of rare vehicles is that a photo exists of them. For example, Portsmouth Corporation bought its sole AEC Regent before the war, which, typically, was destroyed, thanks to a certain A Hitler. I’ve never seen a photo of it.

Chris Hebbron

———

16/06/11 – 09:27

Chris, You may not have heard of Bull Motors but their factory at Ipswich survived until around 2000. Their products were often fitted to trolleybuses made by another Suffolk company, Garretts of Leiston, an example being one built for Copenhagen which has just been put in to service at the East Anglian Transport Museum at Carlton Colville after restoration.

Nigel Turner

———

16/06/11 – 09:30

I had a vague memory that Doncaster’s first trolleybuses were Garrett double deck 3-axle vehicles, with Bull motors and Roe bodies similar to those supplied in the same year based on Karrier E6 chassis. When checking this in Geoff Lumb’s book I mentioned last time, it turns out that Bull Motors Ltd were a firm in the same group as Garrett, which was Agricultural and General Engineers Ltd. Garrett’s were based at Leiston, Suffolk, but I don’t know where Bull Motors were located. They supplied motors to most (if not all) Garrett trolleybuses.
Garrett’s made trolleybuses from 1925 to 1930, when they decided to withdraw from that sector. This decision led to Bull’s supplying motors to both a Karrier-Clough demonstrator, and the Bristol for Pontypridd.
Garrett’s decided to withdraw rather than modify their designs, as although the batch supplied to Doncaster had similar Roe bodies to the contemporary Karriers, there were differences underneath. The floor height of the Karriers was 2ft 1in, which was 9ins lower than the Garretts. I haven’t been able to trace Bull Motors equipment being supplied to any other manufacturers’ vehicles.

Michael Hampton

———

16/06/11 – 10:20

Bull motors were fitted to some ADC chassis for Bradford, as well as Garrett and I believe this firm was owned by E.R. and F.Turner of Ipswich.

John Whitaker

———

11/06/12 – 14:29

A complete history of Pontypridd Trolleybuses was passed to Trolleybooks, the joint publications panel of the British Trolleybus Society and the National Trolleybus Association, two years ago. It should, hopefully, appear soon.

David Bowler


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

North Western – Dennis Loline III – RDB 892 – 892

RDB 892_lr
Copyright Roger Cox

North Western Road Car
1961
Dennis Loline III
Alexander H39/32F

This picture, taken on a Saturday in the summer of 1966, shows Dennis Loline III No 892 of North Western turning from Commercial Street into George Street, Halifax, on its trans Pennine X12 run from Bradford to Manchester. Double deckers were often used on Saturdays on this service, and the Loline was easily the most appropriate decker for the purpose in the North Western fleet at the time. I never saw an AEC Renown on this service, and I doubt that, with its four speed gearbox and high ratio rear axle (reputedly giving a 48 mph maximum speed – almost as fast as a Loline) it would have been very suited, though they might have been used. However, the Loline, with its exceptional stability, 6LX engine and five speed gearbox, was ideal for the job. I took several trips across to Manchester on these buses, and they were fine performers on this taxing route. Later that year, on leaving Halifax, I drove the 6LW powered versions of the Loline for Aldershot & District, and found them to be most impressive buses. Had Dennis been more consistent in marketing the Loline – it was forever being withdrawn from their catalogue and then subsequently reinstated, North Western might never have taken the Renown, though BET central purchasing policies might have been the ultimate decider.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox


02/06/11 – 05:59

Lovely photograph Roger. As a lifelong fan of Bristol products, I also had a soft spot for the Dennis Loline – being in effect a Lodekka built under licence for the open market. I must admit to preferring East Lancashire or Northern Counties bodywork on the Loline, as Alexander’s ‘balloon roof’ style, although not unattractive, appeared somewhat top heavy to many. That said, the nicely proportioned North Western livery did its best to distract the eye, and it is interesting to note from the photo that the company had specified sliding doors rather than jack knife ones. The Northern Counties-bodied Loline IIIs purchased by Halifax JOC looked particularly attractive in that undertaking’s green, cream and orange livery. Some of the last Loline III’s (including the Halifax ones) had Bristol rear axles, with some even sporting Bristol scrolls on the hubs, but whether the Halifax vehicles had the latter feature I do not know. Dennis did seem a little inconsistent to say the least with their marketing, as you state Roger. Mind you there was also added low-height competition from AEC’s Bridgemaster and Renown, plus the Albion/Leyland Lowlander around the time the Loline was trying to establish itself, which may have had a bearing on things.

Brendan Smith


03/06/11 – 07:29

I agree with your comments, Brendan. The Loline I was a very close copy of the Lodekka – I believe that the Loline displayed at the 1956 Commercial Show was, in fact, a Lodekka with cosmetic alterations by Dennis. The genuine Loline I did have Dennis clutch, gearbox and front axle, and full air braking system – the Lodekka had air/hydraulic brakes – and the mechanically very similar Loline II, which had a forward entrance, appeared before the FLF/FSF Lodekka, though it is probable that Dennis and Bristol shared their design ideas on the concept. The Loline III, which generally had a Dennis rear axle, was much more of a Dennis design, and, having driven conventional transmission Lolines I and III, and LD and FLF Lodekkas, I found the Loline III to have been the nicest of them all. In particular, the Dennis five speed gearbox was very light and easy to use, and the gear positions followed the gate format popularised by the AEC Reliance – R and 1 at the far left and protected by a detente spring (the Reliance had a ledge and the gearstick had to be lifted) then 2,3,4 and 5 in a straightforward H pattern. The Lodekka gearbox was heavier to use, and had 1,2,3 and 4 in the H pattern, and 5 could be engaged only through 4 by moving the gear lever to the right and then forward. If one’s progress was baulked for any reason whilst in fifth, then one had to wrestle the lever back through fourth to reach neutral and the other gears. Whereas 5th was treated as a normal cruising speed even on town work with the Loline, Lodekka drivers seldom went above 4th except where the open road beckoned. The Loline I also had 1,2,3 and 4 in the H pattern, and 5th was engaged by moving the gear lever forward to neutral and then to the right and back again in a U movement. This did enable neutral to be reached directly from fifth. The Halifax Lolines did have Bristol rear axles and were so marked on the hubs. Sadly, I had left my job in the Traffic Office at HPTD Skircoat Road in 1966, and those Lolines arrived the following year, so I never got a chance to drive these fine semi auto machines. By that time I was driving the Aldershot & District examples, all of which had sliding passenger doors. I have a number of other Loline pictures which I will submit in due course. As you have pointed out, the operator’s livery could transform the appearance of a bus body. When Aldershot and District was merged with Thames Valley, the initial overall maroon livery of Alder Valley made the Alexander and Weymann Orion bodies look truly awful. As for the standard NBC livery…………!!!!!

Roger Cox


03/06/11 – 17:10

I agree entirely with your view on the advantages of a sympathetic livery Roger. The much maligned appearance of the MCW Orion and siblings – which incidentally I always liked as clean, smart and functional – was made to look positively immaculate by the Bradford City Transport blue and cream scheme.
I’ve found out much of interest from this Loline topic – I’ve always laboured under the misapprehension that the Loline differed little other than in badging and engine etc from the Lodekka – one’s never too old to learn !!

Chris Youhill


03/06/11 – 17:34

At the risk of being boring, I couldn’t agree more with the positive comments on the Loline, Chris’s comments on the Orion and the general comments on livery and its effects on the looks of a vehicle. It was good that the Lodekka was available outside BTC in this form. (Sheffield’s Orions didn’t look bad either.)
I have to say, though, that I still prefer the Renown – but then I would say that, wouldn’t I? [I regularly rode both down the Oxford and Palatine Roads in Manchester as a student.]

David Oldfield


08/06/11 – 09:50

Reading Corporation had three batches of Dennis Loline IIIs, arriving in autumn 62, summer 64 and late 66/early 67. They carried handsome East Lancs bodywork and had derated Gardner 6LX engines. The first batch had Dennis-built 4-speed gearbox, which seemed to challenge some of the Corpo drivers, cosseted as they were by the nice forgiving gearboxes fitted to the Regent II and IIIs and the Crossleys. A missed gear gave forth not so much a crunch as a resounding clang, often heard when engaging second from rest—something that made me wonder whether they had no clutch-stop. All hubs bore the Dennis name.
The later batches had a Bristol plate on the rear hubs only, and a Bristol 5-speed gearbox with 5th blanked off! Yet even without the potential for extra fuel-saving that a live 5th would have afforded, the Lolines managed over 13 mpg in this fairly hilly town. A few years back I had a drive of 76, a preserved survivor of the last batch (now with 5th UNblocked) and it was a real delight. The first two batches were withdrawn after only 12 years’ service: I hate to think how many excellent vehicle countrywide were swept off the road by the abolition of conductors!
In Classic Bus No 22 (April-May 1996) Gavin Booth and Stephen Morris compare a Renown, a Loline and a Lodekka. With all due respect to David O and all AEC enthusiasts, the Dennis Loline acquits itself very well.

Ian Thompson


08/06/2011 09:52

What excellent liveries we used to have in BET days. Fleets had a real sense of identity. There were a number of Red and Cream BET fleets but there were subtle differences in colour and layout between three contiguous BET Companies – North Western, PMT and Trent. Each was appealing in its own way. Sadly we lost it all in the Corporate blandness of NBC and as for today’s "liveries" – well the less said the better. No identity – just Multi National imposition.

Ian Wild


09/06/11 – 08:29

Not offended, Ian T, I’m sure it did acquit itself very well. I know no-one with half a brain who would denigrate either the Lodekka or the Loline.

…..not to mention Yorkshire Traction.

David Oldfield


13/03/12 – 06:09

I read that Dennis only went looking for bus orders when their other lines were having a lean time in sales, much preferring fire engines and other things than building buses. Also, as with Daimler, they took Cummins when Gardner were hard to come by and that cost them so much it effectively made them give up on commercial vehicles. Daimler took a big hit too with the Roadliner. If only, Cummins had made a better engine or Gardner had better supply! I read the comment of Mr Hilditch, GM of Halifax where he found Dennis to be the best engineered product he had come across.

John (tee)


30/11/12 – 13:21

Following up Ian Thompson’s comment above of 08/06/11, my experiences of driving the Reading buses he mentions were slightly different. I found the Regent III box less forgiving than he suggests, but it was at least consistent, so you only had yourself to blame if you got it wrong. The Dennis 4-speed boxes were far more forgiving; the gears more or less found themselves and you could almost forget about the clutch. As Ian surmises, they had no clutch stop, but there was no excuse for clashing the gears when pulling away. The options were straightforward. If you were only making a short stop, you simply dropped the stick into 2nd as you came to a stand. If you had to stop in neutral, it only required a bit of patience to drop the clutch and wait a bit; ideally you anticipated the conductor’s bell. You were never going to get a racing start anyway, as the accelerator pedal was fitted with a mechanical interlock which only released once the doors had closed. The Bristol box did have a clutch stop, and for someone like myself with long legs it was all too easy to depress the clutch a bit too far and then you really were in trouble. These buses were never so well liked as the earlier batch, as the lack of the 5th gear significantly reduced the top speed – 35mph at best compared with the over 40mph of the earlier ones.

Alan Murray-Rust


30/11/12 – 17:39

Alan, I agree entirely with your assessment of the relative merits of the Dennis and Bristol gearboxes. I didn’t drive the Reading Lolines, but I had extensive experience of the Aldershot and District Mark 1 and Mark III machines, and also occasionally drove Bristol FLFs. The A&D Lolines had Dennis five speed gearboxes, without clutch stops, and they were, without doubt, the finest constant mesh boxes that I have ever handled. They responded to a light touch – you could engage gear cleanly with the pressure of two fingers on the gear lever – and any crunching noises were a testament to sloppy driving practice, not engineering deficiency. The Bristol box was heavier and stiffer in its lever action, making neat engagement of gears more difficult to accomplish. The four speed Dennis box, coupled with the Dennis axle, had properly spaced ratios for a decent top speed in fourth. The five speed boxes, Dennis and Bristol, gave a top speed of around 30 mph in fourth (direct) gear, and the overdrive fifth brought top speed up to around 50 mph. Thus, a Bristol five speed gearbox with the overdrive blanked off would have limited road speed to 30 mph. I have commented above that, because of the gate layout and ease of using the Dennis five speed box, Loline drivers used fifth gear as a normal cruising ratio. The fifth gear on the Bristol was engaged in a contorted "dog leg" action through fourth, and getting the gearstick back into neutral and the other gears could be something of a struggle if the bus was baulked for any reason. In practice, Lodekka drivers only used fifth when faced with a clear, open road, and generally never went above fourth in urban settings. The Loline III was much more than a licence built Lodekka. It was a rather nicer machine in many respects. I cannot understand why Reading specified Bristol gearboxes and axles on its 1964 Lolines. Aldershot was taking Loline deliveries at the same time, and these had Dennis units throughout. Later, when Loline production was drawing down, the Dennis company used Bristol transmission components instead of manufacturing penny numbers of its own axles/gearboxes (the Halifax Lolines had Bristol rear axles also). This would explain the use of Bristol components in the last batch of 1966, but not in the 1964 buses. The small Dennis company had high engineering standards. As an example, the O4/O6 engines were the only British production diesels to have four valves per cylinder, and they incorporated timing gears at the back of the block and wet cylinder liners, all achieved in a powerful, entirely trouble free design. Other engine manufacturers who tried to incorporate such features didn’t entirely succeed.

Roger Cox


20/10/13 – 07:26

Very interesting reading, folks. Thanks so much for the good information. I do have a question, though, and one which I have been totally unable to resolve.
Was the sliding door on the Loline manually operated, or was it powered? I travelled on Lolines in Liverpool (Crosville), but cannot remember if the door opened automatically, or had to be opened by hand.

Terry Hill, Ottawa


20/10/13 – 11:08

Terry, the doors on these buses were air pressure operated, usually by the driver, but the conductor had a control to use if required. I drove the Aldershot & District Alexander bodied Lolines which, apart from having the 6LW engine instead of the 6LX, and 68 rather than 71 seats, were otherwise identical. Fine buses!

Roger Cox


20/10/13 – 11:09

The doors were powered. On North Western’s batches they all gave trouble sticking from time to time and sometimes wouldn’t close when climbing a steep hill, especially in later life. The main problem with them as time went on, particularly with the North Western Alexander bodied batch, was the door would start from open and, as long as the vehicle was on a relatively flat road or heading down hill, would accelerate hitting the front door post with a loud bang instead of travelling at a constant pace and slowing as it reached the closed position as the manufacturer had intended.
Considering the short distance the door had to travel the noise and the eventual damage caused was quite spectacular. The door, the door post and the mechanism all deteriorated, the results being sticking doors, damage to the frame around the door post, distorted doors and at least one instance of a door falling off as related by Peter Caunt in his book North Western – A Drivers Reminiscences.
In fact to quote him on the speed of the doors makes the point:
"This does not really describe adequately the speed at which the door closed or the terror that it inspired in those around it. What happened was the door would be open and the driver would move the lever to the closed position. For a couple of seconds nothing would happen then the door would close like lightning and would knock the hell out of the front corner pillar of the bodywork….when the door was opened it often moved sedately and correctly as though trying to inspire passengers with its genteel behaviour. The fact that it almost pushed the front off the bus when it closed is neither here nor there."

Phil Blinkhorn


20/10/13 – 17:09

Phil, the doors on the Aldershot Lolines would sometimes hit the front door pillar with a bit of a bump, but nothing worse, and (pre NBC) booking this off as a defect always got the thing sorted out. The system was designed to cushion the closing and opening action at a point just short of the end of the door travel, and the last part of the motion was completed at very slow speed. The problems you mention must have arisen from sloppy maintenance or shortage of spares or over tight engineering budgets, or a combination of all three (welcome to the world of the present day big groups).

Roger Cox


20/10/13 – 18:07

The ex Ribble Burlingham bodied PD3s at Southend suffered from the same symptoms as mentioned above. The crews referred to them as Bacon Slicers.

Philip Carlton


21/10/13 – 07:13

Crosville did not operate Lolines in Liverpool, unless an odd ex-North Western Road Car example slipped in under the radar from Warrington.
Crosville (in Liverpool) operated lots of Bristol Lodekkas (FSF & FLF) with front 4-leaf powered doors and lots of Bristol Lodekkas (LD and FS) with rear 2-leaf manual doors.

Dave Farrier


21/10/13 – 17:45

Could be from Warrington. I travelled regularly between Liverpool and Prescot. That route was served by both Crosville and Liverpool Corporation Passenger Transport. LCPT buses, which were unheated at that time, were known on the route as "Corpy ice-boxes"; it was worth the extra couple of pennies to ride on a heated bus in the Winter!
Thank you, gentlemen, one and all, for your information (and your anecdotes). My Dennis Loline is actually a 1/76 scale model, and is an exhibit in my fictitious "Heathersfield Rail/Road Museum" which I am developing as part of an "00" gauge model railway layout. I am currently writing an extensive catalogue of exhibits, and I want to make sure that the information contained therein is as accurate as I can make it (as a retired technical writer, I’m a bit obsessive about accuracy).
My model (made by Britbus) is in SELNEC Southern livery, has fleet number 889 and the licence plate number is RDB 889. If anyone has any information specific to this bus (the real one!), technical, historic or anecdotal, I would be very interested to hear about it.

Terry Hill


29/10/13 – 13:22

Terry, a picture of RDB 889 may be found here:- www.flickr.com/photos/1  A very sad looking ex NWRCC Loline after disposal by Crosville is shown here:- www.flickr.com/photos/2

Roger Cox


30/10/13 – 17:26

Loline RDB 889 had chassis number 1019L3AF2B1 and Alexander body number 6681. It was one of those equipped with the five speed gearbox and was delivered to North Western in December 1961.

Roger Cox


RDB 892_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


28/07/17 – 16:31

I know this subject is a few years old now but I have only just found your interesting website, I drove both types of Lolines at Reading and agree with Alan Murray-Rust about the 4 speed Lolines being easier to change gear than the 5 speed version. If you didn’t engage 2nd gear as soon as you stopped at a bus stop it was hard to engage after idling in neutral. They were confined to the busy 15 and 25 routes when I drove them which were converted to OMO a few years later using brand new Scalia Metropolitans which were like Rolls Royces after the Lolines.

Ray Hunt


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

Southdown – Leyland Tiger – AUF 851 – 51 (551 from 1937)

Southdown - Leyland Tiger - AUF 851 - 51 (551 from 1937)
Copyright Jack Turley/Dinnages

Southdown Motors Services
1934
Leyland Tiger TS6T
Short Bros. B40C (B39C from about 1946)

Two of these impressive and handsome vehicles (51 & 52) were purchased in 1934 for the Eastbourne to Beachy Head tourist service. The local authority would only allow the service to operate with single-deckers, so Southdown decided to buy the largest single-deckers available at the time, which, by law, had to be 30 foot long six-wheelers. Long-time Leyland adherents, they settled on the fairly rare TS6T (T standing for Trailing Axle), which enabled them to carry 40 passengers on the profitable route. A further two (53 & 54) were bought in 1935, this time TS7T’s.
Originally fitted with Leyland 8.6 petrol engines, they were all fitted with 8.6 diesel engines in 1940. Despite their luxurious appearance, they were considered to be buses by Southdown, bearing the name in letters rather than ‘real writing’!
After their hard lives, they were all withdrawn from service in 1952.
The photo shows 551, in about 1950, about to depart from Eastbourne Pier and grind its way up to the top of Beachy Head. Note the driver in his summer uniform.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron


29/05/11 – 17:46

What truly magnificent vehicles, and even further enhanced by the cream side destination boards. My own experience of the ascent on service 97 to Beachy Head is confined to the delightful open top Guy Arabs in the 1960s – and there’s scarcely any need to go into detail about the delightful acoustics of that journey !!

Chris Youhill


29/05/11 – 19:15

Yes, the austerity Guy Arab II’s were converted to open-top around 1950-51 and some re-engined with 6LW engines for the Devil’s Dyke/Beachy Head services. The service became 197 around that time, too. The open-toppers were used all along the South Coast, even a couple on Hayling Island. They lasted until about 1964.
Unlike the TS6T’s, the basic Guys were regarded as coaches and given ‘Southdown’ side panels in ‘real writing’!
A 1964 film, The Chalk Garden, has Hayley Mills and Deborah Kerr boarding one of them, with it pulling away.
I don’t know how extensive the rebuilding of the bodies was, but they always looked impeccable, right to the end. Southdown were a class act.

Chris Hebbron


30/05/11 – 06:25

So true Chris H, Southdown were exactly as you say – "a class act." The winning combination of high quality handsome vehicles and impeccable maintenance was perfected even further by perhaps the most dignified of all liveries in such very pleasing colours.

Chris Youhill


31/05/11 – 11:40

and what about the Harrington Cavalier coaches with only 28 seats for there road cruises.

Roger Broughton


31/05/11 – 11:58

By the late 1960s, the Devil’s Dyke service was operated with convertible ‘Queen Mary’ Leylands. At Southdown, vehicle allocation, (including when the tops were to be removed), was decided by the Engineering Department rather than the Traffic Department, unlike other companies I knew, a practice that didn’t always contribute to efficient traffic management. Their policy on which style of company name to apply to any particular vehicle or type, was inconsistent.
I am well aware of Southdown’s reputation amongst some enthusiasts, and I have no desire either to offend anyone or spoil their image of the company. Certainly Southdown itself thought it was a ‘class act’, a view it didn’t hide from its BET neighbours.
However, at the risk of being thought sour, I remain to be convinced that Southdown was anything out of the ordinary. From an enthusiast’s point of view, its fleet was less interesting and in some ways less operationally imaginative than, for example, neighbour M&D’s fleet. For instance, I always thought M&D’s AEC Reliance coaches with ZF 6-speed gearboxes were decidedly better for both drivers and passengers than Southdown’s Leyland Leopards with Eaton 2-speed axles.
The standard of maintenance and turnout was high, granted, but the same could be said of pretty well all major operators; their livery was attractive, (even though the capital letter version of the name was distinctly old-fashioned), but, again, the same could be said of many other operators.
By coincidence, this posting follows one of Richard Fieldhouse’s lovely postings: – a West Yorkshire K6B. Having been involved at close quarters with the management of both companies, I have little doubt about which of them was operationally the ‘class act’. From a management viewpoint, West Yorkshire would win hands down every time. Sorry if I have upset anyone.

Mr A Non


01/06/11 – 08:21

I don’t have any professional reason to hide my identity but, in confidence, I can pass on similar comments from friends in the industry.
The professional perspective and that of the enthusiast often differ and I have spent hours with professional friends explaining cogently why certain things had to happen which leave enthusiasts in a spin – including the splitting up of that sacred cow, London Transport.
Personally, I couldn’t agree more about the superiority of the ZF Reliance (and M & D). I also include Southdown and Ribble amongst the all time greats – but one of my professional friends pointed out (with proofs and from personal experience) that both were basket cases when sold off by NBC at privatisation. […..and then there was the criminal end of those proud coach operators Yelloway and Sheffield United Tours (aka National Travel East) under the leadership (?) of ATL Group.]

David Oldfield


01/06/11 – 13:30

Mr Non,
You know, you should never speak ill of the dead!

Chris Hebbron


16/01/12 – 17:35

I was born and lived in Southdown territory for over 50 years and drove for them for almost 22 years at their Eastbourne depot from 1969 so worked quite a few trips to Beachy Head but I regret only with the convertible PD3’s, except for a couple of "memorable" trips with a Bristol LD6B borrowed from BH&D for a summer season. The lack of performance was embarrassing so much so that drivers on the local private coach companies complained to the management of their sluggish efforts to climb the steep twisty road up out of Eastbourne. The company was definitely a "class act", although conservative in it’s choices the vehicles were always solid reliable and very comfortable with well upholstered higher backed seats in an attractive patterned moquette, the same standards were maintained until the end of the PD3 deliveries after that they got pretty much what they were told as did all NBC companies. We felt at Eastbourne that our standards of maintenance and cleaning were higher than any other depot a view borne out when we drove vehicles from other depots (yes we were snobs) but of course all this went downhill as NBC increased it’s stranglehold on the company and things sunk to a low level, a brief respite when it was privatised (so it was a basket case) then came Stagecoach about whom I would rather say nothing. What followed was an extremely sad and messy end to a very proud and respected company but in it’s prime a true CLASS ACT by any ones definition.
R.I.P Southdown

Diesel Dave


17/01/12 – 07:07

To be fair, Dave, it may not be (traditional) Southdown but, by all modern standards, Stagecoach IS a class act. It’s just not enthusiasts’ heaven – no one makes vehicles today that are interesting enough!

David Oldfield


17/01/12 – 15:54

Very belatedly, I’ve just seen A Non’s comments above, which, by chance refer to the three companies I knew well in the 1960’s: Southdown, Maidstone & District and West Yorkshire. I was both surprised and gratified to see that views I’ve always had, but have often kept to myself for fear of offending others, are shared by at least one other person. I think he’s spot on. First, I agree wholeheartedly that M&D’s AEC Reliances, with their 6-speed ZF gearboxes, were decidedly superior to Southdown’s Eaton 2-speed axle Leyland Leopards, both to drive and from a passenger standpoint. A Non is absolutely right, in my view, and I was glad to see David Oldfield’s endorsement of his comments. A Non is also correct, I believe, in describing M&D’s fleet policy as being more imaginative than Southdown’s. M&D didn’t always get it right, (as their sad experience with the Albion Nimbus and the early Atlanteans demonstrates), but they displayed a greater concern for their passengers and staff than their conservative southern neighbours.
I agree with him, too, in his assessment of the management and management style of Southdown. They certainly made no secret, to their BET neighbours at least, of their own superior opinion of themselves. M&D and Southdown operated a number of long joint services with each other – to the point, unusually, of each company’s staff operating the other’s vehicles – but the relationship between the two managements was not especially close or particularly friendly. M&D’s Traffic Department co-operated more closely with East Kent, and both regarded Southdown as stand-offish. M&D was a pleasant company whose staff enjoyed intimate working relationships; Southdown was not.
A Non’s right about the influence of the Engineering Department at Southdown over matters that at other companies were regarded as Traffic Department issues; that policy caused unnecessary operational problems and costs, and made for relations between Traffic and Engineering that were often strained and always distant, as I know from personal experience.
Finally, A Non is totally correct in his judgment that West Yorkshire were a better managed company than Southdown. Southdown had a clumsy and inefficient management structure that may have flattered its own perceived superiority, but it cost more money than it was worth, it made decision-making difficult, and it had seriously demotivating consequences. In their own way, the Traffic Department at West Yorkshire had a high opinion of itself as Southdown’s did, but with one major difference: they were justified in their opinion. As a number of correspondents have pointed out, enthusiasts’ recollections of those days are sometimes coloured by memories of nicely turned out vehicles in smart liveries, perhaps ones they didn’t often come across and which therefore have extra nostalgic value. The managerial realities of the companies involved, however, does not always correspond with those recollections. I’m very sorry if I have offended any Southdown fans, but A Non raised important and valid points that were worth making even if they are often left unsaid.

Roy Burke


17/01/12 – 16:00

I’m assuming, David O, that your comparison is with the other big groups and am genuinely interested in learning in what respects it outshines the others. You’re right about the lack of ‘interesting vehicles around today, although ‘bottom fishing’ around the small independents sometimes produces the odd gem!

Chris Hebbron


17/01/12 – 16:01

Sorry, David. I totally disagree about Stagecoach. I have worked for this operator in the past, and now have to put up with a very poor and unreliable bus service through my village to the neighbouring towns. The Stagecoach maintenance budget is greatly over constrained, with buses suffering from extended silly faults that could be easily fixed with suitable finance. The basic obligation of a bus operator is to run the service(s) safely and reliably with clean, inviting vehicles. This is impossible if maintenance standards do not measure up. Deregulation gives bus operators carte blanche to run what they like and charge well above a reasonable margin in fares. Stagecoach has just handed out £340m to shareholders with Brian Souter and Ann Gloag personally getting £88m between them. A bit more on maintenance would be more appropriate. The present structure of our public road and rail transport industries is a disgrace.

Roger Cox


17/01/12 – 17:57

I am but a humble professional musician/music teacher with a PSV who has spent many (many) years driving buses and coaches (and preserved vehicles) on a part time basis.
I am never "opinionated" because all my comments are considered and based on fact and verifiable material. Different managers, companies and sheds may occasionally fall short of the mark; politicians may ensure that expensive initiatives funnel investment into city areas and away from the rural population but Stagecoach has been vilified, often unjustifiably, for being Stagecoach. [I am talking about the mature company, not the young "pirate". I am talking about the experience of industry professionals and real passengers alike.] You may not like them – that is your prerogative – but that is not my point. Only Stagecoach and Go-Ahead consistently win awards and plaudits from within and without the industry. It is on material like this – gleaned easily from publications like Route One and Bus and Coach Buyer – that I base my comments. …..so yes, Chris, I am comparing with other groups. And, Roger, it doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with you substantively and everything else. …..oh and, I don’t – and never have – had shares in Stagecoach or any other company.

David Oldfield


18/01/12 – 06:30

A number of interesting comments in this thread about the superiority or otherwise of certain operators but I will just confine myself to pointing out that if you go today to the exact spot where that photo was taken, you will find that the view is unchanged sixty years later (including the lamp post in the background) and that you may still board a bus there for Beachy Head although it may well be a Scania double decker of Brighton & Hove. A visit to Eastbourne is recommended for the annual running day in August which usually includes journeys to the top of Beachy Head in a PD3, a journey I first made some 45 years ago (and have the tickets to prove it).

Nigel Turner


18/01/12 – 06:31

In the area I live in, First Group operate the majority of services, with a few contributed by Stagecoach. These days, I much prefer to travel on a Stagecoach vehicle – their service locally seems generally more efficient, and cleaner. I could almost be attracted to modern buses! That is not say that First are inefficient or grubby, but they are not in the same ball park as Stagecoach in this neck of the woods. In general, the First Group local stock consists of some quite elderly vehicles too, which doesn’t necessarily help the image – but would the man in the street or on the seat notice this? Like some others here, I have no shares in any bus company and have never been employed in the bus industry – just an observer and passenger for many years, and this is just a personal view. Others can disagree, and we will enjoy reading the other comments in due course.

Michael Hampton


18/01/12 – 06:32

Thx, David, for quoting the source of your knowledge about Stagecoach (and Go-Ahead). Roy, it’s not whether ‘fans’ are offended by ‘insider’ comments – I think most of us contributing on this site are old enough to appreciate and welcome measured and informed opinion, rather than be influenced by one livery over another or the smartness of staff uniforms! I, for one, find these discussions useful and I’m sure I’m not alone. One point: for many years, Southdown had a fare-sharing arrangement with Portsmouth Corporation, which involved route-balancing swapping of buses (but not crews) at the year-end, usually with Portsmouth buses on Southdown routes, but I recall one year where the reverse happened. Do you know what the relationship was like between these two organisations?.

Chris Hebbron


18/01/12 – 08:39

A very interesting observation, Nigel, on the unchanged scene after 60 years. almost unheard of in this day and age! And thanks for the heads-up on the annual running day. Where would the actual date be published?

Chris Hebbron


18/01/12 – 10:36

Interesting observation, Chris H. Anyone who’s ever read any of your comments on this site will recognise both your own extensive knowledge of the industry and your commitment to remembering and understanding it in an informed, realistic and unbiased way. On the other hand, there are lots of comments, (you can see some on this page alone), that rate an operator on the basis of well turned out vehicles. Maybe I’m just sour, but I do rather disagree with the often expressed view – it’s clearly your view, and I have no wish to upset you – that Southdown were a ‘class act’. Operationally, they were often inefficient in many regards, certainly in comparison with West Yorkshire. The company seemed to encourage compartmentalisation, which in turn discouraged contact and co-operation both internally and with other operators. I found this to be in stark and unhelpful contrast with everything I had seen at WY and had been taught at Maidstone & District.
I can’t, I’m afraid, throw any light on your question, Chris, about the arrangements at Portsmouth between Southdown and Portsmouth Corporation, since I was based in Brighton. However, illustrative of the point I’m trying to make is that in the year and more that I was there, I never met my ‘oppos’ at Portsmouth – my request to do so being summarily dismissed as unnecessary – and I recall speaking to them by telephone only once. Similarly, although we were of course heavily involved in the Brighton Pool with Brighton Corporation and Brighton, Hove & District, those operators were regarded more as competitors for staff than as partners. No need was seen for contact between us at an operational level, (the idea was variously described to me as ‘dangerous’ and ‘pointless’), and there was none.
This site is not the place for gripes, however, and I repeat my apologies for attacking a reputation that many fans hold dear. I just don’t share their view. I have a high opinion of the operational efficiency of West Yorkshire, and I have the fondest possible regard for Maidstone & District, ramshackle and bumbling though they occasionally were. Both were, in my experience, better, (and definitely happier), operators than Southdown.

Roy Burke


18/01/12 – 13:56

But apologies are not required, Roy. We speak as we find and, as some of us have already intimated, the professional and insider view can be at variance – sometimes wildly – with that of the enthusiast. My conversations with "professional" friends constantly bear this out.
[Personally, I would go for M & D and their Reliances – as well as their later Leopards.]

David Oldfield


18/01/12 – 14:47

I simply have to agree with Roy`s comments on the general points of difference between the likes of "West Yorkshire" and "Southdown"!
The former Tilling group`s whole ethos was based on rugged efficiency with a truly Northern "no nonsense" approach, whereas the more noted BET operators always seemed to have the politicians ideal of putting on a "frontal image".
Certainly, in the Bradford area, I do not recall any adverse comments about West Yorkshire, it being an organisation which always commanded public respect. Unlike YWD, or Hebble, its vehicles were always well turned out, and the whole operation exuded total efficiency! Other members of the group always gave me the same impression, United coming to mind.
I know I am only an enthusiast, and not an "insider", but I was well tuned in to public awareness, and this feeling was, I am convinced, well founded.
It is a great pity that this superb bus operator is no longer with us, as, like so many of our industrial organisations of the past, we did not know what we had until we lost it!
As for the present day, I have no interest whatsoever, and suggest we stick to the 1970 (or earlier?) limit for this website!

John Whitaker


19/01/12 – 05:29

Well my comments certainly provoked a varied response from several of my fellow contributors to the site which I suppose is one of it’s aims.
I have to admit my admiration for Southdown came about during my childhood from the early forties so has no basis in administration or engineering just my personal experience of being a passenger and enjoying that. I did drive some of M&D’s Reliances and Panthers on the Heathfield cycle routes and enjoyed the experience very much, if I am honest I must admit that I found the Reliance a far better vehicle to drive whether in bus or 6 speed coach form. If you took the time to master it the Leopard with 2 speed axle was a pleasant vehicle to drive but the engine never pulled as willingly as the AEC motor and the controls were much heavier. So you see my admiration for Southdown is purely a childhood fantasy and I will be forever prejudiced, thank you for indulging me.

Diesel Dave


19/01/12 – 05:30

If I could add my two penny worth to the debate. My vote for the class acts in the North East would go to three independents, OK Motor Services of Bishop Auckland, who had a mixed fleet of new and used vehicles and ran a number of services, and two one route operators, Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval and Economic of Whitburn, the last two had very similar livery’s, but all three had beautifully turned out vehicles, and you could almost set your watch by them. As for Tilling and BET, I worked for a BET company, Tynemouth and Wakefields a subsidiary of Northern General, our buses weren’t bad but Tyneside, another Northern subsidiary, were always immaculate, to be fair they had a much smaller fleet than us, but if I’m honest I would have to say that in general, United ‘a Tilling group company’ always seemed to have a slight edge, but nostalgia’s not what it used to be

Ronnie Hoye


19/01/12 – 17:49

The Eastbourne Running Day has its own website www.eastbourne-classicbus.co.uk
This years event is on Sunday July 22nd and already promised are a Leyland Lion, AEC Regent III, Regent V and Leyland PD2 ex Eastbourne Corporation, a Guy Arab and Leyland PD3 ex Southdown and an AEC Reliance ex East Kent. I spent my holidays on the South Coast in the 1960s and 1970s riding on buses like these, well perhaps not the Leyland Lion!

Nigel Turner


27/01/12 – 06:29

As a former West Yorkshire engine fitter from 1969 to 1987, it is heart warming to read comments about the company being a ‘class act’. From an employee’s viewpoint WY was a good company to work for, with generally good facilities and working conditions. Certainly the atmosphere at the Central Works, Body Shop and Head Office complex in Harrogate was that of one big family – with all that that entailed! Despite the loss of our attractive ‘Tilling’ bus and coach liveries under the aegis of the NBC, and the relentless governmental drive towards one-person operation (whether it was needed or not), WY remained a well-run and generally well-respected organisation. Brian Horner was general manager for much of the NBC period, and in many peoples view built on the standards inherited from his predecessor Jack Lawrence. The bus and coach fleet were generally well-presented for what was a fairly large concern, and the tours and holidays side expanded under the steady hand of the late Gordon Dingle. The company had a policy of continued modernisation of its depots, offices and other facilities, and in the 1980’s WY devised a preventive maintenance programme to further improve vehicle reliability, based on its own data relating to component life. West Yorkshire was indeed a ‘class act’ and is sadly missed by many including me. I still have a soft spot for Southdown though……..

Brendan Smith


28/01/12 – 06:34

The Southdown engineering department had a penchant for cutting down the engine output of their Leylands and Guys, ostensibly in the interests of fuel economy, and road performance suffered. I recall particularly a ride in the early 1960s on one of the very fine Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IVs on route 23 between Crawley and Brighton, a service that encountered some pretty stiff gradients across the Weald and over the South Downs. The governor of the bus’s 6LW had been reset to such a low level that the engine died back at a road speed of about 25 mph. I always felt, also, that Southdown Leylands decidedly lacked sparkle on the road.

Roger Cox


17/12/12 – 11:24

I worked twice as a PSV conductor for Southdown Portsmouth depots in the 1960s as a student holiday job and had the fortune to work on PD3s of the time. As for the comment for nowhere for the conductor to stand, it was the custom for them to stand at the front at the base of the staircase and lean through an open window area over the left hand side of the front mounted engine to keep the driver company (obviously when safe to do so). The driver’s job was not so lonely and isolated as it is now on the ‘one-man bands’ that we have all become used to! Some drivers hated the PD3s especially the so-called’one-leggers’ which had a gearing system at the top of a long metal column that was mounted on the floor. I must admit that I considered the introduction of the ‘Queen Marys’ in 1957, when I was still attending school, unusual in the light that most bus companies were looking towards the introduction of Leyland Atlanteans in their fleets. Many PD3s came up to Leicester, where I now live, having being purchased by ‘Confidence’ for use for transporting the then British Shoe Corporation employees.

Bernard Robinson


03/01/13 – 11:23

I used to be a frequent traveller on Southdown route 12 (Brighton/Seaford/Eastbourne) in the late ‘forties and early ‘fifties. But this is about route 126 that went over Hindover Hill. I was assured in my youth that the name "High and Over" was a form of "Hindover" that was invented by the Southdown company in the ‘thirties.
Can anyone shed light on that?

Ron


AUF 851_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


15/04/16 – 07:08

Just another comment about Route 126. It ran from Eastbourne to Seaford, via Polegate and Alfriston. I used to use it as a local holiday treat when resident as a kid in Eastbourne during the late 1940s, early 1950s. My real memories of it were grinding up the long hill of ‘High and Over’ just before entering Seaford on the last lap of the journey, but another memory is that I think there must have been a vehicle size restriction on this service because I do remember how tight the parking was for the bus stop outside the famous old pub in the centre of Alfriston. Also, as an aside, does anyone else remember Drusilla’s on this route – a well known tourist destination on this route for its zoo and miniature railway?

Roger Bristow


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

All rights to the design and layout of this website are reserved     

Old Bus Photos from Saturday 25th April 2009 to Thursday 4th January 2024