Courtesy of Newcastle City libraries archives.

Newcastle Corporation
1935
Karrier E6A
Metro-Cammell H33/27D

The last Tyneside and Tynemouth and District trams ran in 1930 and 31 respectively, they were replaced by motor buses, but Newcastle Corporation decided on trolleybus as tram replacements. The Tyneside and T&D tram networks were small in comparison, so the change came very quickly; however, Newcastle was an entirely different matter. The first batch of 30 trolleybuses arrived in 1935; the registrations ran in sequence, BVK 800 to 829, with fleet numbers running from 10 to 39. The changeover was scheduled to take six years; however, the war intervened so it was not until 4th March 1950, that the last trams were finally withdrawn:
The two vehicles in the photo are 20, a Karrier, and an AEC; it is a bit blurred, but possibly 13 or 15.
10/19 were AEC, with English Electric running gear.
20/29 Karrier, with Metropolitan Vickers Company Ltd running gear.
30/39 GUY, with British Thompson Houston running gear.
On the face of it, all the bodies appear to be the same. They were H33/27R, had two sets of stairs, doors at the front and an open platform at the rear. However, three different Coachbuilders were used.
10/14 were built by English Electrical Engineering,
15/19 were – Brush Electrical Engineering,
and 20/39 were – Metropolitan Cammell Carriage + Waggon.
I believe Bournemouth had similar vehicles.
Pre war the fleet numbers went from 10 to 124 with no gaps. In 1942, ten 1931 Dick/Kerr English Electric vehicles were transferred from Bradford by The Ministry of Works and Transport. One was used as a donor vehicle for spares; the remainder were numbered 1 to 9. About 1944, the fleet was renumbered, vehicles up to 99, became 300’s, and 100 onwards were 400’s, the last being 424. New vehicles began to arrive in late 1944, and started at 425, further vehicles continued without interruption up to 628
The combined tram networks of Gateshead and District, and Newcastle Corporation covered a larger geographical area, however, all trams south of the River Tyne ran on G&D tracks, they were a BET group company, and when their last tram ran in 1951, they were replaced by motor buses, so that part of the former tram system was lost, and trolleybuses never ran south of the River Tyne. Consequently, apart from services into Gosforth and Wallsend, all trolleybus routes were wholly within the Newcastle City Boundaries,
As far as I am aware, Newcastle was the largest network outside London. At its peak, the post war fleet numbered in excess of 200 vehicles, just over half of which were three-axle type. The largest number of one type were 70 BUT 9641’s with English Electric running gear, and H40/30R MCCW bodies, the first batch of 20, LTN 479/98, 479/98; were delivered in 1948/9, and were identical to the London Q1 type, even down to the LT style destination layout. Also in 1948/9, they took delivery of 30 Sunbeam S7’s LTN 499/528. 499/528; they had Metropolitan Vickers running gear, and H39/31R Northern Coachbuilders bodies: The remaining 50 BUT’s, NBB 579/628, 579/628; were delivered in 1950, although very similar to the first 20, they had the standard Newcastle Corporation destination layout. Two vehicles have survived into preservation, 628 is from the 1950 BUT batch, and is located at the East Anglia Transport Museum, appropriately it was the last trolleybus to enter service, and 501, a 1948/9 Sunbeam S7, has been restored by Beamish Museum. They were reunited in 2011, for a special event at the East Anglia Transport Museum, photos of which can be found on their website. None of the two axle versions survives.

29/06/14 – 09:40

A lovely posed photo of the initial Newcastle trolleybus fleet. I have a book published by Newcastle City Libraries 1985 which describes the two trolleybuses in the photo as No. 15, an AEC 664T with Brush body and No. 20, a Karrier E6A with Metro-Cammell body and the year is 1935 and the location is Denton Bank.

Richard Fieldhouse

East Kent
1948
Leyland Tiger PS1/1
Park Royal C32R

CFN 104 is a Tiger PS1/1 from the East Kent fleet. She has Park Royal body, listed as C32R. It has been discussed at length on these pages in the past, but I find it annoying that the vehicle clearly has a door, but the standard PSVC terminology doesn’t mention the feature. She is seen in the shot above at Amberley on 13 September 2009.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

02/07/14 – 11:02

To my eye the best-looking of all postwar coaches: straight waistline, restrained curvature elsewhere, radiator unashamed to be what it is, perfect choice of colours in simple livery. But I still wish that Leyland had offered a 5-speed box for the PD1/PS1; I’m not sure whether the advertised prewar 0.77:1 bolt-on overdrive (does anyone know of any actual examples?) was still available after the war. I suspect not.
Thanks for the posting, Pete.

Ian T

02/07/14 – 17:57

Quite simply, a glorious dignified classic vehicle – today’s designers and marketing gurus please note. What I would give to drive this wonderful vehicle for a good distance, or at all !! I must say that I was unaware of an optional overdrive (or "super top") being offered on the prewar range, and no doubt such a fitting would have given the vehicles a higher top speed with economy, but perhaps Company engineers had some fear of torque issues – just an uninformed thought !!

Chris Youhill

02/07/14 – 17:59

There was always something special about these East Kent coaches, although I only saw a few of them when living in London, with an occasional trip to Dartford.
I love the light paintwork where the side-board is. I seem to recall that the pre-war overdrive unit was not carried forward postwar, Ian. Did they offer two-speed or re-geared rear axle, perhaps?

Chris Hebbron

13/06/17 – 07:31

I was wondering why the writer was surprised that the vehicle in question should not have a rear passenger door.
Thanks for interesting site.

Garth Wyver

13/06/17 – 09:14

Like Ian T, I know of no Leyland Tigers or Titans with an overdrive fitment. I am sure that, had one been available for the PS1, East Kent would have tried it out. The Company had a sizeable fleet of Dennis Lancet buses and coaches, all with the five speed ‘O’ type gearbox, and these, even the pre war four cylinder O4 powered versions, could really fly on an open road.

Roger Cox

15/06/17 – 07:13

In response to Garth’s comment, I was not surprised that the coach has a door with a rear-entrance. I would expect one wherever the entrance is, as in CxxF, CxxC or CxxR. I have never understood the idea which came (I believe in the 1930s) from the PSV Circle and the Omnibus Society that only double deckers should have the RD or R suffix. If you’re doing it for a double, why not for a single? Never mind – I’ve mentioned before in these columns that I’m glad am I not and never have been a member of either group. If I had been, they’d have roasted me for heresy years ago!
Oh, and what a wonderful Captcha code on this RM54

Pete Davies

09/08/19 – 08:52

Please can you tell me why the seats are not side by side but slightly back by about 2 inches? The driver at Tinkers Park was not sure why

Anon

10/08/19 – 07:40

My understanding of the seat situation is that it emphasised the luxury coach aspect of these vehicles. The passenger nearest to the gangway could see past the passenger nearer to the body side more easily for the view out of the windows – "oh! look at that lovely valley / hill / church / pub" or whatever. Otherwise the inside passenger is always having to lean forward, instead of enjoying the luxury seating.
Re the PSV Circle designation of CxxR, without a D for the door; when the codes were drawn up in the 1940’s virtually all rear-entrance coaches would have had a door as standard, to ensure passenger comfort and safety. However vehicles on bus work with a rear entrance were nearly all open platform – doors were exceptional until the mid-fifties, and by no means universal from then. So presumably the PSVC experts decided to only draw attention to the exceptions rather than the regular understood usages of the day. Of course, fashions and designs in coaching and service buses change, so these designations are presumably reviewed by those who decide such things, while trying to be consistent with past practice. I’m not a committee member of PSVC, only just commenting on my observations over the years.

Michael Hampton

10/08/19 – 07:42

At a guess, the offside emergency exit at the front would make it desirable for the seats to be set further back to give sufficient clearance. In contrast the seats on the nearside will be constrained by the rear doorway.
There is no real reason for the seats to be in line and the seat pitches can vary as they are spread out to fit the available space which is likely to be different on each side.

David Beilby

Tyneside Omnibus Company
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/12
MCW H32/26R

GTY 169; 39, one that Chris Youhill will no doubt recognise, but not in this livery. It was one of nine H32/26R MCW Orion bodied Leyland PD2/12’s delivered to Tyneside in 1954, GTY 169/177 numbered 39/47. Shortly after they were delivered, the number plates were moved from the radiator to the front panel under the windscreen, so the photo must be 1954. They remained in service until 1966, and all of them had a second life.
39 – Samuel Ledgard
40 – Wells of Hatfield, Peverel
43/44 – Paton Brothers, Renfrew
41/2/5/6&7 remained with the NGT Group.

Four of them became Driver Training vehicles.

But 47 was turned over to the engineering department. It was cut down, and at first it became a mobile workshop/towing vehicle, it later became a ’tree lopper’ and was still around in 1980.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

23/06/14 – 11:17

Thx, Ronnie, for the interesting photos showing the story of their lives.
I’m intrigued about tree-lopping. This always seemed to be done by bus companies originally, witness the number of tree-loppers around in past times, but I don’t know who does it now, if anyone at all, by the looks of some deckers’ front domes! Was there originally any statutory requirement for bus companies to do this and what is the current situation?

Chris Hebbron

23/06/14 – 16:30

About twenty years ago Luton & District did it, under contract, for Buckinghamshire C C. I believe this is where tree lopping ended up but with cut backs (pun not intended) money dried up in local authorities and I suspect this is the reason for the dire condition of buses now – because no-one takes responsibility. I think it still lies with local authorities but an operator friend of mine said that anyone was entitled to cut back trees overhanging the public highway – even when they were growing on private property, often behind fence or boundary lines. He always carried a pair of strong cutters on his coach. [He operated new, expensive, coaches in a rural area.]

David Oldfield

24/06/14 – 07:42

David, I think you’re correct: where trees over-grow private or public land then the owner or any member of the public has the right to cut back over-hanging branches to the boundary . . . as long as they offer any severed wood back to land-owner on who’s land the tree stood.
According to James Freeman’s history of King Alfred Motor Services the company were, after a rather too enthusiastic/dramatic session, prohibited from lopping trees in Winchester by the local authority – after which the tree-lopping vehicle was lain up within the depot.
Within my locality of the old Aireborough UDC there is evidence of tree-lopping, but I’ve never seen anybody doing any . . . and I can’t believe First or Centrebus/Yorkshire Tiger would bother to keep the resources themselves.

Philip Rushworth

24/06/14 – 07:45

The current legislation concerning the obstruction of the public highway by trees may be found in the Highways Act 1980. The responsibilities lie with the Highway Authorities, but there may often be a delay in the carrying out of remedial action. Clearances should be 2.4m over a footpath and 5.3m over a roadway. Even trees covered by a preservation order are required to comply, but only the very minimum amount of pruning is acceptable in such cases. In the past, many, if not most of the larger operators kept their own tree cutting vehicles to minimise the expensive damage to roof domes, but, in the aggressively profit driven bus industry of modern times, this "avoidable cost" has long since been expunged from the P/L account. The big groups of today seem to have no pride in fleet presentation.

Roger Cox

24/06/14 – 13:49

And, Roger, there’s the ever-present "Safety Elf", who says it isn’t safe for company staff to do the work, even without the operator’s legal advisers who worry about being prosecuted by the trees’ owners!

Pete Davies

26/06/14 – 14:10

Most modern double deckers now have tree guards on the nearside (or on both sides) to protect the front windows and bodywork from damage by trees.
There are now vastly more trees near roads (and railways) and little attempt seems to be made to keep them cut back.

Geoff Kerr

27/06/14 – 07:05

Geoff. This was the problem which Network Rail had with the big storms last Winter. Trees on embankments were falling like mad and trains were having to move slowly to avoid accidents causing chaos. In steam days, trees were cleared to avoid sparks setting light to them.
And grass verges seem to be getting overgrown now. The other day, on a bypass, foliage was brushing the side of my car and I was 12" away from the kerb!

Chris Hebbron

27/06/14 – 13:32

There is another aspect of overhanging trees and bushes not being cut back by anyone (owners, local authorities, highway agency of bus companies). That is the fact that at road junctions, road signs and / or traffic lights are being hidden from view until the motorist is nearly on them. If driving on an unfamiliar road, and looking for directions, this can be particularly hazardous. Sometimes I wish I had access to a certain company’s Guy Arab tree-loppers, and take a crew along some of our main roads. (I refer to Southdown 460/461 – the only way this modern day comment can count as being relevant to this site!).

Michael Hampton

28/06/14 – 14:22

Yes, Michael, the Guy Arab tree loppers. I also recall they had a Queen Mary one and a Bristol VR the latter in yellow with blue trimmings (genuine Freudian slip, this!). Sad that Portsmouth Corporation never had need of one. Wonder what they would have converted if they had? I’d have wanted one of their TSM’s!

Chris Hebbron

28/06/14 – 14:59

Chris – Your dreams have come true. Portsmouth Corporation did have a TSM tree lopper. 80 RV 1143. The vehicle was stolen from Eastney depot, and driven through the Fareham Railway arch. I have vague recollections of it attending to the trees in Stubbington Avenue around 1950.

Pat Jennings

29/06/14 – 07:15

Now THAT really is news to me, Pat – wishful thinking come true! I wonder if any photos exist of it in that state. My post of one of CPPTD’s TSM’s, in the second photo, shows 80 in original condition.

Chris Hebbron

17/12/15 – 07:41

Reading the various comments about tree lopping brings to mind an incident I became involved in on the A591 alongside Thirlmere lake about 1975 a section of road very much in the news at present where 9 landslides occurred as a result of the very heavy rain. I was a haulage contractor at the time operating a Foden S80 cabbed 8 wheel bulk animal feed blower which had a high box body with catwalk down the middle. Early one morning travelling through the Lakes to a farm in the Ulverston area I was flagged down by a Ribble driver and an inspector parked hard against the tree covered mountainside. They asked if they could climb on top of my lorry and try and cut off a broken low hanging branch that had been striking double deckers on the 555 service. They had thought they could stand on the roof of the Marshall bodied Leopard they had and cut the branch off but found they could not scramble onto the smooth curved roof from the high roadside embankment. Elf n Safety at its best !! However I took the bushman saw they had and knowing where to tread on top of my load was soon able to reach the branch and quickly cut it off. Just another episode of driving lorries and buses through the lakes.

Gerald Walker