Old Bus Photos

West Hartlepool Corporation – Daimler CWD6 – EF 7942 – 14

West Hartlepool Corporation - Daimler CWD6 - EF 7942 - 14
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

West Hartlepool Corporation
1947
Daimler CWD6
Roe H28/22C

The above shot shows one of West Hartlepool Corporation centre-entrance double deckers, this style of bodywork dated at West Hartlepool from the late thirties onwards although there were some post-war 8 foot wide examples. This style was also popular with Sunderland and a few other operators.
My question is if anyone knows why on earth the operators wanted this design in the first place.
I can just about remember them in service, and they were quaint if nothing else. By the time that I knew them they were used mainly on the lightly trafficked routes 2 and 3 to the Park area, and for duplicates and specials.
On entering the wide centre door there were two separate compartments, front and back, and if I remember rightly these had their own sliding doors, rather like a railway compartment of the time. At least some of the seating was bench seating, which in the rear compartment would cover the wheel arch, and I suspect that each compartment held ten passengers. Opposite the door the staircase divided into two, fore and aft, hence the wide blank area seen in the offside view. Upstairs the seating was effectively divided into three parts, to the front, rear and some further seats between the stair heads (possibly 3 rows of seats at the front, two at the rear, and four double seats in between). Whilst the exact configuration is a mixture of guesswork and memory the stated capacity was H48C; the 8 foot wide models were H50C, and I think this was achieved by fitting a single centre seat facing backwards from the front bulkhead and the centre of the rear compartment.
The fleet were withdrawn in the mid 50s, and the older models were scrapped (although I believe that at least one was preserved); the newer models were rebodied as H59R.
As this layout would have been readily available when they were built I have always wondered why anyone would want a design which must have been more difficult to build, a conductor’s nightmare, and which involved the loss of capacity for about ten extra passengers!

Photograph and Copy contributed by David Todd

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.


29/01/12 – 09:28

Just a memory from the mists of time, but I believe that the appeal of this design was speed of loading on busy routes. Its easy to see that this was a very valid consideration as the long awkward queues to access the traditional front or rear exits in both saloons were at least halved, if not eliminated altogether. The same or a similar principle applies today for operators who insist on avoiding centre exits on colossal modern vehicles holding approaching one hundred passengers. I have personal experience of the disastrous effect on timekeeping (and convenience) on busy services with today’s single doorway giants – even now I’m retired I sit in exasperation while watching the inevitable battle between those struggling to alight and the incoming hordes paying and looking for space. So, in summary, the old centre doorway and two staircases was a very good idea indeed.

Chris Youhill


29/01/12 – 11:19

West Riding "Red" buses were something like this configuration, too. There was supposed to be a mysterious connection with the trams that they replaced. The double-deck RER trains in Paris have a similar system, but the door is between decks. Anything has to be better than the present OMO arrangements on awkwardly seated double deckers which tumble you to the front at stops!

Joe


29/01/12 – 16:04

Joe I don’t think that its a mysterious link with the old trams – simply a rather lovely long lasting legend. Arriva service 110 from Leeds to Wakefield, Sandal, Kettlethorpe and Hall Green, formerly West Riding number 10, is still to this day referred by staff as "The track." I loved working on that route – to this very day you can still sense the honest hard working "no nonsense" atmosphere of long ago despite the somewhat different vehicular equipment – its impossible to imagine one of the centre entrance red Mark 3 Regents being called "Jonathan Ross" – oh dear, I must take a lie down and a glass of Sanatogen !!

Chris Youhill


29/01/12 – 16:05

The main exponent of the centre entrance double decker was of course Blackpool with large fleets of both pre- and post-war Leyland Titans with this arrangement. These were the brainchild of General Manager Walter Luff who I believe specified the design to maintain a ‘family’ similarity with the ‘Baloon’ tramcars built in the 1930’s, many of which are still in existence although with much rebuilding.
The post-war PD2’s were 8 feet wide with fully-fronted locally built Burlingham bodywork and only had a single staircase but otherwise followed a similar arrangement to the West Hartlepool vehicles with two distinct (forward and rear) lower saloons. The entrances were fitted with powered sliding doors and the vehicles were extremely well-appointed inside with lined-out ceilings and coach style moulded glass light fittings.
They were the mainstay of the Blackpool fleet when as a child I was taken to Blackpool for family holidays. I thought they were magnificent. I was most disappointed when new buses arrived in 1959 with boring open rear platforms due to a change of policy after Mr Luff retired to be replaced by a new manager.
It is ironic that after having buses with doors in the 40’s and 50’s, Blackpool stuck with open platform rear-entrance PD2’s and PD3’s when many Lancashire operators were adopting the forward entrance arrangement pioneered in the area by Ribble.
The last buses with this arrangement to enter service in the UK to my knowledge were the SHMD Daimler CVG6’s and solitary Atkinson in the late fifties. I believe the GM at SHMD at the time had served at Blackpool under Walter Luff at some stage in his career.

Philip Halstead


29/01/12 – 16:07

I had never seen anything like this until I was taken to Blackpool as a youngster, they of course had a whole fleet of Burlingham bodied centre entrance PD2’s. I can see the advantages of this layout, but they must have been a nightmare for the conductors at peak times, as no matter which way you went first, their would always be someone at the other side of the entrance who was only going a couple of stops and could avoid paying.

Ronnie Hoye


29/01/12 – 16:08

Yorkshire Woollen purchased a number of Leylands to this configuration in the 1930s for tram replacement.They were nicknamed locally as :room and two kitchens.

Philip Carlton


29/01/12 – 17:38

No less than seven of the magnificent Yorkshire Woollen TDs later served, on far gentler services, in Bridlington – not a Dewsbury style incline to be seen anywhere. Williamsons had HD 4629/4630/4801/4803/4810, all of which retained the beautiful YWD elaborate fleet numbers inside.
HD 4625/4631 with White Bus ventured "long distance" as far as Sewerby and Flamborough.

Chris Youhill


30/01/12 – 07:42

White Bus travelled a fair old ‘long distance’, Chris Y, which I’d have thought would have taken a couple of hours at least.

Chris Hebbron


30/01/12 – 07:42

Were these vehicles stored for a time before bodying? I’m not disputing the date which is borne out by the West Hartlepool fleet list but 1947 seems rather late for a CWD6. The CV had become well established by then.

Chris Barker


30/01/12 – 07:43

Grimsby Corporation also favoured centre entrance vehicles (AEC Regents, and some trolleybuses) in the 1930s – all, I think, with Roe bodies. I can just remember travelling on one of the Regents from Riby Square to Old Clee the first time I visited relatives in the area. This would be December 1956. I don’t think any of them survived to be absorbed into the Grimsby-Cleethorpes joint committee, formed the following year.

Stephen Ford


30/01/12 – 11:05

I seem to remember that the centre staircase design was subject to legal action with English Electric (Preston) resolved with a licensing agreement between the two companies.

David Oldfield


30/01/12 – 16:09

I know what you mean Chris H about the "long distance" but the dear old TD1s would have surprised us !! I daresay that years of conquering the mountainous Dewsbury district terrain stood them in good stead for their genteel retirement on the East coast – and possibly the bracing North Sea air was like nectar to carburettors accustomed to industrial smog. In the event they managed the journey time to North Landing (25 minutes out, 23 return) and Lighthouse (28 minutes each way) with scarcely a minute lost or an asthmatic gasp !!

Chris Youhill


30/01/12 – 16:11

Mr Whitely, the Grimsby gm. worked very closely with Roe on the centre entrance idea, designed to speed loading. This was in 1930, and Roe had some success in marketing the concept, BCN becoming early users too.Just who owned the patent though, as David points out, is questionable, as EEC produced a batch of centre entrance Regents for Nottingham in 1929, and Roe "fell out" with Brush in 1931 after the latter also built some vehicles, some on Crossley chassis, for BCN during that year.
As Chris says, White Bus, and Williamson of Bridlington took several C/E Roe TD2s from YWD in the early post war period, which I remember with elation (!), but Sewerby and Flamborough are only a short distance from Brid. (Re. comment by Chris H.)
Regarding the Blackpool connection, I think Walter Luff brought his C/E ideas with him from West Riding, when he became BCT gm. in 1933.

John Whitaker


31/01/12 – 08:00

Regarding the Y.W.D centre entrance double deckers. The majority were bodied by Roe but in 1933 269-277 were bodied by Weymann. According to the publication of the history of Weymann they had to pay Roe royalties as Roe held the patent for this style of body.

Philip Carlton


31/01/12 – 15:20

Aw, shucks, Chris Y, you’re so good at all that poetic stuff! But well put and I’m picturing the ride now, although I’d rather live it!
I take it the shorter time back from North Landing was because of the bracing easterly breeze off the North Sea!

Chris Hebbron


01/02/12 – 07:51

Were the entrances open to elements, or did they have doors? Pictures of the Grimsby ones seem to show outward-hinged swing doors at the top of the steps, but on every picture they are open. The rear compartment must have scooped up those icy blasts off the North Sea, in either Grimsby or West Hartlepool, at this time of the year. Definitely the seats of last resort for the cognoscenti!

Stephen Ford


01/02/12 – 16:28

I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments on the practical pros and cons of the centre-entrance twin-staircase layout, but most of all I love the sheer character of this wonderful W Hartlepool bus. Livery, unfailingly handsome Roe bodywork, the sit-up-and-beg look, two-letter registration—it’s got everything! I rode as an 8-yr-old on a Venture of Basingstoke (ex-Burnley 76) which must have got the fascination going.
At least one centre-entrance Grimsby decker(1931 body on 1935 chassis) mentioned by Stephen Ford was still in the depot at Easter 1957.
I had a peep at the W Hartlepool fleet list and notice that very early withdrawal (11-12 years) was the policy for a good while. Little chance, then, that EF could ever have been preserved!

Ian Thompson


01/02/12 – 16:28

Thanks Chris H – I do think that a bit of different terminology adds to already fascinating topics sometimes. I found the different running times to be puzzling – its a long time ago – but on reflection I think that the outward journey to North Landing was via Prospect Street, the cenotaph, and various minor thoroughfares before joining the main Flamborough Road somewhere near Fortyfoot. The return was via the main road and the Promenade to Queen Street and therefore probably easier and slightly quicker. This doesn’t explain though why Lighthouse was the same both ways ??

Chris Youhill


02/02/12 – 06:48

Either Chris or Peter have got a bit lost! Those buses are now working a service from Bridlington to West Hartlepool, as if Dewsbury wasn’t bad enough!

David Beilby


02/02/12 – 06:49

Thanks Ian. I found a comment on Flickr to the effect that a number of the Grimsby Regents survived to 1958, but none were every repainted blue and cream. Three of the Regents (fleet numbers 60-62) received conventional East Lancashire replacement bodies during the war, after bomb damage to Victoria Street depot destroyed their centre entrance superstructures.

Stephen Ford


02/02/12 – 06:50

Ian An older Leyland Titan with this style of body is preserved this is a 1942 "unfrozen "TD7 with Roe centre entrance bodywork 36 EF 3780

Chris Hough


07/02/12 – 10:59

Thanks, Chris H, for welcome news of EF 3780’s survival. Where does it live?

Ian Thompson


16/02/12 – 16:04

Regarding the patents for centre entrance double deck bodies in the 1929/31 period, the published material states that the patent was held jointly between EEC and Roe, and that royalties were payable by other builders. EEC produced a batch in 1929 for Nottingham BEFORE the Grimsby prototype, so presumably the 2 concerns were working in unison. It would be of interest to find out if there were any design differences between the two at this early stage, with regard to stair layout etc.
The Blackpool connection is interesting, as Walter Luff had experience of the Roe variety at West Riding, and early Blackpool TD3s were built by EEC and Roe. I remember reading somewhere that the Burlingham TD3s had several EEC features included in their design, as well as the centre entrance, and this practice could well have been a follow on from the Blackpool rear entrance TD2s, which are given as bodied by Burlingham, but look (to me anyway), just like standard EEC composite bodies of the period.

John Whitaker


17/02/12 – 11:40

In my gallery there is a series of photos of an English Electric-bodied Leyland Titanic for Bury which had a centre entrance. These show all angles so will be good for comparison with other designs. //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com  takes you to the first image.

David Beilby


17/02/12 – 16:06

I have checked the "full on" staircase view of the Bury "Titanic" with a similar angle photograph of the YWD TD2s, and I cannot highlight a difference in stair layout.
Can I say how much pleasure I have had looking at your gallery of pre war EEC bodies etc.
Any chance of any more Bradford pre-wars ?

John Whitaker


18/02/12 – 07:04

John – you’ll be pleased to know I have a big Bradford project going on at the moment which I’m sure you’ll find of interest! It will be live in about a month – in the meantime I’ve got a lot of work to do!

David Beilby


EF 7942_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


13/09/13 – 08:30

The centre-entrance topic died long before this 2013 posting but I can add that I travelled on the six S.H.M.D. Daimlers and the single Atkinson 40-odd years ago and they were warmer in winter than their back-loader successors (the doors never seemed to be a handicap to the crews, either). Both West Hartlepool and Sunderland seem to have given a higher priority to the ever-present "Shop at Binns" ad than to giving would-be passengers a comprehensive, decent-sized, route-indicator display did Binns have some kind of hold on North-East bus-operators to be able to get such prominent placing for their name?

John Hardman


13/09/13 – 16:30

With regard to your last sentence John, the answer to the "some kind of hold" is I’m sure a simple one – "Revenue" !!
Interesting also is the full size advertisement on the CWD6 – DULUX, the four small words being "Fine paints, Fine decoration." This was an extremely smart advertisement with dark blue base and cream/white lettering, and it was used virtually nationwide on many operators’ buses, including good old Samuel Ledgard’s vehicles.

Chris Youhill


13/09/13 – 16:30

That’s an interesting comment John. Logic suggests that they would be warmer – but only provided the doors were closed. If not, the saloon to the rear of the entrance would be scooping in circulating currents of cold air – nice on hot Summer days, but not in November with an easterly off the North Sea! My experience with the Barton’s front entrance PD1/Duples, which often ran with the doors open, was that they were draughtier than open platform back-loaders

Stephen Ford


I’m afraid I can’t agree with your remarks about the ‘Shop at Binns’ advert. It’s a point which could reasonably be made about some SDO ‘deckers of that era which had very narrow destination apertures and no route number but they were, after the mid-’50s, the exception rather than the rule.
West Hartlepool destinations were of perfectly adequate size – larger than many, in fact – and the route number box is to be found under the canopy (on this one, showing ‘2’).
Sunderland Corporation didn’t introduce route numbers until 3 July 1953. This was one of many innovations proposed and implemented by Norman Morton during his tenure as General Manager. Mr Morton had been appointed twelve months earlier and older buses were either rebuilt to carry a route number box alongside the destination display or fitted with number boxes under the canopy similar to that on WHCT 14 above. Mr Morton also recommended that the red livery, which was very similar to that used by Northern General, be replaced by green and cream and that the ‘Shop at Binns’ advert be standardised on a style also not dissimilar to that on 14 above. It has to be said that some the earlier ‘Shop at Binns’ adverts on Sunderland buses and trams did dominate the destination display which, on buses, consisted of two boxes, either alongside one another or above one another depending on the vehicle, one showing the destination and the other showing ‘SCT’.

Alan Hall


 

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

 


 

Oldham Corporation – Leyland Titan – PBU 951 – 451

Oldham Corporation - Leyland Titan - PBU 951 - 451
Copyright David Butterworth

Oldham Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/30
Roe H35/28R

I Would like to contribute the above photo of Oldham Corporation 451 taken after its first repaint – so minus the waistrail white stripe and the intricate lining out (abandoned when these vehicles were repainted in 1965). The interior paintwork was changed also from the original hammered metal finish to a plain cream finish on the majority of the buses.
The first example of this batch to receive a repaint was 439, in January 1965, after substantial repairs following a serious front end collision the previous summer, when it had ploughed into a terraced house on Manchester Road whilst operating on route 98. The Oldham Chronicle carried a story with a photo of 439 embedded in the house with its crumpled bodywork surrounded a pile of bricks. No one was injured apparently.
I well remember riding on it from school to home one evening in January 1965 on the B (later 21) route.

Photograph and Copy contributed by David Butterworth

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

———

23/01/12 – 07:52

These buses were a great favourite of mine. The Roe bodies were very well appointed and in the original livery with the red lining out they looked very classy. I rode on them frequently on the 9 route from Rochdale travelling to Watersheddings to watch the rugby. They were extremely comfortable and smooth riding. Oldham had a good team in those days and invariably beat Rochdale Hornets in the local derbies.
I agree the buses lost a bit of their class in the simplified livery, initially retaining the original maroon to be replaced later by the Pommard and Cream livery which Oldham adopted up to absorption into SELNEC. I understand there were problems with the maroon fading which led to the ultimate change to the purpley red shade of Pommard. Like most of the Manchester area half-cabs they didn’t look too good in the SELNEC orange and white.
They had a fair turn of speed and were much faster than Rochdale’s Gardner engined Regent V’s which often operated the Rochdale share of the 9 route which was jointly operated by Ashton, Oldham and Rochdale Corporations.
They also worked on the 24/90 Limited Stop service between Rochdale and Manchester where they could show their paces to good effect, particularly on the 90 which ran non-stop between Royton and Manchester.
The Roe bodied examples of Oldham’s large fleet of PD2’s always seemed to be a cut above the Northern Counties and Crossley bodied examples and there was definitely no contest with the Metro-Cammell Orions which were positively spartan by comparison.
The photo also shows us that Oldham was among the small band of operators that used route letters for some of their services. To set the hare running I can bring to mind others as Middlesbrough, Portsmouth and Exeter. I am sure someone will soon add some more!

Philip Halstead

———

23/01/12 – 10:15

Yorkshire Woollen District used route letters on their Dewsbury area tram replacement services.

John Stringer

———

24/01/12 – 05:57

Lettered bus routes sometimes came about when the bus routes came along in conjunction with the trams. The trams had the numbers, so the buses got the letters.
I’m intrigued about a reverse situation with Cheltenham, which always had route numbers, tram and bus, but, at some point, in recent years, changed over to letters.
Bizarre!

Chris Hebbron

———

24/01/12 – 15:45

Mexborough and Swinton used route letters until the trolleybuses were phased out in March, 1961, at which time they switched over to numbers.
Rotherham Corporation ran jointly on the trolleybus routes to Mexborough and Conisborough, the Rotherham saloons showing either 8 or 9, and the Mexboro’ Sunbeams ‘A’ or ‘B’ respectively, until the changeover.

Dave Careless

———

24/01/12 – 15:46

I seem to remember (from 1956) that Great Yarmouth had a mix of lettered and numbered routes. I think all the lettered ones went to Gorlestone, but not all Gorlestone services were lettered ones. I have the distinct memory that route 3 started from Newtown on the northern edge of Yarmouth, and terminated at "Gorlestone (Green Ace)" – presumably a hostelry!

Stephen Ford

———

25/01/12 – 13:14

Middlesbrough Corporation also used route letters. Teesside Municipal Transport carried on this tradition for a number of years.

Stephen Bloomfield

———

20/02/12 – 13:38

Cheltenham switched to letters in the late 1980s when the Gloucester and Swindon operation was separated from Bristol. Both Gloucester and Cheltenham started minibus operations under the Metro name, and to avoid confusion Gloucester went for numbered routes and Cheltenham went for lettered. The one Cheltenham town route that kept a number for a while longer was the Prestbury-town-Coronation Square route 2 (which had full sized buses), but that eventually became the A.

James McLaren

———

20/02/12 – 17:12

Thx, James, for the answer to my question. A strange decision, really, since that neither towns’ local services ever strayed beyond their boundaries before or after minibuses came along. Still, it makes for variety. Does anyone know of any other bus companies currently using lettered routes?

Chris Hebbron

———

21/02/12 – 07:15

The Hebden Bridge local services supported by Metro and operated by Tyrer Tours use letters A – E. These were introduced in 2003 when First commenced operating the revised services with Optare Solos and Aleros supplied by Metro.

Ian Wild

———

21/02/12 – 07:18

Stagecoach Devon’s Exeter city services are still designated by letters, and it seems that to a large extent they are the initial letters of the suburbs to which they run – e.g. P – Pennsylvania; A – Alphington.

Stephen Ford

———

12/01/13 – 16:15

Try Preston corporation buses. Fp was Farringdon Park and there would have been others.

Andrew


 

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

 


 

Huddersfield Corporation – Karrier E6 – AVH 497 – 497

 Huddersfield Corporation - Karrier E6 - AVH 497 - 497
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse

———

07/01/12 – 16:03

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

Joe

———

07/01/12 – 17:49

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

Eric

———

07/01/12 – 17:56

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

Stephen Ford

———

08/01/12 – 07:55

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

David Oldfield

———

08/01/12 – 07:56

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

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

Eric

———

08/01/12 – 07:57

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

Richard Fieldhouse

———

08/01/12 – 07:58

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

Dave Careless

———

08/01/12 – 07:58

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

Eric

———

08/01/12 – 16:35

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

Chris Hough

———

08/01/12 – 16:52

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

Joe

———

09/01/12 – 07:28

3203

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

David Beilby

———

09/01/12 – 07:29

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

Eric

———

10/01/12 – 07:15

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

Diesel Dave

———

11/01/12 – 06:40

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

Michael Hampton

———

11/01/12 – 08:51

!cid_DSCN0214

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

Richard Fieldhouse

———

15/01/12 – 07:14

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

Eric

 

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

 

497 close up 2497 close up 1

———

AVH 497_lr_2 Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

15/01/12 – 16:32

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

Joe

———

16/01/12 – 07:39

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

Eric

———

16/01/12 – 07:42

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

David Beilby


 

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 Wednesday 3rd January 2024