London Transport
1936
Leyland Cub SKPZ2
Park Royal RC18F

CLX 548 is a Leyland Cub SKPZ2 and dates from 1936. New to London Transport with fleet number C111, she has Park Royal C18F bodywork in what used to be called an ‘observation coach’ style. Some people call this body layout as HDC18F while others call it RC18F. This view was taken at Southsea on 9 June 1985. I’ve never seen her since.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

09/10/15 – 07:29

Lovely photograph! If only more observation coaches survived, especially the elegant Whitson versions of 1948-52. The correct body code for observation coaches is "RC". "HD" refers to a Crellin-Duplex half-decker with a continuous roof line and interweaving compartments on two levels. Anybody who describes observation coaches as "HD" clearly hasn’t understood the PSV Circle body code system (and, sadly, this includes some compilers of published fleet histories who SHOULD know better, so I understand confusion on the subject!). Airport coaches such as the 4RF4s of BEA and the similar Leylands at Manchester are also correctly prefixed with an "R" as this actually stands for"raised floor-line" rather than "raised roof".

Neville Mercer

09/10/15 – 07:29

Both this, and sister CLX 550 are listed as survivors in the PSV Circle’s 2015 edition of Preserved Buses. But they both seem extremely camera shy. I’ve never seen either of them in real life.

Petras409

09/10/15 – 17:25

The non-LT livery was used on these vehicles, because they operated the night-time Interstation service around Central London, where their large luggage capacity was invaluable. There is some argument about the seating capacity, being also quoted as both 19 and 20! If memory serves, they were replaced by ST’s during the war, no doubt to increase passenger capacity.
Not only have these buses (bar one) disappeared, but so also has our 24-hour rail network!

Chris Hebbron

13/10/15 – 06:30

Some photos of this taken last year here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rw3

Paul Turner

13/10/15 – 06:30

The tube is to run 24hr from later this year and you will find many more night buses (although no night trams or trolleys) in London than when CLX 548 was built.

Stephen Allcroft

13/10/15 – 08:58

Here are internal photos of C107, showing 4×2 seats (8 passengers) in the lower saloon and 4×2 (8 passengers) and 1×4 (4 passengers) in the upper, total 20. It would seem that, although the rear seat would seat 5, it was designated for 4.

Here is a photo of sister (just) survivor CLX549, How folk can let this sort of thing moulder into dust is beyond me. Windows open and all!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rw3-497alh/15006248806/in/photostream/

Chris Hebbron

14/10/15 – 07:19

One worry when the 24-hour tube services start (commencing I believe on a few lines to start with) is when will the track cleaning and maintenance get done? Some years ago there was a programme on tv about the night staff maintaining the Underground and it was amazing the amount of dust, fluff and other debris that accumulated each day on the track and tunnel walls. A team of ‘fluffies’ were employed each night to walk the tracks after the power had been switched off, simply to clear it all away. This it was said, was on safety grounds, not least to help reduce the risk of fires. I sincerely hope the powers that be are aware of this, especially in these days of cost-cutting in the public sector..

Brendan Smith

14/10/15 – 16:12

Yes, Brendan, I remember that programme. Don’t for a moment think that such realities might have entered the heads of the present management, though!

Pete Davies

14/10/15 – 16:13

I double-checked on the TfL website and it reinforced my thoughts that this 24 hour service is only on Friday/Saturday nights and, initially, not on all tube lines. Maybe with the backlog of maintenance behind them, one assumes that they can deal with doing it in the remaining time in the rest of the week.

Chris Hebbron

15/10/15 – 07:13

For the record, the very sad picture of the Cub mouldering away somewhere in Epsom isn’t C112 (CLX 549), but is C113 (CLX 550). At least, that’s what the PSV Circle says and I am inclined to believe them.
But, thank goodness that C111 (CLX 548) has been rescued and returned to the road, so that she can be seen and appreciated by all. Well done, Mr Cross, the owner.

Petras409

16/10/15 – 06:05

First of all, well done whoever took the interior shots. Exterior shots are always the most important, but it is very helpful sometimes to be able to see inside, especially with such an unusual layout.
I remember seeing a BTC film many years ago ago about night maintenance and cleaning in the deep tube tunnels. The Friday and Saturday night operation will mean a very heavy accumulation of dirt for Sunday night, and I wouldn’t mind betting that Sunday night is the peak period for absenteeism. All it would need is a spark and given the strong winds that blow through the tunnels because of the pressures created by moving trains in tight spaces, and one could soon have a fire out of control.

David Wragg

02/12/17 – 10:55

CLX 548 and CLX 549 were both sold to London Fire Brigade, in the early 1950s. CLX 548 was used as a coach for the Brigade’s sports teams, and CLX 549 was used as a control unit. According to ‘The Fire Brigade Handbook’, CLX 549 was written off, in a collision, in 1959. I would be very interested to see CLX 548, if someone can tell me where, in Kent, it is stored.

Bill Edwards

06/12/17 – 09:53

I would like to see photographs of CLX 548 when in service with London Fire Brigade. Colour pics would be best but any would be very welcome.

Ian Morrison

07/12/17 – 08:49

No sooner said than done, Ian M! www.london-fire.gov.uk/

Chris Hebbron

10/12/17 – 06:20

Many thanks to Chris Hebbron but I need pics of CLX 548 which was the London Fire Brigade sports team coach. I believe it was painted dark green by the brigade but have no pics so do not know what shade or if the vehicle had any other colour with the dark green and carried any brigade markings etc.

Ian Morrison

11/12/17 – 07:01

According to this site https://cazana.com/uk/car/CLX549
CLX 549 was MoT tested and passed! in September 2008
It also had a registration number change in April 1984 It had been previously registered under SV 4837.
Registered as a Leyland National!

John Wakefield

12/12/17 – 08:33

Interesting comment, John W! It reminds me of an airshow once where a young lad (6 or 7 at the time) was proudly telling his father that the plane performing was a Lancaster Bomber (it had 4 propellers, you see, and was actually a Hercules) and father either didn’t know better or didn’t bother to correct him. Likewise, an aircraft with four jet engines was a Nimrod (USAF B52 which actually has four pairs). Ah, well!

Pete Davies

13/12/17 – 07:35

Pete. I dont think this is a mistaken id, the MoT refers to the MoT test of the Royal Enfield motorcycle (now registered SV 4837). It begs the question as to how the motor bike got the CLX 549 reg from the Leyland in the first place & why was it then re registered as SV 4837, SV is an age related series issued by DVLA for vehicles in the 1920/30 age group. That registration could have been obtained directly from DVLA on production of a dating cert for the RE motor bike. So what is the id of the ‘Leyland National’ now registered as CLX 459? Looks like there has been some fiddling going on here with registration numbers!
I have recently obtained the following info from a PSVC member
"According to Alan Cross, Mr Rubery did buy CLX 550 from Scotland. Both CLX 549 and CLX 550 were sold to W North (dealer); CLX 549 became a henhouse in Perthshire"

John Wakefield

13/12/17 – 07:35

DVLA has a number of the Bristol Cars products registered as BMCs.

John Lomas

03/05/22 – 06:04

Following on from comments regarding this vehicle. It stopped briefly at The Maybury Inn in Woking Sunday night (Sunday May 1st 2022). Had a quick chat with the owner who told me the vehicle had recently undergone some restoration but will be attending shows in the coming months.

Gary Avery

Chiltern Queens
1963
AEC Reliance 4MU3RA
Park Royal C49F

This AEC Reliance of Chiltern Queens is seen outside Reading General Station on 9 September 1981. I don’t know anything about her, but I suspect she came from Aldershot & District. I’m sure someone will advise.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

24/09/15 – 06:07

Yes, this is one of the batch of fifteen such vehicles delivered to Aldershot & District in 1963, though the first one, 466 FCG, was displayed at the 1962 Earls Court Show. A&D always had a small engine policy, and these 36ft long coaches had the 7.685 litre AH470 engine driving through the Thornycroft designed six speed constant mesh gearbox. The correct chassis designation for these vehicles is 4MU4RA. Despite their modest power, these coaches were nice to drive provided one took the trouble to treat the gearbox with respect. In 1966 came a further batch of five 49 seat Reliance coaches of very similar appearance, though this time the bodies were built by Weymann, and the 6MU3RA chassis employed the then new 8.2 litre AH505 engine driving through the AEC five speed synchromesh gearbox. The picture shows the last of the earlier batch, 480 FCG, in a dark green and cream livery, leading 467 FCG through Farnborough on an excursion to Hampton Court in 1969. This must have been a hot day as both vehicles are in motion with the doors open, a practice that was then, as now, illegal.

Roger Cox

24/09/15 – 16:17

Thank you, Roger. It has always puzzled me a bit that Chiltern Queens, as with a number of other operators, had completely different liveries for buses and coaches, rather than the ‘reversed’ style. Their choice, of course!

Pete Davies

24/09/15 – 16:18

I’m sure Roger Cox knows a lot more than me about these things, but was it illegal to have the doors open while in motion? Some London Transport RFs had no doors while plenty of rear entrance deckers had either no doors or had manually operated ones that were rarely closed especially on town services.

Nigel Turner

24/09/15 – 16:19

Roger’s comment about the legality of running with doors open highlights the sometimes absurdity of UK legislation when one considers that the Metropolitan Police for years banned doors on another type of front entrance single decker – LT’s Central area RFs

Phil Blinkhorn

25/09/15 – 06:30

Comparing the two photos in this thread, someone had done a great deal of work changing the trim and the window vents.

Phil Blinkhorn

25/09/15 – 06:30

These have a passing resemblance to some Roe bodied Reliances of at around the same time although they were 30ft dual entrance examples.
The Metropolitan Police were a very conservative outfit being reluctant to sanction pneumatic tyres covered tops and even cab doors!

Chris Hough

26/09/15 – 06:00

On the question of doors on buses, the regulation seems to have been that, if fitted, these had to be closed when vehicles were in motion. This then raises the matter of conductor/hand operated doors at the rear of double deckers so fitted, which were regularly seen open in service owing to the impracticability of the conductor being able to operate them at every stop. In real life, the rules seem to have been enforced as much by each company’s disciplinary system as by the law. In London, the Metropolitan Police were always reactionary in their non acceptance of new engineering technology. To the list given by other contributors may be added four wheel brakes.
Phil has raised an interesting point about the greatly modified trim and fittings worn by the Chiltern Queens machine. A&D were very fond of Auster windows as seen on the Reliances in their original form, but replacing these with sliding vents would not have been a major task. The bodywork is another matter, however, and one wonders why anyone would go to such trouble. Not only have the trim lines been repositioned and the bumper removed, but the headlamps have been repositioned also. Unless this vehicle suffered front end damage necessitating a rebuild at some point in its life, the whole exercise must have been of decidedly dubious cost effectiveness.

Roger Cox

27/09/15 – 05:48

Looking around on Flickr the history of 474 FCG is confusing. It ran originally with headlamps as delivered to Aldershot and District but was later rebuilt as Roger noted and seen above. In the early shots the ventilators have all been replaced but in at least one later shot it had managed to acquire one of the Auster vents back. They also had 478 FCG (at least) which had the headlamp modification too, but on which only half the ventilators were replaced. It’s worth noting that both had their original coach seating replaced by bus seating.

David Beilby

27/09/15 – 05:49

If you look at the photo of the Chiltern Queens vehicle carefully, you will see that it has also been fitted with two piece power doors. The front dash appears to be a replacement of the original. I am therefore wondering if A&D (or AV) did in fact carry out the modifications themselves, when the vehicle was downgraded from coach work?
Ironically, the Captcha code I had to enter here included the letters "DP"!

Nigel Frampton

28/09/15 – 07:02

Initially, I thought that the 4MU3RA chassis designation in the heading was an error, as this batch of coaches were delivered to A&D as the 4MU4RA type. However, given the extensive alterations subsequently made, I wonder if the Thornycroft six speed constant mesh gearbox in 474 FCG might have been replaced with the five speed AEC synchromesh box, which would have been much easier to use on normal bus work.

Roger Cox

29/09/15 – 07:02

Looking through Buses magazine April 1975, under Alder Valley it was reported that "AEC Reliance 338 (474 FCG) a 1963 vehicle with Park Royal DP49F bodywork has been sold to Chiltern Queens, Woodcote". Buses magazine also records further ‘FCG’ withdrawals in 1976: 336 (472 FCG) with C49F bodywork, which went to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Crowthorne; 337/8 (473/80) also reported as C49F; fire-damaged 370 (466 FCG) which was recorded as being DP49F. It would appear that some of the batch were converted at some point to dual-purpose vehicles, which may explain the revised trim on 474 FCG. However, on Flickr ‘hivemind’ there are two photos which show 474 FCG operating for Chiltern Queens with and without folding doors. Unfortunately they are both offside shots, but no folding doors are visible on the black and white photo, whereas they are on the colour view. So it would appear that the powered door conversion, and probably the bus seats conversion, were carried out while the Reliance was with Chiltern Queens. Unless as the saying goes "someone knows otherwise!".
Reliance 474 FCG can be viewed at this link:
//flickrhivemind.net/Tags/474fcg,parkroyal/Interesting

Brendan Smith

03/10/15 – 13:37

On the question of the legality of leaving doors open while the bus was in motion, I have no idea. The LT Central area RFs were without doors and I was working in the PSV section of the Metropolitan Traffic Area in 1963 or 1964 when a call came through saying that a passenger had been killed alighting from an RF while the bus was moving. At that time, it was common for many, usually male, passengers to jump off as the bus was coming to a stop. That was OK with rear entrance and forward entrance vehicles, but the front entrance RF was turning left at the time and the front nearside wheel was sticking out and caught the poor man before the driver could stop. Horrible! I only hope it was quick.

David Wragg

07/10/15 – 06:29

This might be something on which Chris Youhill could comment: in response to complaints about poor ventilation/over-heating in Leeds’s (fixed/panoramic-windowed) 33ft "Jumbos"/"Tommy Lord Boxes" the GM, Tom Lord, informed the "Evening Post" that in hot weather drivers would be allowed to run with the front doors open . . . a stiff reprimand from the Traffic Commissioner’s Office followed.

Philip Rushworth

07/10/15 – 15:49

Talking about poor ventilation, last year I travelled on a new Blackpool tram. It was May and not an unduly warm day, but the tram was uncomfortably warm and I noticed the conductors were in shirts//blouses. When I remarked that aircon would have been useful, especially as it was electrically driven, they said that the drivers’ cabs were going to be fitted with it, but not the passenger compartments!

Chris Hebbron

08/10/15 – 07:20

That’s quite correct, Mr Hebbron – the passengers don’t matter to most operators. After all, they only keep the firm going and pay the wages!

Pete Davies

09/10/15 – 07:24

Neither do they care about the conductors, Pete D, who have to work on the trams all the time, whereas the passengers do, at least, get on and off!

Chris Hebbron

Barrow In Furness Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Park Royal H33/28R

CEO 956 is a Leyland PD2/40 with Park Royal H61R bodywork from 1958. She was built for Barrow In Furness Corporation (fleet number 169) and we see her parked on Middle Walk, Blackpool, on 29 September 1985. This is a date some of the readership will recognise, as being Blackpool’s Tramway Centenary day and she was taking part in a rally as part of the celebrations.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

03/09/15 – 07:17

What a handsome bus – helped by an attractive livery.

David Wragg

04/09/15 – 07:17

Thank you, David. I’ve always thought the livery bore some affinity with the Birmingham one, likewise that of St Helens (only in red).

Pete Davies

11/09/15 – 07:07

This vehicle along with No.170 (CEO 957), passed to the Furness Transport Group in the late 1970s, subsequently passing on to the Mersey and Calder Group.
On Saturday 25th October 1986 it was hired back for one day by Barrow Corporation Transport and operated the final service journey (11pm Town Hall – Abbey Road – Harrel Lane – Washington – Town Hall), thus marking the end of 66 years of municipal transport in the Borough.

Larry B

12/09/15 – 14:22

Honourably bringing up the rear, behind this fabulous Barrow vehicle, is surely one of the splendid Lytham St Annes Leylands too. Those were the days indeed.

Chris Youhill

13/09/15 – 05:49

There’s a name I’m glad to see here again – not Leyland or even Park Royal… or Barrow – but Youhill!

Joe

13/09/15 – 11:15

Thank you so much Joe , that is very kind indeed. I have been through the mill to some tune this last couple of months but am now making the best of it – what else can one do ?? I am definitely not one of those to burden everyone else with my difficulties as this does neither party any good I always feel, so no morbid details here. Thank you once again though for your greatly appreciated concern – I have had many good wishes from various quarters and forums (fora I suppose for Latin aficionado’s) and these of course mean a lot.

Chris Youhill

13/09/15 – 11:15

Enthusiastically seconded, Joe!

Chris Hebbron

15/09/15 – 06:41

Correct, CY, and welcome back. The vehicle concerned is GTB 903. I feel the original is too close-up for submission for Peter to consider.

Pete Davies