Bury Corporation
1961
Guy Wulfrunian
Roe H43/30F

LEN 101 was the solitary Guy Wulfrunian purchased by Bury Corporation in 1961.(Fleet number 101.) It had Roe H43/30F bodywork, but carried a Park Royal manufacturers’ plate. This was to allow it to be exhibited at the 1960 Commercial Motor Show; as the Roe stand already had enough exhibits, there being strict limits on the number of vehicles each manufacturer was allowed to display. It had another unique feature, three part platform doors. Bury Corporation ran the Wulfrunian for only three years, and for much of this time it was relegated to peak hour use. It was sold to an independent operator in South Wales, Howell and Withers, who painted it grey and white, but only operated it for a short time before selling the bus to Wrights, Penycae in August 1964. Wrights operated it on their stage service into Wrecsam for five years.. Wrights painted the bus into this attractive two tone blue livery. It was with Wrights that I had my only ride on this bus. Eventually LEN 101 was sold again, this time to Berresfords of Cheddleton, who operated the bus for only a few days. Apparently drivers complained about the heavy steering; so proprietor Jim Berresford took it for a test drive, after which he dumped it in the field behind the Depot, where this photo was taken.
The Wulfrunian was eventually rescued by a group of preservationists from the Manchester area, with the intention of restoring it to Bury Corporation’s light green and cream livery. It was parked in the yard at the rear of Manchester’s Hyde Road depot, which was used for initial training by the PTE’s driving school. Sadly, one of the training buses reversed into the Wulfrunian, and it’s body was written off.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown

27/11/14 – 06:21

Apart from the grilles for the Cave-Brown-Cave system, the really fascinating thing about this bus is what on earth prompted Bury, a Leyland/AEC operator to plump for a Guy and without the Leyland engine option Guy offered. Further, how did the purchase slip past the Transport Committee.

Phil Blinkhorn

27/11/14 – 14:15

Looking at its one-off status and commercial motor show exhibit background, followed by Bury’s operational lack of enthusiasm, this may have been an offer that they couldn’t refuse, but then didn’t quite know what to do with it.

Stephen Ford

27/11/14 – 17:23

Further to Don McKeown’s post on the Bury Corporation Wulfrunian LEN 101, I attach a picture of it after being damaged in the Training School yard at Manchester’s Hyde Road Depot.
It was apparently a Mancunian which did the damage.
This picture is from my collection and is not my copyright.

Stephen Howarth

28/11/14 – 06:41

I think it is easy to overlook the high level of interest shown in the Wulfrunian at the time of its introduction. Operators were looking for a forward entrance high capacity bus but there was a lot of nervousness about the rear engine concept offered in the Atlantean. The two demonstrators were kept very busy and appeared with many of the large operators.
Bury was just about to start on a major fleet update to replace their fleet of early post-war PD1’s and PD2’s and 101 was probably bought as a test bed for a potential replacement vehicle. They could have saved a lot of money and heartache if they had taken one of the demonstrators for a spell.
I remember 101 with Bury and it seemed to spend most of its life parked by the doorway of the Rochdale Road garage. I was told by one of the fitters that it was disliked by drivers because of the heavy steering and very cramped cab. I did see it in service on the 9 (Jericho – Tottington) and 37 (Walmersley – Whitefield) occasionally.
It is a great pity that it was damaged in the collision at Hyde Road as despite its failings, it was a key part of the transport heritage of the north west. I believe the chassis still exists at Dewsbury Bus Museum. Can anyone confirm?

Philip Halstead

28/11/14 – 06:46

The chassis still survives, and is currently parked among undergrowth at a preservation site near Selby, where it is owned by Mr. Ian Hunter of Leeds. The above photo shows the chassis as it was in the summer of 2014.

Don McKeown

28/11/14 – 14:36

I am pleased to see that this rare chassis still survives, I hope it can be restored before it rusts away. I’m sure the steering will not feel so heavy without the bodywork.

Ron Mesure

29/11/14 – 07:16

I’ve got it in my head that Wright’s of Penycae were not the second Welsh independent to operate LEN 101, but the third. I could even suggest a third operator’s name – can anyone confirm?
As to why Bury didn’t insist on the use of one of the demonstrators (are we sure they didn’t have one?), the borrowing of a manufacturer’s demonstrator wasn’t something which was as easy as people probably imagine. A manufacturer needed to be sure there was an order in the offing before a demonstrator became a possibility. I have actually been in an operator’s office when the operator asked the rep if there was any possibility of having a vehicle on demonstration, and the response was an emphatic ‘no’.
As to whether the use of a demo would have helped depends upon how quickly the Wulfrunian’s failings made themselves felt. In view of how quickly operators generally disposed of them the answer would appear to be, very quickly indeed, yet West Riding continued to buy them until 1965.
Were West Riding simply stubbornly reluctant to admit they’d made a mistake, or were they obliged to buy a certain number as part of the original deal?

David Call

30/11/14 – 06:33

I remember in the 60`s Bury did have an Atlantean from Coventry, it was in the colours of Coventry, Blue with a white band. It was a surprise as I was going home from my then girlfriend from Bolton to Bury, I remember the driver telling me it was on loan from Coventry. I remember LEN 101, it seems a shame lying in the under growth with no body.

David Henighan

30/11/14 – 09:55

I know you can’t always rely on Wiki, but, the Wulfrunian article on there says that it was developed jointly by Guy and West Riding.

John Lomas

01/12/14 – 07:12

If that was the training bus that did the damage, then I’m hardly surprised that the poor trainee didn’t have full control of the Macunian. From the photo, it doesn’t look as though it’s got an engine !

Petras409

01/12/14 – 07:13

Referring to Philip Halstead’s post, scroll down here for several views of LEN 101 including one in colour of the bus on the 37 Whitefield. //jsh1949.co.uk/GUY%20WULFRUNIAN.htm

John Darwent

01/12/14 – 07:14

In the book ‘Forgotten Double Deckers’ by David Harvey there is a section on the Guy Wulfrunian and a piece that reads:
Quote
The Development of the "Wulfrunian"
Guy Motors were going to be left behind in the race to develop an up-to-date low height 30′ long chassis, until West Riding Motors of Wakefield, at the instigation of their chief engineer, Ron Brooke, approached Guys with an advanced specification for such a chassis.
Unquote

David Slater

01/12/14 – 07:15

In the mid 1950s, following the lead of General Motors in the USA, whose GMC type 4104 air suspended Scenicruiser had been adopted by Greyhound from 1953, Guy Motors became convinced that the future for successful passenger chassis sales lay in air suspension. This initial interest led to the underfloor engined Victory, which had air suspension all round, independent at the front, and air hydraulic disc brakes. The first Victory appeared in 1958, and during the model’s development, Ron Brooke, the Chief Engineer of West Riding, approached Guy with the idea of a low frame double deck chassis incorporating the air suspension features of the Victory, but employing a simple, straight drive line from a front mounted engine. This, it was thought, would give a reliable drive line and permit the entire interior of the lower deck to be used for passenger accommodation. At this time the early Atlanteans were suffering extreme problems with their rear engines/gearboxes and angled drive lines. It would seem that he had hawked his ideas round other manufacturers to no avail (I bet that all those sceptical makers breathed huge sighs of relief when the Wulfrunian’s troubles came home to roost). West Riding was a confirmed user of Gardner engines in its Arab fleet, and the 6LX was chosen as the power unit of the new Wulfrunian. Though not a heavy engine in comparison with its contemporaries from other UK manufacturers, the 6LX was physically large, and positioning it as far to the offside as possible to allow a respectable platform area resulted in a very narrow cab and footwell. To add to the driver’s woes, his/her left leg was unavoidably positioned hard against the engine cover panel, on the far side of which was the Gardner’s offside exhaust assembly. Because of the substantial weight at the extreme front of the overhang, the front wheels had a remarkable negative camber that contributed to the very heavy steering characteristics. The shrouding by the bodywork of the disc braking system sometimes caused the hydraulic fluid to boil, leading to a frightening loss of response. The subsequent history of the Wulfrunian’s operational career is well known, but it is surprising that the deficiencies of the design were not recognised and acted upon in the prototype stages. Looking at the chassis diagrams, it would seem that an answer might have been found by following the AEC ‘Q’ concept, and repositioning the engine to the offside close behind the front wheels. The transmission line would have had to be moved a bit, but the rest of the chassis could have stayed the same. The use of full air rather than air hydraulic for the brakes would have sorted out the braking problem at a stroke. Several modifications were made during the production run to try to fix the problems that arose, but the firm just ran out of money. We now know that Guy was already in severe financial difficulties at this time, following its agency debacle in South Africa, so it just stuck with a flawed design that had gained definite orders from West Riding, and turned a blind eye to the inevitable outcome.

Roger Cox

01/12/14 – 09:55

Petras409, either the photo or Stephen’s comment is misleading. The Training School used a variety of vehicles. Those on the public roads were normally dedicated vehicles, permanently marked with L plates. Within the grounds at Hyde Rd, this wasn’t always the case. It very much looks as if the GMT vehicle has done the damage. If so it looks as if it was a withdrawn vehicle being used ad hoc for basic training which has had its engine removed after the event, but it is a SELNEC/GMT Standard, not a Mancunian.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/12/14 – 14:07

A fascinating tale, Roger: the sad bit is that the design could have been developed in the way that you suggest: sitting in a modern megabus makes you itch to make use of the space under the stairs! You can see now the fundamental flaws in the Wulfrunian design caused by the desire to get a bulky engine, a driver, a staircase and a passenger platform in to 8ft. The curiosity is whether the driver was protected by the engine or couldn’t get into the saloon direct to deal with troublemakers: perhaps a good thing! We were in a time when men were men and standing up to turn the steering to full lock not unknown- but plonking all that weight at one end in the overhang was possibly worse than plonking it at the back. All would have been solved with your Q2 with a touch of Lodekka, perhaps.
What a link, John D to pics of so many Wulfrunians. Did Roe body all the "standard" ones? The Accrington version would have been a good test-bed for a lot of the technology without the overhang problems. Did the Victory have the same sort of problems? And what happened to all those West Riding Wulfrunians- straight to scrap with engines, too?

Joe

02/12/14 – 05:26

Joe, from reports I have read, most if not all of West Riding’s Wulfrunian engines (Gardner 6LXs) went into the ‘Wulfie’ replacement Daimler Fleetlines.

Brendan Smith

02/12/14 – 08:48

Brendan: I wondered about that… the subsequent West Riding VR’s used to gurgle like the Wulfrunians: why did West Riding buy up all those Wulfrunians? To get a load of cheap engines!

Joe

02/12/14 – 14:06

One of the perceived advantages of the Wulfrunian layout was the availability of the entire lower saloon for passenger accommodation. It was rather ironic that, when the excessive front end loading difficulties arose, West Riding removed the upper deck seats in front of the staircase, and barred off that area completely, thus totally negating the extra seating downstairs.

Roger Cox

09/12/14 – 06:17

I followed John D’s link above and….
At the risk of offending anyone on here, I think the only comment I’d make is that the Accrington rear entrance Wulfrunians (picture on John’s link Fleet Number 157 / Registration 36 VTF) deserve an honourable mention on the Ugly Bus Page !!

Stuart C

09/12/14 – 11:56

I’m a fan of East Lancs products (having lived in Stockport for many years that’s a given!) but will accept your nomination and would ask our leader to do the necessary!!

Phil Blinkhorn

10/12/14 – 06:21

Stuart C/Phil: I’ve seen worse- looks better as sold on with the "radiator" panel contrasted. See this link.
If you are putting this bus into Room 101, then you may have to add a BMMO D type- but which one? D7?
But then the D10 is the Wulfrunian that might have been…

Joe

11/12/14 – 06:32

Not the D7, Joe, but the D5, which, with its droopy, sad expression always suggested that it was about to burst into tears. I think that it would take quite a leap of the imagination to visualise the Wulfrunian metamorphosing into the D10:- low floor/high floor, front engine /underfloor engine, air suspension/rubber suspension etc.

Roger Cox

07/01/15 – 09:40

Here’s LEN 101 operating for Wrights, loading up in Wrexham Bus Station for Penycae just before 5 pm on 12 April 1969.

Tim Jeffcoat

14/12/15 – 06:22

I always thought most of the Wulfrunian’s failings could be addressed in the following ways:
1) Air operated drum brakes.
2) Steel suspension: At front: Routemaster, unequal wishbone with spring over shockers set up, with the addition (if room) of torsion bars to stiffen the whole thing up and the ability to adjust ride height. With this arrangement front wheel camber angles could have been normalised. On the rear: The coil spring set up as on the F series Bristol Lodekka.
3) Power steering (the contemporary Routemaster had it).
4) ASAP an 8’2 and a half" body, to give the driver.
Put all that together, although front brake and tyre wear are always going to be heavy with this set up, a it might have been largely OK.

James Fawcett

14/11/19 – 05:47

I used the 37 Bus to and from my home in Walmersley, as I as in school in Bury ( Bury GS). I remember the Wulfrunian well and often wondered what happened to it. Very sad, now I know!
Also, I vaguely remember ( the memory isn’t what it used to be!) an AEC Bridgemaster "on trial" around the same time and alsio used on the 30/37 route. Am I wrong?
PS Loved to ride on the two AECs BEN 176 and 177 and pleased one has been preserved. Loved that AEC engine whine!

Al

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

03/08/20 – 06:41

I travelled on LEN 101 to school whilst it was with Bury Corporation and invariably it meant I arrived late for school as the drivers did not like the heavy steering and therefore always seemed to lose time which they could not make up. I seem to remember that it was also owned by Byley Motors in Cheshire for a while at some stage after Bury sold it out of service.

Don Butterworth

Copyright Unknown

Copyright Unknown

Newcastle Corporation
1947
AEC Regent III
Roe H31/25R

Before the D.V.L.A. It seems to have been common practice that local authorities would issue registrations to bus companies En-block which would then be allocated as and when required, as a result, vehicles which were two or three years apart could have registrations which were numerically quite close. Unfortunately, I do not have access to their fleet records, but Newcastle Corporation would seem to be a good example of this. Newcastle registrations were BB – TN or VK. Post war motor vehicles were AEC, Daimler and the all Leyland Titans, bodies came from a number of sources including, Massey. MCW. Northern Coachbuilders, Park Royal Vehicles, Roe and Weymann, then of course there was the trolleybus fleet. I am speculating here, but it would appear they had most of the registrations between KVK 950 or thereabouts, and LVK 140 ish, but they were allocated between 1947 and 1949. My information suggests that among that number were three 1947 AEC Regent III with H31/25R Roe bodies KVK 984/6 – 84/6. Sorry, I don’t have any further details, I know Newcastle Corporation Transport had some pre-select Daimlers, but I’m inclined to think that these were a 7.7 litre with a crash box. 86 is shown here in its original 1947 blue, and again in the post 1949 yellow livery which had previously been the sole preserve of the trolleybus fleet. The Roe body was one of those timeless classics that would look good in almost any livery. I rather think that as well as those bodied by Roe, the MCW bodied Daimlers also had a window on the stairs, but if memory serves, at some stage they were all either removed or painted out.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

20/11/14 – 11:43

Birmingham (JOJ) and Glasgow (FYS and SGD) reserved large blocks of registrations which were issued over several years. Almost all the FYS block was issued to buses and trolleybuses over the years 1949 to 1958, followed by SGD 1958 to 1964, when the year-letter phase began. Devon issued LTA registrations to Western/Southern National for buses new between 1949 and 1953.

Geoff Kerr

21/11/14 – 06:37

In Leeds while the buses were registered in blocks there was never a special series for them On the other hand all the city council ambulances were given the registration — 999!
In complete contrast West Yorkshire never used blocks of registrations even for a single batch of buses being quite content to take what the licensing office offered and if the number matched the fleet number it was very definitely good luck and not good management!

Chris Hough

21/11/14 – 10:20

Nottingham (after WW2 but not before) invariably had blocks of reg numbers that corresponded to the fleet numbers. All were in the KTV series until the big fleet of 72 Regent/Park Royals, supplied in 1953/54, took OTV 127-198, assuming the fleet numbers of Regents supplied 1934-36. Even then there was clearly some agreement with the licensing authority, since these followed on neatly from the 1949 series of Regent/Metro-Cammells KTV 97-126, which in turn took on fleet numbers previously carried by defunct 1931 Regents.

Stephen Ford

21/11/14 – 15:23

Portsmouth Corporation seemed to use whatever registrations were available in the pre-war and early post-war period. I suspect that the 1939 Leyland Cheetahs were numbered 41-46 to coincide with the allocated registrations BBK941-946. Post-war, Crossley DD42/5T No 28 was also coincidentally registered EBK 28. The others of the batch (EBK 23-27) carried numbers 11-15. The Corporation was "gap-filling" it’s number series at this stage. In the 1950’s, the Corporation had a policy of booking registrations in batches in ending 999. Thus we had 25 PD2s GTP 975-999 (58-82, 1952); 25 PD2s LRV 975-999 (83-107, 1956; 15 PD2s ORV 985-999 (108-122, 1958); 5 PD3s STP 995-999 (123-127, 1959), and 10 Tiger Cubs TTP 990-999 (16-25, 1959). After this the Corporation booked registrations that matched the fleet numbers in what was becoming the "normal fashion" across the industry from the 1960s (although I accept it wasn’t universal practice). As referred to above, it was usually ambulances or fire engines that had a "999" registration, not buses. The buses registered with a "999" didn’t go any faster than the rest, but 122 had a different and marvellous sounding exhaust note during it’s early life – certainly until c.1964/65 – very sporty! .

Michael Hampton

21/11/14 – 17:44

The West Yorkshire Road Car Company did use year block registrations in the period 1934 to 1939 and again from 1946 to 1956. An example for 1935 illustrates the method used. YG 8968 – 9015 registration marks were used for Dennis Lancet 1, Dennis Ace, Bristol G05G and Bristol J05G types. Another example used in 1952/53 were LWR 405 – 435 registration marks issued for a Bedford van, Bristol LS6G, Bristol KSW6B, Bristol KSW6G and Bristol LS5G types. Other letter groups with mixed bus types were BWT, CWT, DWU, EWY, FWX, GWX, JWU, JYG, KWU and OWX. I have omitted AWW as one mark missing in the sequence was AWW 160. After 1956 this practice of mixed bus types in registration groups ceased and shorter runs as described by Chris H were then the norm.

Richard Fieldhouse

22/11/14 – 08:58

I remember in 1967 Nottinghamshire used a block of registrations across 3 companies which as a youngster I thought unusual.
SRB 59F to SRB 65F Mansfield District Lodekkas,
SRB 66/67F Midland General REs,
SRB 68F to SRB 80F Midland General Lodekkas,
SRB 81F to SRB 90F Chesterfield Corporation Panthers.
Mansfield District and Midland General were linked so possibly you could argue it was 2 companies. Does anybody remember anything similar elsewhere?

David Hargraves

22/11/14 – 14:05

Interesting, David – especially as Chesterfield is in Derbyshire! I wonder if the Panthers were an order that was actually diverted to Chesterfield for some reason?

Stephen Ford

22/11/14 – 16:37

In 1967 wasn’t RB a Derbyshire registration? It only became Nottinghamshire later.

KC

22/11/14 – 17:17

‘RB’ was a Derbyshire mark, and the Chesterfield Panthers naturally received Derbyshire registrations. Midland General/Notts & Derby vehicles were registered in Derbyshire up to c.1972, then Derby CBC in 1973/4 (was this after the Trent ‘takeover’?), then Nottingham LVLO.
Mansfield & District vehicles were registered in Derbyshire from 1967 to at least 1970.
Interestingly, the Chesterfield Panthers were fleet numbers 81-90, following on from Roadliners 71-80, so it may have been the Panthers which somehow dictated the above sequence.
I am sure there would have been many more instances of bus registrations following on from one fleet to another, not least because bus and coach registrations once constituted a much higher proportion of the total than they do now. Off the top of my head I recall that (c.1950) DRN241-90 were Ribble 1301-50 and DRN291-310 Preston 8-27 (all PD2s); DRN341-54 were Ribble 284-97 (Sentinels) and DRN355-67 were Scout (Royal Tigers, PD2s, and a Bedford). Don’t forget that there was ostensibly no corporate connection between Ribble and Scout in those days.

David Call

23/11/14 – 06:39

Newcastle Taxation Office allocated reversed JVK exclusively for Newcastle Corporation Transport buses and other municipal vehicles. The mark was first issued in November 1959 and remained in use until December 1963. Newcastle commenced suffix marks on 2 January, 1964.
One of the most intriguing registration features was Liverpool which issued FKF to Liverpool City Transport buses covering the D, E and G suffix.

Kevin Hey

23/11/14 – 09:32

Newcastle Corporation in fact had a pretty good record of matching registrations and panel numbers, as they called them, but only from 1937 onwards. That year saw the arrival of 174-95, Daimler COG5s with MCCW, NCB or EEC (low-bridge) bodies, registered FVK 174-95. The practice continued up to 244 then fell away a little for numbers 245-50, utility-bodied vehicles delivered in 1942 and 1943 as JTN 505/6, JTN 607/8 (Guy Arabs) and JTN 619/20 (Daimler CWG5s).
A new numbering series started from 1 in 1945 but single and double digit registration numbers generally weren’t used. Buses up to 86 had three-digit registration numbers, with the last one or two digits matching the panel numbers. Perhaps in those days there was already a demand for ‘cherished’ low number plates for the few who could afford a posh car to go with them and had the influence to fix it when registering their vehicles! 1 to 86 were registered JVK 421-5, JVK 613-58 and KVK 959-86. Note the gap 6 to 12, more of which anon. From no. 87 onwards the numbers were synchronised.
It’s not really the case that use of the KVK 9xx series was spread over several years. It only covered 3 batches of vehicles in the 59-86 range (59-72 the fourteen Birmingham-style CVG6s, 73-83 eleven more CVG6s with Roe bodies and 84-6 the three Regent/Roes you refer to). These were delivered out of sequence; the two Roe bodied batches in mid-1947 and the Birminghams in mid-1948. More interesting in terms of variety is the 13-58 range, covering no fewer than five batches, all registered JVK 613-58 and delivered between December 1945 and June 1946. Eighteen of these, 41-58, were the single-deckers required for tram replacement on the Scotswood-Throckley route where the narrow and fragile road bridges at Lemington, from which the trams had long been diverted, precluded the use of double-deckers. Of these, eight were Guy Arab 5LWs with Massey bodies (51-58) so that’s another marque to add to your list! 41-50 were AEC Regal/Harringtons. Here’s an undated pic of Regal 41 or 44 on what looks like an inspection visit to Sugley Bridge at Lemington. I think that’s a Regent/Park Royal semi-utility of the 37-40 batch lurking in a side street. All those buildings in the background still exist.

As regards 84-6, I THINK that they might have been part of the small number (70?) of London Transport RT specification chassis released to provincial operators in 1946/7. 84-86 had the RT chassis designation 0961. Provincial Regent IIIs were allocated 0961/2 in 1947, later to become 9612. See Non London Transport RTs for more background. Here’s a higher resolution zoom-in of your shot of 86 showing the gear pre-selector just below the steering wheel. Squint and you’ll see it!

All in all Newcastle took delivery of 245 motor buses (1-11/3-136, 164-73, 251-350) and 186 trolleybuses (443-628) from 1946-1950, enabling a clear-out of many pre-war vehicles and of course the last of the trams in 1950. Note that the new panel number series that started in 1945 had reached 136 by 1948 but with a further 100 buses due for delivery in 1949 and 1950 the 60 or so surviving pre-war vehicles (147-250, with gaps) would have required re-numbering. This was avoided by switching back to the original 1-250 series and using 251 to 350 for the 1949/50 deliveries, with 164-73 (see question 2 below) later becoming 364-73 when new AEC Regent Vs arrived in 1956. You’ve guessed it – the AECs were numbered 137 onwards… Just to spoil the story, 351-3 (PD2/Orions) had appeared in 1954 as UTN 851-3.

Now, can anyone help with a couple of questions:

1. Why was there a gap from 6 to 12 in the post-war panel number series? Newcastle had managed in 1945 to acquire five Daimler CWA6 chassis numbered 1-5 (JVK 421-5) and fitted them with second-hand pre-war bodies in 1945/6/7, then re-bodied all five at Mann Egerton in 1950. The next new vehicles to arrive after 1-5, in late 1945, were numbered 13 onwards. The 6-12 gap was eventually partially filled four years later in 1949 when six all-Leyland low-bridge deckers arrived, being numbered 6-11 and somehow acquiring matching registrations LVK 6-11. Was a batch cancelled before delivery c1945 that might have become 1-12 (or 6-12) and if so what were the details?

2. What was the reason for the arrival in 1948 of the odd batch of Daimler CVD6s single-deckers with Willowbrook bodies, numbered out-of-range as 164-73 (LTN 464-73)? These were diverted from local independent Venture who had already ordered 60 of this combination. The 164-73 range matched that of the ten pre-war Daimler COS4 single deckers (the S designated locally manufactured Armstrong-Saurer engines) that had been transferred to United AS in 1938 with the Branch End set of services, thus creating a convenient panel number gap. Given the eighteen single deckers that arrived in 1946 why were ten more acquired so soon

Tony Fox

23/11/14 – 11:40

Many local taxation offices used 1-99 for motor bikes or local authority vehicles. North Western had LDB 701-LDB 800 allocate in January 1957 and used LDB800 in mid 1960 by which time Stockport was issuing RDB, again NWRC. was allocated a batch which took about 20 months to use.
Manchester Corporation was allocated JND 601-JND 800 in the autumn of 1948. JND 751-JND 800 were used between 10/48 and 02/49 on a batch of Crossleys.
JND 601-JND 700 appeared on a batch of PD2s split between MCW and Leyland bodies between 05/51 and 02/52. In the meantime, JNA 401-JNA 500 had appeared on a batch of MCW bodied PD1s between 01/49 and 05/49! JND 701-JND 750 were allocated to a batch of Daimler CVG6s, bodied by MCW which arrived between 09/50 and 03/51.
In 1953 Manchester received the allocation of NNB 101-NNB 299. NNB 101-118 and 120-125 were placed on a variety of Northern Counties bodied Royal Tigers. 119 and 126-129 were not used. The buses were delivered between 05/53 and 10/53.
NNB 130-NNB 135 were also Royal Tigers with Bond and Burlingham airport coaches, delivered 08/53 -10/53.
NNB 140-NNB 169 were PD2s with NCME bodies delivered between 11/53 and 06/54. Previously NNB 170-NNB 209 had arrived between 07/53 and 10/53 as PD2s with Leyland bodies.
NNB 210-NNB 299 were Daimler CVG6s split between 80 MCW unique to Manchester bodies and 10 MCW Orion bodies delivered between 11/53 and 02/55.
The unused NNB 136-NNB 139 eventually appeared in August 1956 on Tiger Cubs with Burlingham airport coach bodies.
After this, registration batches were requested once a delivery date was firmed up so registrations were very much in date. There was one last glitch. Fleet lines 4701-4760 should have been delivered as DNF 701C-DNF 760C in 1965. Late delivery meant that only 4701-4706 arrived in 1965. 4707-4712 arrived in January 1966 and 4713-4730 arrived in February. The registrations had already been allocated so the vehicles were all taxed in December 1965.
The delays continued and 4731-4760 were then allocated FNE 731D-FNE 760D. 4731-4740 all arrived in December 1966. 4741-4760 were not delivered until January 1967 but were taxed in December 1966 to avoid a registration change.

Phil Blinkhorn

24/11/14 – 06:40

I bought a car back in the mists of time and asked for a "nice" number: so the dealer just phoned the taxation office and said "Can I have a motorcycle number please" and there we were…

Joe

24/11/14 – 06:42

Stockport Taxation office allocated DB 5000-5299 to North Western Road Car Co. issued over the period February, 1924 to March, 1929. This was followed by the block DB 9301-9500 between March, 1929 and March, 1932. Stockport completed the general DB sequence in 1930 and this superseded by JA.

Kevin Hey

25/11/14 – 06:39

On the other side of the Irish Sea, Coras Iompair Éireann frequently booked big blocks of Dublin registrations, as did its predecessor the Dublin United Tramways Company.
Between 1937 and 1940, the DUTC booked four blocks of ZC registrations totalling 250, as follows:
*ZC 701-750: Leyland Lion LT7 (fleet nos. N91-103) and Titan TD4 (R1-37)
*ZC 3751-3800: Titan TD4 (R38-50) and TD5 (R51-87)
*ZC 6601-6700: Titan TD5 (R88-187)
*ZC 8851-8900: Titan TD5 (R188-234) and TD7 (R235-7)
In 1948 and 1949, CIÉ booked two blocks of ZH registrations totalling 230:
*ZH 4440-4539: Titan PD2 (R291-390)
*ZH 6301-6430: Tiger OPS3 (P31-160)
However, P47 ended up being registered ZJ 1182 instead of ZH 6317. I’m guessing it did not enter service as soon as it was delivered, but was instead stored for some time beforehand.
Three blocks of ZJ registrations totalling 230 were booked during 1949 and 1950:
*ZJ 1351-1400: Titan PD2 (R391-440)
*ZJ 4405-4454: Titan OPD2 (R441-90)
*ZJ 5901-6030: Tiger OPS3 (P161-290)
P242 ended up being registered ZO 9646 instead of ZJ 5982 – again, I’m guessing it was stored for some time before entering service.
A single block of 163 registrations in the ZO series was booked in 1953:
*ZO 6801-6963: Tiger PS2 (P291-361), Royal Tiger PSU1 (U1-88) and Titan OPD2 (R541-4)
When three-letter registrations were introduced in 1954, CIÉ became somewhat modest – booking in blocks of only 70 until 1958…
*JRI 11-80: Titan OPD2 (R581-650)
*BIK 251-320: Titan OPD2 (R651-720)
*OIK 925-994: Titan OPD2 (R729-98)
*CYI 601-670: Titan OPD2 (R799-833) and PD3 (RA1-35)
…then in blocks of just 60 until 1961.
*OYI 801-860: Titan PD3 (RA36-95)
*CZA 661-720: Leopard L2 (E1-60)
*HZA 221-280: Titan PD3 (RA96-152) and AEC Regent V (AA1-3)
However, in 1964, it booked EZH 1-255 for its first C-class Leopard PSU3s, which became the first vehicles to carry matching registrations. Then in 1966, it booked its biggest block, VZI 1-340, for its first D-class Atlanteans.
In 1967, it booked EZL 1-230 for its first SS-class Bedford VAS5 and SB5 school buses. PZO 261-522 were booked in 1968 for SS261-522, followed by UZU 523-646 in 1969 for SS523-646.
Reversed registrations began in 1970, and CIÉ wasted no time in booking 1-213 IK for its M-class Leopard PSU5s, and 341-410 IK for Atlanteans D341-410. In 1972, 411-554 ZD were booked for D411-554, and in 1973 701-770 ZI and 603-753 ZO were booked for SS701-70 and D603-753 respectively.
By this time, CIÉ’s relationship with Leyland was deteriorating, and so a lull followed until the tie-up with Bombardier and GAC. In 1981, 2-201 JZL were booked for Bombardier double-deckers KD2-201, followed by 202-300 OZU in 1982 for KD202-300.
Finally, in 1985, EZV 2-120 were booked for GAC rural buses KR2-120 (the ZV code had been allocated to Dublin in 1981 along with SI, ZG and ZS, as it was running out of registrations featuring its original codes). By then, the current year-county-serial registration system was on the horizon, as was the transfer of CIÉ’s bus operations to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.

Des Elmes

13/04/19 – 06:08

Bit late to this discussion on registration numbers but a bit of information on Burys numbers. Until the 1949-50 batch of PD2/4s were delivered the fleet numbers and registrations did not match. This group of 25 buses were 151 to 175 and the registration numbers were EN 9551 to 9555 and 9956 to 9975.
From them on the fleet and registrations matched with the next ones being BEN 176 to 186,the single Deckers were then numbered in a separate series, the AEC Reliances being 81 to 86 and registered FEN 81 to 86.
The numbers continued to match until the year suffix letters were added which started with C as Bury didn’t use A or B letters. The 1965 Fleet lines were AEN 832 to 837C, which were 132 to 137.
Finally,at the very end of its existence in 1969 a new numbering series started at 1 with Atlanteans 1-3 being KEN 231-3G.

David Pomfret

Rochdale Corporation Welfare Dept.
1949
AEC Regal III 9621E
Roe B33F

BCP 543 was originally one of twenty-two AEC Regal III 9621E’s with Roe B32R bodies delivered to the Halifax Corporation and JOC fleets in 1949, and was numbered 268. Fourteen of them, including 268, were rebuilt at Skircoat Road workshops during 1953/54 to B33F layout and with modifications made to the front bulkhead to allow for one-man-operation.  These were also for a time repainted into a livery of cream with a single orange band to draw attention to the fact that they were OMO and in connection with them being used for the local Countryside Tours during the summertime and bank holidays, though they were returned to standard bus livery later. Withdrawn in 1964, 268 was sold to the Rochdale Corporation Welfare Department who rebuilt it with a rear tail-lift for the transport of disabled people and numbered it 500. They renumbered it 900 in 1970, and it was withdrawn and sold for scrap in 1972.
Though Roe’s teak body framing always had an enviable reputation for strength and longevity, when Halifax Corporation had carried out its modifications, the cutting of an aperture in the nearside for the forward entrance directly opposite another on the offside for the emergency exit, along with the bulkhead alterations caused a significant weak spot across the bodywork at that point, and the resultant sag in frame stands out quite clearly – particularly in the offside view above. The nine Regals that retained their rear entrances remained sound until the end – which unfortunately came rather early, some going as early as 1958 and the last one in 1962. Lovely little buses.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

21/10/14 – 06:19

Although allocated to the Rochdale Welfare Department this bus received what was then the current Rochdale Corporation bus fleet livery with the exception that the blue band was a lighter shade. This is interesting as when the new predominantly cream Rochdale bus livery was being introduced in the early 1960’s, two vehicles wore this lighter blue band for a very short period before the darker Oxford Blue trim as pioneered on AEC Regent V no.277 was adopted as the new standard. These were Daimler CVG6 no.238 and AEC Regal IV no.12. I seem to recall the light blue only lasted a matter of weeks on these vehicles before the Oxford Blue replaced it.
At the time as a schoolboy spotter I was quite excited about this new livery but once it began to replace the streamlined blue and cream across the whole fleet I came to hate it. It was bland and totally impractical for a northern industrial town where the atmosphere in those days was mucky to say the least.

Philip Halstead

22/10/14 – 07:17

The lighter blue was worn by 12 and 238, and also on delivery by new Weymann bodied Reliances 16 – 20 (3116 – 3120 DK). It didn’t last on these, of course. The blue adopted as standard was the same shade of blue as used on the much lamented "streamlined" livery.

Don McKeown

22/10/14 – 17:59

Daimler CVG6 number 238 was always easily identifiable because the rubbers holding the destination blind glasses were painted cream whereas it was usual to mask them over during repaint so they remained black. By the way 16-20 were 2116-2120 DK.

David Slater

15/11/17 – 07:17

Re rad blankets PD2 exposed rads had a plate about one foot deep but full width. It appeared to be in the middle because that was the bottom of the cooling tubes. The lower section of the rad was a dummy. Also with the blanker fitted on the outside there was a 2 to 3 inch gap to the actual tubes which would seriously reduce the warming effect. In effect as the thermostats were pre wax type generally they failed inside a year so the engines always ran cooler than the designed temperature. Even in summer

Mr Anon