Old Bus Photos

Salford City Transport – Daimler CVG6 – CRJ 417 – 417

Salford City Transport - Daimler CVG6 - CRJ 417 - 417         Copyright Peter Williamson

Salford City Transport
1950
Daimler CVG6
Metro-Cammell H28/26R

Between 1950 and 1952 Salford City Transport placed in service 195 Daimler CVG6 double deckers with Metro-Cammell Phoenix bodies, all featuring Birmingham-style straight staircases and traditional polished wood interior window frames. Apart from another 15 CVG6s with Burlingham bodies purchased at the same time (a mixture of single and double deckers and a committee coach), there were no further additions to the fleet until 1962. For ten years, therefore, the Phoenixes acted as the backbone of the fleet, and outside the rush hour they would most likely be the only Salford buses to be seen by a casual visitor to the city. To me, they – and the spirited manner in which they were usually driven – were the very essence of Salford.
Here 417, dating from 1950, is seen in Victoria Bus Station in 1968, by the end of which there were still almost 70 survivors, the last 48 being passed on to SELNEC the following year.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Peter Williamson

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.


19/02/13 – 15:27

Victoria bus station shown here was in Salford but long-distance services terminating there showed "Manchester" as their destination!
The only local destination which Salford City Transport buses could not show was "Salford".

Geoff Kerr


19/02/13 – 16:01

Charles Baroth’s tweaking of the Phoenix design (straight staircase, destination screen winder assembly, and the fairing on the nearside front mudguard – not to mention the shortened radiator) made the two Salford batches distinctly different to the two batches of Daimlers with Phoenix bodies delivered to Manchester during the same period.
Whilst not looking as smart as the original scheme of green with three cream bands, black wheels and silver roof, the vehicle in the picture belies its age, especially as it is one of the first batch.
The second Salford batch was delivered in 1951 and should have been registered in then FBA series of Salford registrations but Charles Baroth persuaded the Salford City Police, who issued registration marks at the time, to issue FRJ some months early so all the vehicles he ordered would have RJ sequence marks.
The last six of the type delivered to Salford FRJ 555-FRJ 560 (555-560) were fitted with heaters and were much pursued by the enthusiast fraternity as for the first nine years of their lives they operated almost solely on all night services, retreating to the depot as the sun appeared.
Both Salford and Manchester passed substantial numbers of these vehicles to SELNEC. Given the constant all day, daily use to which both authorities put these vehicles for almost all their lives, it says a great deal about the workmanship that went into manufacture of the chassis and bodies and the standards of maintenance carried out by their owners.
When SELNEC eventually withdrew the remaining vehicles a bit of the post war character of the twin cities went with them.

Phil Blinkhorn


19/02/13 – 16:03

Having suffered these buses on the joint service 95/96 for many years I certainly wouldn’t be able to describe the way they were driven as ‘spirited. Salfords Daimlers were the slowest buses on Kingsway, Manchester by far, even slower than Birchfield Rd’s Crossleys. I well remember the groans that went up at my bus stop on Kingsway when one of these appeared over the crest of the hill at East Didsbury.

Orla Nutting


19/02/13 – 18:14

I wonder if the slow performance of the Salford Daimlers on Kingsway was down to the Salford crews "pushing" Manchester vehicles in front on the same or similar routes, i.e. allowing the Manchester crews to pick up the bulk of the passengers thus lessening the workload for the Salford men as they would have few if any passengers to pick up after the first few stops.
"Pushing" was a common practice where routes were jointly operated, some crews becoming adept at the practice. As long as the joint operation was on an equal shared income basis the practice, though officially frowned on, did not work to the financial detriment of the employers of the "lazy" crew.
Another trick was to load the bus at the first few stops so that the three bells code was given and, in rush hours, the crews would have an easy time with few stops, few fares to collect after the first trip around the bus and they could still dawdle as they had to keep to timings, yet could legitimately drive in a stately fashion past lines waiting for a bus with room.

Phil Blinkhorn


20/02/13 – 06:12

These Daimlers look decidedly odd with their short radiators, something I never was aware of until today. I used to think that LT’s STL’s looked smart, until I saw photos of some ‘unfrozen’ ones that had been given AEC’s longer radiator, which incorporated the number plate, as were the immediate pre-war Green Line T’s. Long radiators rule!

Chris Hebbron


20/02/13 – 13:35

With regard to Geoff’s comment about destination displays, Salford does not have a city centre.
Therefore if a bus in Bolton had shown Salford as its destination, where would it be going? The reason for the location of Victoria Bus Station (and the Greengate terminus across the road, where most of the longer distance services went from) was to get passengers to Manchester without the buses themselves having to cross the boundary.
Contrast this with a Manchester bus on the far side of Stockport showing "Piccadilly". You had to know it was a Manchester bus to know it was going to Manchester. I think the worst example of this I ever came across was much more recently, when I saw a GM Buses North vehicle somewhere between Bury and Ramsbottom showing "Arndale" (Arndale being the name of a Manchester bus station at that time, never mind the fact that there were Arndale shopping centres in other locations as well).

Peter Williamson


20/02/13 – 15:39

The city of Manchester, unlike many other cities, was surrounded by a large number of historically older authorities (the Hundred of Salford outdates Manchester as an area of local government by 900 or so years and once incorporated the whole of Manchester) and these have always fought against being subsumed into what became the leading industrial, financial and legislative authority in the area whilst in many ways being dependant on the city for the provision of regionally useful services and places of employment.
This has led to a number of oddities with regard to transport. The Salford use of Manchester on destination screens for Salford buses terminating at Victoria Bus station (ditto Leigh, Bolton and LUT vehicles using the adjacent Greengate as a terminus)has already been mentioned, though this was officially restricted to Salford routes originating outside of Salford. Salford buses operating from within their city boundaries displayed Victoria, in itself totally misleading and an oddity the bus station so named was closer to Exchange Station than Manchester Victoria Station.
Salford thus capitalised on the proximity of the boundary formed by the River Irwell to Manchester’s city centre, a centre being something Salford didn’t possess.
Then there was the case of Manchester Docks. The nine docks of the Port of Manchester at the eastern end of the ship canal were basically in Salford and Stretford, only one dock being within the Manchester city boundary. Salford buses bound for the dock gates in Salford neither recognised the Manchester part of the title, nor tried to claim the docks for their city, stubbornly just showing DOCKS in block capitals as a destination.
Salford buses heading for the inner areas of Trafford Park, which was in Stretford, would display the destination as a road name, such as Tenax Rd, whereas Manchester would display both Trafford Park and the point in the Park to which they were going.
There was little love lost between the Frederick Rd Salford and Piccadilly Manchester head offices. Charles Baroth taking over a run down fleet promptly changed the livery from a very Manchester like red and white to the dark green and cream and changed the name of the department displayed on the buses from Salford Corporation to Salford City Transport – making a very definite point. He and Manchester’s Albert Neal never really seemed to get along – an antipathy that lasted from the mid 1940s to the early 1960s.
Slightly before Salford changed to the green livery, Bury changed from vermillion and cream to a light green and cream. This led to a story about the stranger heading for Patricroft, an area on the western edge of Salford’s territory, who had been correctly directed to Victoria Bus Station and told to take the Peel Green bus. Approaching the bus station from the Cathedral end where the street is above the roof level of the buses on the stands and seeing only red and white buses, he asked a woman on the street where he could get a peel green bus. The woman had noticed the green Bury bus which left from Cannon Street and and with apple peel in mind directed the stranger on a five minute walk to a bus heading nine miles at 90 degrees from the direction the stranger needed to take.

Phil Blinkhorn


20/02/13 – 18:00

I can just remember seeing these near Salford perhaps in the late 60’s: they looked – then- wonderfully vintage in their heritage green livery, a bit like the old WY-York Bible board buses in York.
Presumably the radiators look a bit forward (not only short!) because of the Gardner engine- I don’t recall seeing exposed radiator CVGs as opposed to CVDs: did they have "Daimler" preselectors?

Joe


21/02/13 – 06:28

The Salford crews weren’t pushing the Manchester crews. The 95/96 operations consisted of about an hour of Salford running followed by around the same amount of time by Manchester running throughout the day. Salford running from East Didsbury began about 9 a.m.on a broadly 10 minute headway.
There was no was route to push other than the 40 and for the most part that wasn’t taking the same passengers unless they were going to alight on Kingsway.
The situation altered completely when the Salford front entrance PD2/40’s were introduced in the mid ’60’s. Now they were lively performers and completely outclassed Birchfield’s CVG6’s for speed on the route.

Orla Nutting

Sorry about that Orla


21/02/13 – 06:29

Joe, Manchester had 90 very similar vehicles, all with long radiators and all CVG6s. They also had 100 CVG5s again with exposed long radiators. All the Manchester vehicles had preselector gearboxes as did the Salford vehicles.
Previously Salford had taken 8 CVD6s, again with short radiators and preselector gearboxes.
The shortened radiator had an advantage in as much as the lower part was purely cosmetic and, according to Baroth, suffered from damage so, a double saving was made in terms of new and replacement costs.

Phil Blinkhorn


21/02/13 – 06:30

Joe: I can’t say I’ve ever noticed the radiators on CVG6s being further forward than on other Daimlers, but I suppose it’s possible, as the 6LW was longer than other engines. There are lots of exposed-radiator Daimlers to look at here sct61.org.uk/index/chassis/dv .
Yes, they did have Daimler preselectors, with a quadrant selector under the steering wheel, just like Daimler cars.

Peter Williamson


21/02/13 – 06:31

I have distinct memories of seeing Bury buses in Bolton, on the 52 and 23T, but only vague memories of Salford buses there, as Phil B mentions above. Was that the 8?

Pete Davies


21/02/13 – 06:32

Joe – These Salford Daimlers had preselector gearboxes. I understand the short radiators were used to minimise damage to the bottom part of the radiator grill.

Michael Elliott


21/02/13 – 06:33

Have you noticed how many English cities seem to go in pairs?
Manchester – Salford
Liverpool – Birkenhead
Newcastle – Gateshead
Birmingham – Wolverhampton
Leeds – Bradford
Gloucester – Cheltenham
Southampton – Portsmouth

Jim Hepburn


21/02/13 – 08:45

Pete, Salford had two routes to Bolton. The 8 and the 12, the latter taking a circuitous route via Daubhill, Little Hulton, Walkden, Roe Green and Worsley taking a scheduled 55minutes against the rather tightly timed 38 minutes of the more direct 8.

Phil Blinkhorn


21/02/13 – 08:45

Jim, an interesting comment. I can’t answer for the other places, but the only pairings that most folk in Southampton and Portsmouth would acknowledge are that they are both in the geographical (but not administrative) county of Hampshire, and that they have the same bus company (Worst).
On the sporting front, it doesn’t happen now because they are in different leagues, but the "South Coast Derby" between the two always required an even heavier Police presence than most other matches. It’s as bad as Rangers and Celtic!

Pete Davies


21/02/13 – 11:14

Orla, you have more knowledge of the 95/96 workings than I but something must have been going on as, from a very limited personal use of the Salford CVG6s (a number of trips on the tightly timed #8 to Bolton and back and one trip to and from Warrington on the #10) I recall they were smooth, reasonably quick and in places gave a fair turn of speed.
At one period I used to have to use the Manchester versions on the #47/48 and they could certainly motor.

Phil Blinkhorn


21/02/13 – 11:15

Easter 1957 a school pal and I travelled from Reading to Grimsby and back via Salford, all on service buses.
Quite apart from the fascinating stuff we saw and rode on the way up, across and back down again, the Stockport and Manchester Crossleys made a great impression, and so did the great variety of operators working into Manchester, but I remember being especially taken by those lovely Salford Daimlers with their straight staircases, destination-winder trunnions and the no-nonsense, upright Metro-Cammell bodies. They also seemed to get a move on, but I didn’t like the way at least one of the drivers let the gear pedal smartly up between changes, without any adjustment of engine revs, resulting in a bang and a jerk. To have lasted so long with such rough treatment these wonderfully characterful vehicles must have been as solidly-built as they looked–or were the fitters kept busy?

Ian Thompson


21/02/13 – 11:17

Thanks Peter: I can spend many a happy hour now trying to work out the relationship between CVD/G/A’s , their radiators and the front dumb irons. Was it the body builders’ variable fronts, or did Daimler provide a deeper radiator tank cover to bridge the G gap. I bet someone knows! In the meantime, I’ll keep puzzling.

Joe


21/02/13 – 16:00

Interesting comments about destinations and cross-boundary rivalry. I read that Salford always put their newest buses on the 15, which ran to Piccadilly, to impress their neighbours "across the river".
When I worked for GMPTE a few years ago, buses were using Exchange Bus Station, which was on the site of the old Victoria Bus Station (of course by then Exchange railway station was long gone).
This has now been superseded by Shudehill Bus Station, which is actually in Manchester, and the whole area around Victoria Bridge Street is being redeveloped. And yes, I agree about "Arndale"!

Geoff Kerr


22/02/13 – 06:23

I drove for Salford from 1966 to 1968, primarily on the 95/96 route to East Didsbury from Whitefield always with the Daimler pre select, they took some getting used to and, they were abused by a lot of drivers throwing standing passengers backward through their violent gear change.
On the radiator subject I only ever remember the radiator was far forward and was informed at the time it was because of the longer engine.
My first encounter with the forward entrance Leylands was on the 73 from Whitefield to Victoria, a pleasure to drive.

David J Henighan


22/02/13 – 06:24

Ian Thompson, you’ve let yourself in for it now! Your epic trip from Reading to Grimsby via Salford sounds worthy of an article, describing route, rolling stock and how long it took! Might we be hearing from you shortly? Pleaaaaase ?

Stephen Ford


22/02/13 – 09:49

David, I’m rather amazed by your remarks re driving the Daimlers. Now, first off, I’ll acknowledge I have never driven a Daimler preselect bus but I have driven preselectors on other vehicles and also, during the last 48 years, a vast range of different gear boxes, rarely with any problem.
Given that the Daimlers had not only been in the fleet for 16 years by the time you started but for the majority of those years had been the bulk of the fleet and given newer Daimlers with preselector boxes had entered the fleet in the early 1960s, I have to ask where the fault lay – bad maintenance or poor driver training after the departure of Charles Baroth?

Phil Blinkhorn


22/02/13 – 10:16

Stephen: the brains behind the Reading-Grimsby trip was Chris Bates, who planned it all to a tee and took plenty of photographs. We stayed with his relatives in Nuneaton, Hazel Grove and Grimsby, without whose kindness we couldn’t have done it. Chris repeated the trip in 1958 with Graham Low (who’s taken thousands of bus photos since the mid fifties) and that trip made the subject of an excellent presentation they gave at an Oxford enthusiasts’ society meeting. I’ll suggest to them that we do a joint article.
Delights that especially stick in my mind included the Coventry and Leicester fleets, including the Leicester 6-wheel Renown; SONs and FEDDs with Midland Red and Trent; the stone-walled Derbyshire countryside; North Western’s then fairly new Atkinson Alphas; the staggering variety of municipalities and companies that shared territory in Lancashire and Yorkshire; at Grimsby an AEC Q and mid-thirties AEC Regents rebodied with earlier piano-front centre-entrance bodies; the Cleethorpes trolleybuses; sedate progress through the flat lands of Lincolnshire in a grunting Bristol SC4LK…
Thanks for the idea: I’ll see what we can come up with!

Ian Thompson


22/02/13 – 14:06salford rad

The radiator on this one doesn’t look like a Daimler radiator at all, although I’m sure it is but there appears to be a badge on the top which I’ve never seen on a Daimler fluted radiator before. I agree it appears to be thicker too, although I don’t see why it should be, other operators specified the Gardner 6LW which was accommodated without difficulty, notably SHMD, although I wonder if in some cases, the bonnet and radiator were moved forward, whereas in others, the bulkhead was moved backwards.

Chris Barker


22/02/13 – 14:51

Charles Baroth had all manufacturers’ badges removed from all makes and replaced by a standard badge which had a green background and Salford City Transport in cream.
There was no difference in the bonnet/radiator length between the Salford Phoenix bodied CVGG6s and those supplied to Manchester.

Phil Blinkhorn


23/02/13 – 07:53

The Manchester Phoenixes had their engines derated to 100bhp at 1650rpm. From my experience of the Salford ones I would imagine them to be the full 112 at 1700.
I know exactly what David means about violent gear changes, and it wasn’t a fault with the vehicles or necessarily driver training. No matter what training you give a driver, if he wants to ignore it he will. I used the Manchester Phoenixes regularly in the rush hour, and it did seem as if some drivers took delight in seeing how many standing passengers they could catapult on to the platform when changing from first to second! This was something probably unique to the combination of 6LW engine and spring-operated gearbox, since AEC Regent IIIs had air-operated gearboxes, and other engines packed less of a punch at low revs.

Peter Williamson


23/02/13 – 10:35

Salford’s engines were left at their original rating whereas Manchester’s were originally derated to 91.5bhp being partially uprated to 100bhp with the K upgrade in 1953 which amplifies the oddity of Orla’s experience on the 95/96.

Peter Williamsons’s comments on the spring v air operated preselector boxes begs a question – from 1949 Manchester’s orders were split between Leyland and Daimler, Salford had a preponderance of Daimlers. There will always be "rogue" drivers but with large numbers of Daimlers operating in the area was the misuse of the gear change system widespread? If it was there surely would have been complaints to the Manchester Evening News Postbag – always a barometer of public opinion – and the MEN was no friend of either transport department, always willing to "have a go", but I can’t remember seeing any reaction in its pages until complaints about snatched changes when the Atlanteans started work for MCTD from Sharston depot.

Phil Blinkhorn


26/02/13 – 05:46

I’ve noted the comments on ‘rough’ gear changes with preselector transmissions. I’ve driven both air operated and spring operated preselectors and there is still a need to match road and engine speed when making gear changes to ensure a smooth change. Admittedly preselectors, and semi automatics for that matter, are more accommodating in this respect, hence a ‘jerky’ change, than a ‘crash’ gearbox where a mismatching of engine and road speed results in a nasty noise from the gearbox. With a synchromesh gearbox there is still a need to match engine and road speed to ensure a smooth change and a mismatching results in a rough change such as can happen with a change down from, say, third to second without making sure that the road speed is right for such a change.

Michael Elliott


26/02/13 – 08:27

With reference to the above comment about MCTD’s Atlanteans (the inference being these were MCTD’s first) entering service from Northenden depot (which, of course, was actually at Sharston) I am sure I have seen another reference to this elsewhere on this forum, the suggestion being that Northendsen was chosen as the Atlanteans’ first depot since, Northenden being renowned for being the most militant depot, if the Atlanteans were accepted there they would be accepted anywhere.
It is my recollection that it was reported in ‘Buses Illustrated’ at the time that the Atlanteans had entered service on route 50 (in those days, Albert Square to East Didsbury) operating from Birchfields Road depot – which route 50 passed. Is this not correct?

David Call


26/02/13 – 10:10

The Atlanteans aka the ‘Red Dragons’ as the Manchester Evening News named them, were first employed from the Northenden garage on route 101, the limited stop service from Greenbrow Rd, Wythenshawe to Piccadilly. Their introduction there was delayed by several months until the unions were pacified. At the time, as a schoolboy in Manchester we were very jealous of the lads who used this service on these ultra modern buses as we then saw them whilst we had to content ourselves with ancient looking Crossleys (how times change).
Imagine my delight when, shortly afterwards, they were employed on the, local to me, route 40 (it didn’t become the 50 until the Wilmslow Rd corridor renumbering farce of January 1968) though I don’t recall them being fielded by Birchfields Rd garage (primarily a Crossley and Daimler depot then) but rather by Parrs Wood garage (the Leyland depot) at their East Didsbury terminus.

Orla Nutting


26/02/13 – 10:11

The situation regarding the introduction of the MCTD Atlanteans was as follows:
The Princess Rd corridor serving the various estates which made up the Wythenshawe overspill – at the time the largest local authority housing development in Europe – was MCTD’s most intense operation in the late 1950s.
In mid 1957 the Transport Committee approved an order for 110 PD2s with the revised Orion bodywork that MCW and MCTD had been working on for around 2 years. Leyland made much of the order in its advertising, particularly as there was no balancing order for Daimlers. All but 10 of the vehicles were delivered in the financial year 1958/9. The order for the remaining 10 was changed to Atlanteans with MCW bodies with the intention of running them on the Wythenshawe routes to assess the value of the extra capacity and the reduction in loading times given the driver could control the platform and doors.
When the order was announced the union asked for negotiations regarding the extra capacity and the extra responsibilities of the driver. As it was Sharston was the most militant depot so the adding of the vehicles to its stock in November and December 1959 in the absence of an agreement precipitated an official dispute. No drivers would touch the vehicles so their rare appearance on the roads of south Manchester was in the hands of inspectors or members of the engineering staff. I made a number of visits to the depot at the time and was able to have a good look around them (inside and out) due to the generosity of the foreman.
It took until April 1960 to conclude negotiations leading to an agreement covering all types of large capacity vehicles across the Department.
In April 1960 the 10 Atlanteans commenced work on the 101 from Piccadilly to Newall Green. Over the following months they were used on other Princess Rd services and also the 50 which in those days was the route number of the Piccadilly to Brooklands via Northenden service.
In 1961 they all moved to Parrs Wood and were used on the 40 Albert Sq to Parrs Wood. In 1963 they moved to Queens Rd. They were not stabled at Birchfields though they did visit the depot in 1966/7 when the BUT/Burlingham trolleybuses were withdrawn to have their uncomfortable low backed seats replaced by those from the trollies.

Phil Blinkhorn


26/02/13 – 13:35

Rough gear changing with any type of gearbox is almost invariably down to driver attitude rather than mechanical deficiency. Only when facing uphill is it necessary to start in first gear; second gear is entirely capable of level starts with quality buses. With crash/constant mesh gearboxes, it repays the driver to try to double declutch properly to make sensible progress, and voluble protests from such gearboxes are a testament to driver incompetence. With preselectors (and later with semi automatics) lazy drivers would keep the right foot down on the accelerator whilst operating the gear change pedal (or gear selector). The result With preselectors was a violent jolt to the transmission. Semi automatics would give a less severe jerk, but the fluid coupling would suffer eventually from having to absorb, totally unnecessarily, the forces of such abuse. When fully automatic transmissions began to appear, these initially incorporated extra buttons/selector positions that allowed the driver to hold intermediate gears, but misuse by a minority has now rendered this feature to history with most modern buses. Nowadays, the driver has no direct control over the gearbox in the majority of present day large passenger vehicles.

Roger Cox


26/02/13 – 15:24

Oh how I agree with you, Roger. The thing that annoys me most with modern coaches is that little notice which reminds me "ALWAYS" start in first gear. In my lessons I was taught to start in second and only use first for uphill starts or when heavily laden, and start in third when going downhill. All these I did on test and was duly passed! Are modern coaches, including Setras and Volvos, quite so bad that they must ALWAYS be started in first gear? [Mind you, I am constantly surprised when, at the end of a job, passengers on the way out commend me for having given them a nice, or a smooth, drive. What on earth do all the other drivers do?]

David Oldfield


27/02/13 – 05:56

I passed my test on vehicle with a crash box ‘1952 Weymann bodied Guy Arab III’ the instructor taught us how to go through the box from bottom to top and back down again, only using the clutch to pull away and come to a halt. When it came to semi auto, we were told to treat it the same way you would if it had a clutch, i.e. lift your foot, pause in neutral and give it a few revs if changing down. Driven properly a manual or semi auto box will ALWAYS give a better ride than an automatic, plus drivers are equipped with MKI eyeball which can give advanced warning of gear changes which no sensor ever can

Ronnie Hoye


27/02/13 – 05:58

If you were the individual who had to change a clutch due to drivers not using all the gears provided, at your own expense, I’m sure you’d be a bit more canny about your second gear setoffs.
Driving schools do have their own agendas, and perhaps taught drivers to make fewer gearchanges so that the potential for getting them wrong was reduced. Bear in mind also that vehicles generally were lower powered than they are today, had fewer gears, had a relatively low top speed, and had components that were generally over-engineered. While 2nd or even 3rd gear setoffs are clearly possible it is neither best practice nor mechanically sympathetic.
For example a Leyland PS2/PD2 could have had a choice of three rear axle ratios which, with a standard O.600 engine and four speed gearbox, could have a top speed of approx 30, 40 or 50 mph. I look after two such vehicles capable of either 40 or 50 – should any driver be seen setting off in 2nd gear in either, they would not be driving very far !
I took my test in the faster vehicle and was expected to use all gears both up and down the box.
In the past there wasn’t a minimum speed limit for a test vehicle and I know of vehicles being fitted with low speed diffs so that trainees would only need to use the top three gears – if the top two had synchromesh, how easy would they be to use. But then consider this, having passed their test in a double decker with a top speed of 30mph they could then jump in a six wheel Neoplan Skyliner and head off down the motorway to Spain. Don’t laugh, it happened regularly in Leeds in the eighties. Where was the sense in that ?
When riding in preserved vehicles of the types that feature heavily on this site it makes me cringe when novice drivers are let loose with the general public on board happily crunching gears, coasting in neutral around tightening bends, roundabouts etc, staying in top gear while descending hills etc.
We should be campaigning for quality and competence and then the vehicles we all enjoy will continue getting out & about and not lie broken in the corners of sheds or, worse still, get consigned to the breakers yards.

MikeB


28/02/13 – 05:52

In response to the above, of course you were expected to use all the gears on test. So was I, and, also, I had to show that I could bring a bus to a halt using all the gears in succession, but no brakes, in the event of brake failure. It wasn’t expected that this should be the stopping practice in normal service, though. Pulling away in a bus with clutch and conventional gearbox is entirely possible in second gear without undue clutch slip. One can feel the clutch engaging almost immediately at very low revs, and release the pedal accordingly. In many gearboxes, the first gear was a crawler, and if the bus was started in that gear, by the time that the revs had died and double declutching had taken place, the vehicle would have come to a virtual standstill. On the AEC Reliance with five speed synchromesh box, first gear could be engaged only by lifting the gearstick over a protective "ledge". Changing down from second whilst on the move would have been impossible without removing both hands from the steering wheel. I am satisfied that the designer regarded first as a crawler only, and did not expect first to be used for moving away in normal service. Of course, clutch abuse took place in every bus fleet with conventional transmissions – we have shown above that every fleet has its rogues – but second gear starts, properly effected, would not, in themselves, have caused greater clutch wear. No doubt your view may well have been shared by some fleet engineers, but, in 43 years in the bus industry, in various roles up to management level, during which I drove a great many vehicle types, I did not hear that opinion expressed by an engineer in the undertakings that I worked for.

Roger Cox


28/02/13 – 08:03

Thank you, Roger.

David Oldfield


28/02/13 – 11:07

I’ve only driven buses under L plates or around large depot yards but I have 48 years driving experience around the world in a wide range of cars and vans/trucks up to 7.5 tonnes amassing almost 1.5 million miles in that time.
I was taught to drive by a police instructor and a bus driver who was also an instructor for his employer. They taught me that driving was both an art and a science, an appreciation sadly lacking in many of today’s motorists and so called "professional" drivers.
I was taught that correct use of the gear box and planning gear changes was paramount, especially with the 3 speed gear box – no synchro on 1st – in the upright Ford Popular I owned and learned to drive on.
Even before I learned to drive, when talking to bus drivers, it became apparent that taking off in 2nd was normal practice as the gearing and axle ratios were such that 1st was for use only on hills or when fully loaded. From the very limited driving experience I have on crash and synchro geared buses (PD2, Bedford VAM, Royal Tiger and Leopard) I was always told to start in 2nd. I once did a day’s familiarisation/assessment course in the early 1990s with a driver training school when I considered obtaining a licence to do weekend coach driving, an aspiration abandoned when my business picked up, and 2nd gear starts were advocated as the norm though the times when 1st should be used and when to use 1st on the test were outlined.
Driving today’s automatics is a doddle though collecting fares, dealing with queries and handling the public whilst safely conducting the vehicle through today’s traffic certainly isn’t. I would assume that, just as I only drive automatics when in the USA as they take some of the fun and skill out of driving, a certain amount of skill has been lost as the automatic box has taken over to balance the increased workload on the bus driver and when those boxes come into the workshop needing attention they are far more complex and expensive to repair than a clutch or a broken crash box.

Phil Blinkhorn


28/02/13 – 11:08

That’s an interesting observation about first gear, Roger. In cars of the middling yesteryear first gear often had no synchromesh and was harder to engage: my Mother always set off in second. Early Austin Westminsters only had three forward gears and I think any one would do. Bristol K’s- possibly 6A’s would rev furiously on the level for little result in first and clearly wanted to start in second.

Joe


01/03/13 – 05:55

Irrespective of how an individual might have been instructed to drive and by whom I for one cannot accept why any bus loving enthusiast would want to inflict upon any surviving classic bus of any make treatment which if even executed with care and consideration could help to shorten its already extended life.
Is it not incumbent of any genuine enthusiast preservationist to extend the working life of our current public transport heritage by treating it in a caring and considerate manner?
Consideration for me would mean setting off in first gear although not necessarily in crawler where fitted. We must not forget some of the parts which are fitted to many of our current classics will no longer be available should repairs be necessary so why treat them in a manner which could potentially hasten the demise of any preserved bus or coach.

Andrew Beever


01/03/13 – 05:56

The trick for engaging a non synchromesh first gear on a gearbox with synchromesh on the higher gears is to engage initially one of the higher (synchronised) gears to better match the speeds of the mainshaft and layshaft, and then swiftly move into the desired first ratio, keeping the clutch down all the time. There cannot be many gearboxes of this type on modern cars (or buses), but the same method is good practice for engaging reverse on today’s gearboxes. How often do we hear many motorists, who are clearly unsympathetic towards machinery, start a cold engine (which then revs at a higher speed than it does when settled) and then slam the transmission into reverse provoking audible protest from the cogs? Engaging a forward gear first makes clean engagement of reverse rather easier. I even adopted this procedure on semi automatic buses. After idling in neutral at a stop, I would engage top gear and then the starting gear to avoid the jolt that always occurred if the engine idling speed was absorbed by the low ratio.
Getting back to the first v second gear issue, I can fully understand Mike B’s concern in relation to preserved vehicles. These must be treated with a high degree of respect, and it is inevitable that some of today’s volunteer drivers simply cannot acquire the experience required to handle these machines with the level of assurance or accomplishment possessed by good, seasoned PSV drivers of the past. Every stratagem should be employed to minimise mechanical stresses on our heritage vehicles, and caution is entirely warranted. Sadly, a lack of caution is all too prevalent with historic aircraft, where over exuberance at air displays has sometimes had devastating results.

Roger Cox


01/03/13 – 08:14

Roger has succinctly laid out the proper and approved method of driving adhered to by thousands of good drivers over many years. Andrew seems to have deliberately misunderstood him. Of course we don’t treat 40, 50, 60 year old buses in the same way we would would when they were new. I am a PCV/PSV driver and advanced motorist and approach each individual vehicle I drive with sympathy. I was going to keep quiet on this one, but I can’t let these comments slip by un-noted.

David Oldfield


Your last couple of sentences are so right, Roger. It’s as bad, if not worse, with old planes where a misjudgement writes off the whole aircraft. I’ve not forgotten our sole Blenheim which had taken years to assemble, being severely damaged by a gung-ho pilot who’d had nothing to do with the restoration. It took the poor owners and enthusiasts years to put it back into flying order. How they had the courage and self-discipline to do it amazes me, after such a setback.

Chris Hebbron


01/03/13 – 08:16

Andrew, taking care and careful driving of preserved vehicles and discussing what went on/goes on in service – which is the what I thought we were discussing – are two different matters.

Mike B, in his last sentence, added in the handling of preserved vehicles. These, of course, should be driven correctly and correctly may well mean in a different manner to that which the outside observer feels is correct.
Roger’s earlier analysis of the use of second gear in normal service earlier in the thread matches my observations of the industry over a 50+ year period and I fully endorse his remarks regarding the handling of preserved aircraft at airshows. I’ve seen too many crashes and lost a number of friends and acquaintances due to such handling.

Phil Blinkhorn


02/03/13 – 07:11

Yesterday I said that I was not that worried as to why or how an individual was taught to drive a PSV in a particular way and whatever the merits of differing approaches and styles were back in the 1950’s, 1960’s or even into the 1970’s unless the style of driving back then impacts on the way the current preserved buses especially those with a conventional gearbox are driven then only best practice is acceptable.
Being active in the preservation field we are faced on an all too frequent basis when so called PSV drivers with long careers in the public passenger service come along with a driving technique which is totally unsuitable for preserved buses.
These are the ones who come along quoting that I used to drive for whoever in whenever and we had so many of these and we would always set off in second gear. Setting off in second gear might have been all well and good back then in a service bus when the speed was limited with a low ratio differential. However, today an individual with that mind set behind the wheel of a preserved bus where the differential is often of a higher ratio predominately to aid getting to and from rallies then setting off in second gear isn’t an acceptable practice. Now try as we may there is just no changing the way some of these so called experts are going to drive. So was it good practice to set off in second gear did it set an acceptable standard for me I’m afraid it wasn’t especially when this practice is then applied unilaterally by some even when in a preserved bus

Andrew Beever


02/03/13 – 14:02

Andrew, why are you using pejorative language? This is a friendly and discursive forum open to all sorts of views and sometimes friendly disagreements. To call drivers with years of experience "so called experts" is grossly unfair. They drove those often poorly equipped vehicles, often for basic pay, and learned how to get the best out of those vehicles for their employer, their passengers and themselves.
I can understand frustration IF you explain not just that you want one of your vehicles driven in a certain way but why, and then you are ignored, but it seems to me that fitting different gearing or axles to facilitate running to and from rallies is not preservation in the true sense as the vehicle is not in its original form. What you are doing is preserving the look of the visible vehicle, i.e. the body and visible mechanical parts to represent what the vehicle looked like at a particular time.
Nothing wrong with that so long as the distinction is made between a truly preserved vehicle with the original gearing/engine/performance, body (or totally accurate modern copies) and a vehicle which, to represent a type and facilitate easier handling/mobility, has been modified.
As I pointed in another thread where Orla Nutting stated that the engine and gearbox on the preserved Stockport Tiger Cub had been replaced by a Royal Tiger engine and Albion 3 speed box, it will sound very different to the original.
I’ve every respect for people who spend selfless hours and a great deal of money to represent, either in fully or partially preserved form, vehicles and machinery of all kinds from what was once a very lively industrial base. Please don’t spoil that respect by insulting those that had to use the machinery on a day to day basis and know far better than you how it had to be used. If you treat them with respect most of them will listen and give back to you in kind. Those that don’t obviously won’t drive for you again.

Phil Blinkhorn


03/03/13 – 10:55

Good point well put, Phil, its a bit like the axe in the museum that’s only had two heads and three handles, but it looks original.

Ronnie Hoye


03/03/13 – 16:46

It does appear to me that the preserved vehicle fraternity, to whom we are all extremely grateful for their tireless endeavour and commitment in maintaining our transport heritage, are rather missing the point here. All the other contributors above have drawn the distinction between the realities of everyday operation in the past and the careful preservation in the present. When vehicles such as these were in full passenger carrying service they ran out at something like 5 o’clock in the morning and toiled ceaselessly with a succession of crews all day up to around midnight, day after day, year upon year. Their drivers would handle these buses in concentrated spells of four to five and a half hours at a time, carrying very heavy passenger loads on tightly scheduled routes, often with six or more stops to the mile. These drivers acquired a degree of familiarity and skill with their machinery, together with a commensurate respect, that cannot be dismissed as "so called". They spent more time behind the wheel of a bus in a week than the average enthusiast does in a year. This is a world away from the present day preservationist movement, where, quite rightly, discretion is the better part of almost everything else. To hark back to the aviation analogy, fully bomb loaded Stirlings, Halifaxes and Lancasters would take off in the blackness of night, often in the foulest weather, and fly far into Germany, taking evasive action against night fighters and flak before dropping their bombs and facing a similar set of hazards on the return trip. This is a far cry from a present day doddle round Duxford in a Dragon Rapide during a sun drenched summer afternoon.

Roger Cox


04/03/13 – 07:38

As I said above, Thank you Roger and Phil.

David Oldfield


04/03/13 – 07:38

Surely it is all a matter of what gear/differential ratios and what power and torque output are provided on the individual vehicle, One operator’s PD2 would be entirely differently geared to another’s PD2. It would depend on the local terrain and what type of service it was to be used on – frequently stopping or long, only occasionally stopping interurban. There is simply not a one-size-fits-all style of driving.
Mike B. suggested that Driving Schools had their own agendas and may have taught their trainees to make fewer gear changes in order that this would reduce the likelihood of making mistakes (so presumably maximising test pass results). I was a PSV/PCV Instructor for 18 years and knew all the instructors at the various depots in our region of the company as well as getting to meet many others from other companies around the country. I can assure him that this was not the case at all. We all taught trainees to demonstrate Vehicle Sympathy, appropriate to the individual vehicle and circumstances.

John Stringer


22/09/13 – 14:31

How times have changed when I started working at Fredrick road in 1970 under Salford crop, as a conductor it was a joy I went driving in 1972 on all the old back loaders to the newer ones in 1997 from having to push and pull the steering wheel round and now you could turn it with one finger, happy days

Tony Howard


03/11/13 – 08:58

Second gear or first gear when moving off,……part of the PCV Diving test is an exercise in moving away downhill and the correct method is to engage second gear release the handbrake holding the vehicle on the foot brake then transfer your foot to the accelerator and move away. I think anywhere a bus rolls forward when brake released can be moved away in second gear.

Michael Crofts


16/11/15 – 15:18

Back to the FRJ Daimlers that dominated the Salford fleet during my student days in Manchester. Have any of them survived into preservation? I noted the particular Salford feature of extended indicator handles, allowing the conductor to turn them while standing on the road, unlike my experience during summer holiday work with PD2’s of IOM Road Services, where in order to reach the handle, I had to place the right foot in a stirrup alongside the radiator, left foot along the top edge of the number plate and use the left hand to hold on to a handle on the cab side. I recall that , in contrast to Manchester, Salford employed a significant number of ‘clippies’, and so wonder if this feature was to save them the indignity (or even impossibility for the shorter ones) of climbing across the front of the vehicle to reach the handles. Manchester’s indicators (requiring 4 handles rather that Salford’s 2) and those of many other operators were inside the driver’s cab; I wonder why Salford didn’t do likewise?

M Jones


17/11/15 – 06:46

I am pretty sure that 511(FRJ 511) is still in preservation somewhere, but not sure where. Incidentally, the first Salford Atlanteans and Fleetlines (and maybe other operators) had a rear service number. This was changed by opening a step on the rear bustle in order to reach the handles, hopefully with the driver’s knowledge that you were there!

John Hodkinson


17/11/15 – 06:46

In answer to M Jones, FRJ 511 features in the 2012 PSVC listing, as being with the 4100 Group in Manchester.

Pete Davies


23/11/15 – 08:17

Salford city transport never had advertising on it’s buses..but just before s.e.l.n.e.c..with orange buses..did Salford advertise on atlanteans

Harry


23/11/15 – 09:39

Salford’s Transport Committee approved the use of adverts on its vehicles and these started to appear in May 1968. There are pictures in Manchester and Salford A Century of Municipal Transport in the Glory Days series of publications of a Phoenix bodied CVG6 and an Atlantean carrying ads, the former in summer 1968, the latter in May 1969. In addition there is a photo of a PD2 with an ad at Agecroft. Undated it is in full Salford livery with its Salford fleet number and as the photos tend to be in sequence, it falls well before any hint of SELNEC.
There is an oddity in the book. A photo of 151, the first PD2, is shown at the Weaste terminus of service 3. This purports to have been taken in 1963. The photo is almost head on but the nearside between decks panels are covered by an advert of some kind which, though the content cannot be discerned, is a white background with red and possibly blue print. Page 82 of the book refers for those who have a copy.

Phil Blinkhorn


23/11/15 – 11:30

Can I please ask what a ‘Phoenix’ body is? I have never come across one of these.

Stephen Howarth


23/11/15 – 14:07

Phil, with reference to the adverts on Salford 151, the most helpful photos I could find were in Henry Conn’s part 9 of British Buses, Trams & Trolleybuses 1950s-1970s.(page 112). Other possible clues are on the cover & page117 of Eric Gray’s SCT.

Andrew Gosling


23/11/15 – 14:08

The heading photo is a Phoenix body.

Phil Blinkhorn


23/11/15 – 14:43

Andrew, please give details as I don’t have the publications.

Phil Blinkhorn


23/11/15 – 14:44

Sorry to labour the point, but is the Phoenix name then, a design name like the Farringdon, or the Orion body style names? As I said I have never heard of it. I must have been living in a vacuum for 60+ years.

Stephen Howarth


24/11/15 – 06:17

Yes Stephen, it is a design name. It has some commonality to the Metro-Cammell Birmingham standard design of the period.

Phil Blinkhorn


24/11/15 – 06:20

Phil,the two books are:

Salford City Transport, Edward Gray, TPC April 1975, ISBN 0 903839 06 7.

British Buses, Trams & Trolleybuses 1950s-1970s, ISBN 978 185794 397 9
Part 9 Greater Manchester, Lancashire & Cumbria, Henry Conn, Silver Link Publishing 2012.

The cover of the first book shows a PD2 in Selnec days with an advert for the Leek & Westbourne building society (forerunner to Britannia). This is basically red with white lettering, and also appears in the page117 view of Victoria (Green Selnec PD2). In book 2 on page 112 this advert again appears, together with a heating advert which I have failed to decipher but the colours seem right.
There is beer advert carried by MCTD 3484 on page 41 of Stewart Brown’s Greater Manchester Buses,Capital Transport 1995 ISBN185414 174 0 which looks a possible answer for Salford 151.

Andrew Gosling


24/11/15 – 06:21

Here is a superb photo of 511 (FRJ511)with the blurb also stating that it’s in the care of the 4100 group. www.ipernity.com/doc/

Chris Hebbron


24/11/15 – 08:57

Stephen, the Phoenix name came from the way this fleet of Daimlers allowed Salford to rise out of the ashes of what had been a really run-down fleet into one in which everybody could have considerable pride. I think it was only an unofficial name and would only apply to Salford due to the circumstances.

David Beilby


24/11/15 – 09:31

Stephen, you’re not alone. I’ve never heard of the Phoenix body either, and my period of ignorance extends to 70+ years.

Roger Cox


24/11/15 – 13:51

Is this a Victory Daimler with a Phoenix body raised from the ashes of war-time maintenance? ? Very poetic.

Joe


25/11/15 – 07:04

David, I doubt very much that the Phoenix name had anything to do with Salford and its regeneration under Charles Baroth.
I first came across the name in the late 1950s on a tour of Hyde Rd works when a number of Manchester’s first batch of their variation of the body type were undergoing maintenance. These differed in detail, such as stairs and radiator, from the Salford vehicles but, as Eyre and Heaps say on page 351 of the Manchester Bus, "the body design was Metro Cammell’s standard Phoenix design with only minor modifications to Manchester’s specification"

Phil Blinkhorn


25/11/15 – 07:05

I think that I would just accept that the date in M&S Glory Days is incorrect and maybe a typo for 1968. The nearside mudguard of the bus looks to be slightly misshapen which might suggest that it is a post Baroth picture. The picture of 253 on page 86 of the same book carries an advert for solid fuel fires, the strapline for which is ‘Welcome Home to the living fire that you know is cheaper to run’ This was definitely an advert borne in the early days of SELNEC, 1970, and also featured on ex-Bury buses in Henry Conn’s wonderful book as well as Salford’s 254 as noted by Andrew Gosling.

As I understand it, the term ‘Phoenix’ was used by Metro-Cammell to describe one of its designs. It’s not a Daimler term. It isn’t included under Metro-Cammell in the PSV Circle listings of body codes (though there is a ‘Phoenix’ with body code PIC which maybe no relation whatsoever). Although Met-Camm produced other bodies very similar to the Manchester and Salford bodies, most notably for BCT and West Bromwich the term ‘Phoenix’ only seems to be applied to those for the two Lancashire undertakings. ‘The Manchester Bus’, (Heaps & Eyres) makes several references to the term.

Orla Nutting


25/11/15 – 11:38

I wonder – Could the ‘brand name’ Phoenix be a fore-runner of the Orion?

Pete Davies


04/12/15 – 06:01

Like others I only came to know the Phoenix name late in life, but since then have always assumed it to be an invention of MCW, the joint marketing division of Metro-Cammell and Weymann until manufacturing was moved under its wing in 1966. MCW had a tendency to use names related to ancient mythology: Hermes was a Greek god; Orion was a huntsman; Aurora was the Roman goddess of dawn; Phoenix was a mythological bird. Leyland did likewise with Titan and Atlantean, so their combined effort to produce the Olympic was a marriage made in ancient Greek heaven (on top of Mount Olympus, where the Greek gods lived).

Peter Williamson


17/07/17 – 05:57

I remember the 56 and 57 Piccadilly to Swinton in the 1970s run by Frederick Rd depot. Both routes terminated at Swinton centre, but the drivers always wound the blind on the ‘top’ road bus to declare’ PENDLEBURY ‘as the destination which was of course wrong as the 57 ran VIA Pendlebury on its way to Swinton. The intermediate blind was 3 lines showing
Pendleton Precinct
Irlams o’th Height
Pendlebury
and of course the desti display should always have been SWINTON and never Pendlebury! The same drivers on the 64 and 66 never showed MONTON GREEN as the desti for the 66 which did precisely the same thing (Piccadilly) – Pendleton- Eccles- Peel Green with the 64 direct VIA Patricroft and the 66 ( like the 57 ) running VIA Monton Green and not terminating there. So the idle practice of showing incorrectly PENDLEBURY would never enter their heads on the 66, they always showed ‘PEEL GREEN New Lane’ on both routes. If going to be a FK garage vilain I would have said at least be CONSISTENT ! Used to look ridiculous the bus entering Swinton via Station Road having already served Pendlebury and declaring the nonsensical destination ‘PENDLEBURY’.

Frank Evans


22/07/17 – 06:40

The official practice of showing Pendlebury as the destination of the 56 (formerly the 77) goes back to Salford City Transport days, when there were no via blinds. There is nothing ‘idle’ about doing what you are told to do.

Peter Williamson


28/07/17 – 16:25

If it’s of interest, there is (or was until recently) an old ‘E’ Reg PD of Salford City being used for promotional purposes here in West Cork, Ireland.
After decommissioning from front line work, I think it went to Scotland as a training vehicle, before doing a similar function in Belgium or Holland. When I last saw it, it was parked up in Clonakilty, boldly advertising Clonakilty Black Pudding, and I can do a bit of ferretting if required or the company has its own website that you could contact for info.

Nick Turner


29/07/17 – 07:13

PS – Having now found the notes I made when I researched this vehicle before, it was JRJ 268E which I have down as Salford/SELNEC before going to E Scottish as a trainer vehicle, followed by a similar stint at Trent. No doubt those with an interest will be able to take it from there?

Nick Turner


CRJ 417 Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


17/07/20 – 07:41

I remember these old Daimlers as my first real experience of travelling on a bus of any type. My parents lived off Lancaster Road on the western-most border of the ‘old’ Salford, and the circular services 25 & 30 were our only choice of public transport. As an 11yr old, somehow I always preferred the ‘clockwise’ 30 service to the 25.
I just remember the jerky ride and relative slowness, but was always impressed by the ‘posh’ green livery, the gold angular type-face, and the coats of arms of the City emblazoned on the flanks.

Thomas


 

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

 


 

Wakefields Motors – Leyland Titan PD3 – AFT 935 – 235

Wakefields Motors - Leyland Titan PD3 - AFT 935 - 235
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Wakefields Motors Ltd
Leyland Titan PD3/4
1958
Metro-Cammell ‘Orion’ H41/32R

This 1958 Metro-Cammell Orion bodied Leyland PD3/4 was one of 12 in the Tynemouth and Wakefields fleet. They were AFT 924/35 fleet numbers 224/35; the last two carried the Wakefields name. The Northern General Transport group had quite a number of these and although ‘livery apart’ they all looked much the same, the Percy Main vehicles had a much higher interior spec. 235 ‘seen here parked alongside one of the earlier Orion Guy Arabs’, is for some reason missing a front wheel trim, most unusual for the normally very high standards of the depot. I started at Percy Main in 1967 and by then these vehicles were nearly 9 years old, but by all accounts they had lost none of their original sparkle. They weren’t the most handsome half cab I’ve ever driven, my vote for that title would go to the 1956 Park Royal Guy Arab IV’s, the 1957 Willowbrook PD2/12’s with the same O.600 Leyland engine were livelier, but the heavier PD3 was, in my opinion a much better vehicle. But lets not kid ourselves they were not perfect, the brakes left a lot to be desired, by todays standards they would probably be considered underpowered, and they didn’t have power steering. However, they were well maintained and regular application of grease to the steering linkage meant that it was always light and positive, they were also very forgiving and treated with respect they were fun to drive. To a young lad of 21 the thing I loved about them was that wonderful raucous throaty sound they had, and once you got them wound up they could clip on a bit, conductors liked them as well because they stayed reasonably upright, so they never had the sensation that they were at times practically walking on the windows when you went round corners. All things considered, apart from an occasional reluctance to stop, they were a good honest reliable workhorse, and many drivers, myself included, preferred them to the Atlantean PDR1/1.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

———

02/11/12 – 07:32

Excellent. I worked in the North-East in the 1970s but, by then, Wakefield’s and several other subsidiaries of Northern General had disappeared. I think only Sunderland District and Gateshead were left.
Can you still shop at Binns?

Geoff Kerr

———

02/11/12 – 10:48

BINNS were part of the House Of Fraser group, and there is still a store in Gateshead. No doubt one of the "local" readers can tell us if it still has the same trading name, but the group’s branch in Skipton is still called RACKHAMS.

Pete Davies

———

02/11/12 – 15:22

The only proper MCW bodied NGT PD3 I ever saw was a late survivor in NBC "knicker pink" and white and it still looked good! My favourite Northern Group Titans were the Burlingham bodied ones of Sunderland poetry in motion.

Chris Hough

———

02/11/12 – 15:23

As Geoff says, by 1970 all vehicles based at Percy Main were ‘Tynemouth’ by 1975 that name along with all the other Northern General subsidiary names and their liveries had also disappeared to become Northern which by then was part of NBC.
On the BINNS subject, they had outlets at most of the larger towns an Cities throughout the North and into Scotland, ‘including one in Edinburgh’ but as Pete points out they became part of ‘The House of Fraser’ group, and as far as I’m aware the BINNS name has also gone.

Ronnie Hoye

———

02/11/12 – 15:24

When i was a youngster I went to stay with my sister and her husband who lived in Darlington. The Shop At Binns was on nearly every bus of the day, I have just googled Binns and all I got was The House Of Fraser.

David J Henighan

———

02/11/12 – 15:26

Rackhams, Skipton: I bet that was once Brown, Muffs of Bradford, the K5G of the retail world. Alas! Rackhams were originally a Birmingham store, and the name was later transferred to Walsh’s in Sheffield.

Joe

———

09/11/12 – 13:05

I worked at Percy Main as a conductor in 1971 and by that time the early Atlanteans had really lost their sparkle; they were very sluggish and the steering could be very stiff. The PD3s still gave a good account of themselves, though, even though they were older. PD3s were the end result of the long evolution of the front-engine half-cab, while early Atlanteans had hydraulics and other new features that were worn out after 10 years.
I think that there were 6 PD3s at Percy Main in 1971 because the other 6 had been transferred to other parts of the Northern group in exchange for single-deckers used on service 15 when it became OPO in 1968. When other routes became OPO in 1971 and other single-deckers got drafted in, the vehicles that were transferred out were Atlanteans, some of them to scrap. The PD3s carried on and, while some went elsewhere in the group, other PD3s came in.
They were stable and good for a conductor. They also did have a good turn of speed. There were a few duplicate trips on the New Coast Road that were often a PD3 and they could get up an impressive speed even with a full load. Fuel consumption was high though.

P Robson


26/06/13 – 06:00

Were the reds of Tynemouth, Wakefield and Northern during 1950/60s officially different. I was a regular user of all three then I have always been convinced they were. Certainly I remember seeing Tynemouths standing next to Wakefields at Northumberland Quay many times and they WERE different, all three of them. Or is this case like LNER Doncaster and Darlington Apple Green, the same – but different!

Don T


26/06/13 – 11:50

All NGT group vehicles came out of the same Paint shop, Don, so it may be a case of one batch of paint being a slightly different shade to the next. Percy Main vehicles, Tynemouth and Wakefields, were painted at three yearly intervals, and red is of course notorious for fading, add to that three years of going through the wash every night and that may be the answer.

Ronnie Hoye


29/06/13 – 07:34

I’m delighted to see Wakefield’s Motors getting their due recognition, thanks to Ronnie. As easily the most ‘obscure’ of the Northern Group subsidiaries, they are often forgotten. Tyneside was scarcely any bigger in terms of total fleet strength but Wakefield’s fleet included coaches – some of which have recently been discussed on here – and so their service buses were much rarer.
As an avowed Orion aficionado, I think this photograph is quite magnificent and, to me, the epitome of what a ‘proper’ bus should look like. I know that Orions are not universally popular but I’m particularly interested in Mr Robson’s comments vindication of Tynemouth’s in view of his experience ‘on the back’.

Alan Hall


 

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

 


 

Newcastle Corporation – BUT 9641T – LTN 479 – 479

Newcastle Corporation - BUT 9641T - LTN 479 - 479

Newcastle Corporation
1948
BUT 9641T
Metro Cammell H40/30R

Another from the Job lot of photos I bought a while ago this time an atmospheric shot of Newcastle’s Byker Depot in 1948. An impressive line up of 20 new BUT 9641T’s with Metro Cammell H40/30R bodies, they were LTN 479 – LTN 498 fleet numbers 479/98.

LTN 479_cu

Newcastle ordered 70 of this type, and this first batch were identical to London’s Q’s where as the remaining 50 had the standard Newcastle destination indicator layout. I’ve heard it said ‘but not confirmed’ that these vehicles were built for LT but diverted to Newcastle. The first Newcastle trolley buses began to replace the trams in 1935, but because of the war it wasn’t until 1950 that the trams finally disappeared. I think I’m right in saying that Newcastle had the largest trolleybus system outside London, they had 28 routes and a fleet of 204 vehicles, but unlike the trams they never ran south of the Tyne into Gateshead, and as far as I’m aware it was only the routes into Wallsend that ventured beyond the City boundaries. The last one ran in 1966, and in resent years it’s often been said that they should never have got rid of them, but hindsight is an exact science

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye


24/06/12 – 15:26

A couple of photographs of some very impressive vehicles. Thank you for posting them.
I knew Noel Hanson who co-authored with Tom Canneaux the book ‘The Trolleybuses of Newcastle upon Tyne’. Noel was a lovely man and he spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to get to the bottom of the events that led to Newcastle receiving LPTB style Q1s. In the Second Edition of the book, published in 1985 by Newcastle City Libraries, the authors added a chapter that covers this story in detail.
In November 1946 Newcastle Corporation placed orders for 50 3-axle trolleybuses with 20 chassis from BUT and 30 from Sunbeam. Metro-Cammell were to body the BUTs. In addition the Corporation had earlier ordered a number of 2-axle trolleybuses too, including 36 Karrier chassis to be bodied by Metro-Cammell. These were delivered after the Q1s as Sunbeam F4s.
Anyway, to cut a long story short in September 1947 Newcastle Corporation was pressing Metro-Cammell to confirm delivery dates of trolleybuses that were on order. Attention focused on expediting delivery of the 36 2-axle vehicles. Representatives of English Electric – who were supplying the electrical equipment and motors – and Metro-Cammell were summoned to Newcastle. English Electric offered to commence delivery of the electrical equipment in the November for the 20 3-axle BUTs. The representative from Metro-Cammell said that vehicle delivery dates were receding but offered delivery of the 20 3-axle BUTs in the early part of 1948 on the basis of the Corporation being prepared to accept the standard LPTB body design rather than the City’s own specified design. The offer was, of course, immediately accepted.
Ronnie is correct that the Wallsend (Park Road) route lay outside the City Boundary but the Gosforth Park, Polwarth Drive, Hollywood Avenue and Grange Estate routes were also beyond The City and County of Newcastle upon Tyne (to use the correct title).

Kevin Hey


24/06/12 – 15:26

These were quality trolleybuses and Newcastle were wise to copy the London Transport body specification. In order of delivery from Metro Cammell, these twenty came before the main London order and a further order after London then went to Glasgow. The Newcastle trolleybuses were the closest in appearance to the London class Q1 whereas Glasgow did insist on their own style indicators. Newcastle did make changes such as indicators and sliding windows with a later order of similar Metro Cammell BUTs which came in 1949/50.

Richard Fieldhouse


24/06/12 – 15:28

One of the reasons that many trolleybus systems were abandoned in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s was the massive amount of town centre re-development that was going on or was planned. The disruption to overhead installations and the level of investment that would have been required to keep pace with the changes to streets and roads would have been prohibitive. Coupled with the relatively cheap price of oil and a lack of environmental awareness (compared to today) led to many operators giving in and closing their systems.
In fairness many of the trolleybus fleets in the early 60’s were fairly elderly but there were exceptions and the Bournemouth dual entrance Sunbeams and Reading forward entrance Burlinghams were thrown away with many years of life left in them. It was a great shame.

Philip Halstead


25/06/12 – 07:52

Sorry about that, Kevin, I completely forgot that Gosforth was also a victim of the abortion that came about with the creation of Tyne and Wear. At the time I lived in the old County Borough of Tynemouth, and we had our own Ambulance service, Fire Brigade and Police Force, but that’s another story, back to Trolleybuses. I can understand that City Centre redevelopment was one of the major factors in the demise of Trolleybus networks, but that seems a bit ironic now when, in Newcastle anyway, many of the buildings that were thrown up ‘sorry’ erected in the 60’s, are now themselves being demolished. On the other hand, if Trolleybuses were still around now the biggest problem would probably be cable theft!

Ronnie Hoye


25/06/12 – 07:53

What a fantastic line up of Newcastle Trolleybuses. When you consider each one would have to be positioned by a towing vehicle I wonder how long it took to get these trolleys lined up for this photo.

Eric Bawden


25/06/12 – 07:54

Philip has indicated some reasons why trolleybus systems were abandoned after the war, but there were others, too. Post-war nationalisation of the power industry ended generation by municipal authorities, part of which went to their trams/trolleybus fleets and was subsidised. Full rates had to be paid thereafter, making trams/trolleybuses less competitive and attractive than hitherto! Then, the electrical infrastructure, usually installed for electric trams, around 1900, was worn out, as were the original trolleybuses built in the 1930’s, all patched up and inadequately maintained during the war.
There never was a surplus of London trolleybuses which were passed on to other operators. ‘The London Trolleybus’ by Ken Blacker states that operators were told by the M of WT that a limited number of trolleybuses were to be produced. LPTB, along with others were asked to put in their bids, but LPTB was told specifically that a maximum of 50 would be their allocation and who would be the chassis, body and electrical suppliers. LPTB quietly told the ministry that it needed 77 to replace the fast collapsing ‘Diddlers’ and war losses, leading to the increased allocation and delivery of the first Q1 in January 1948. There were also orders for the 34 for Glasgow and 20 for Newcastle, and LPTB (by then LTE) generously gave permission for their, primarily, body design, using the same patterns/jigs, to be used for these orders, too, to speed up deliveries. Glasgow did mange to get its own pattern of destination indicators, but internally, both were identical internally to the London ones, save for the Newcastle ones having Newcastle’s seat coverings and polished wood fittings. Newcastle’s were delivered between February and April 1948, with Glasgow’s at much the same time. Glasgow annoyed LTE by using the London ‘T’ logo front and back and had to take them off quickly! They were all about a year late in being delivered for a variety of reason, but gave stirling service over the years. One quirk was the lack of nearside opening cab windows, compared with LPTB’s pre-war counterparts, occasioned by the unavailability of the item.
Glasgow also ordered more (30) trolleybuses to the same body pattern later, but these bodies were fitted to Daimler chassis, giving them a slightly longer front overhang than the Q1 type.
It is true that many systems were extended, then condemned to abandonment within a painfully short period. Portsmouth Corporation, built an urban extension at great cost in 1950/51 (copper was expensive by then), but abandoned the whole system in 1963, with none of the 14 of the remaining 15 vehicles, bought for the extension, moving on for service elsewhere. Housing bombed in the city was rebuilt well outside the city boundary and was served by motor buses.

Chris Hebbron


25/06/12 – 07:55

Aaah, the ‘Gosforths’: what wonderful trolleys these were! This is much more than just pure nostalgia, Ronnie. I was born in Newcastle and grew up in a village just eight miles away and I remember these buses as if it were yesterday. They spent much of their lives on the 31/31A/31B services (hence the nickname, of course) but they frequently strayed onto other routes too. It’s sad that none of Newcastle’s Q1s made it into preservation but I suppose we should at least be very grateful that two members of the fleet did and, of these, 628 is from the second batch, the Q2s, which were probably my all-time favourite trolleys.
From an early age many of my favourite experiences involved a trip by trolleybus, either from the Central Station or Cowen’s Monument on Westgate Road. Annual trips to the pantomime and weekly trips to the Church where my father was organist (hence the long journey) included rides on those wonderful silent leviathans which glided easily and speedily up and down the city streets; by contrast the Corporation motorbuses – which were themselves wonderful too – seemed to strain whilst everything seemed effortless for the trolleys.
As a youngster, a particular treat at Christmas was to visit Santa in Fenwick’s department store in Northumberland Street followed by tea in their Terrace Restaurant with the orchestra playing; a table by the window would ensure a perfect view over the busy street below with its constant procession of buses and trolleybuses. Looking out over the wires, and watching the booms whizzing by, sparked (no pun intended) a fascination in my young mind and ensured a life-long love affair with the trolleybus which, when I reached my teens and early twenties, involved expeditions all over Britain to sample the remaining systems before it was too late. Places like Walsall, Bradford, Glasgow, Teesside etc became like second homes!
When I made my first trip on ‘Coffin’ 501 at Sandtoft after her restoration it was quite emotional – for more than 45 years I had never expected to travel again on a Newcastle trolley; when I eventually make it to Carlton Colville to see and travel on 628 again my life will be complete!
Ah the memories that these wonderful photos have stirred. Thank you for posting them, Ronnie, and apologies to everyone for waxing lyrical and straying rather from the original subject.

Alan Hall


25/06/12 – 10:12

Picking up on a point made by Chris. I could be wrong here and no doubt someone will correct me if I am, but as far as I’m aware the municipally owned undertaking of Newcastle Transport actually made a profit, so in effect they subsidised the rates, however, the all singing all dancing PTE who replaced them, and their successor Nexus have NEVER made a profit.

Ronnie Hoye


26/06/12 – 06:55

May I wax a bit less lyrical about trolleybuses? The Bradford system lasted about 60 years. I believe it ended in a hurry because someone died when a power boom broke off. Before that there was great debate about the state of the cable poles, especially the black bit at the bottom where the doggy area was painted with bitumen (it was said). It was a time when people were anxious to clean towns up- black stonework, worn out industrial buildings, featureless streets: one of the worst visual things was the overhead wires- the mass of electric power lines (often providing street lighting), telephone lines, even radio rediffusion lines – and trolleybus lines with their many supporting poles, switches and tensioning wires. To be rid of these was a step forward. Then there was the mobility problem- apart from redevelopment, temporary roadworks, cable problems, breakdowns, accidents. Instead you got a smart new bus that didn’t look like something out of a black and white film. I recently used a hybrid airport bus in Manchester, and this is probably a part of the future- batteries or motors to give greater mobility, reserved lanes, smart buses. Would we have invested like this in the easy-parking, cheap oil, relatively uncongested sixties?… for a start we hadn’t the technology.

Joe


26/06/12 – 08:19

Fair point, Joe, but the loss of those overhead wires gave public transport a lower profile, and that was just one of the many reasons why buses have consistently failed to retain passenger numbers since. The psychologically reassurance of a fixed transport infrastructure has been a well-known factor in justifying the retention (and increasing reintroduction) of tramways, railways and (to a lesser extent) trolleybus systems. Once passengers lost faith in their public transport network, then they were lost forever.

Paul Haywood


26/06/12 – 09:37

I do not agree that trolleybus overhead was, in any way, unsightly! Down to earth Bradfordians were amply able to prioritise such issues.
Further, it is untrue to suggest that the trolley head fracture at Four Lane Ends, and its fatal results, were in any way a factor in the system`s demise, which was well entrenched at the time.
I cannot speak for other systems, but Bradford`s was very efficient under
C. T. Humpidge, and, like Newcastle, did actually contribute to the rates budget for most of the time. It was well loved by Bradfordians, was part of the "city ethos", and its demise was sadly, but reluctantly accepted.
I would also point out that the so called lack of mobility of the trolleybus has proven to be a fallacy.
In Bradford this was the excuse, so that the city could be remodelled, and what a remodelling mess they made of it in the 1960s! The new Forster square, for example, has itself now been totally erased, leaving a pile of rubble, and many fine Victorian buildings have been lost. A more cautious approach incorporating trolleybus retention, would have perhaps put a brake on this madcap destruction. Yet another advantage of the trolleybus is totally forgotten, and that is the longevity of equipment.
You could get a thirty year life from a trolleybus chassis and its equipment, and the bodywork lasted longer anyway, due to the lack of vibration.
We have to move with the times, I know, but, in retrospect, there was something ridiculous in the fashionable trend of speedy abandonment, and there were many instances of wasteful disposal of still usable assets. Newcastle, London, need I go on!!

John Whitaker


26/06/12 – 11:33

As trolleybus systems were almost universally municipal, it follows that they were subject to political pressures, such a city centre re-modelling, widespread in the 60’s.

Chris Hebbron


26/06/12 – 14:09

I agree that the infrastructure required for trolley buses was costly to erect and maintain, and it must be said that motor buses do offer a greater degree of flexibility. That said, from a passenger point of view boarding a trolleybus had one big advantage over bus travel now, you knew exactly where, and which way it was going to go, where as these days some routes seem to alter every other week, and what used to be a fairly straightforward journey from A to B has been altered to such an extent that its become advisable to take a packed lunch.

Ronnie Hoye


26/06/12 – 14:10

Back to my Bradford trolleybus abandonment theme, if I dare!
Cheap and nasty concrete building monstrosities, accompanied by cheap and nasty AEC Regent V buses which were notoriously unpopular with Bradfordians.
What a mess our Civic "Leaders" made of things!
Younger contributors to this site will probably think the 1960s were a time to remember with affection, but us "oldies" remember the real "Golden Days"
Sorry, tongue in cheek, and all that!

John Whitaker


27/06/12 – 07:03

I realise that I sometimes look back to ‘the old days’ through rose-tinted spectacles (for which I apologise) but I do wonder whether Joe has found his way onto the wrong site. It’s called ‘OLD’ Bus Photos after all and yet he seems to be putting forward views which are anathema to most of us who have an interest in, and a love of, old buses. Joe is, of course, perfectly entitled to his views and at liberty to express them wherever he wishes but there are many other websites devoted to the modern buses which he so admires so I wonder why he is bothering with a site like this one; he could, of course, just be playing Devil’s Advocate and may well be sitting back, laughing his cap off at the reaction he has provoked.
It’s true that temporary diversions could cause problems for trolleybuses but their batteries gave them a much greater flexibility than the trams to which many cities are now returning. As regards breakdowns and accidents, it is true that many authorities allowed their vehicles to deteriorate in the months leading up to closure which did lead to breakdowns and often a shortage of serviceable vehicles; as a result many trolleybus turns were covered by motorbuses in the last few weeks of systems such as South Shields and Teesside in my native north-east. Poor South Shields also had particular problems with poor power supply and, in the case of one route, salty air too so that, by the end, trolleys were rarely appearing on their routes and many people didn’t even notice the final transition. On Teesside, where the final extension – the last on any British system – only lasted a few days over three years, the undertaking suffered from the amalgamation of the TRTB with Middlesbrough and Stockton Corporations to form TMT; although the new body was initially committed to retaining trolleybuses for some years, trolleybuses had formed the major part of the TRTB whilst they only represented a small part of TMT and when maintenance problems started to arise replacement was an easy option. I would love, however, to see evidence that trolleybuses were more accident-prone than their diesel (or petrol) cousins. Again unlike trams (and I love trams too!), trolleybuses were able to take evasive action, at least to a limited extent.
Like John, I certainly didn’t view the trolleybus overhead as unsightly – quite the reverse actually – and I also share his views on the mess that urban planners made of many of our cities; of course sub-standard housing needed to be replaced but that is not an excuse for the wholesale destruction of beautiful, solid city centre buildings and familiar street patterns. In the case of the Glasgow system, for example, whilst the city centre itself has been left relatively intact, some areas served by trolleybuses immediately north of the centre (Cowcaddens and the Garngad, for instance) and also on the south side (parts of Paisley Road and Drumoyne) have largely been given over to urban motorways and their infrastructure. There will be many, I’m sure, who view these changes as improvements although we in the north-east in particular know that the redevelopment of cities could, in some cases, be influenced by those with corrupt motives (I’m thinking here of the case of T. Dan Smith, John Poulson, Andy Cunningham and others).
I’m surprised, too, that Joe, in his admiration of modern hybrid buses, hasn’t given due credit to the environmentally-friendly credentials of the trolleybus in the days before anybody had invented the term. Towns and cities such as Huddersfield and Bradford lying, as they do, in bowls are eminently suited to the trolleybus which can sweep speedily and silently up the banks from the centres out towards the suburbs without any of the pollution caused by the replacement motorbuses as they struggled manfully to cope with the gradients – St Enoch’s Road/Church Bank anybody?! If authorities had persevered with trolleybuses perhaps no one would have bothered to invent the hybrid!
Come on Joe: admit you were just winding us up!

Alan Hall


27/06/12 – 13:41

BUS - Fratton Bridge Trolley Wires

Whether tram/trolleybus wires look unsightly is subjective and not noticeable to those who’ve grown up with them. We learn to take lots of things for granted. I’ve never heard one complaint on the subject where new tram systems have sprouted in the last twenty years. I think it’s worth airing a 1960’s photo I took of the most complicated junction in Portsmouth, Fratton Bridge, where a policeman stood on a box on point duty for many decades, in all weathers, gathering many accolades when he finally retired. The junction was tricky, with traffic congestion and a climb to the bridge. It meant slick work, momentarily accelerating, then coasting across a frog, to go the right way. Rarely did the trolleybus drivers get it wrong.

Chris Hebbron


28/06/12 – 07:29

Thanks Alan and Chris…I was beginning to wonder if I was alone in my love of trolleybus overhead. There was a similar pattern of overhead at Four Lane Ends, in Bradford, with an acute right turn for the 31 Allerton route, which this photo puts me in mind of!
As you say, Chris, how drivers managed the "off" insulated sections at such complicated junctions amazes me…it is a lost skill, and the "roof drum" on the top deck was music to my ears!
Bradford also had the advantage, until about 1962, of a batch of trolleys which made "tram like" sounds, and were unique as such, being regenerative AEC 661Ts with EEC equipment, and double reduction rear axles.
Being a passenger on the top deck, as a "Regen" eased its way across Four Lane Ends, was like being in the orchestra stalls! Lovely sounds…..What a shame we cannot capture it for the sound section of this wonderful site!

John Whitaker


28/06/12 – 07:30

I always thought trolleybus overhead quite attractive but I must admit Chris, your picture of Fratton Bridge is a bit "over the top", or should that be "over the head"?

Eric Bawden


28/06/12 – 07:31

Now that, to me, is beautiful in its own way, Chris, but, as you say, it all depends on what you’re used to I suppose and it’s important to draw attention to the skill required by trolleybus drivers; although the streets were generally quieter than city streets today it was, as you’ve pointed out, no mean feat to get a trolley smoothly from A to B, remembering where to apply power and where to coast and which frogs were automatic and which were manual. Let us also not forget the poor conductor/tress who (depending on the system) may have had to break off from collecting fares to pull a frog, then chase after the bus and jump onto the platform as it started to accelerate away. There’s a perfect example of this on the ‘Online’ video/dvd of South Shields Trolleybuses filmed at the Marsden Inn where the conductor has to chase after his bus as it circumnavigates the roundabout and heads for Horsley Hill Road. The roundabout is still there today but anybody attempting to run round it now would be promptly flattened!

Alan Hall


28/06/12 – 07:32

Now I’ve upset the trolley-lobbey! It was not intentional. I know they had "the power station behind them when going up Church Bank" but was only trying to say that without hindsight, it probably seemed (& perhaps was) the right thing at the time… the infrastructure was often worn out & needed redesigning (in Bradford to put up proper street lights, if I recall, and not brackets on trolley poles) and the buses aged. There was probably no generally available power back up (hybrid etc), which would make such a difference, although I don’t go all the way with with the redevelopment argument- same goes for all services. The same argument applied to London Underground until recently- worn out, but then the money had to be found. This could however (Leeds) be the age of the "new" Trolley!
Poking around, I found a lovely Bradford scene on Youtube: a dewiring (frog broken?). Up comes the little Austin (?) tower wagon, man climbs straight on roof of bus & fiddles: eventually bus sets off, man then grabs trolley booms & holds them off the wires across the faulty frogs. Would they have survived that guardian of us all, Elfansafety?

Joe


28/06/12 – 07:33

You could probably shelter from the rain under that lot!

Stephen Ford


28/06/12 – 10:19

No Joe, you are quite right about the "Elfansafety" aspect!
It would be impossible to turn back the clock, even were we to acquire such power, as the dreaded E and S would prohibit every human activity which then existed!
I can wax very lyrical about all aspects of transport, especially trams and trolleys, but also old motorbuses in general, and Tilling/Bristol flavour in particular, and, to me, that is the beauty of this site….it is a "broad church" of genuine enthusiasm!

John Whitaker


28/06/12 – 10:20

It was impressive, likeable or not! The bridge crossed the main train lines into Pompey. Good job they worked on the tidy third-rail system. Imagine all that catenary below and trolley overhead above!
One other minus point about London trams/trolleybuses, at least, and that was the fact that London Transport had to pay an annual wayleave for its poles to the various local councils, which must have cost a pretty penny!

Chris Hebbron


29/06/12 – 07:47

As is well known Leeds was a pioneer of trolleys along with Bradford but found the tram a better option. Some of the trolleys run by Leeds were truly bizarre including some awesome looking deckers. The new trollies if and when they appear will be efficient but will undoubtedly lack the charisma of the originals.

Chris Hough


30/06/12 – 17:56

If anyone owns a copy of the 1963 J. Joyce book "Trolleybus Trails" they will see another "attractive" shot of overhead wiring on p. 74, taken at the TRTB garage at Cargo Fleet!

Dave Towers


02/07/12 – 07:15

As a youngster, growing up in Bingley on the edge of Bradford CT territory, I too had a fascination for trolleybus overhead wiring. The turning circle at Bingley parish church was the terminus of the Bingley route (26), while trolleys bound for Crossflatts (24) continued straight on. I can vividly recall the ’26’ trolleybuses stopping short of the turning circle, and the conductor/conductress alighting to pull the handle at the side of the traction pole, in order to set the frog (points) for the turn. To a youngster, watching the whole process was simply mesmerising! However, on trips to Bradford, the overhead at Saltaire roundabout could be observed, and this was in a totally different league. Here, trolleybuses terminated from Bradford via Manningham Lane (25) or via Thackley and Shipley (40), negotiating the roundabout from different angles to return to the city. The Bingley and Crossflatts trolleys also navigated the roundabout to continue their journeys on the 24 and 26 routes. Added to that, Saltaire trolleybus depot was adjacent to the roundabout, and had its own wiring ‘roads’ on and off it. An amazing feat of electro-mechanical engineering, and to my eyes, quite beautiful in its own functional, industrial way. (Fred Dibnah would understand!). Just to add even more interest, there was a trolleybus reverser ‘just around the corner’ at the end of Dove Street. Although I never saw this in day to day use, presumably it would have been used by the ’40’ trolleybuses, allowing them to avoid negotiating the roundabout when road traffic was heavy.

Brendan Smith


02/07/12 – 11:18

I’d forgotten ‘reversers’, Brendan, but now recall that Portsmouth had two of them, although one went early on, when the route was closed. Most of the frogs I noted in South-West London, were manually operated by conductors from a traction pole. Just another job for those unsung, hard-working, nimble employees, dealing with 70-seater, not 56-seater, vehicles!

Chris Hebbron


02/07/12 – 18:07

LexmarkAIOScan2

Lexmark Scan1

Lexmark

The comments about trolleybus overhead wiring in Bradford made by Brendan about Saltaire and my best friend John W about Four Lane Ends have stimulated my own fascination for complex junctions. I took some photos of Bradford Four Lane Ends wiring in 1958, just before the junction was changed to a "round the block" layout to permit longer trolleybuses to negotiate the sharp right turn for the Allerton 31 route. The Thornton trolleybuses worked the auto point for the straight- on 7 route. I have included one of these photos looking west towards the outward Thornton route where the sharp right turn for Allerton can be seen. The other parts of the wiring include a full circle used for depot access/egress and for short working services from the city as well as for driver training.

Richard Fieldhouse


03/07/12 – 07:14

Brendan, I well remember all these features – particularly the Dove Street reverser used in emergencies. There were other turning circles on the Manningham Lane route – at Lister Park originally a long loop via Oak Lane, St Mary’s Road and North Park Road which was used as a siding for football specials,(later supplemented by the addition of a turning facility at the bottom of Oak Lane), at Ashfield Avenue Frizinghall (27) (a very tight turn), and at Nab Wood on the Shipley/Bingley boundary. There were different styles of overhead in Bingley and interestingly the wiring outside the Bradford City boundary was actually owned by Shipley and Bingley UDC’s and was left in situ for some time after the Bradford wiring had been dismantled, (possibly pending a negotiation of cost of removal versus scrap value !).

Gordon Green


03/07/12 – 07:15

Impressive, Richard. A complete circle would be unusual, I’d venture to suggest.

Chris Hebbron


03/07/12 – 10:55

These pictures of Four Lane Ends really bring the memories flooding back, Richard!
Bradford, as a major player in the trolleybus field, perhaps did not have a junction as complex as Pompey`s Fratton Bridge, but as highlighted by Gordon and Brendan, there were other gems on the system as well as FLE, and I remember the Dove Street/Saltaire layout with great affection. We would often, in the 1950s, take the trolley to Saltaire, where we were always made welcome at the adjacent depot, by our old friend, the depot Superintendant, Mr Harold Brearley, who was himself an enthusiast, and contributed to trolleybus literature in the early days.
There was a section of very modern wiring, by "Ohio Brass", on the Nab Wood-Bingley section too, which deserves mention, but our "home" depot was Duckworth Lane, and Four Lane Ends was in the heart of "Duckworth" territory, and that is where the strength of my memories is based. I can still see a single decker, probably 570 or 571, turning at Four Lane Ends about 1945! It was also, of course, the heart of "Regen" territory, where those extra special trolleybuses, 597-632, groaned about on their everyday business, sporting the wonderful Tattam livery with cream bands, grey roofs, black beading, and yellow lining, and to top it all, our absolute favourite buses of all time, the 9 Brush rebodies of 1944!
I can remember my time at Fairweather Green Infants School, between 1946 and 1950, where playtimes were regularly spent with nose pressed through the railings, to watch the 3 types of "Regen" rebody pulling up at the Mumby Street stop. Every so often, during the same vigils, a cloud of dust would shroud a West Yorkshire Bristol G, as it hurtled past on the Bradford-Denholm-Keighley route! Lets all revel in nostalgia….you can`t beat it!
Moved away from Newcastle a bit though. Sorry about that!

John Whitaker


04/07/12 – 05:04

307 Ex Bradford

John Whitaker is not as far off the original subject as he seems to think he is, once again the picture is from Newcastle City Libraries, but it’s of two Bradford trolley buses ‘ten in total’ that wandered all the way to Newcastle, I’m not entirely sure of the registrations but I think were KW 5453/62. They were Dick KE/English Electrics’ built for Bradford in 1931, and acquired by Newcastle in 1942 where they became 300/9; I think they must have found their way to Newcastle as part of a wartime redistribution of resources, and I think they remained in service until about the late 40’s

Ronnie Hoye


04/07/12 – 10:43

Well Ronnie, you have made my day! I have never seen a photo of one of the Bradford six wheelers as running in Newcastle, so many thanks.
Bradford received 10 of the Sunbeam MF2 chassis diverted from the Johannesburg order, under a MOWT allocation in 1942. These became BCT 693-702, always referred to as "Joburgs".
The MOWT directed that BCT sell a similar number of older vehicles to Newcastle, with the result that 1929/30 vehicles, 573, 579, 580, and 7 of the 1931 batch, 584, 585, 586, 591, 592, 594, and 595 proceeded north to NCT.
The Bradford batches were 572-583, KW 6062-7, 6654-9, and 584-595, KW9453-64.
My records show the Newcastle numbers as 306, 309, 308, 303, 304, 305, 307, 301, 302, and there is some doubt that the earlier 3 buses ever ran in Newcastle. One of each type, plus the demonstrator, 596, were sold in 1945 to South Shields.
The wheel has turned full circle Ronnie, and thanks again. If you have any further detail concerning the lives of these vehicles with NCT, I would be delighted to hear.
There were only 9 numbered by NCT, as 595 was broken up for spares.

John Whitaker


04/07/12 – 15:41

Re John W’s posting, I was just pondering how they were actually taken up to Newcastle? I assume they must have been towed by a Bradford tow truck which most likely was an even older former bus. Finding any photographs of the journey would be fascinating as it must have been a slow task.

Richard Leaman


04/07/12 – 15:42

What a wonderful surprise to see a photo of two ex Bradford trolleybuses operating in Newcastle. The two shown had contactor control but had a primitive style of master controller that required a third pedal that was tripped after each electric brake application. This trip pedal action reset the contactors again for a power application. The term "trippler" was used for these trolleybuses by the drivers in Bradford where they were based at Bolton depot. We rarely saw one of these "tripplers" at Four Lane Ends but the earlier EEC 3 axle types with direct mechanical cam controllers did appear. These trolleybuses were hard work to drive as the power pedal had to be continually pumped to get the required power and braking. These trolleybuses were known in Bradford by the drivers as "paddlers". It is said the drivers paddled in their sleep.

Richard Fieldhouse


04/07/12 – 16:30

Its a fascinating point, Richard, about how the Bradford "Trippler" trolleys got to Newcastle. I presume they were towed up, but by whom, and how, I have no idea!
There were several instances of wartime trolleybus loans, and, amongst these, some Bournemouth trolleybuses ran in South Shields! It is also interesting to note that also, in 1942, Bradford abandoned its Stanningley tram service, as the track was desperate! The MOWT arranged loan motorbuses, Regents from Leeds, and STs from London, and 10 "Preston" cars of 1919/21 vintage were sold to Sheffield, who also received some Newcastle Hurst Nelson cars. Presumably such movements were by low loader. You never know what might appear on this site….just look at Ronnie`s photo today!

John Whitaker


05/07/12 – 06:54

Thx for this amazing photo, Ronnie. These old warhorses are seriously unattractive and, it would seem, crude, even for their day. the 1931 ‘Diddlers’ were not like this at all. There was some discussion on another posting about trolleybus movements in the war – see this Old Bus Photos link
I would doubt if any such movements were by low-loaders, much more a recent invention, apart from ‘Queen Mary’s’ which move dismantled planes around during/after the war. They would have been towed, as Richard L suggests.
The MofWT must have had some challenges to meet at times, such as the late 1940 Coventry Blitz, which wiped out the city’s tram system permanently! And a similar end came in Bristol, in 1941,when bombs damaged a bridge carrying the tramway power supply. How they kept public transport going, with minimal interruption, in such conditions, was amazing.

Chris Hebbron


05/07/12 – 06:55

Bradford’s Stanningly tram service was originally a through joint route between Leeds and Bradford. The two systems had different gauges and the trams where fitted with wheels that could be move on the axle with the tram wheel base widening to standard gauge in Leeds and narrowing to 4ft in Bradford. Sadly through running was abandoned during the first world war Leeds trams turned right to go to Pudsey just before the Bradford Stanningly terminus but this line was cut back in 1939 to Stanningly town street and was totally abandoned for buses in the early fifties. The replacing Bradford bus route was the number 9 and was home to Weymann and East Lancs bodied Regents for many years after the war.

Chris Hough


05/07/12 – 06:57

There’s a picture on p146 of "Blue Triangle" by Alan Townsin of an AEC Mammoth Major 8 wheeler loaded with engines leaving the AEC works in 1941/2 and towing a new AEC 661T trolleybus for Notts. & Derby Traction Co. I suppose therefore that trolleybuses would be towed up and down the country by whatever means was available at the time. I wonder if any were towed by steam waggon to save on fuel oil?

Eric Bawden


05/07/12 – 06:58

The same photograph of no. 1 (formerly Bradford 592) and taken in Byker depot appears in both ‘The Trolleybuses of Newcastle-upon-Tyne’ by T P Canneaux & N H Hanson and ‘Newcastle Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood. According to the Canneaux & Hanson book they were originally numbered 1-9 and 0 by Newcastle, 0 being Bradford 595 which was purchased for spares only but allocated a number all the same! The remainder were prepared for, and available for, service but nos. 6, 8 & 9 (Bradford 573, 580 and 579) remained unused. Nos. 1-5 and 7 (Bradford 592, 594, 584, 585, 586 and 591) were still in service at the time of the 1946 renumbering exercise and received the numbers 301-305 and 307. The book records the withdrawal date of all but 304 as 31 December 1948; no withdrawal date is given for 304.
They never received Newcastle livery and operated in Bradford Blue or wartime grey mainly on Pilgrim Street to Walker rush-hour extras.

Alan Hall


05/07/12 – 11:18

You’re right, Chris, they are a bit of an ugly duckling. When compared to the size of the rest of the windows the windscreens look like an afterthought. If Alan H is correct and these buses were finally withdrawn in 1948, then they would have been replaced by the BUT’s that started this discussion, and I think most of us would agree that they were an extremely handsome vehicle.

Ronnie Hoye


05/07/12 – 11:20

I agree that trolleybuses must have been towed. I mentioned low loaders in connection with the wartime movement of tramcars, but perhaps they were moved by railway.
The 1929 "Paddlers" are reported as not running for NCT, confirming my records. This was because of their older control system, detailed by Richard. One of these trolleys went to South Shields in 1945, but it was one which had the "Trippler" control system fitted to it in 1934, after 588 suffered a career ending accident.
The Bournemouth trolleys I mentioned as running in South Shields had also previously run in Newcastle.

John Whitaker


05/07/12 – 11:21

Interesting point, Chris Hough, about the adjustable axles to adapt the trams to the two different gauges. There’s nothing new under the sun as they say. Spanish trains have a wider track gauge than the standard one and post-war, their international trains had similar axles. Now, their new HST/TGV lines have been built to standard gauge.
The Mammoth Major photo sounds, Eric and the thought of using a steam waggon is a possibility. It’s worth recalling that in that period, any lorries much over 3-tonners were restricted to 20mph as well, making the journeys even more tedious! I remember the little 20 (oval?) plates on the back.

Chris Hebbron


05/07/12 – 15:59

Just to clarify my earlier post timed at 06:58 I mean that the same photo appears in both books but it’s not the same photo as Ronnie has posted here. I hope that makes sense now!

Alan Hall


05/07/12 – 16:01

My, how we move about! I don’t mind though…perhaps we should have a free discussion section. Bradford and Leeds dual gauge tram route is well documented in tramway literature, so I won’t mention it here, but coming back to the Bradford "Tripplers", I would suggest that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder! The LUT "Diddlers" were a year newer, and were AECs anyway, and, in my mind, hardly attractive, with their half cab/bonnet layout.
These were the times of rapid design, and the "art deco" movement. EEC were trying to establish a fashionable shape, and similar bodies were supplied to Nottingham, on EEC 6 wheeler trolleybuses, and 1929 AEC Regents, some of the latter having centre entrances. See David Beilby`s wonderful gallery.
It was not until late 1931 that the popular "standard" 6 bay EEC body appeared.
The Nottingham C/E Regents were an attempt to establish a new norm for entrance position too, and must have been quite revolutionary for their time, and they were a year before the Roe/Grimsby experimental bus which set a later trend, albeit single staircase.
There, I’ve set us off in a new direction! My mind leaps all over the place!

John Whitaker


05/07/12 – 16:01

Thinking just a bit more about moving these vehicles about, just imagine the journey being towed along at no more than 20 mph and then what route would they take because at that time virtually every main road would have been crossed by low bridges, most of which have since been demolished. It must have taken days to get there and a lot of planning.

Richard Leaman


05/07/12 – 17:01

I should’ve made it clearer, John W, that my thoughts were more concerned with the technical side of things than body aesthetics. Dick, Kerr were very much a tram builder and I suppose that their thoughts still leaned in that direction when building trolleybuses. In fact, I didn’t realise that they’d built any. I would not say the the ‘Diddlers’ were the best-looking bodies, but they did give more than a nod to art-deco, whereas the ‘Tripplers’ seemed to have been designed by two people, one putting a stylish (of a sort)upper deck front on it and the other putting a box on the bottom half, with more than a nod at art-garden shed. See?! Speaking one’s mind is not only the prerogative of Northerners! So, as they trendily say, live with it!!

Chris Hebbron


06/07/12 – 07:09

Well Chris, nowt to get excited about! EEC had built trolleybus bodies since 1926, and possibly earlier under the UEC name on the initial Tees Side fleet, and they had of course, been building bus bodies for some time before that. The first trolleybus body was on modified Leyland PLSC1 chassis in 1927, as a demonstrator, finishing up as Bradford 560. Then, in 1931, they signed the agreement with AEC to build trolleybuses as a joint venture, and this is the time when they were seriously experimenting with shape and design. Bradford 584-595 were the last of the EEC chassis produced, but I believe the last of all were the initial Notts and Derby fleet of single deckers.
It was some time before the acceptable shape of a trolleybus front end was established. Experiments continued to about 1935, with half cabs, dummy radiators, ridged windscreens etc, before the flush front became very much the norm.

John Whitaker


06/07/12 – 14:21

I think you’re right, John, about trolleybus design, which seemed to go through a more extreme fluctuation of style than motor buses, before settling down. Maybe it was the full-fronted aspect which caused it. Many early bodies were made to look just like motor buses – half cab with radiators! I always thought that after LUT’s ‘Diddlers’, their next offering, the essentially 1931 AEC/LGOC X1, set the future style for trolleybuses, and, as it happens for the double-deck AEC Q motor bus. See this link.
And with LUT’s X1, we can basically come the full circle to the the Newcastle trolleybuses above!

Chris Hebbron


07/07/12 – 06:54

I agree about LT X1 Chris, and recommend the Capital London trolleybus book to you…see the LB post, where LB5s were converted to tower wagons amongst others.
My final note on Tripplers….It matters not what aesthetic responses they now draw. It was an explosion of fashion "pushing" at the time, in 1931.
Living in the South and Midlands myself, for most of my life, may I trendily say "Move on"!!

John Whitaker


07/07/12 – 12:13

Will look out for the book you mention. I confess, that despite growing up in ‘Diddlerland’, the only LT trolleybus service vehicles I ever saw were AEC Mercuries. Being bought new, they may well have lasted longer than the LB5’s, or not been assigned to Fulwell Depot.

Chris Hebbron


09/07/12 – 07:34

LTN 501_lr

Apologies for it being a member of the batch following those being discussed but I thought you might appreciate a colour photo of a Newcastle Trolley rather than the black and white images featured so far.

Andrew Charles


09/07/12 – 15:55

I believe these were Sunbeams, and they came between the two batches of BUT’s. I know the bodies were built in Newcastle by Northern Coachbuilders and being a local lad I should prefer them, but to me the MCCW bodies ‘especially the LT ‘Q’ style just look so much better, but to be fair, these lasted well and gave good service, and as has been said before on this subject, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Ronnie Hoye


24/12/13 – 06:51

On the subject of trolleybuses and town centre re-development, I have read that a one way system in Reading town centre overlapped by a year or so the end of the trolleybus system there, and, as the expense of rewiring to suit the new road layout was not justified, the UK’s first contra-flow bus lane was the result.

Geoff Kerr


24/12/13 – 08:28

Don’t know about that, Geoff, but Reading Council were serial tinkerers. On occasional Saturdays and during school holidays I would venture to Reading from my High Wycombe home to drive for Reading Mainline. My first question was always "Where am I going?", the reply "Well you know the route." It seemed for a time, though, that the road layout changed every time I went up to Reading. Kings Road changed from Bus Contraflow to standard and back a number of times, as did the Butts, and this was just in the period 1996 – 2001.

David Oldfield


31/03/14 – 17:52

Further to the query regarding the withdrawal of 304. (5/7/12 – 06:58) PSV Circle fleet history PA16 shows that it was withdrawn in 1948 and it’s disposal as:- Hope (Dealer), Hexham, 1949, for scrap.

Ian Hignett


LTN 494_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


04/06/20 – 07:14

With reference to Ronnie Hoye‘s rare photo of Bradford trolleybuses in Newcastle upon Tyne, I was not old enough to remember them in service. However, not all of these were scrapped after being withdrawn, One found its way further north up the Northumberland coast and was used as a holiday cottage between the villages of Low Hauxley and Amble, surviving well into the mid 60s. I don’t have a photograph of this but remember seeing one in Ian Allan’s publication, Buses Illustrated around 1963.

Ray Jackson


06/06/20 – 06:45

Ray, there is an article (‘Silent Transport – Newcastle trolleybuses over 30 years’) in the November 1965 issue of Buses Illustrated, including a three-quarter offside view of the ‘holiday cottage’ trolleybus you mention. Outwardly the paintwork looks quite tidy, but the lower deck is showing serious signs of bulging in the first four bays. The caption reads "One of ten English Electric six-wheeled trolleybuses bought from Bradford in 1942 survives as a caravan at Low Hauxley on the Northumberland coast", so you are spot-on with your recollections. Sadly there are no clues as to it’s identity, although it probably wasn’t KW 9464 (ex-Bradford 595), as according to the NCT trolleybus fleet list shown in Part 2 of the article in BI January 1966, this was acquired for spares only.
As Ronnie comments on 4/7/12, the ten trolleys acquired were built in 1931 and the operational ones were numbered 1-9 (KW 9461/63/53/54/55/63/
60/56/55) by NCT. In the NCT registration number order shown, they would have been Bradford 592/594/584/585/586/594/591/587/586.

Brendan Smith


07/06/20 – 09:32

Ex Bradford

Ray, that pic appeared in part 1 of Noel Hanson’s Buses Illustrated article about Newcastle trolleys in Nov 1965. It’s one of Bob Davis’s.
Here’s a scan of the print. Can’t find a record of its number.

Tony Fox


08/06/20 – 07:28

Thank you to Brendan and Tony for posting the information regarding the Bradford trolleys. After scouring my old collection of Buses Illustrated I realised that my original recollection of the article by Noel Hanson was two years out. The EEC body pictured, was looking in a bad way probably because of being exposed to the damp sea air for a many years. I remember its colour scheme being a dark green and cream when I last saw it but it still looked quite smart overall.

Ray Jackson


 

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