Bournemouth Corporation
1955
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/1
Park Royal B42F

RRU 901 was originally Bournemouth 264 – a Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/1 with Park Royal B42F body. It started life in Bournemouth 96 with an open rear entrance and front exit with doors in 1955. It was rebodied around 1957 for One Man Operation. It lasted until 1971 when it was sold to Burton on Trent (Maroon and Cream) and then transferred to East Staffs when Burton disappeared. It went into preservation in 1977 and went back to Bournemouth colours. It has had a bit of a chequered life in preservation and was in a sorry state in the early 2000’s.
Around 2008/9 it moved to Scotland where it was extensively re-panelled and repainted in a Western Scottish style livery, which is the way it is currently.
It had an overheating problem at Kirkby Stephen this year, but was in service on the Saturday, and since then the water pump has been removed and found to have been well and truly bodged by someone previously with a metal pin and black silicone mastic. It is seen in resting between duties at Kirkby Stephen West.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones, with additional information from Malcolm Davies

02/06/15 – 07:15

That livery wouldn’t look amiss in Southport!

Pete Davies

10/06/15 – 09:05

Compare this to Stockport’s Tiger Cubs, built by Crossley to the same basic design. Some have said the Stockport version has more than a passing resemblance to the RF and the Monocoach.

Phil Blinkhorn

12/06/15 – 06:31

A sister vehicle, RRU 903 is preserved in Yorkshire in Bournemouth Corporation livery. These photos show it in Grassington (in company with a much newer preserved bus, Pennine Dennis Dart R717 YWC) and a rear view at the farm near Skipton where the vehicle is kept. The rear end is very unusual, with the emergency door on the offside. I had the privilege of driving this bus a few months ago. It was the first crash gearbox bus I had driven for many years, and it was a great relief to feel the gears engaging without a "crunching" sound.

Don McKeown

13/06/15 – 06:44

Did this bus (and the rest of the batch) originally have a rear door in addition to the front? This was the normal Bournemouth fashion for many years. Although now clearly removed, it might explain the unusual rear design for the emergency door. A study of the Western SMT liveried bus reveals a similar layout at the rear.

Michael Hampton

14/06/15 – 06:54

Bournemouth did convert it’s dual entrance Tiger Cubs to front entrance as early as 1957 and did the same with the 1951 Royal Tigers later on. The unusual rear arrangements probably result from that change.
For comparative purposes here is a view of a Crossley bodied Stockport Tiger Cub on Park Royal design frames dating from 1958.

Orla Nutting

08/08/15 – 06:57

This batch of buses all had a rear open platform entrance, rather than a second door. The buses didn’t last long in this configuration before being rebodied, hence the "two" windows on the nearside as opposed to the one on the offside. On mine you can still see some of the framework for the steps underneath. This original set up would certainly explain why the emergency door is on the offside.

Malcolm Davies

08/08/15 – 11:39

I am still puzzled about access to that rear corner emergency exit. How would passengers get to use it in an emergency?
Is the rear seat moved forward to creat a gap behind it, or is the rear nearside seat a ‘three seater’ with a space on the offside?
It’s all rather unusual, but an expert with knoweldge of the interior layout will hopefully be able to resolve this puzzle.

Petras409

26/10/20 – 06:33

Close inspection of the picture of RRU 903’s rear suggests the rear offside seat pair is away from the rear end. Presumably, that would facilitate access from the gangway to the emergency exit, with clearances compliant with the C & U Regulations prevalent at the time of modification.

Terry Walker

31/10/20 – 06:26

Thanks Terry. Your suggestion has put my mind at rest. That’s 5 years of uncertainty finally resolved!

Petras409

Reading Corporation
1950
Sunbeam S7
Park Royal H38/30RD

This photo of Reading Corporation 178 a Sunbeam S7 with Park Royal H38/30RD bodywork, delivered in November 1950, was taken 18 years later on the last day of trolleybus operation Sunday 4th of November 1968 as I recall a very cold but bright day. Taken when 178 was negotiating the turning circle at Tilehurst opposite what was then the Three Tuns pub to pick up for the return trip to Wokingham Road, unlike some of the later Sunbeam F4A’s which went to Teesside these had come to the end of their lives although 181 was, if not, still is, in preservation.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

14/08/14 – 10:21

It looks sad, as do all vehicles on their way out.
Liked the "Baylis Supermarkets says Goodbye to Reading’s Trolleybuses" advert on the side, DD! Occasionally, I visited Reading and think they were at Caversham.
I really don’t recall the trolleybuses having platform doors (never travelled on one)- was this common?

Chris Hebbron

14/08/14 – 12:00

Diesel Dave and Chris H: The first Reading trolleys with platform doors were the 4-wheel BUTs of 1949. William John Evans liked spacious raised platforms with doors, generous staircases and—for the trolleybuses—deep windscreens, and whatever the stern WJE liked, he got. The same arrangement was found on the 6-wheel Sunbeams, as shown here, on the 1950 Crossley DD 42/8s and the 1956/7 AEC Regent IIIs.
Baylis certainly did have a Caversham branch, which outlived their main shop on the corner of Broad St and St Mary’s Butts, right in the town, which became the first self-service shop in Reading. It was an odd sensation picking what you needed off the shelves!
The Three Tuns is actually at the Wokingham Road end of the route.
Thanks for a nice nostalgic posting.

Ian T

14/08/14 – 17:39

Thx, Ian T, for the extra info.
The first supermarket I ever used was, bizarrely, a MacFisheries in Fareham. which accepted credit cards. The next one was a Victor Value, in Portsmouth itself, a group eventually swallowed up by Tesco. It was strange to pick stuff off the shelves yourself.

Chris Hebbron

17/07/16 – 05:55

Is this the Trolleybus that Matchbox modelled their #56A on?

Geoff Saunders

18/07/16 – 06:51

Geoff, the Matchbox 56 trolleybus was based on a London Transport Q1 class trolleybus, complete with a route no 667. For its size and era it was quite a good model, even though intended merely as a toy. (I had 18 of them in my "fleet"!).

Michael Hampton

04/06/17 – 07:44

Reading trolleybus 181 IS still in preservation. It is privately owned but is based at the Trolleybus Museum at Sandtoft (near Doncaster). The museum has overhead wiring to enable some of the 50, or so trolleybuses, based there to run on regular open days. There is going to a big Reading event next year, so you should be able to see 181 run. I have been three times and it is a great day out, but I should think it will run before then. Perhaps a phone call to them will give you more information.

Chris Baldwin

King Alfred Motor Services
1964
AEC Renown 3B2RA
Park Royal H44/31F

595 and 596 LCG are AEC Renown 3B2RA vehicles with Park Royal H72F bodywork from the fleet of King Alfred Motor Services of Winchester, and date from 1964. They are both seen during one of the famous Running Days on 1 January 2009. Note the different applications of the livery.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

07/08/14 – 17:16

Are you sure it’s different livery and not different light? [The mirror is in a different position though.] They are a rather splendid pair. We await developments with a replacement for the New Year running days.

David Oldfield

08/08/14 – 06:02

According to the FoKAB website the event will be 3rd(eve)/4th May next year

Ian Comley

08/08/14 – 06:06

David, Thanks for your comment. Yes, it most certainly is a different green. The two photos were taken on the same day and in similar conditions. I compare it to the different applications of Aldershot & District or West Riding against Southdown.

Pete Davies

08/08/14 – 06:07

I do believe that 595 is lighter green.

Mike Morton

08/08/14 – 06:08

On my computer screen the greens look fairly similar or "why bother with two such similar colours" but on an ipad ("Retina" screen?) they look distinctly different.

Joe

08/08/14 – 06:09

Like David, I suspect that this is a trick of the light. I saw the King Alfred (R. Chisnell) fleet pretty frequently, and rode on it occasionally, when I lived in Hampshire from 1966 to 1975, and I recall only one shade of green being used. In fact, I did attend an interview in 1971 to see about a job in the Traffic Dept., but I was less than impressed with the outfit at that stage and didn’t pursue the matter. It was no surprise when it simply folded two years later.

Roger Cox

08/08/14 – 06:10

King Alfred did change their livery in the last years of operation. The upper picture of 595 LCG has the later (final) livery, all the same shade of green. The lower 596 LCG has the earlier livery with the darker shade of green at lower deck level. I think I have stated this correctly, unless the old grey cells are misfiring. (There was a coach livery too in the fifties and sixties, described as "eau-de-nil" – a sort of pale green, with a green stripe or flash related to bodywork embellishments).

Michael Hampton

13/08/14 – 07:05

According to "King Alfred Motor Services: the Story of a Winchester Family Business" (James Freeman & Robert Jowitt, Kingfisher, 1984), the later livery first appeared on the four Leyland Atlantean PDR1/2s (589-592) as a result of a mistake by the Roe paint-shop. Not only was the Brunswick green omitted from the lower panels, but the wheel centres were painted red – this was because these four vehicles followed on from a larger batch (101-125) of almost identical vehicles for West Riding, in whose livery they were mistakenly painted.
Apparently, the Chisnell family (the Directors of KAMS) were quite taken with the result, and decided to adopt the simplified livery (although, I think, without the red wheel centres) as the fleet standard.
This raises a number of questions! Firstly, how can a paint-shop get things so wrong? – even though the application of the KAMS livery was in the same proportions as WRAC’s surely the different destination apertures and application of KAMS fleet-names/legal lettering etc. might have suggested that the four Atlanteans concerned should have not received WRAC livery? . . . and what about final quality control? Secondly, the light green – was the KAMS light green exactly the same shade as WRAC green? – Freeman and Jowitts’ story suggests that the same light green was used on both the WRAC and KAMS buses.
So. Were KAMS offered a cheaper price by Roe if they took the four Atlanteans to more-or-less West Riding specification as a follow-on order? – the bodies are more-or-less identical except for destination aperture, an extra horizontal grab-rail behind the near-side windscreen on the West Riding bodies, and the Atlantean badge on the front of the KAMS buses. Were KAMS persuaded also to use West Riding green as being very close to their own light green? . . . and was that mis-interpreted in the Roe paint-shop as an instruction to use WRAC livery, full-stop?

Philip Rushworth