Old Bus Photos

Eastern Counties – Bristol MW – KAH 641D – LM641

Eastern Counties - Bristol MW - KAH 641D - LM641

Eastern Counties Omnibus Company
1966
Bristol MW5G
ECW B30D+30

One of two strange versions delivered to ECOC at about the time as the first RESLs were being delivered. Who would put a centre door on an MW with its very high centre section of chassis bearing the engine, instead of waiting a few months for a Bristol RE with its unencumbered central lower frame?
The centre doors didn’t last long, I understand! I think one of them became the Kings Cliffe outstation (Northants – the furthest outstation from Norwich!) vehicle to carry higher peak loads! Thank goodness for OMO double decks very soon after!
The above photograph was taken at Cremorne Lane Works, Norwich on Feb 11, 1967 before the bus entered service. It is nice to know that ECOC buses had destinations other than "SERVICE" available!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Geoff Pullin


17/03/16 – 05:13

Strange indeed, Geoff. Thanks for posting. Why would anyone in Bristol or ECW want to produce such a beast, knowing that the RE was on its way, and why would Eastern Counties want it?

Pete Davies


19/03/16 – 17:38

Stockport had dual doorway Leopards and Manchester dual doorway Tiger Cubs, Panther Cubs and Panthers and had double decker OMO working not been made legal, would have had many more Panthers.

Phil Blinkhorn


17/03/16 – 05:13

What a different MW. Was this an Eastern Counties one off or were did other Tilling Companies have them? Strange to see the glazed roof coves, on both sides too. Also I would have expected the exit door to be in the next bay forward of where it is.

Ian Wild


17/03/16 – 05:14

Well, to answer your question about who would put a centre door on an MW, Wilts & Dorset did the same to a converted coach. I think it ran for a few years in that form, but I cannot find any photos on the web at the moment.

Nigel Frampton


17/03/16 – 07:54

Thanks for that, Nigel. Converting a down-graded coach is one thing, and I think I have a ‘bought’ slide of it somewhere – I’ll see if I can dig it out for others to see if they wish – but one straight off the factory line?

Pete Davies


17/03/16 – 09:16

This was an attempt, it seems, at a standee bus but where for, I know not. I thought there were some similar Leeds efforts on this site with steep steps and standee windows, but can’t spot them- did they try one or two types?

Joe


17/03/16 – 09:17

The centre door as placed would be the only option – the bay further forward had the engine oil sump come well over to the nearside.
The glazed roof coves look to be the ‘standard’ parts from coach MWs and presumably were added because of the standee nature of the bus (for the same reason as Reading’s REs had very tall side windows).

Peter Delaney


17/03/16 – 10:46

Joe, Leeds had saloons with centre entrance bodies all bodied by Roe and all featuring the standee windows. They were repeated on the AEC Swifts with Roe bodywork delivered in 1967.
The original standee saloons were on Guy, AEC and Leyland chassis with a later pair of Reliances entering service in the late fifties.

Chris Hough


17/03/16 – 15:22

There is a photo of this vehicle when new in MG Doggett & AA Townsin’s book ‘ECW 1965-1987’. It was one of two trial dual-door standee MW5Gs (LM640/641) delivered to ECOC in November 1966. Each was capable of carrying 60 passengers – 30 seated and 30 standing – but were of differing internal layout. The accompanying caption states "the area for standing passengers was concentrated at the rear of LM640(KAH 640D), there being single seats on each side of the gangway towards the rear to provide a standing area behind the exit doorway". An interior shot of LM640 shows this feature, together with normal double seats at each side ahead of the exit door. Relating to the second standee MW LM641(KAH 641D), the authors state that "a row of single seats were provided along the offside of the vehicle to give room for a standing area along its length". A picture of the interior shows this together with a longitudinal seat over the front offside wheelarch, plus normal double seats along the nearside from front to rear.
Regarding Geoff’s comment about the height of the steps at the central exit, dual doorway REs also had steps there as the RESL/RELL chassis sloped up gradually towards the rear in order to clear the engine. The exit steps were probably shallower on the RE, but being just ahead of the rear axle I would not have thought by very much though. A fascinating pair of vehicles indeed, and thank you very much for posting the photo of LM641 Geoff.    Wonderful.

Brendan Smith


18/03/16 – 09:03

In my response to Nigel Frampton’s comment, I said I thought I had and would try to dig out a slide of the Wilts & Dorset converted coach. It’s attached, as is a view of one of Lancaster’s trio of twin-door Leopards. BOTH are bought, and I’ve no idea who took the originals. The Wilts came via Paul Caudell and the Leopard came via Arnold Richardson’s Photobus collection.

RMR 992

102 UTF

What makes Wilts & Dorset RMR 992 look even more odd is the old coach-type forward door and its kink in the pillar. So far as I can recall, 101 to 103 UTF were the only twin door vehicles Lancaster bought (prior to the merger with Morecambe & Heysham) and I think it must have been something of a failed experiment – the centre door was hardly ever activated on the services I used. Wilts & Dorset RMR 992 is seen at what looks to be Salisbury Bus Station and Lancaster 102 UTF is inside Kingsway depot.

Pete Davies


18/03/16 – 15:52

KAH 641D_2

Never thought I would find myself contributing to a post on an Eastern Counties MW but KAH 641D was the only one of its type that I have ever driven.
This came about after ECOC took over Burwell & District Motor Services on 10th June 1979. The new regime, under a youthful Ben Colson went to great lengths to cover B&D commitments as required by the Traffic Commissioners at the time. B&D operated a contract/service (not 100% sure which) at the time to carry pupils from Burwell to Soham Village College which parents had to pay for as the free option was for Burwell pupils to go to Newmarket Upper School, for which B&D provided 3 or 4 buses daily. This bus was drafted in briefly to cover odd runs and my diary records that on Friday 15th. June 1979 I was on a rest day but came in to cover the 08:15 Burwell-Soham service 116 with LM641. This journey was made a short working of the established (and much missed) service 116 from Newmarket to ELy, via Burwell.
Fortunately I had my camera with me and stopped in a layby on the way back to Burwell to take a photo as I have always tried to keep a record of every vehicle that I have driven. I was able to wind on the correct route number but with no blind fitted it was not even possible to display the favourite ECOC destination of SERVICE!
My PM duty was 16:00 Newmarket school-Burwell with the same bus, no doubt I was paid more for those 2 short journeys as a rest day working than I would have earned from driving back and forth all day from Burwell to Cambridge with B&D.
The best thing in my memory of ECOC was the wages, as I only lasted 3 months before they gave me till the end of the week to join the union, so I gave them till the end of the week to find another driver!

Jim Neale


19/03/16 – 06:48

Another batch of two-door underfloor engined single deckers was London Transport’s RW 1-3 the experimental AEC Reliance/Willowbrook delivered in 1960 and sold to Chesterfield in 1963. The exit door on these was one bay further forward and they also glazed cove panels five on the O/S but only three on the N/S none being fitted over the centre door.

Diesel Dave


19/03/16 – 09:27

Rochdale had two batches of AEC Reliances with dual door bodies. Weymann bodied 16-20 and East Lancs bodied 21-23. The East Lancs version had the ‘centre’ door further forward, immediately behind the front wheel while the Weymanns had it just in front of the rear wheel. These buses were all introduced as opo vehicles onto routes previously worked by double deckers which at that time in the early sixties obviously had conductors. The dual door arrangement was intended to speed up boarding and alighting times to counter the delay of the driver having to collect fares.

Philip Halstead


19/03/16 – 17:41

Stockport had dual doorway Leopards and Manchester dual doorway Tiger Cubs, Panther Cubs and Panthers and had double decker OMO working not been made legal, would have had many more Panthers.

Phil Blinkhorn


20/03/16 – 06:42

Looking through the comments made me think and check out my memory and I found yet more two door underfloor single deckers in the form of Lincoln City Transport No’s 81-87 Reg No’s MFE 993-999 Tiger Cubs with Roe B41D bodies with the exit door just in front of the rear wheels new in late 1958. Also Portsmouth Corporation had a batch of Tiger Cubs No’s 16-25 Reg No’s TTP 990-999.
with Weymann B34D bodies with the exit door in a similar position new in May 1960.

Diesel Dave


20/03/16 – 08:31

This is becoming a very interesting discussion. My point was that, until the advent of the AEC Swift, Leyland Panther and Bristol RE was that twin-door single deckers were something of a rarity and, yes, even then, many fleets stayed with the single door.
All I can think of was that it may well have been an experiment to see if loading/unloading times improved, and by how much, in the early days of one-man operation. My experience is that most operators went back to single door vehicles.

Pete Davies


20/03/16 – 10:07

Although not common-place in the early 50s, more underfloor engined single deckers were built as dual door saloons by Bristol/ECW than the ones mentioned so far. Over a decade before the MW, ECW bodied one of the prototype Bristol LS (NHU 2) with dual doors – in that case with the additional doorway behind the rear axle. Hants and Dorset’s bus bodied LS were all delivered in that format, though converted to front door only in the late 1950s, and United Counties also had batches in similar style, some as DP rather than bus versions, whilst Wilts and Dorset had several batches of dual doorway DP LSs. I think Eastern National may also had an example to that layout. The structure of an LS frame was such as to dictate the position of the rear doorway.

Peter Delaney


23/03/16 – 05:43

RMR 992_2

Here we see RMR 992 again now with "Hants & Dorset". It seems to have had a rather hard time of it since it was last washed.

David Grimmett


23/03/16 – 17:17

Such damage in service is so typical of the drop in standards once NBC took over. I say this because the vehicle is clearly not in a depot. Do we know where this photo was taken, David?
And I notice that H&D has adopted the useful ECOC destination of SERVICE!

Chris Hebbron


24/03/16 – 05:57

Chris, the later photo of RMR992 looks to be in Salisbury Bus Station. W&D did also make use of "Service" in the destination displays, although not as much as some.

Nigel Frampton


24/03/16 – 05:57

Yes, RMR 992 could still have looked a handsome bus, even with its rebuild to bus use. The mid-door for exit is reasonably done, and the revised indicators are very neat. Even the metal trim below the windows has been retained. However, we sadly miss the Tilling red of Wilts & Dorset or Tilling green of Hants & Dorset, either of which would make this a bus to be proud of. Sadly, this didn’t happen here, with the side dent, and it’s need of a wash. The use of "service" as a destination is also regrettable. Hopefully passengers had a good ride, as it retains the upper windows to lighten the interior.

Michael Hampton


24/03/16 – 05:57

RMR 992 is on the stand, reversed in, in Salisbury bus station. The bus station layout was a reversed L with access from the offside of the bus. It was in the seventies that buses started driving on to this stand and reversing off,rather than reversing on.

Steve Barnett


24/03/16 – 16:56

According to BBF No 1 Portsmouth Corporation had a batch of 10 dual Door PSUC1/1 Tiger cubs Nos 16 – 25 in 1950 and 31 Leopard L1s Nos 131 – 161 in 1961/62/66.

Barrie Lee


25/03/16 – 16:09

Of course the London Reliances were based on the Grimsby Cleethorpes design of which there were 24 (the last ones to the later BET design) and both Chesterfield and Aberdare were also customers.
I wonder if it was Willowbrook’s advertisements that led to LT purchasing their three:
www.flickr.com/photos/One
www.flickr.com/photos/Two

Stephen Allcroft


26/03/16 – 05:14

Barrie Lee has correctly identified the Tiger Cubs of Portsmouth (Nos 16-25, delivered 1959 and into service 1960), but the L1 Leopards were Nos 131-142 (1961) and 143-149 (1963). They were all dual entrance/exit, the Tiger Cubs being B34D+26 (soon altered to B32D+26 for a luggage rack), and the Leopards were all B42D+16. If I recall correctly, the main "standee" space was centrally placed opposite the exit doors. The saloons numbered 150-161 were Panther Cubs new in 1967. Portsmouth had a possibly unique arrangement for the exit doors. Some time ago, I contributed an article about it on this site, "One Small Step for a Portsmouth Passenger". This arrangement applied to these and all succeeding saloons, plus later Atlanteans until the arrival of the Leyland National.

Michael Hampton


26/03/16 – 05:14

Halifax JOC took delivery of a solitary L2 Leopard with Weymann two-door body in 1961 (231, OCP 231). It was not viewed with favour by the drivers’ union membership and I believe the centre door remained closed in service. It lived a shadowy existence in this form, being mostly banished to working the local Field Lane and Oaklands services based in Brighouse. Another sixteen similar Leopards based on the more appropriate L1 chassis and with single door layout were due in 1962, and 231 was soon sent back to Weymann to be rebuilt to match them.

John Stringer


27/03/16 – 07:30

Regarding RMR 992: did this just retain an unpowered front coach door after conversion to dual-door configuration? – both photographs suggest the door is locked open.

Philip Rushworth


27/03/16 – 09:56

I remember traveling on RMR when it found itself at Romsey outstation and I’m sure the door front door was electrically run as it was one-man operated (as we used to know it!).

Steve Barnett


28/03/16 – 11:12

I am reasonably sure that, in David Grimmett’s photo of RMR 992 (23/03/16 – 05:43), the vehicle is, in fact, still in Tilling Red. It is the same shade as the adjacent LH, which is clearly still in Tilling livery, the cream window surrounds being the determining factor. Accepting that colour reproduction can vary on different computer systems, monitors, etc, but this colour looks quite different to the rather orangey appearance of NBC red in the first couple of years.
H&D applied NBC style fleetnames to a lot of vehicles that were still in Tilling liveries, and this roughly followed the instructions of the NBC corporate image policy. However, that required the cream relief to be repainted white, even if the complete vehicle was not painted, and that white fleetnames should be applied. In practice, H&D seem only to have used a few white fleetnames in this way, and most of the temporary ones were cream, which better matched the original livery, and the cream relief was also left untouched. Presumably, since RMR 992 didn’t have any cream relief, it was deemed appropriate to use a white fleetname.
H&D and W&D purchased several single deckers with dual doors from the 1950s to the early 1970s, but there seems to have been a distinct absence of logic. The LSs all seem to have been rebuilt to single door configuration quite early in their lives, but then, from the mid 1960s, virtually all new single deck buses had two doors – the Bedfords, the RELL buses, and even the first deliveries of LHs. The RELL DPs had only one door, but soon tended to be used interchangeably with their dual door bus-seated sisters, particularly when the earlier DPs were replaced on longer distance services by newer deliveries. The passengers were no doubt simply confused, and probably found the five extra seats of the DPs more useful than the extra door. When Leyland Nationals took over from REs as standard single deck fare, the dual door policy was abandoned altogether.

Nigel Frampton


28/03/16 – 13:33

The motto of 360 Squadron, Royal Air Force, seems to apply in Nigel’s explanation of the H&D/W&D liveries under NBC – CONFUNDEMUS (We shall throw into confusion).

Pete Davies


08/04/16 – 06:09

Peter D mentions older two door ECW LS bodies. They were built in the era before OPO (if that is the PC phrase). I suspect that the management attitude was that the conductor would be at the rear to look after that door, despite being power operated. I am sure most conductors would gravitate to the front to chat to the driver. The ‘Do not speak to the driver…’ notices were a later addition required for the certification of a vehicle to operate OPO.
With regard to ECOC LM641, I was interested to see that two vehicles had different internal layouts. I was area engineer in the east then and both vehicles probably ‘went west’.
I also surmise that the vehicles were part of GM Tom Skinner’s innovations see Eastern Counties – selected memories  and that they may have been initiated before the delivery of REs was anticipated. The final MW deliveries were getting so late that many Tilling companies had their orders truncated and centrally(?) replaced by RESLs (the nearest replacement, rather than RELLs). I don’t think the 46 seater RESL caused Union problems at ECOC, being one over the more normal 45 seat maximum, but going beyond that certainly needed negotiation in all companies!
In Jim Neale’s photo of LM641 from 1979, it is interesting to see that the last nearside quarter light has been reglazed with black rubber – the cream version didn’t stay in production for very long. I would have expected the front destination to be so treated, for in the eastern area the MW destination glass was just the right height to hit a tardy pheasant that had been taken by surprise and several needed replacement on outstation based vehicles!

Geoff Pullin


13/05/16 – 06:04

The “Omnibus Magazine” of June 1967 states that LM640 and LM641 were allocated to Bury St. Edmunds and Peterborough on March 1st 1967 but had returned to store at Norwich within two weeks. Clearly they weren’t very popular!

Nigel Turner


 

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

 


 

Birmingham City – Daimler CL – LOG 302 – 3002

Birmingham City - Daimler CL - LOG 302 - 3002

Birmingham City - Daimler CL - LOG 302 - 3002

Birmingham City Transport
1954
Daimler CLG5LW
MCCW H30/25R

Although looking like a Birmingham ‘Standard’, this is one of a pair of unique vehicles ordered in 1952 – the other, 3001 – being a Guy Arab with Saunders Roe body.
Both built to a ‘lightweight’ design, the chassis of 3002 was manufactured as a chromium plated exhibit for the 1952 Commercial Motor Show. During the following two years it received its Metro-Cammell body which became a ‘model’ for the ‘Orion’ and with unique manufacturing differences. Notably, the use of ‘pop-rivets’ in place of screws, anodised aluminium replaced the usual interior wooden mouldings, a rather ugly upright rear dome, a sliding cab door (a first for BCT) and rubber window surrounds. Spending its entire life at Acocks Green garage it was not liked much by drivers being noticeably underpowered with the 5LW.
Thankfully this is now in preservation.
My photos were taken at the Aston Manor Museum in 2010.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Nigel Edwards


13/03/16 – 09:33

Interesting views, Nigel, and thank you for posting. I note that the vehicles was not liked because of its lack of power. One might have expected the balance to be similar, given that the chassis – and I suppose the body as well – had ‘lightweight’ technology. Clearly, not ‘light’ enough!

Pete Davies


13/03/16 – 10:31

Pete, Though the overall weight saving was 15 cwt, compared to the ‘standards’, I think little of this was attributed to the chassis. Added to the narrative should have been that, after bodying in the intervening 2 years, the complete vehicle was again exhibited at the Commercial Motor show of 1954.

Nigel Edwards


14/03/16 – 06:54

The CLG5 appeared in 1952 and had a 16ft 4ins wheelbase chassis with the Lockheed power hydraulic braking system and hydraulic gear change of the CD650. Some light weight components and the 5LW engine were employed to save weight. Only a 7ft 6ins width was offered and the electrical system was 12 volts. Despite all the cheeseparing, the chassis weight of 4 tons 6 cwt was identical with that of the ‘heavy’ wartime CWG5. The first CLG5 chassis was 18334 which was fitted with a prototype MetCam Orion body, and went to Potteries Motor Traction. "Thanks(!)" to the appallingly tinny body, the unladen weight was a mere 6tons 2cwts. The bus shown above was chassis no. 18335. Another of the very few CLG machines actually made was chassis 18337 which Daimler played around with for a few years before selling on as a vacuum braked CVG6 to Burwell & District in 1956 (see Burwell & District – Daimler CVG6 – PHP 220). I presume that chassis 18336 was another CLG5, but I cannot find a record of it. The Lockheed braking system was the Achilles Heel of the CD650, and operators stayed well clear of it. Did Birmingham 3002 have its hydraulics replaced by the standard vacuum system? The ever reliable Alan Townsin is the source of these details.

Roger Cox


14/03/16 – 06:54

Thank you, Nigel

Pete Davies


16/03/16 – 14:35

Roger Cox refers to (Burwell & District – Daimler CV – PHP 220)
I commented on 19/10/2013 that this bus was equipped with air brakes and gear change while with B&D, yet he still refers to vacuum brakes in his latest post!

Jim Neale


18/03/16 – 05:34

Yes, I did refer to vacuum brakes because that is how the bus left the Daimler factory. This is a posting about the Birmingham CLG5, and the comments concern this vehicle type, which is the form in which chassis no.18337 started life. It was converted by Daimler to CVG specification in order to find a buyer after the CLG type met with underwhelming indifference from the bus operating market. That conversion included the abandonment of pressure hydraulic braking in favour of vacuum. What Burwell & District later did with 18337, PHP 220, is outside the scope of this particular discussion, especially when its Burwell existence is already covered by a dedicated entry (which, incidentally, I initiated myself).

Roger Cox


09/08/17 – 17:03

Aside from these two unique vehicles, did the ubiquitous Guy, Daimler and Crossley tin-front buses that abounded Birmingham in the 1950’s have their own makers’ gearboxes, or did they all have preselective ones, as the Daimler ones had?

Chris Hebbron


10/08/17 – 05:54

The Daimlers and Guys had preselective gearboxes, built I understand by Daimler and Guy respectively, though they were interchangeable. The Crossleys had manual Crossley gearboxes.

Peter Williamson


03/08/18 – 05:57

Nigel Edwards says LOG 302 was at the 1954 Show. The chassis was without doubt at the 1952 Show but I can see no report of the complete vehicle being on either the Daimler or the MCCW stand at the 1954 one. Could Nigel have been mistaken? Maybe it made a brief appearance in the demo park but as PHP 220 was parading about there that would seem unlikely. It was certainly absent from public view for a lengthy period as the chassis went to MCCW in April 1953!

Martin Ingle


04/08/18 – 07:14

Martin, I think if you re-read my narrative I did refer to the chassis being exhibited (chromium plated), and the body being added later!

Nigel Edwards


11/08/18 – 08:01

My query about Show appearances referred to the comment in your second post. There doesn’t seem to be any trade press mention of it at the 1954 Show and I had not seen it mentioned anywhere else. That was all.

Martin Ingle


Peter Williamson

Referring to the mention of the Orion body type in the caption, I must point out that the PMT prototype Orion-bodied CLG5, which Roger referred to in his post, also appeared at the 1952 Commercial Motor Show. Therefore I would suggest that LOG302’s body, which was constructed later, benefitted from the development of the Orion rather than being a model for it.

Peter Williamson


 

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

 


 

Southdown – Commer Avenger – XUF 55 – 55

Southdown - Commer Avenger - XUF 55 - 55

Southdown Motor Services Ltd
1960
Commer Avenger IV
Harrington C35F

Southdown, ever primarily a Leyland operator (though Guy got a look in from time to time) also had a modest requirement for lighter chassis. Despite having operated the OB model successfully, Southdown then eschewed the Bedford SB when it looked for a lightweight coach chassis in the late 1950s. It is understandable that the Bedford petrol engine did not appeal, and the alternative Perkins R6 was not a very attractive diesel option either. From 1960 Bedford offered the SB with a Leyland engine, but even this did not entice the Southdown company. Instead, whilst still favouring Leyland’s lightweight Tiger Cub, hitherto highly conservative Southdown became surprisingly interested in the unconventional Tilling Stevens TS3 opposed piston, three cylinder, horizontal two stroke engine, and bought 25 Beadle Rochester C41F coaches in 1956-57. In 1959, after further Tiger Cub deliveries, Southdown returned to the TS3 engine with a batch of 15 Commer Avengers with Burlingham C35F bodies, their first from this coachbuilder since the 1930s. Another batch of 15 Avengers followed in 1959-60, but these were given Harrington Crusader Mk1 C35F bodies. The Beadles and the Commers all gave up to 12 years service with Southdown, the last being sold off in 1971. I recall seeing – and hearing – the Avengers quite regularly on the Brighton service along the A23. Their distinctive sound was unmistakeable. Seen here tucked away in a corner of Victoria Coach Station in 1960 is the last of the Harrington batch, No.55, XUF 55.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox


10/03/16 – 15:45

I hope the panelling and upholstery had sound deadening qualities of the highest order. Detroit diesels of the period had a reputation for noise but the TS3 was in a league of its own!

Phil Blinkhorn


11/03/16 – 05:56

A further batch followed 41-55 shown in Roger’s picture. There were 15, numbered 56-70 (56-70 AUF) and were also bodied by Harrington. I assume that they were identical to the earlier batch, but my memory of seeing them can no longer recall any detailed differences, if any. I have just looked through the 2-volume history of Southdown by Colin Morris (Venture 1994), and the Vol.2 fleet list only prints the Beadle-Commers 1-25, and has neither list or photo of the Commer Avengers 26-70! Perhaps he had been deafened by the first 25?

Michael Hampton


11/03/16 – 05:56

It may be the angle of the photograph but this vehicle has a rather narrow look about it. Were these coaches 7ft 6ins. or 8ft. wide?

Chris Barker


11/03/16 – 05:57

I’m not sure, Phil. I’ve been in a TS3-engined bus only twice: once in recent years in a preserved coach at King Alfred Running Day at Winchester, and once fifty years ago driving some folk from Reading to Portchester, Hants, in a coach belonging to Spiers of Henley-on-Thames. As to the noise emanating from the exhaust pipe I agree with you all the way, but inside the vehicles things seemed reasonably quiet. Perhaps I enjoyed the sound so much that I was making undue allowances for it…
Commers raise a question in my mind: are they really a lightweight in the same sense as a Bedford or a Ford is?
We often call the Leyland Tiger Cub a lightweight, but I’d prefer a term like "three-quarterweight" or "quality lightweight", since the feel of a Tiger Cub is solid and precise, like that of a heavyweight. In the same way a Guy LUF is every bit as solid as the over-heavy UF.
On that basis perhaps the Commer is a "five-eighths-weight".
Interested to hear fellow OBP-ers’ views.

Ian Thompson


11/03/16 – 12:05

I don’t recall seeing any of these at all – were they based in Portsmouth?
I’ve found a photo of one of each batch side-by-side and they look identical. SEE //tinyurl.com/z49qe6x

Chris Hebbron


11/03/16 – 15:26

That’s a fine image of the two examples from each batch standing together. The only difference I can see is that the XUF driver’s mirrors are attached at the top of the windscreen, whereas the AUF mirrors are attached at the bottom. (And of course the windscreen wipers are facing in opposite directions…). My 1970 fleet list (SEC) shows the Portsmouth allocation as 6 XUF + 3 AUF [9], Eastbourne 4 XUF + 3 AUF [7], Worthing 7 AUF, and Brighton 5 XUF + 2 AUF [7], so they were quite well spread along the coast. The earlier Burlingham bodied batch (26-40) were at Eastbourne (3), Brighton (6), and Chichester (6). This is likely to have been their final allocations as Roger Cox notes that they had all gone by 1971, and the list I’m quoting from is accurate to 1st November 1970.

Michael Hampton


12/03/16 – 05:47

There is one more minor difference between them and that is that the XUF’s sported only a nearside spotlight; the AUF’s, one each side. Thanks, for the allocation details, Michael. You’d have thought that Southdown would have kept them all at one depot for ease of maintenance. Whilst I was looking for a photo of the other batch, I noticed photos of some of these vehicles working for contractors, showing that some had a further life beyond Southdown.

Chris Hebbron


12/03/16 – 05:48

I think all of Southdown Commer coaches and all of the Commer-powered Beadle coaches were eight foot wide. The reason that the Harrington-bodies look narrow is that they are tall compared to similar bodies on Thames or Bedford chassis.

Stephen Allcroft


Roger Cox

Thanks, Michael for reminding me that there was a further batch of the Harringtons. The straight framed Avenger was introduced in 1949, and the overall dimensions of the 109 bhp 4.75 litre six cylinder petrol engined Mk I were 27ft 6ins by 7ft 6ins. In 1952 the Mk II increased the available dimensions to 30 ft by 8ft, but the petrol engine was retained. Then, in 1954, the Mk III appeared offering the TS3 engine as an option, and this became the Mk IV from 1956 when the petrol and smaller chassis alternatives were dropped. The standard rear axle ratio was 4.3 to 1, but the Eaton two speed axle was also offered. Taking up Ian’s point about internal noise, the compact horizontal engine was installed over the front axle where the (no doubt well insulated) floor went over it, and this contributed to the apparent height of the vehicle. The engine was thus some way forward of the main saloon. Externally, of course, it was a different matter, and one could hear TS3 powered coaches and lorries approaching when they were still leagues distant. The TS3 engine developed 105 bhp at 2400 rpm, but as with other large two strokes, the torque curve was very peaky. Torque rose from 245 lb ft at 800 rpm to a maximum of 270 lb ft at 1200 rpm, but then fell away sharply to 225 lb ft at the 2400 rpm governed speed. Theoretically, the 3.26 litre two stroke TS3 equated to a four stroke motor of about 6.5 litres, though some efficiency and power losses inherent in the type, notably the requirement for a Roots blower to aid induction and scavenging of the cylinders, does prejudice a direct comparison. Nevertheless, as an illustration, the Gardner 5LW of 6.974 litres yielded 300 lbs ft of torque across the entire working speed range. At 1700 rpm the TS3 delivered only some 87 bhp against the 94 bhp of the Gardner. Even so, fuel consumption figures of up to 20 mpg were claimed for the TS3. The standard gearbox in the Avenger Mk IV was a four speed synchromesh unit, for which an optional overdrive was available, but a close ratio five speed constant mesh box was also offered. I am not sure which of these the Southdown coaches had, though I suspect the synchromesh. According to my records, the bare chassis weight of the Avenger was 3.125 tons, the maximum permissible gross weight being 9 tons. The maximum gross weight figure for the contemporary Bedford SB was 8.26 tons. The unladen weight of a bodied contemporary Tiger Cub was about 6 tons, which, with the full added weight for passengers, fuel, luggage etc, would raise this to a maximum of around 9 tons. Perhaps, as Ian suggests, the Avenger was in a similar weight category to the Tiger Cub rather than that of the lighter Bedford.

Roger Cox


13/03/16 – 14:54

Thx for the extra information, Roger. 20mpg was very good fuel consumption and quite possible the prime reason, along with reliability, why this engine was so popular, when two strokes were not highly regarded generally. I don’t know how general is the knowledge that Rootes were well into developing a four-cylinder version of the engine, with several prototypes on the bench. However, this was stymied by the Chrysler takeover and a clash with a similar effort between Chrysler and Cummins. This resulted in a TSR2 scenario, with orders to scrap all traces of this engine’s existence. Suffice to say that the Cummins engine was a complete failure and with the Plan B TS4 scrapped, that was it. There are some stupid people about! The full story can be found here: //tinyurl.com/gvjjutt

Chris Hebbron


14/03/16 – 06:52

I can confirm that my TS3 Rochester regularly achieves 18/20 mpg unless on a hilly route.
My father was development driver for the TS4 and I believe there is a thread somewhere on here about that engine

Roger Burdett


19/03/16 – 17:34

Roger Burdett’s actual consumption of 18-20 mpg for his TS3 Rochester is very impressive. The power saved by having no valvegear to drive must be more than balanced by the energy needed to drive the Roots blower, and all those extra large moving parts look as though they ought to sap power, but evidently not. Since simple crankcase-scavenge 2-stroke engines—whether petrol or diesel—always show poor fuel consumption, it’s easy to assume that all 2-strokes are thirsty by nature, yet the most economical prime mover ever built was the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RT-flex 96C 2-stroke marine engine, which is well worth Googling, until it was recently just overtaken by a 4-stroke engine (model 31) by the same Finnish builder. Both these engines are admittedly a trifle bulky for a coach, but they show what’s possible.
Roger, how does the consumption of your rear-engined Foden coach compare with that of other vehicles of a similar weight?

Ian Thompson


21/03/16 – 09:00

Ian my Foden consumption is around 12mpg but is inherently more unreliable than the Commer. The fuel system is more complex with a hydraulic governor and to be honest has not had the use it deserved. My LS Gardner powered which is comparable weight is c13.5mpg. The Leylands do around 12 and the Midland Reds 10.
As a rule all my Gardners do 13-14mpg whether 5LW; 6LW, or 6HLX except for my Tilling Stevens which with an overdrive 6LW does 17/18. The Commer is 3.1 litre with no overdrive but is incredibly fuel efficient as you say with the direct injection and a fairly low vehicle weight. The Roots blower once it is moving has far fewer parts than a a vehicle with valve gear. I do run the vehicle between 55-65mph on the motorway which always surprises speed limited modern coaches!

Roger Burdett


14/09/16 – 14:05

3190 UN

Here is a picture of my TS3 Avenger IV The Commer stands at 11 foot high so does look narrow but it is in fact the height that creates the illusion.
Yes 20 mpg is returnable without difficulty, as is cruising at 60 mph.

Russell Price


15/09/16 – 06:46

Those consumption figures for the TS3 engine underline the utter folly of Chrysler in abandoning the promising TS4 development. That engine would have surely been a winner, giving up to 200 bhp and 465 lb ft torque at 1800 rpm, all from 4.7 litres. The TS3 also proved to be outstandingly reliable, the weakest part apparently being the drive to the Roots blower. In playing the American card and going for V6/V8 from Cummins, Chrysler bought possibly the worst engine lemons ever to go into volume production. It’s a miracle that Cummins survived that debacle. On that note, there is a picture on the following site of a Black & White Daimler Roadliner fitted with a TS3 engine:- www.flickr.com/photos/  
I gather that it performed quite satisfactorily, and I wonder why others didn’t try this conversion. Today large two stroke engines fall foul of emission regulations, but the TS4 could have had its heyday well before those rules came into force.

Roger Cox


16/09/16 – 06:24

My father was test driver at Rootes for the TS4 and noise would have killed it as the harmonics were much greater than the Cummins. Let us not forget Cummins was part of Chrysler at that time and the V6/V8 production was only a small part of a big world wide conglomerate.
My father drove the V8 everyday in lorry form and units used to go Coventry-Linwood return 6 days per week up days back nights (different driver). That was 3500 miles per week. Reliability was an issue but never as great as in the Buses or the AEC V8 in the lorries

Roger Burdett


16/09/16 – 06:24

I believe it was noise regulations of 1972/3 that finally killed off the TS3 and TS4. I would agree in 30 odd years of owning it is a well engineered reliable machine.

Russell Price


16/09/16 – 13:35

I was working for Chrysler in Truck development at the time of the TS4. As we understood it, the TS4 greatly outperformed the Cummins V6/V8 in all aspects, but Cummins (a major part of Chrysler at the time) had invested a lot of cash in the V6/V8 and they did not intend to lose it! All the tooling for the TS4 had been ordered & delivered to the Whitley plant in Coventry, where it was put into store and eventually sold for scrap…brand new & unused. It was said at the time that caused the collapse and subsequent closure of Herbert Machine Tools. Cummins "Red Engines" had a number of unusual design feature. They were high speed diesels, which was a problem since drivers were not used to revving a diesel to get performance. In fact a special rev counter was fitted to the trucks with a green band (gear shifting range) and a blue band, complete with a sticker that read "Always drive in the blue band". All fuel lines were drilled into the block, so it was a "clean" engine on the outside, but a problem if you got a blocked fuel line. Originally fitted with rocker operated 3 hole injectors, they suffered a bit of fuel starvation. This was overcome by changing to 5 hole injectors, which were slightly taller than the 3 hole and so necessitated changing the push rods, otherwise, bent push rods and a very unhappy engine! How do we know this? Let’s just say put it down to personal experience and move on!! The V8 was 185hp and the V6 was 160 hp. I think the only production Dodge that had the V6 was the L600, low height chassis, whereas Guy Motors took the V6 for a full size truck (Guy Warrior I think). The failure rate on the Red Engines was huge and we had a large pile of dead engines in the Whitley compound (Chrysler truck development relocated to Coventry from Luton & Dunstable at the end of the 1960’s). I hope this is of interest to you.

David Field


16/09/16 – 17:09

Thanks to David Field for the latest comments. The engine Guy used in the Big J was the VIM v-6 & Vine v-8. These were going to be built in the UK at the former Henry Meadows factory in a joint venture with Jaguar which did not go through. To bring things back to buses it was the Cummins VIM v-6 of 9.6 litres and 192bhp that was launched in the Daimler Roadliner.

Stephen Allcroft


17/09/16 – 05:11

A further bit of trivia regarding the TS3. Lord Rootes was a man who was not renowned for great judgement or making the best decisions. For example, after WW2 he was offered a choice of German engineering businesses as reparation for the damage done to Rootes group factories in UK. His options were VW car manufacturing or a rather strange and obscure 2 stroke engine being developed for aeroplanes (Heinkel I think). He chose the latter, apparently on the basis that the VW would never prove to be popular!
Does anyone know if TS3 engine PSV’s used the Maxiload oil bath air cleaner (located under the passenger seat on the truck) and the Cooper’s self cleaning muffler? Why I ask is because when the TS3 was stretched to 135hp in it’s final form (a stretch too far) one of the problems was that the blower shaft would snap. The first sign of this was a drop in power and the second sign was black oily smoke pouring out through the air filter – not good in a PSV. The quick way of replacing the shaft was to remove the radiator to get to the front of the engine. The front part of the broken shaft was easy to get at, but the rear part involved careful use of a couple of welding rods fused together and poked down the hole. The idea was that you would strike an arc onto the steel shaft and not the alloy block! I was wondering how you get to the front of the engine in both the Harrington and Plaxton bodies featured.
The Coopers muffler would probably scare passengers and other road users half to death today. Carbon was allowed to build up in the muffler until a certain back pressure and exhaust gas temperature was reached. There was then a discernible loud pop as the carbon ignited and was sent out through the tail pipe, as a trail of sparks and sometimes even the odd flame. Very impressive at night on the motorway!

David Field


17/09/16 – 11:41

The posts about the fascinating TS3/4 have been very interesting. Your point, David F, about the Coopers muffler spewing forth sparks reminds me of being in a express steam train, in the mid-1950’s, spewing out glowing smuts whilst climbing Shap Fell flat out at night. It was like descending into Dante’s Inferno! Not a time to put one’s head out of the window!

Chris Hebbron


17/09/16 – 18:36

Hmm yes the standard air filter on an Avenger IV is indeed right under the front double seat alongside the driver! It is essential to use silencers on a TS3 with the correct amount of back pressure. I have on several occasions had flames out of the exhaust of UN mainly when running well last time was on the A419 Swindon Cirencester section. The access to the engine is absolutely dire!! wont say more

Russell Price


07/08/17 – 06:41

Having had only fleeting experience of the Commer marque in my early days at SMS – 45 and 60 I think being the two we had at our depot – I really can’t think of a good word to say about them. The potential brake fade and a sound like an Atco powered football rattle were enough to put me off for life.
However, from before my time, am I right in thinking that the first batch (pre-Harrington) were the notorious ones that eventually ended up derelict in Bognor Yard with brambles etc growing through them? There was a story that the design didn’t allow for the removal of the engine which was an integral requirement in an ‘E Dock’, and they were consigned to Bognor as that maintenance time came. Thereafter, anyone saying ‘Bognor Yard’ about something was immediately understood as meaning ‘throw it away’.

Nick Turner


 

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