York Pullman Bus Company Ltd
1954
AEC Regent III 6812A 
Roe H33/25RD

The last in my collection of York Pullman vehicles, that’s worth showing that is, shot into sun again, apart from having my finger in front of the lens I couldn’t have got it more wrong. Anyway this shot does show off York Pullmans distinctive livery, there was a darker yellow band below the windows unfortunately the upper band does not show very well in this shot. York Pullman took delivery of three of these Regent IIIs in 1954 JDN 667-9  fleet numbers 63-5 fortunately number 64 was restored by Tony Peart to a very high standard and on his death passed to the Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society.

A full list of Regent III codes can be seen here.

———

Chassis, body, operator – almost perfection. [Well you know I prefer heavy weight AECs – or heavy anything, come to that!] …..and if my bad photos turned out like this one I’d be very happy.

David Oldfield

———

A very handsome vehicle in a very handsome livery, and the shadow cast by the sun shows the waist rail up a treat. For anyone interested, there is a video clip on ‘you tube’ aboard 64 (JDN 668), touring around Lincoln. Whilst watching and listening to this, I could not help thinking that the gearbox sounds were very similar to those of pre-war AECs. Was the gearbox of prewar design by any chance, or a modified version perhaps?

Brendan Smith

———

I suspect the aural beauty of all manual AEC boxes lay in their pre-war origins.

David Oldfield

———

I would also like to associate myself with the affection expressed for the music of the AEC manual gearbox. My early recollections are of Midland General specimens (including some pre-war front entrance Regents), various Trent examples, and later Grimsby’s ex-London Transport STLs. Just a few weeks ago I had the enjoyment of the same sounds on a preserved Regal/Strachans during the Kingsbridge 7ft 6in running day – all the way from Kingsbridge to Totnes and back – a hilly run with plenty of second and even first gear work.

Stephen Ford

———

Yet another vote here for the glorious sounds of the AEC manual gearboxes. The much travelled and totally rebuilt example that we had at Samuel Ledgard’s (FJW 938) was a fine example of the original sounds with further fascination from a good deal of wear – originally a Birmingham Corporation Regent 1 it arrived with us as a "Regal" coach with Burlingham bodywork (the rebuilding by Don Everall of Wolverhampton). It was a joy to work on but its raucous subtleties (if that’s not a contradiction in terms) didn’t filter through to the passengers – their loss of course !! When the new Regent Vs arrived further aural delights were to be enjoyed. These fine vehicles had a rather higher pitched and "purer" sound which disguised the already civilised and quiet 9.6 litre engines somewhat and gave a distinct "petrol" impression – those senior ones among us have experienced some glorious times which are not to be had on service work today.

Chris Youhill

———

Oh Chris. Don’t get me started again about STD Regents on the hills of Sheffield and Derbyshire!

David Oldfield

———

The place to stand, if I recall hazy memories, was the middle of Shude Hill in Sheffield as the many buses climbed towards High Street. The AEC’s, especially the "big bore" Regent V’s would blast hot exhaust across the central island, but the III’s would sometimes seem to have what we boy racers would call valve bounce. As for the tin-front Titans- was it more a sort of strangled wheeze? That may be inaccurate, but I do remember one Regent going up at full chat and a man saying to a woman next to me "that’ll singe tha nylons luv"!

Joe

——— Top of this posting ———

Doncaster Corporation
1969
Leyland Royal Tiger Cub
Roe B45D

A very rare Leyland, for these shores at any rate, was the Royal Tiger Cub.
Designed as an export chassis it sold in respectable numbers from Finland to New Zealand, even (when supplied as a kit of running gear) incorporated in DAB (Danish Automobile Building) integrals. The only chassis sold on the home market were for Doncaster Corporation who took twenty 33ft Roe bodied examples in two batches of ten in 1965 (type RTC1/1) and 1968 (type RTC1/2).
Although all were 33ft two door examples the body style differed between the two batches, the Roe bodywork on the second batch were similar to that supplied to Leeds and Huddersfield on their AEC Swifts.
The photo shows preserved number 55 which is an RTC1/2 of the second batch.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Andrew Charles

———

The Royal Tiger Cub was very much an anomaly. The Leopard – which became a classic – first arrived as a special for Sheffield (Corporation) Transport Department. Bodied as Weymann Fanfare coaches in summer 1959, the first six predated the Scottish Show model by several months and were recorded in Leyland books as PSUC1 (Tiger Cub) specials. By the time of the official launch in Glasgow later in the year, the Leopard L2/Plaxton of Milburn Motors introduced a new name and series. The Leopard was, therefore, a Tiger Cub but with 0.600 engine and Titan gearbox.
The only noticeable difference between the Royal Tiger Cub and Leopard was the 33′ length. Another case of micro managing slight differences in specification.
The first Doncaster RTC1 had "Real" Roe bodies – as seen just behind No 55 in the above shot.
As stated, 55 had Roe bodywork similar to Leeds, Huddersfield (and Sheffield) Swifts – on Park Royal frames.

David Oldfield

———

Just to offer photographic assistance to the comment made by one of your contributors about the body style of the first batch of Royal Tiger Cubs bought by DCT. See below for a better shot of the vehicle he refers to (which was partially hidden behind the subject of the original photo). In fact the first batch of RTC were not of this style Roe body but more like the batch prior to this which were on AEC Reliance chassis.
I don’t know whether those bodies had any Park Royal input but there were similarities in design features with Yorkshire Traction’s Park Royal Tiger Cubs, trim etc was different but there were similarities in appearance.
A significant difference was the absence of the traditional Roe ‘Trade rail’ below the windows although comparison with the Roe bodied ex Felix Reliance parked next to 33 shows that the trade rail was by no means a standard feature.

Andrew Charles

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport
1945
Sunbeam W
Roe H31/29R

In order to undertake the final tram replacement along Hessle Road, in 1945. The final trolleybus route commenced on 1st of July. To operate this route 18 trolleybus chassis were purchased from Sunbeam. The first 12 were bodied by Brush of Loughborough, but the final 6 were bodied by Leeds-based Charles Roe. Number 80 is one of this final batch, which entered service in November, 1945.
Originally the seating layout was H30/26R, but along with most of the earlier trolleybuses it was upseated to H31/29R configuration in 1948.
The black and white photo shows no 80 operation along Anlaby Road, near to the Boulevard, the latter being the terminus of route 71, which, incidentally, had the only trolleybus reverser on the whole system, located at Malm Street. 80 is operating the main 69 service, in the outbound direction. The blinds are of interest, as the front blind is the 1942 wartime version, but the rear blind is the original black on white type. It is carrying a healthy load of passengers despite being on a 5 minute headway.
The colour photo shows it returning to the city centre on Newland Avenue service 62. It is seen in King Edward Street nearing the terminus. Considering the austerity of the period when they were built, they are a very handsome vehicle.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Keith Easton

———

The front blind in the top photograph is not the wartime version – the wartime version was a large number only – the number and via only display was agreed in December 1945 and gradually introduced from 1947. The rear blind is not as originally made as the Anlaby Road service was to be numbered 65 (Hessle Road would have been 66) but the renumbering in February 1942 changed this to 99. The blind was changed simply by altering the number.

Malcolm Wells

———

Hi Malcolm, many thanks for your input clearing up details on trolleybuses, a lot of the information was mainly from memory, and it ain’t always what it used to be!

Keith Easton

———

The reference to service 99 in my previous comment was a typing error – it was 69.

Malcolm Wells

———

Hull`s first batch of trolleybuses were Leyland TB4s with composite Weymann bodies. Subsequent batches by Crossley and Leyland were bodied by East Lancs and Cravens, both well known for metal framed bodywork. If this is so, does anyone know why Hull changed policy here, only to revert to timber framing (Roe) post war?

John Whitaker

———

My initial reaction would be that Hull’s East Lancs and Cravens bodies were timber-framed. I don’t know in this specific instance, but it was generally preferred in trolleybuses as metal-framed trolleybuses had to have low voltage (instead of traction voltage) lighting and in those days that required a motor-generator set which was extra weight, expense and something else to maintain, so not preferred.
Huddersfield had many East Lancs-bodied trolleybuses but only ever one metal-framed one. The motor-generator set and the associated noise was the reason why (I learnt this from Roy Brook’s excellent book on that system.)

David Beilby

———

I`m pretty sure you are right Dave re the Hull Craven and East Lancs trolleybus bodies, although they must have been to special order to be timber framed.
Motor generator sets are not the only way of lighting a trolleybus with metal bodies though, Bradford, from 1935 dispensing with this item but still retaining English Electric and Weymann all-metal bodies. I can supply more detail on this if anyone is interested, but Bradford was a trolleybus pioneer in several ways at this time.

John Whitaker

———

The debate about use of timber &/or metal framed bodies for trolleybuses is both interesting and, for the most part, true. The premise, however, isn’t. It presupposes that the move to Roe composite from any other metal was retrograde. The fact is that Roe composite bodies right up to the end (1968) were far better quality than many metal framed bodies – and that includes Roe’s own (Park Royal designed) metal framed bodies which gradually replaced them.
Evidence also suggests that the quality of Craven bodies could be suspect and that rebodying of such vehicles was not unknown.

David Oldfield

———

Further to David Oldfield’s comment, Nottingham had a series of 45 Craven bodied AEC Regents supplied in 1938, and I understand they were always regarded as much inferior in build quality to the earlier (1936) Metro-Cammell equivalents. And the inferiority of the Craven bodied first generation DMUs for British Railways was legendary!

Stephen Ford

———

Bradford was indeed a pioneer with trolleybus development, as it worked with the English Electric Company to produce a new trolleybus control system called series dynamic and rheostatic braking (SD) in 1936. This SD control system became the standard adopted by the Ministry of War Transport for the Sunbeam W/Karrier W trolleybuses built from 1943 onwards. Most of the post war trolleybuses built had the SD system of control, which was the case with the London Transport BUT 9641T BUT Q1 class. These were significantly different to the London prewar fleet that all had regenerative braking control.

Richard Fieldhouse

———

No premise intended David!
Horses for courses and all that. I am one of the greatest Roe admirers, as were Bradford Corporation, with their BUTs 740-751 !

John Whitaker

———

03/02/12 – 06:26

Pontypridd Urban District Council Transport needed extra buses during World War II for the local town services (electrified) as the petrol buses were in great demand to transport workers to the then rapidly expanding Treforest Industrial Trading Estate, (war effort) near Pontypridd.
The Trolleybuses ran a regular route from Treforest village 2 miles south of Pontypridd (not to be confused with Tref Ind Est, 4 miles south of Pontypridd)through to Pontypridd and on to Cilfynydd (pronounced Kilvunith for non welsh speakers) 2 miles north of Pontypridd where the buses turned for the return journey.

Mike Ashcroft

———

05/02/12 – 06:44

The Hull Cravens bodies on Crossley TDD4 chassis were of composite construction in accordance with Hull Corporation Transport’s specification TC2 as were the East Lancashire bodied Leyland TB7s. The Cravens bodies received major overhauls in the early 1950s (no. 46 excepted which was withdrawn in December 1954). In addition, several received new or rebuilt platforms by 1959.
Hull’s Sunbeam F4s nos 91-100 had 8 feet wide Roe bodies similar to Bradford’s 740-751 but the interiors of the Hull vehicles were far superior to the Bradford bodies. I was surprised on the first visit to Bradford in 1961 (when 91 to 100 were still in service in Hull)at the difference.

Malcolm Wells