Old Bus Photos

Midland Red – SOS SON – GHA 335 – 2416

Midland Red - SOS SON - GHA 335 - 2416
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Midland Red (Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Co)
1940
SOS SON
Brush B38F

Another image by an unknown photographer. It shows Midland Red 2416 (GHA 335), a SOS SON of 1940. Apparently seen in its final days – acting as a "Trainee Vehicle" – it still exudes an air of quaint gentility in spite of it having been rebuilt in the late 1940s. (It makes an interesting comparison with the other picture of a SON of this site in its wartime condition).
This view seems to show the driver under reversing supervision at an unknown location (help required please).
Its sister, 2418, is preserved as part of the Wythall collection.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Paul Haywood


03/10/12 – 06:19

Why is it that, every time I see one of these radiators, I think "AEC"? Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner by birth, despite the Lancashire origins!

Pete Davies


03/10/12 – 09:56

An amusing observation, Pete, that all readers will understand. I looked at the photo, as I did at the earlier one, and wondered about the destination display. The lack of information might be explicable because the vehicle is on driver training, and the similar lack of display on the other SON might (just) be explicable in terms of wartime conditions. However, why is there no destination box at all? The roof line seems to be begging for one. What was Midland Red’s practice?

Roy Burke


03/10/12 – 17:54

Roy, did it perhaps come from the era of slipboards mounted diagonally across the bonnet?

Stephen Ford


03/10/12 – 17:55

If you look at the other wartime SOS-in-service on this site, all is revealed about the destination boards (I had to look first)…. but it still looks as if they meant to have a proper box and changed their minds!

Joe


03/10/12 – 17:55

Yes, Roy, this lack of destination screen has always puzzled me. None of the MR half-cabs had them but, as we can see, the body seems to have been designed for a very shallow one. All these buses used destination boards, positioned in slots more or less where the "L" plate is, even after they were rebuilt in the late 1940s. When we consider that, by this time, MR were one of the most progressive operators in the UK – we have to wonder why they retained this archaic arrangement.

Paul Haywood


04/10/12 – 07:33

Not just the destination arrangement but the vehicle itself looks archaic. The last operator to buy SOS chassis from MR was Trent who took their last ones in 1940. Throughout the thirties, most of the Trent ones were antiquated looking. No doubt they were sturdy, no doubt they were economical, but when compared to their neighbours, East Midland and Barton with their impressive fleets of Leylands, I’ve always thought they must have been something of a joke.

Chris Barker


06/10/12 – 07:45

I agree with Chris that Midland Red’s in house SOS designs always looked archaic in comparison with contemporary competition, and the 1920s shape of radiator that, until 1937/38, preceded the "AEC clone" type shown above made the machines look even more ancient. The destination display matter is intriguing. By 1929, the Midland Red fleet consisted entirely of single deck vehicles, and to cope with increasing passenger loadings, the company introduced its first double deck design in 1931, subsequently producing fifty in 1932/33. This design, the DD-RE (I am given to understand that the often quoted designation REDD is erroneous) had a conventional destination display at the front between the decks, yet new single deckers continued to appear with the slip board arrangement on the bulkhead behind the engine bonnet. Someone at the top of the company must have had an intransigent attitude to persevere with this system for so long.

Roger Cox


09/10/12 – 08:19

In connection with Midland Red destination boards on SON vehicles, I remember that about 1950, there used to be an open box in Leominster Bus Station in which appropriate ones were stored for use as required. Nowadays, such an arrangement would provide a ready supply of offensive weapons!
Service numbers were displayed using stencils in a back-lit box in the front nearside window. Only two stencils of each figure were carried, hence there were no BMMO routes numbered 111, 222, 333 etc.

John Hodkinson


15/10/12 – 07:53

BMMO were in the forefront of advertising their services – although it seems Donald Sinclair didn’t necessarily approve of O.C. Power’s tastes in such matters. So why the blinking heck didn’t they see fit to actually advertise clearly where each bus was actually going? – dark night, fog . . . stencil and wooden board??

Philip Rushworth


29/01/13 – 06:30

The location is Rutland Road, Bearwood. Training Instructor Grainger is watching an obviously trustworthy trainee reverse out of the back entrance to the garage, adjacent to the training school – presumably the route through the garage was blocked.
Mr Grainger took me for my driving assessment when I joined the Midland Red in 1973, which I passed with colours if not flying, then certainly flapping in the breeze!

Lloyd Penfold


29/01/13 – 10:04

Lloyd – how good to get not only the exact location, but a name as well! Thank you. The photo has a late 1950s feel to it, so Instructor Grainger would still have at least a decade of active service left. It’s amazing to think that, presumably, he would have had to be proficient in driving these arcane specimens and the C5 motorway expresses!

Paul Haywood


29/01/13 – 15:24

LLoyd, funny how a name triggers the memory (now at 78 suffering somewhat). Mr Grainger took me in Fedd BHA 453 on 13th March ’57 – I kept the record of my training from 11th-28th March 1957 – and again on my ‘pre-test accessment’ on 28th then passed me to Mr Gowan and D7 4453 (XHA 453) for the test, passed OK. Wonder if you recall any of the other instructors : Messrs Shanain, Skinner, Yardley, Callaghan, Powell, Bennett, Mynard and Birch? It was a short but happy training month as I recall.

Nigel Edwards


22/03/14 – 08:26

Midland Red managed without illuminated destination indicators because it was a system where each route was so well known and each stop so clearly marked that it was hard to get the wrong bus by mistake:if in doubt you simply asked the conductor! I was about 12 when the last SONs were in service and I clearly remember that the vehicle batteries could just cope with starting the engine, the interior lights went right out and often had to be switched off in order to start! I doubt if the system could have coped with more lights! Remember that visibility was not exactly a priority in those days, when only a dim red stop/tail light was provided, and this was in a partly rural area. The departure stops were carefully worked out,to the extent that certain stops on a road were used by certain services only. There was one Stop I used near my home in town, which was provided for just the one cross-town route only… other services along that road, and there were many, just ignored it! A couple of my family worked on the buses in that era and never had a problem with destination boards: you just carried the ones you needed on that shift, not a full set!

Michael F


20/04/15 – 07:03

Another idiosyncratic point about SOS half-cabs was the way that the radiator was always offset to the nearside of the centre line of the vehicle by various amounts – particularly noticeable on the three FEDDs that had been given the ‘full frontal’ treatment while retaining the exposed radiator! (EHA 290 / 292 / 297)

Larry B


20/04/15 – 09:25

Larry, sorry to disagree but the SOS radiator was on the centre line, the optical illusion is due to the half cab being really a third of the width of the vehicle. The lack of a balancing mudguard on the offside adds to the illusion. As far as the FEDDs are concerned, from memory, the same illusion existed. BMMO cabs of the period were renowned for being cramped and it has been said elsewhere that the SOS/FEDDs were not the company’s finest products.

Phil Blinkhorn


21/04/15 – 06:23

Phil, the earlier SOS types with the rectangular radiator certainly had the radiator offset to the nearside whilst keeping the starting handle on the centre line. The picture of an ON at this link illustrates the point well:- www.flickr.com/photos/8755708 Midland Red seemed to take a perverse delight in the jarring aesthetics of its pre war designs. As you state, the cab tapered sharply towards the front of the vehicle to line up with the radiator offside, and the mudguards (one could scarcely call them ‘wings’ on such an ugly duckling) were different on each side. Whatever their mechanical virtues, these machines looked awful and the tedious overall red livery just compounded the problem.

Roger Cox


21/04/15 – 09:42

Roger’s link well illustrates the early production offset radiator but my point was regarding the bulk of SOS production, including the illustration on this thread. Larry stated that the radiator was always offset and this myth is perpetuated by many enthusiasts looking at photos because the optical illusion caused by the eccentric design of the cab, dash panel and mudguards misleads the eye.
Measurement of this thread’s and many other photos clearly shows that the vertical chrome strip in the centre of the radiator is at the centre of the width of the vehicle.

Phil Blinkhorn


22/04/15 – 07:25

Phil That is interesting because the starting handle aperture on the original photo at the top is not on the centre line of the radiator. Does that mean that the engine wasn’t on the centreline?

John Lomas


22/04/15 – 07:26

Phil, take a look at this frontal view of a FEDD with the later centre strip radiator. The middle point of the vehicle is surely the starting handle hole, with the radiator offset right up against the nearside dumb iron. //www.classictransportpictures.co.uk/photo_9863080.html

Roger Cox


22/04/15 – 07:26

Sorry Phil but I’m not convinced. If you look at the radiator position in relation to the spring dumb irons (which unarguably are symmetrical) the rad is closer to the near side spring than the offside.

Andrew Charles


GHA 355_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


23/04/15 – 07:05

I have looked at Roger’s link image of the FEDD, and I traced a line down from the upper deck window centre strut, as this seemed to be fitted centrally. This links up nicely with the starting handle hole, and shows that the radiator centre strip is clearly off-set to the near side. My understanding from reading years ago was that most if not all SOS forward control vehicles had a narrow cab, but eased the driver’s position a little by having the engine (and therefore the radiator) mounted towards the nearside. Wasn’t the pre-war Dennis Lancet similarly constructed, with an engine and radiator to the nearside?

Michael Hampton


23/04/15 – 07:06

To me, the centre line of the FEDD radiator agrees entirely with the pillar between the two front windows upstairs, which appears to be in the centre of the body. The cab is certainly less that half the width of the body, which rather distorts the balance of the lower deck. It looks as if the springs are not equidistant from the centre line.

Chris Hebbron


23/04/15 – 07:08

The only pre-war SOS buses with a centrally mounted radiator were the OLR class, which were coaches converted during the war to half-cab from full bonneted normal control, which is why the radiator was fitted centrally.

Tony Gallimore


23/04/15 – 07:08

Roger, Andrew and John, please measure the distances between the centre line of the radiator and the extremities of the vehicles, nearside and offside in both the photo on this thread an the FEDD photo.
As for the position of the starting handle hole there are many examples of Leyland prewar single and double deckers where the starting handle hole is offset yet no-one seems to say the radiators are also off set.

Phil Blinkhorn


24/04/15 – 06:30

Phil It was because of your insistence that the rad is central that I raised the question of the engine being offset.
Ford definitely offset the engine from the centreline on the 83e vans(away from the driver, they even had 2 holes as standard to allow for LH and RH drive) Morris also had an offset engine in a van of comparable size to the Ford.

John Lomas


24/04/15 – 06:32

Sorry, Chris H, but I don’t buy the idea that the position of the offside front chassis member and spring was further outboard than its nearside equivalent. The handling consequences would have been rather "interesting", unless one was driving, of course. This picture proves the point, I think:- www.sct61.org.uk/ttrc3333  
Phil, I concede that the starting handle isn’t centrally placed on the chassis, but I maintain that the radiator is offset to the nearside. If you check the dumb iron positions on the FEDD picture, they are definitely equidistant from the vehicle sides. It’s the radiator that’s askew.

Roger Cox


24/04/15 – 06:34

I accept the challenge and think I’ve found the perfect photo to illustrate the point.
In the TPC book ‘Midland Red’ Vol 1, page 126, is a photo of full front FEDD EHA 290, the radiator’s central filler cap is clearly to the nearside of the central windscreen pillar and the accompanying text states "….showing the radiator offset to the nearside."
There are a number of reasonable quality front end photos of both double and single deck models which highlight that the rad is mounted closer to the nearside front spring than the offside unit, the significance being that the springs are symmetrical to the centre line of the chassis.

Andrew Charles


 

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

 


 

Pennine – Leyland Royal Tiger – MTC 757 & MTD 235

Pennine - Leyland Royal Tiger - MTC 757

Pennine - Leyland Royal Tiger - MTD 235
Both photographs by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Pennine Motor Services  
MTC 757 MTD 235
1950 1952
Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13 Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/15
Brush B44F Leyland C41C

There has been some discussion on another posting about the former Leyland demonstrators, MTC 757 and MTD 235, the latter being still with Pennine and mentioned in the new PSV Circle listing on preserved buses. I have "bought" slides of these two, and I know when and where they were taken, but I’ve no idea of the photographers. MTC 757, the bus version, is seen in Malham in June 1964. MTD 235 is seen in Gargrave in September 1967. MTC 757 had a Brush bus body, while MTD 235 is quite clearly Leyland’s own. ‘The Dalesman Cafe’ on the right of the lower shot was still thriving when I was last in Gargrave a few months ago!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


05/08/12 – 12:31

Wouldn’t you put the dates of these two the other way round? The bus looks remarkably modern and simple for 1950- even the peaked front dome (or is that a trick of the light?) Could it be a rebuild? On the other hand the Leyland (export?) body looks a bit 1940’s Detroit at the front, especially that chrome "dribble".

Joe


05/08/12 – 14:11

Joe, it’s definitely a trick of the light – MTC 757 did not have a peaked dome, and was a very neat looking bus for the time. It was built in 1950, and acquired by Pennine in 1951. They withdrew it in 1967 and it is believed to have been scrapped.
MTD 235 was the prototype for the Leyland Royal Tiger coach body, and as originally built it did not have the multi-windowed ‘lantern’ type windscreen arrangement seen here and familiar on all the production examples, though it must have been modified very early on, as all the photos I’ve seen of it with Pennine show it as it is here. I must rack my brain (quite difficult nowadays) and try to remember which book I have that shows it in its original form and report back. Don’t hold your breath !

John Stringer


05/08/12 – 14:34

I had – please note the past tense! – black and whites of both these vehicles, and taken at Lancaster Bus Station. MTC most certainly did not have a peaked front dome. I have a copy of the Pennine history by Donald Binns in collaboration with the operator, which has a photo of her on page 49. The caption includes "It was scrapped in August 1967 after 16 years service and with 825,000 miles on the clock".

Pete Davies


05/08/12 – 14:35

The dates given in the posting would seem to be correct. MTC 757 was a Royal Tiger PSU1/13 with Brush B44F body built as a demonstrator in 1950, and bought by Simpson of Gargrave t/a Pennine in 1952. Brush ceased building psv bodies in 1952. MTD 235 was also a Leyland demonstrator, and it carried the standard Leyland 41 seat coach body for this model, though the chrome trim was adapted to meet customer choice, and some examples did not have the "swept under" front panelwork. This body continued to be available up to the time that Leyland closed its coachbuilding facilities in 1954. The PSU1/13 version of the Royal Tiger had the horizontal O.600 engine coupled with a four speed synchromesh gearbox and vacuum brakes.

Roger Cox


05/08/12 – 15:06

MTD 235 is still owned by Pennine and is kept at Barnoldswick and is worked on when time permits.

Philip Carlton


06/08/12 – 07:27

The Brush body was a nice design and must have been one of the very earliest on an underfloor engined chassis (apart from BMMO). Quite different to those supplied to Yorkshire Traction/Woollen. Presumably it was 7ft 6in wide?

Chris Barker


06/08/12 – 08:34

Chris, MTC and MTD were both to the usual 8ft width for underfloor engined vehicles of the time, so far as I am aware.

Pete Davies


11/08/12 – 07:23

Think 8′ was standard width for these underfloors. Although they still existed quite recently as a heavy engineering and railway manufacturer, Brush effectively became Willowbrook in bus terms. [Not sure who bought whom.] The next Royal Tigers for Tracky were Willowbrook – but built by the same men in the same factory.

David Oldfield


11/08/12 – 12:07

Several Royal Tigers were built to 7ft 6in width, it was offered by Leyland as an option. Hebble and Devon General had some Willowbrook bodied examples.
Brush are still very much in business, in Loughborough adjacent to the railway station. It was just their bus building activities which they disposed of in 1952. All production was then transferred to Willowbrook including some double deck Daimlers for Derby which were in build at the time and Brush designs disappeared almost immediately.

Chris Barker


12/08/12 – 07:16

Willowbrook existed in Loughborough from 1931, totally independent of Brush. They occupied the retail site now known as Willowbrook Park.
Brush voluntarily quit the bus body building enterprise in 1952, but locals tell me that their designs were passed to Willowbrook.
As Chris says, Brush are still in business, but they are a mere shadow of what they once were, and are no longer the town`s biggest employer. Once upon a time, they were the second largest tramcar builder in the UK, and that was just part of their total business!
What about Pennine though! Still in business, and they have seen it all and survived it all, and still continue as a small independent. I remember them well from my courting days, with wife to be living past Settle, on the Pennine route!
Good old Happy Days are getting even happier!

John Whitaker


12/08/12 – 07:18

I thought Pennine only had a garage in Skipton, but from Philip’s comment above, and from looking at their current timetable showing some early morning services starting in Barnsoldswick, I realise they have a garage there as well. Does anyone know how many vehicles are accommodated there; presumably only 4 or 5?

Dave Towers


28/08/12 – 14:29

The Pennine garage at Barnoldswick was acquired with the business of Ezra Laycock Ltd in 1972. As an ex-Laycock employee I ought to be able to confidently tell you the depot’s capacity – I can’t quite do that, but I think that the answer is five, although in Laycock days vehicles were parked outside as well. According to the timetable three buses start and finish at Barnoldswick, so that is presumably how many operational buses are kept at the depot. I did have it in my head that MTD 235 had been moved to Skipton, but I may have imagined that bit.
As far as I am aware Pennine also continues to use the small depot at Settle, capacity two vehicles.

David Call


29/08/12 – 07:26

I notice that Pete Davies has mentioned (on the Pennine LWY 702 posting) that MTD 235 is indeed now resident at the Skipton depot.

David Call


29/08/12 – 18:59

All is explained, at last. The section about MTC 757 & MTD 235 appears under a total of four headings – Brush (bodybuilder), Leyland (bodybuilder), Pennine (operator), and Leyland Royal Tiger. Only under the heading of Leyland Royal Tiger is there a section devoted to Pennine’s LWY 702, and it is at the foot of that section where Pete Davies has mentioned that MTD 235 is now at Skipton depot.
I would not expect LWY 702 to be mentioned under Brush, of course, but I am surprised that it does not at least get a mention under Pennine (operator). As to whether it should appear under Leyland (bodybuilder) or even Leyland (chassis builder), I suppose you will have to draw a line somewhere regarding what gets included and what doesn’t, there were an awful lot of Leyland buses manufactured. In passing perhaps I could mention that I noticed that under the heading of Leyland Royal Tiger Cub, only one of the three sections actually relates to an example of that model. The other two refer to the infinitely more common Leyland Tiger Cub.
Should I trawl through the other headings checking for similar errors/anomalies? It would beat counting sheep, I suppose.

David Call


30/08/12 – 06:56

The comments engendered by entries to this Forum frequently range far and wide, often well beyond the strict confines of the original submission. We have all had at least one reprimand, not, be it noted, from our webmaster, for straying from the initial subject, but that is entirely within the spirit of this site. The wealth of interest, information and detail that emerges thereby is invaluable. I think that we should go on regarding ourselves as a bus enthusiasts’ equivalent of Dr. Johnson’s Literary Club, with free ranging discussion. Cross referencing every point made in the "comment" columns would be a nightmarish task. Let us just be very grateful for this splendid site.

Roger Cox


30/08/12 – 11:47

Agreed, Roger. It’s worth remembering, too, that, although not as good as cross-referencing, there is a search facility on the website which I’ve found useful a couple of times.

Chris Hebbron


31/08/12 – 07:24

I think most of us form a loose group of cyber friends with a common purpose. I think that overrides any jobsworth tendency to pedantry – and that comes from one of the world’s biggest pedants!

David Oldfield


31/08/12 – 07:25

Contrary to what I stated above, it seems that the section devoted to LWY702 actually appears under all the headings I mentioned – I hadn’t realised that many of the headings lead to multiple pages. It does not help, of course, that my search engine (google) only picks up words and phrases which are contained in the first of those multiple pages – not the second and subsequent.

David Call


11/05/14 – 11:14

On the Pennine (operator) pages, Chris Wright and Orla Nutting comment on the forthcoming closure of the company.
There has been some confusion about MTD 235. Some sources say she’s at Barnoldswick (spoken locally as Barlick) and some (including me, based on reports I’ve had) say she’s at Skipton. To a degree, both are right and both are wrong! On withdrawal, she spent MANY years gathering dust at Barnoldswick garage. About 2 years ago, she was moved to head office with a view to start of restoration. The inspection was duly undertaken and it was found to be [I quote] ‘a massive job’ which would divert too many staff hours, so she’s back at Barnoldswick, apparently with one of the Leopards new to Ezra Laycock.
I suspect that a number of readers will be concerned about the future of MTD maybe she should could go either to the Leyland Museum or to the one in St Helens if the family don’t keep her.

Pete Davies


12/05/14 – 08:37

The ex-Laycock Leyland Leopard reputedly stored at Barnoldswick depot can only be OWY 197K, since that was the only Leopard ever owned by Laycock’s.
An interesting point is that throughout the few months of its time with Laycock’s, and into Pennine ownership, it carried the incorrect registration OWY 179K.

David Call


13/05/14 – 06:34

Thank you, David, for your comments about the Leopard. In the Donald Binns book about Pennine, there are two photographs showing her with OWY 197K, but the listings in the book show both registrations! She is shown in the book as being stored at Ingleton, but that is clearly out of date if my information from company staff the other day is correct.

Pete Davies


23/05/14 – 07:51

Pete. I paid my respects to Pennine on the last day 16th may I Actually wrote to Maurice Simpson wishing him well for the future and how sad it was Pennine Motors was closing down. I suggested MTD 235 should be restored in memory of his father and the company and what his plans are for the vehicle.
Work was carried out on the brakes and other bits and pieces the chief engineer tells me, however she is to be towed back to Skipton in the coming weeks but what the future is it is not clear as yet.

Mark Mc Alister


25/05/14 – 10:33

Thanks, Mark, for your update.
Before I retired, I worked in the passenger transport team of Southampton City Council, dealing with the local operators over aspects of their services. The national concession scheme was just coming into use. My managers commented on several occasions that the regulations said that the level of reimbursement must be strictly neutral, in that the operator must be no better off and no worse off through taking part in the scheme.
The reports I have read in various places all suggest that North Yorkshire County Council have a different view.

Pete Davies


26/05/14 – 09:28

The point made by Pete Davies was first specified in the Ridley 1985 Transport Act when each local authority had the power to determine a concessionary fare scheme. This led to wide variations throughout the country, and some authorities, of course, chose not to offer any meaningful scheme at all, which was one of the reasons why the Labour government, in reality, John Prescott, decided to ensure that mandatory schemes were available everywhere from 2001. This was followed up in 2007 by a national scheme for England. The Welsh and Scottish administrations pursued their own policies. This new scheme maintained the requirement that "Travel Concession Authorities are required by law to reimburse bus operators for carrying concessionary passengers, on the principle that the operators are "no better off and no worse off" by taking part in concessionary travel schemes. The aim is not to subsidise bus operators, but to pay for any increased costs that they have incurred". The legislation goes on to say, "The national bus concession in England is available at any time on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, and from 9.30am to 11pm on any other day. TCAs are able to offer concessionary travel outside these hours on a discretionary basis". I understand that North Yorkshire allows the passes to be used from 9am until 6am the following morning, which is entirely lawful under the clause stated above.

Roger Cox


26/05/14 – 09:29

The situation in respect of the depot premises is as follows.
Skipton: To let at £40,000 p.a. or might sell
Barnoldswick: Sale agreed
Ingleton: Sale agreed
Settle: For sale (‘Guide price’ £75,000) or might let
As Mark McA says, the future for MTD 235 is not clear – it looks even less clear now. We can only hope that it will be, as suggested by Pete, donated to one of the established museums.

David Call


26/05/14 – 14:01

Quite right, Roger, but it’s the amount of reimbursement that seems to have upset matters in this case.

Pete Davies


21/02/16 – 15:44

Re MTD 235 – can anybody give me an update on this coach’s current condition and location please?

Howard Piltz


21/03/16 – 15:54

It appears to have been offered for sale on Ebay in 2014 but the highest bid, just over £2K, didn’t meet the reserve price. Since then it has been off the radar.

Mike Morton


23/03/16 – 05:42

"Just over £2K", Mike? That’s just silly, given the nature of the beast. I’d have expected another ‘0’ on the figure . . .

Pete Davies


23/03/16 – 17:10

Pete
That’s the reality of Bus Preservation lots of effort/money but nothing like the financial return of vintage cars.

Roger Burdett


23/03/16 – 17:14

Sadly Pete, the generation of enthusiasts that remember and appreciate this era of classic vehicle are getting on in years and fewer in number, and probably feel that it is a bit late in the day to start getting involved in such a substantial and expensive restoration. The majority of active preservationists nowadays are more into the vehicles of their youth – such as Nationals, Olympians and Metrobuses, and even more recent types than those.
I attended the open day at the Dewsbury Bus Museum the other week and thought I’d sample a few rides on the free bus service into Dewsbury and back. I rode on the superb recently restored West Riding PD2 and then the West Riding PS2 but was surprised to note that though plenty people were photographing them, there were relatively few that chose to ride on them, whereas the Olympians, RELL, Leopard and even the virtually new Arriva Enviro Whateveritis were packed out with excited punters.
Time moves on, and so will we, and I fear for the long term future of many of our favourite classic buses.

John Stringer


24/03/16 – 05:56

Re MTD 235. It did not meet reserve on eBay in 2014 (highest bid £2250) so presumably its still with Simpson (t/s Pennine Coaches) Skipton.

John Wakefield


24/05/16 – 08:58

MTD 235 once again on Ebay.

Dave Philpot


30/05/17 – 06:42

MTD 235 has been sold on in Yorkshire.

Phil Clark


22/11/17 – 07:37

I can report that restoration of ex-Pennine Royal Tiger MTD 235 is continuing with the mechanics receiving a thorough overall and work commencing on the body. It is hoped that it will make a return to the road one day soon, keeping fingers crossed!

Phil Clark


23/11/17 – 07:09

Wonderful news!

Pete Davies


23/11/17 – 07:10

Good news indeed Phil-thanks for the report.

Stuart Emmett


23/09/18 – 06:14

I am currently restoring the ex-Pennine Leyland Royal Tiger MTD 235 – has anyone got a destination blind for this or any Pennine posters or notices or timetables that were displayed in their buses in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s? I will be pleased of any help or copies of anything that will add to the restoration. Thank you, you can contact me through this website.

Phil Clark


05/11/18 – 13:38

The only blind I have seen also covers 1972, 1983 and 1986 changes and includes the former routes of Laycock, Skipton and the ex Ribble locals and Burnley etc.
1950’s’/1960’s when MTD was in main service then the range was small. Therefore would suggest only needs to include Malham, Tosside, Morecambe, Lancaster, Ingleton, Gargrave, Settle, Skipton, and Contract.
On further materials-assume, you already will have the Donald Binns 2000 book called Pennine Motor Services that includes many timetables.
Hope this helps and that your worthwhile project continues on. Any ideas when it might be completed?

Stuart Emmett


MTD 235_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


18/11/18 – 09:26

I’m trying to locate the Leyland Royal Tiger MTD 235 mentioned in your website. My dad is a retired bus driver and it’s his favourite bus. I’m trying to arrange just to see it really.

Steven Davies


27/01/19 – 07:41

Thanks for your info on MTD 235 destination names that will be useful, at the moment it has no blind gear as this must have been removed some time ago, so I am trying to find replacement blind gear (if anyone has some!). I haven’t found that book on Pennine but I hope I’ll find it some day. I have found some old Pennine excursion flyers which I hope to make use of. Restoration continues albeit slowly as I’m finding much of the rear end wood frame has decayed or is missing and this is not my favourite job! I am part way through rewiring the coach as much of the original is in a very poor state. I think it will be a while yet before it is finished, but if anyone has any memorabilia, old Pennine notices, posters or unpublished photographs I will be pleased to know!

Phillip Clark


28/01/19 – 07:39

Pennine book available right now suggest be quick www.abebooks.co.uk/

Stuart Emmett


29/07/22 – 05:56

Hello Phillip – wondering how the preservation of MTD 235 is progressing please.

Stuart Emmett


 

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

 


 

Midland Red – SOS FEDD – FHA 236 – 236 – 2254

Midland Red - SOS FEDD - FHA 236 - 236 - 2254
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Midland Red (Birmingham & Midland Omnibus Co)
1939
SOS FEDD
Brush H30/26F

Midland Red FHA 236 (2254, formerly 236) was one of their unique pre-war, front-entrance, SOS FEDD double-deckers. They were built in large numbers between 1933 until 1939 with bodies by Carlyle (1), Short Bros, Metro-Cammell and finally Brush, each batch having gradual improvements and modifications. Like their SON single-deck sisters, they were extensively rebuilt by Hooton Aero & Engineering (and others?) in the 1940s to extend their lives. This example is seen at Stourbridge busFHA 236._ffjpg station, probably in the late 1950s. Note the position of the fuel cap, which fed the tank positioned beneath the driver’s seat. This postcard is uncredited so if anyone knows who took it, please let us know.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Paul Haywood


10/07/12 – 18:28

It’s interesting how this forward entrance layout, used extensively pre-war by Barton and London Country area as well as Midland Red died out in the post-war period only to find popularity again in the early 1960’s. The reasons cited for the adoption of forward entrances in the sixties were greater safety by giving the driver a better view of the entrance and easing the conductor’s workload as a result particularly on 30ft long higher capacity vehicles.

Philip Halstead


11/07/12 – 08:05

Looking at this, and at the single decker posted a few days ago, without looking at the caption, the radiator grille looks remarkably AEC, at first glance. Then, you study it and see it isn’t!

Pete Davies


11/07/12 – 08:06

Dare I say, that surely must be one of the most awkward looking designs imaginable. What strange proportions giving it a very "tall" appearance and the design around the cab is very unhappy. Even the radiator looks partly buried by the flat, featureless front.
Thank goodness this was only a blip in inspiration before coming up with many superb designs not long afterwards!
I hope this doesn’t upset anyone but beauty really is in the eye of the beholder..this poor bus needed help!

Richard Leaman


11/07/12 – 12:38

You’re absolutely right, Richard, on both the points you make: first, I agree with you that the overall design just doesn’t work. The whole of the cab area is untidy; the staircase gives the impression that the front offside passenger window has just been blocked off. The ‘tall’ appearance is possibly due to the angle of the photo, but you’re right about the radiator, the location of the front registration plate exaggerates the problem, and the livery doesn’t help either.
However, as you also remark, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; unlike many correspondents, I always thought the (much later, of course), Orion looked balanced and business like, (especially on M&D’s Guys), but at the time, the message I was being taught was that appearance is secondary to operational performance any way. An ugly duckling that was economical and reliable was preferable to a good looker that wasn’t.
The choice of entrance location, (Philip’s comment), is worth an entire separate article of its own. For urban working, there was a lot to be said, (before H&S concerns), for open platforms – quick, convenient for passengers, and, provided the driver was using his mirrors as he should, tolerably safe. Doors were less draughty for inter-urban use, but manually operated doors, especially rear doors such as Lodekkas had, were a drag for the conductor otherwise and were usually left open. In moving to front entrances, I think some operators – e.g Southdown with its Queen Marys – were motivated partly just by a desire to demonstrate their modernity; officially, the conductor remained responsible for giving the ‘go’ bell however busy. Personally, I never understood why operators chose rear or centre entrances on underfloor single deckers intended for stage carriage work.

Roy Burke


11/07/12 – 18:43

Although it wasn’t my favourite, I agree with Roy that the Orion – in the right livery – could still look good. [M & D, Sheffield and St Helens being three examples.] …..but ideally have a good looking, attractive vehicle that is also reliable and economic – in that order.
Am I the only one [ducks low to avoid flying missiles] that wasn’t over impressed with looks of BMMO buses? I have a thing about balanced designs and BMMO were, to say the least, quirky and original – and early Ds (1 – 5 especially) always seemed to be a cross between Clement Freud and Eyor; mournful and unhappy. […..or is now a good time to leave the country?]

David Oldfield


11/07/12 – 18:44

While the body, as a whole, is not unattractive, the detail is very deleterious to the overall effect. Although I’m no lover of sliding windows, the arrangement of these is bizarre. It’s also mean upstairs, in such a smoking era! The driving cab windows are so small as to be useless to a driver looking out, and the front/rear side ones are non-standard lengths! At least both headlamps are the same height!
I wonder if these FHA’s had the same entrances as the earlier EHA’s, whereby the (wooden?) doors were inset and there were two steps to climb before going through said doors. I recall the latter when I was based at RAF Stafford in 1956-58. My abiding memory of BMMO at this time was the sole bus (usually a D7), which ran through the Sunday night/Monday morning from Stafford railway station the RAF Stafford. This service must have broken records for overloading, with folk standing downstairs and upstairs and sometimes three to a seat! Bends were taken very gingerly, but with no guarantee that the vehicle would right itself then! If the bus wasn’t waiting, we’d take one of the pre-war Rolls-Royce taxis which held about 7-8 and were more than capable of 70mph, even at 20+ years old and God knows how many miles on the clock! When these beauties were replaced by Vauxhall Wyverns, my last journey from camp to station involved a driver who remained in top gear for the whole journey into town, slipping the clutch with expertise when crawling through traffic – such consummate abuse! But I digress!

Chris Hebbron


11/07/12 – 18:45

This vehicle remained in service until 1960 and was one of the final 6 withdrawn in December 1960. Two sister FEDD’s – 2120 and 2247 – continued as staff and training buses, I wonder how many miles they covered in their lifetime? I vividly remember as a youngster going ‘long distance’ with my parents to visit a cousin in Halesowen (from my home of Birmingham) and the route traversed the infamous ‘Mucklows Hill’. This was used for testing new buses and the FEDD’s were the staple diet on this route along Hagley Road and the climb-returning to Brum-was in first gear for about a mile, I can still hear the howl of the poor K type engine to this day!

Nigel Edwards


12/07/12 – 07:56

The use of forward entrance double deckers in the East Midlands before World War 2 was not confined to Barton. Midland General/Mansfield District (on AEC Regents) and Trent (AEC Regents and Daimler COG5s) were users of this entrance layout for double deckers as well. Trent also had a batch of FEDDs with MCCW bodies. After the War Barton continued with forward entrance double deckers with its Leyland PD1s with Duple bodies while MGO/MDT and Trent switched to rear entrance bodies on double deckers.

Michael Elliott


12/07/12 – 11:17

David, you speak as an enthusiast, and from that standpoint, your views, (appearance, reliability and economy in that order), are the appropriate ones and few enthusiasts would disagree with you. However, expressing your order of preference in M&D’s Traffic Department would have caused major head shaking; doing so in front of the Traffic Manager, Stanley Smith, would have been to risk a reaction of life-threatening proportions! Similarly, I don’t think your views would have been appreciated by the Chatham Detailer who’d had to send out a Guy Arab at ten o’clock at night to replace a broken down Atlantean – a not altogether unknown occurrence.

Roy Burke


12/07/12 – 12:05

I was going to say the same as Michael regarding East Midlands area use of front entrance double deckers. Just to add that Trent had quite a lot of their Weymann bodied front entrance vehicles rebodied with Willowbrook rear entrance open platform bodies after the war. I can also remember travelling from Alfreton to Nottingham on a front entrance Midland General Regent about 1952. They had big single piece manually operated sliding doors. Barton’s Duple PD1s however had power operated bi-parting doors – with a set of conductor or passenger operated open/close buttons on the inside, and I seem to think an external open button.

Stephen Ford


12/07/12 – 19:24

Roy, speaking as an enthusiast, I was saying "Why not have something good looking". Only the reliable and economic (in that order) were meant to be juxtaposed – ideally they should be good looking as well.

David Oldfield


12/07/12 – 19:24

In common with David Oldfield Midland Red buses sadly leave me cold. They may have been innovative but their looks were not for the purist with the possible exception of the C5 motor way coaches. No give me an AEC preferably with Roe bodywork any day!

Chris Hough


12/07/12 – 19:25

How interesting to get the operator`s viewpoint in these posts. Roy`s comments about his M and D experiences of management attitudes just makes me realise that operators had a totally different approach. It was all about profit and loss, with a dash of "public service" thrown in.
You have the best of both worlds, Roy, as you have enthusiasm, and a knowledge of the practical issues!

John Whitaker


13/07/12 – 06:01

Chris H., that’s music to my ears (AEC/Roe).

David Oldfield


13/07/12 – 06:0213/07/12 – 06:02

Fascinating isn’t it how attitudes and priorities change. These days it is all about appearances, image, reputation and less about genuine customer service. Maybe years ago it really did not matter what a bus looked or rode like as long as it arrived at 11.38am on the dot. The even more strange thing is that very many operators combined good looking vehicles WITH service as it is well documented on this website. It is a rather rare find today though!

Richard Leaman


13/07/12 – 09:16

I must agree with David and Chris about BMMO. All my enthusiast life, I have failed to interest myself in anything Midland Red. Something about their ugliness, narrow cabs, and "totally unlike anything elseness"
Perhaps the later examples were more pleasing to look at, but something was missing for me!
It was the same when SOS buses were in other fleets such as Trent, no appeal whatsoever, and I lived on one of the BMMO routes for the last year or so of their existence too!
However, if people ARE interested, who am I to criticise them. To repeat the current idiom of this site, "Beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder"

John Whitaker


13/07/12 – 17:08

Your meaning, David, was really quite clear, and I was, perhaps, being a bit pedantic in taking you up on it. You’re absolutely right; while reliability and economy are obviously vital factors, there was, (still is), no reason why the vehicle couldn’t also be pleasing to the eye. Hence, I’d agree with you totally about AEC/Roe – a great combination that fulfilled all three requirements.
My observations were just based on personal experience. Since I was supposed to be learning about bus company management, I always tried to understand, (and acquire), a ‘management’ view about the fleet rather than an ‘enthusiast’ view. Since, also, the then Traffic Manager was very well known as a man not to mince words, I couldn’t help, as I wrote my comment, getting a mental picture of his reaction, (which would have been voluble and scathing), to the idea that operational effectiveness should in any way be compromised by considerations of what he might well have described dismissively as ‘prettiness’.
My operational training in the Medway Towns altered my opinion of Leyland, a maker who until then I’d almost revered, especially in comparison with Guy, a maker who I’d hardly come across and had never thought about much. Guys every time!
I mentioned the Orion only because that’s what we had and they were very satisfactory in service. On balance, given a totally free hand, I’d probably have stuck with (6LW-engined) Arabs, but with the Park Royal bodies that East Kent had and which were still occasionally seen at Maidstone. Not the AEC/Roe combination that you’d have chosen, David, but if I’d been a Traffic Manager, I’d have been happy.

Roy Burke


14/07/12 – 07:24

AEC/Roe was one of my favourite combinations too, David, but not quite as nice as highbridge Bristol K/ECW!
There are many other "classic" combination favourites, and it would be nice to hear what they all are.
I`m quite fond of the whole range of utility bodies too, especially Daimler CWA6/Duple (shell back dome, of course) I dare not mention the famous phrase about beauty yet again!

John Whitaker


14/07/12 – 07:25

My first encounter with Midland Red buses came when, as an ATC cadet, I went on a week’s summer camp at Shawbury, near Shrewsbury, in 1957. With memories of the Picture Post "eyes" set each side of the front destination display on London buses at that time, I always thought that the curiously miserable, droopy expression of the D5 similarly deserved a teardrop on each side of the destination box. The crude radiator slots of the tin front didn’t impress me much either. The D7 was a bit less eccentric in appearance, but the set back front wheels of the D9, apparently intended to improve engine bay access, always looked a bit odd and unbalanced to me. At least the D9 and the contemporary S14 had a decently designed radiator shape instead of the primitive slots of previous types.
The early FEDD buses up to about 1938 had the unbelievably old fashioned radiator inherited from the ON type, and this was set off centre to the nearside, with the nearside of the cab positioned in line with the offside of the radiator. The result looked decidedly antiquated, and compared poorly with contemporary AEC, Daimler and Leyland models. The introduction in 1939 of the "AEC" lookalike radiator, as shown in the picture of FHA 236, though still offset, did improve matters somewhat, but the curious disparity in the spacing of lower and upper deck window bays makes the body look untidy. Probably another reason why Midland Red failed to enthuse many of we transport aficionados was the boring, unrelieved, overall red bus livery, though the black embellishment of the coaches showed what could be done with a bit more imagination.

Roger Cox


14/07/12 – 10:52

John. If you mean KSW/ECW, I agree with you. The only thing that spoiled Sheffield’s 1957 B/C Fleet PD2s was the tin front. The four bay body was far better than the five bay on the K – but Lowestoft’s rare five bays on Regent IIs were rather special.

David Oldfield

PS: Roy. Glad we’ve not fallen out – and still agree!


 

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