Highland Omnibuses
1966
AEC Reliance 590 2U3RA
Alexander DP49F

Highland Omnibuses BA26 (EWS 115D) was a AEC Reliance with an Alexander Y-type body. It was new to Eastern Scottish, being transferred to Highland in mid-life. I have always thought that there is a fine line between coach and dual-purpose versions of the Y-type. This example was classed as a coach by Eastern Scottish, but was definitely dual-purpose by the time this photo was taken. It is seen approaching Upper Achintore (with Loch Linnhe in the background) on a Fort William local service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown

29/11/15 – 09:59

Don, I’ve always understood that the way to tell the difference between a Y bus and a Y coach was the number of side widows. The bus had more, smaller, windows while the coach, as illustrated here, had fewer and bigger ones.    . . . and as for the DP designation. I’ve always understood it was a bus body with coach seats, or fewer seats so as to make the longer journey more comfortable. Of course, going the other way, and downgrading a coach, you might cut down the seat backs, and put another row of seats in!

Pete Davies

29/11/15 – 14:45

I thought it was ‘coach’ seats but with ticket equipment fittings and power doors. Allowing the vehicle to be used on bus or coach services as required.

Ian Comley

30/11/15 – 06:47

Northern Scottish reseated some 53 bus seated Leopards to 49 dual purpose seats. The body had small windows!

Stephen Bloomfield

30/11/15 – 12:25

I was amused to see the three comments on the ‘DP question’ raised above because, on another forum site I visit, there has been a debate on this same subject in the past year that reached what must be a record number of postings! www.sct61.org.uk/zzvmp10ga

David Slater

01/12/15 – 06:07

The SCT61 site does indeed have a good number of comments, as David says, and almost as many points of view. The PSV used to be classed as HACKNEY on the tax disc, then it was BUS – I’m sure Mr & Mrs Smith would have been horrified to read that on their extended tour coach they were actually going by bus!
Some years ago, Southampton Citybus had a pair of what in a single decker might be regarded as DPs, but these were double deck buses, available for private hire. (Nigel Frampton may remember the E…HRV vehicles) On one occasion, I overheard comments about what a pity it was that, going along the M1, we couldn’t match the speed of "all these other coaches". Of course not, we were on a bus, then limited to 50mph while a coach was allowed 60. One morning, one of my travelling companions commented "Oh, good! A comfy bus this morning!" as one of these approached.

Pete Davies

01/12/15 – 09:58

Pete, there are no speed limit distinctions between ‘buses’ and ‘coaches’. Both were passenger service vehicles, now called passenger carrying vehicles. Buses intended for normal stop/start duties would have been geared accordingly, and this would have been reflected in the top speed. Some manufacturers, notably Dennis and Bristol, were early users of five speed gearboxes which gave their products a livelier performance on the road.

Roger Cox

01/12/15 – 11:41

Thank you for that nugget, Roger. I thought I had read somewhere that there WAS (even if there isn’t now) a distinction on speed limits. Perhaps it’s another example of the fugiting Mr Tempus!

Pete Davies

03/12/15 – 10:59

Speaking, buses and coaches were classified as PSV – public service vehicles, not passenger service vehicles. I know – I used to handle the PSV licensing in London. It was a strange description, more suited to dustbin lorries.

David Wragg

03/12/15 – 10:59

I understand that a bus or coach under 12 metres long, capable of travelling at more than 60 mph and built before 1988 does not require to be fitted with a speed limiter and thus, if capable, can travel at more than 60 mph on a motorway.

Stephen Bloomfield

03/12/15 – 11:00

Pete – I certainly do remember the Southampton Olympian DPs. I think the E-HRVs stayed at Southampton for a full working life, and I believe that one (at least) still exists. There were a couple of earlier ones as well, but they were sold to Bullock of Cheadle after only a few years, along with 4 Dominator buses (the C-BBP registered vehicles).
Although I contributed to that discussion on SCT’61 about the DP classification, I’m not sure I would recommend it to anyone as light reading! I think the point to remember is that the DP classification is a convenience for the benefit of enthusiasts, and dates from an era when documentation was virtually all on printed paper and photos were much less widely available. It was intended to distinguish vehicles which had physical features of both buses and coaches, rather than those which were purely buses or purely coaches. For example, bus shell bodies with coach seats, or coaches with bus seats. It has nothing to do with the actual use to which the vehicle is put; it needs to be capable of being determined based on simple observation; and it needs to be consistent for all vehicles regardless of operator. Operators tend to have their own codes, which suit their purposes, but differ, such that largely identical vehicles are classified differently by different operators.
Of course, once you have a reasonably clear photograph of the vehicle (or you can see it in the metal), then the code becomes academic – you can see what shape of bodywork it has, and generally get a good idea of the type of seats. Given the almost infinite variety of combinations that have been built over the years, it is inevitable that there will be one or two anomalies when using a simple coding system of that nature, but that does not invalidate the code itself.

Nigel Frampton

03/12/15 – 11:01

Enthusiasts generally use the PSV Circle definition of DP, which is a bus shell with coach seats, or, very occasionally, a coach shell with bus seats. Operators often had their own definitions, which sometimes had more to do with what they wanted to do with the vehicle than its physical properties. It isn’t unusual to find a vehicle where the PSV Circle code is different from the operator’s.
I’m surprised that Don says Eastern Scottish classed this vehicle as a coach, because it was new as ZB115, and in the SCT61 discussion it was stated that Z meant dual-purpose.

Peter Williamson

04/12/15 – 06:06

In Eastern Scottish fleet numbers shown on single deck vehicles were prefixed by a letter or letters. A vehicle with only one letter before the fleet number denoted the vehicle type and also that is classified it as a bus. However the additional letters were as follows:
C Citylink coach
X Toilet fitted coach.Used on vehicles that operated on the services between Edinburgh and London.
Y non toilet fitted coach, often without any bulkhead behind the driver. Also not capable of being OPO operated. In many instances had the same type of seat fitted as those vehicles classed as a coach.
Z Dual purpose vehicle.
In other SBG companies a 49 seat Y type with high backed seats would be classed as a coach.

Stephen Bloomfield

04/12/15 – 06:07

Yes, David, you’re right. Public Service Vehicles. A slip of the mind and fingers. I acted as advocate for LCBS in the Traffic Courts for more than ten years, so senility is clearly upon me.

Roger Cox

04/12/15 – 06:08

Thank you, gents, for your further thoughts on what is or is not a DP . . .

Pete Davies

11/12/15 – 06:57

Highland tended to put all the OPO-capable coaches it got second-hand (like this one) into the Poppy Red and Peacock Blue bus livery; even toilet-fitted Bristol RELHs.

Stephen Allcroft

04/06/16 – 06:36

It might be correct that a coach earlier than a certain date, and with certain specification may not need to be fitted with a speed limiter but it is certainly not correct that it can travel at more than 60 mph. The legislation regarding speed limits and speed limiters is completely separate although the latter may have been introduced to facilitate the former. The 60mph rule was introduced before speed limiters became necessary.

Malcolm Hirst

05/06/16 – 07:14

A bus or coach under 12m long is theoretically allowed 70mph on motorways (but only 60 on dual carriageways and 50 on single carriageways) irrespective of when it was built. The government web-page does point out that the (compulsory) speed limiter may prevent a vehicle from reaching the permissible speed limit. See https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

Stephen Ford

07/08/20 – 06:51

EWS 115D was one of two vehicles from this batch allocated to Berwick depot for use on the long Edinburgh – Berwick – Newcastle 505/506 services. The other was EWS 114D which depot staff at Berwick always viewed as the more reliable of the two. Nontheless these two vehicles gave sterling service in their Eastern Scottish days. It was only when United, with whom the 505/6 were jointly operated, started using downgraded Bristol RE coaches displaced from their London service that United operated anything comparable!

Peter Martin

Aberdeen Corporation
1965
Daimler CVG6
Alexander H37/29R

CRG 325C is a Daimler CVG6 with Alexander H66R bodywork. She entered service with Aberdeen in March 1965. This was one of only three or four Councils in Scotland still with its own Transport Department at Local Government Reorganisation in 1975 [a year later than in England] the undertaking was renamed Grampian Regional Transport, a precursor of First. We see her at Duxford on 18 September 2005.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/10/15 – 06:21

"Trafficators" on the mirrors? -about 40 years ahead of its time.
What’s the metal "pad" on the mudguard for? Not seen that before- and the grilles under the canopy are presumably heating…. and a ventilator in that window, too.
All together though, a very handsome bus: the tin front- perhaps plastic front- Daimler CV’s were the best looking half cabs of all (discuss).

Joe

05/10/15 – 06:22

Makes you wonder how they managed to fit 66 seats into a 27′ long decker. The Sheffield standard for buses of this length was 59 and I don’t recall the seat spacing being all that generous.

Ian Wild

05/10/15 – 09:51

I did wonder if, perhaps, the vehicle should be listed as a 30 footer, but a number of other places managed to fit sixty-odd seats in that length, cramped as it might have been. Did she start as a 58 or 59 seater and get the capacity increased for normal duties, was she for school services only in later years, or is there some other reason? Are there any readers out here who can tell us for sure?""

Pete Davies

06/10/15 – 06:31

Samuel Ledgard had several 27 footers with similar large capacities and, as far as I recall from conducting/travelling, no problem with legroom
The vehicles were :-
1949 – 1954 Regent V/Roe H37/28R
XUG 141 Daimler CVG6/Burlingham H36/28R
SDU 711 Daimler CVG6/Willowbrook LoLite H37/29RD.
The quite appreciable difference in the fairly narrow "window" of 26/27 feet is fascinating and quite remarkable.

Chris Youhill

06/10/15 – 06:32

Simple explanation for the "trafficators" on the mirrors. They are not trafficators but luminous yellow blobs as fitted to the back of the mirrors, a forerunner of the reflective yellow mirrors fitted to First vehicles. I believe that some other operators put aluminium plates on the near side wings, from memory Sheffield Regent V’s had them fitted but they did not cover the same area as those fitted to 325,and to all other Aberdeen tin front buses. Dundee buses also had fitting similar to those fitted in Aberdeen.
I presume it enabled staff to stand on the wings without scratching or breaking them.
325 was always a 66 seat bus and is only 27 ft. long. Aberdeen fitted five rearward facing seats along the front bulkhead

Further note, the luminous blobs have now been removed. At the time the picture was taken it was still owned by First, hence the luminous blobs. It is now owned by the Aberdeen and District Bus Preservation Group and is kept at the premises in Alford, Aberdeenshire.

Stephen Bloomfield

06/10/15 – 06:34

Halifax Corporation’s last five CVG6/Roe’s of 1956 had 65 seats (H37/28R) and were 27 footers. The lower deck comprised five pairs of double seats facing forwards and two sideways facing seats for four (a bit optimistic)over the rear wheelarches. The upper deck had eight pairs of forward facing seats, a double seat on the nearside opposite the top of the stairs (which were of course of the Roe straight variety) and a three seater seat at the rear, set back slightly behind the top of the stairs.
The Aberdeen example shown could have managed 66 seats using the same arrangement but with the first row of downstairs seats replaced by a five seater rearward facing seat against the front bulkhead.

John Stringer

06/10/15 – 06:34

The odd number of seats downstairs suggests that they had a reversed 5-some across the front bulkhead. Combined with inadequate leg room to the first forward facing seats (interlocking knees!) would give a "good" seating capacity there. We should not forget that even among the Scots, Aberdonians have a reputation to maintain! (An Aberdeen breakfast is said to comprise a slice of toast – no marmalade!)

Stephen Ford

06/10/15 – 06:35

65 seats on a 27-ft rear entrance double decker was fairly common. The extra seat to give 29 downstairs was usually achieved by having a rear facing five seat bench across the front bulkhead, Lodekka style. I am not personally familiar with these buses but would assume that was the layout.

Philip Halstead

06/10/15 – 07:06

The London Routemaster had 64 satisfactorily spaced seats within an overall length of 27 ft 8 ins, so I suppose the quoted figure of 66 in the Aberdeen Daimler’s Alexander body was possible, even if not entirely comfortable. On the subject of tin/plastic fronts, I thought most of them were pretty dire, and the AEC variety, often quoted by many enthusiasts as their favourite, was garish in the extreme to my eye. It was just an over inflated caricature of the contemporary Rover car front end. My own preference from the mediocre line up was the Johannesburg front on the Guy Arab, but this wasn’t offered for very long before the old Birmingham style became standard again.

Roger Cox

06/10/15 – 07:06

I would hazard a guess that the metal plate on the nearside mudguard was a canny Scottish idea to reduce damage to the paintwork by Fitters in dirty overalls whilst working on the engine (or night staff leaning over to check/top up the engine oil level). Seems a logical idea, did any other Operators fit these plates?

Ian Wild

06/10/15 – 07:07

With bodies by Park Royal and Willowbrook on a Guy Arab IV or Leyland PD2/12 chassis, the 1956/7 intake of D/D’s for the NGT group were all 63 seats, but 66 would seem a bit cosy, or should that be cramped?

Ronnie Hoye

06/10/15 – 07:07

Manchester Corporation and others had 65 seat 27 foot double-deckers. If the downstairs front seats had been turned to face backwards as a five seat bench (as on Bristol Lodekkas) they would have seated 66.

Don McKeown

06/10/15 – 09:39

Interesting information on the variations in these apparently high capacities. Of the eight Ledgard vehicles I mentioned only the Willowbrook "LoLite" body had the rearward facing seat for five behind the driver.

Chris Youhill

07/10/15 – 06:20

Chris-do tell us more about "LoLite" bodies? I tried it in Google and got a page of searches based on Lolita. At first glance, the word looks like one for a vandal-proofed body suitable for the more difficult-to-conduct routes.

Joe

07/10/15 – 06:22

Reading about these "large" capacity buses has me wondering about the "moderns"(sorry about that) that I am seeing around Lancashire.
A company called Tyrer has a 3axle DD marked on the back as a 102 seater and their company website has a picture of a similarly 3axle 100 seat executive coach.
Does anybody know what they might be.

John Lomas

07/10/15 – 15:54

Joe – the one that Ledgard had (SDU 711, later West Yorkshire after takeover, was the former Daimler demonstrator. The low height was, as far as I remember, achieved very successfully by attaching the body direct to the top of the chassis members. It was a very good looking bus, looking "comfortable" with itself, and was extremely strongly built with substantial upper saloon corner pillars.

John – the giant 100 seats plus buses that you mention sound very like some re-imported from China, possibly Dennis Dominators or Ailsa Volvos – open to correction there.

Chris Youhill

08/10/15 – 07:22

One of the views on the firm’s website shows the cab area, with something like the Volvo logo on the steering wheel.

Pete Davies

08/10/15 – 07:23

The 100+ three-axle vehicles are probably from Hong Kong where this type has been common for several years. The high seating capacity is mainly achieved by the use of three and two seating across the bus. With the population of Hong Kong being generally smaller in build than us Europeans this works over there. Think it would be a bit cramped with British bus loads though.

Philip Halstead

09/10/15 – 17:17

With a little help from Pete, these are apparently new Volvo B9TL tri-axle deckers, bodied by East Lancs. Quite a good-looking bus, but I much prefer the look of the Southdown East Lancs bodied Royal Tigers and PD2/12’s found in the 50’s and 60’s when I was a wee lad growing up in Brighton.

Anon

28/10/15 – 13:27

Growing up in Aberdeen in the 60’s I can confirm that Grampian 325 had three seats at the rear of the top deck and a rear facing 5 seat bench behind the lower deck bulkhead. Also 325 was the last open platform bus delivered in Scotland.

Danny Stephen

29/10/15 – 06:25

I notice that CRG 325C has the wider form of the so-called "Manchester front". We’ve been discussing this subject over on the sct61 site. The conclusion so far is that the standard CVG6 had a chassis frame that tapered towards the front and used a 7’6" front axle. When a change had to be made to the chassis frame design for any reason, a straight frame was used with an 8′ axle and the wider cowl. Examples explained this way are for 30-foot chassis, manual gearboxes and forward entrances, and also for the final batch for Northampton which was simply using up parts.
That seems to make these Aberdeen examples the last unexplained anomaly, unless anyone has any ideas.

Peter Williamson

North Western Road Car Co
1965
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
Alexander H44/31F

DDB 174C is a Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX with Alexander H75F bodywork. She was new to North Western in 1965. The company was split in NBC days and, so far as I am aware, she became part of the SELNEC fleet, passing to GMPTE when the ‘new’ county expanded to include Wigan. She became part of the GMPTE museum fleet and was one of two vehicles from that collection (the other was a Leigh Renown) which took part in the Southampton City Transport Centenary event, where we see her on Itchen Bridge. The date is 6 May 1979.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

29/09/15 – 07:08

Pete Davies is correct in saying that DDB 174C became part of the SELNEC PTE fleet.
The process though was not that straight forward.
I am sure a lot of contributors to this site will know this, but I think it needs retelling.
In November 1971, a new company, wholly owned by North Western, was formed in readiness for the impending split up of the Company. The new Company was the ‘North Western (SELNEC Division) Road Car Company Limited’.
On the 1st January 1972 this new company took over from North Western the stage carriage services within the SELNEC PTE area, together with Garages at Altrincham, Glossop, Oldham, Stockport, and Urmston (Wilmslow garage had closed on 19th December 1971. On the same date the services in the Biddulph, Macclesfield, and Norwich areas together with the vehicles and garages, were transferred to Crosville Motor Services Ltd.
On 4th March 1972 the properties at Buxton, Matlock, and Castleton, again with the vehicles and services, passed to the Trent Motor Traction Co Ltd.
On the same day the North Western (SELNEC Division) Road Car Company Ltd., passed from North Western to SELNEC PTE control, and was renamed the SELNEC Cheshire Bus Company Limited.

Stephen Howarth

30/09/15 – 06:07

Thanks for that, Stephen. As you say, not at all straightforward!

Pete Davies

30/09/15 – 06:07

These Fleetlines were very cramped internally. There was very little leg room between the seats. Later when I worked at Rochdale Depot, we had four of these Fleetlines. As a conductor I still found them a bit cramped internally, even though they were the same size as other buses. The gangway was narrow, and the ceilings were low – they were the only low height buses I conducted. Later as a driver, they were very nice to drive, although like all Fleetlines in those pre-power steering days, the steering became very heavy when the bus was full. They would have benefitted from a footrest for the driver’s left foot. On one or two occasions I picked up bricks to use as a footrest.

Don McKeown

30/09/15 – 06:08

If anyone wants to see DDB 174C Close up she has been on static display At Boyle Street for Sometime now.
As if any of us who follow this site would need an excuse to visit.

Cyril Aston

01/10/15 – 06:22

The lack of opening windows is notable – I seem to recall that North Western’s second batch of Renowns was similar. Can anyone recall how the forced ventilation coped with the cigarette fug – or the heat on a rare North West sunny day? (I suppose the lack of sliding vents was one less place to let the rain in!!) As an afterthought, Bus Manufacturers still can’t produce a reliable heating/ventilation system in 2015

Ian Wild

01/10/15 – 17:30

With reference to this posting, I attach a view of DDB174C on Southampton Common the following morning, in company with the Leigh Renown (PTC 114C) and the Merseyside (ex Southport) PD2 open topper, CWM 154C. What a wonderful variety of chassis and body styles our operators had back then!

Pete Davies

02/10/15 – 05:50

Not to mention a wonderful variety of fine liveries Pete.

Brendan Smith

02/10/15 – 05:50

Indeed, Ian, especially in respect of the windscreen area!

Pete Davies

03/10/15 – 12:34

I don’t remember Crosville taking over stock from Norwich. Wasn’t it Northwich?

Woody

04/10/15 – 07:06

Thanks for correcting my typo Woody.
I blame the pre-emptive text on my Kindle.

Stephen Howarth

04/10/15 – 11:49

Talking of Wilmslow depot (29/09/15, above), didn’t it become North Western’s HQ for a time? If I’m right in this, could someone say when, relative to the other events mentioned?

David Call

05/10/15 – 06:18

David, I think you are right, but I’m not sure on dates. I seem to remember a day out from a family visit to my grandmother in Bolton in April 1973, when I went to Blackpool on a North Western vehicle, and that had the Wilmslow address.

Pete Davies

05/10/15 – 06:19

David Call is correct in that Church Street Wilmslow became the Registered office of North Western in January 1972.
The slimmed down Company was left as an Express service operator with 84 coaches, a garage at Hulme Hall Road in Manchester and a Travel Office at 32 Merseyway, Stockport.
Wilmslow was also George Brook’s office as Regional Director of NBC.
The garage was used for storing withdrawn vehicles for a time after it ceased being an operational garage.
I do not (as yet) have a date when it finally shut. It was sold for redevelopment.

Stephen Howarth

14/05/16 – 06:41

It should also be noted that from 1 January to 3 March 1972 inclusive North Western vehicles operating on local services carried "On Hire to North Western" labels whilst all the legal formalities were carried out.

John Dixon

14/05/16 – 08:48

John, that reminds me of the time when the green buses in north Devon carried labels saying, "This is a Red Bus".

Roger Cox

15/05/16 – 06:55

John & Roger,
I once attended a seminar at Aston University where Dr Caroline Cahm (did I spell the surname properly?) was one of the speakers. She related the odd situation in Portsmouth on the first day of "Portsmouth Transit", when a lady with a Southdown pass could not understand why a driver in Southdown uniform would not let her use the pass on a bus in Southdown colours. Politics and politicians – who’d have them?

Pete Davies

01/08/19 – 09:05

Still grinds every time I see 174 with a fleet number below the windscreen. North Western NEVER displayed the fleet number on this batch this way.

The reference to Crossville takeover above should no doubt read Northwich not Norwich!

Bob Bracegirdle

03/06/21 – 06:26

I remember riding on Daimler Fleetline buses as a child in Partington.They ran on the 222 service. Later changed to 252 I believe. There was an old arched railway bridge just as you came into Partington in which these buses had to steer into the middle of the road to clear the bridge. I can’t quite remember the other bus models that ran services in Partington to Sale Stretford, Urmston and Manchester City centre.

Terence Burgess