Birmingham City Transport
1950
Leyland Tiger PS2
Weymann B34F

This superb combination of Leyland Tiger and classic Weymann single-deck body is further enhanced by the application of Birmingham City livery. 2245 is well-maintained by the Transport Museum, Wythall. Chassis number is 495582, body number M4624 and seating is B34F.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

05/07/15 – 07:32

Don’t you just mourn the demise of municipal transport when you see vehicles like this, with their distinctive livery and civic coats of arms. And in the case of many of them, including Birmingham, never letting an advert blemish the bodywork!

Chris Hebbron

05/07/15 – 11:54

I agree wholeheartedly Chris H, and the beautiful vehicle in the picture is a exceptional example of "how things should be." I readily admit, in my dotage, to be horrified at many of today’s presentations of meaningless mobile artwork which totally destroy what could have been acceptable shapes of modern buses. For example, the latest craze from FirstBus in this area, as if the insipid white, lilac and purple wasn’t bad enough, is to plaster the top decks around the destination displays with gaudy purple offerings for "The Pulse" – services of better than ten minutes frequency. The effect of this gripping marketing wheeze is to render the electronic destinations and route numbers virtually unreadable, especially in bright sunlight. The cost ?? – I imagine that no-one dare publicise that figure and,far from increasing patronage, is simply a further annoyance to already disinterested passengers.

Chris Youhill

05/07/15 – 11:55

To be fair, Chris, even Birmingham had succumbed to the exterior adverts when I was there in my student days of the mid sixties, although I never saw a single decker in service with the ‘feature’, only the doubles.

Pete Davies

06/07/15 – 06:38

I agree entirely about the advertising. Bournemouth was another municipal operator that did not carry advertising. Worst of all today are those advertisements and so-called route branding that are actually carried over the windows – and I do like to be able to look out of the bus!

David Wragg

06/07/15 – 06:39

Birmingham’s civic pride would not countenance the idea of advertising on its buses for many years – although most of the trams carried them throughout their lives, resulting in a fair bit of extra revenue for the Transport Department.
However, once the trams were gone by 1953 this source of revenue was lost and the Transport Committee were reluctantly forced to accept advertising on the buses. After all, the next time the Department applied for a fares increase they might well have been refused on the grounds that while the buses had no adverts there was now an untapped source of income that the Transport Department should use first!

Larry B

06/07/15 – 06:40

Very fair comment Pete, and I suppose that "we outsiders" can’t condemn operators for making some revenue from commercial advertisements, those in the traditional tidy formations on double deckers particularly. My strong objection nowadays is to ludicrous extremes of expensive "in house" blurb plastered all over windows inside and out on already ghastly "liveries", and of no interest whatsoever to the travelling public who, to use those apt but well worn words, "only want a comfortable bus on time at a reasonable fare."

Chris Youhill

06/07/15 – 08:35

When the first of these ‘dot matrix’ adverts appeared on a Southampton Citybus vehicle, it was allegedly possible to see out, but not in – rather like the net curtains of old. Even outward vision is impaired, however. As for route branding, well, it works in some places, but not in many. The attitude seems to be one of ‘if it’s marked for the 3 and it appears on the 27, then its an advert for the folk along the 27 about the highlights of the 3’. Balderdash!

Pete Davies

06/07/15 – 11:07

It is possible from a passenger’s point of view to see through those Contravision adverts when they are looking out at 90 degrees to the glass, though there is a significant darkening effect.
However they can be a real problem and a safety hazard from the driver’s point of view. When emerging from a junction of the 90 degree variety the driver will look through the door windows to check for oncoming traffic, but there are very many others – especially on the routes that I drive – which are at an acute angle where the driver has to lean forward, twist round and look back through the first nearside window. This can already be difficult enough if there are standing passengers (because they always congregate at the front), the nearside luggage rack is stacked with pushchairs, or if the company has thoughtfully decided on siting a side route number/destination box right in your line of view, but looking through Contravision at 45 degrees you can see nothing at all. Those responsible for specifying it will not have even considered this aspect.
I also can not fathom the mentality of bus company managers who specify ‘stylish’ new vehicles with extremely large, heavy and expensive windows, then mask half their area with promotional vinyls.

John Stringer

07/07/15 – 06:54

Very valid comments John, and I’m very surprised that the folk from VOSA haven’t banned Contravision (Controversial vision?) on safety grounds for the reasons you cite. One wonders what the union view is on this too. I read recently that many women boarding buses in the evenings or at night do not like Contravision at all, as they cannot see if any potential nuisance passengers are on board before they get on. Also, many older people out at night are wary for the same reason. So much for certain operators’ duty of care to their passengers and staff.

Brendan Smith

07/07/15 – 06:55

This bus was one of nine hired by PMT at various times during 1969 and 1970 to cover vehicle shortages. Lovely buses, exceptional condition, well powered …… but pretty useless on services normally operated by 72 seat Atlanteans!! Although any bus was better than no bus at all.

Ian Wild

15/07/15 – 05:55

Having been brought up with BCT buses, although these Leylands, nor the AEC ever came my way, I do remember the furore that arose when it was announced that adverts were going to be carried. Even the bus crews themselves were against the idea and of course worst was to come, when the rear platform numbers already diminished from large shaded gold into a smaller gold style were lifted up to just under the registration number ‘to make room for further advertising. But whichever local bus company you favoured, all of them Birmingham, West Bromwich, Walsall (what an interesting fleet) and Wolverhampton all produced buses and crews that compared well with any in England..and then of course there was the ‘daddy’ and in their minds the leader in the field Midland Red. How uninteresting now when apart from the body shape, the only way of knowing what chassis/power unit is involved is by looking at the steering wheel badge. Why is at that the modern bus fleets don’t want anyone to know the make of bus or body?

R. G. Davis

15/07/15 – 15:27

You’re so right with your last point, RG, in that such coyness is in stark contrast to past chassis/body builders!

Chris Hebbron

16/07/15 – 05:35

To me, the (non) distinguishing feature about modern buses is the fact that they all look, sound and perform the same, with a total absence of individuality. Thus anonymity is entirely apt.

Roger Cox

17/07/15 – 12:35

RG Davis asks why we don’t know the make of bus or body these days….?
I wonder if it was always a bit like this…?
Until Fleetlines (when they went to the other extreme) you usually only knew a Daimler CVD by its fluted radiator or later, possibly a discreet radiator badge, or a Leyland by perhaps its hubs, especially if the fleet had plonked its own name on the radiator instead of theirs. This hardly improved with Atlanteans with just the badge on the back. Older Bristols had tiny little badges, although Guys had an easy name to promote. Did any bodybuilders have anything more than a little plate or transfer- except perhaps CH Roe with those lovely transmission covers?
Am I wrong? I suspect that proud municipalities didn’t want makers promoting themselves.
You do now see Alexander-Dennis or Wright on buses- but who makes what, especially which screaming engine- they all sound like old diesel buzz-boxes anyway, desperately hunting for a gear!

Joe

18/07/15 – 08:18

While I agree with all the previous comments re Advertising and Identification badges, oh and Joe’s observation about the "screamers", we lost touch with this beautiful machine that started the post! So, having followed the restoration of 2245 (and many others) at Wythall here are some additional views from frequent visits.

Nigel Edwards

Southdown Motor Services Ltd
1964
Leyland Titan PD3/4
Northern Counties FCO39/30F

This Titan PD3/4 in the Southdown fleet is seen in somewhat strange surroundings. She is adjacent to a public park outside Dock Gate 4 in Southampton on 23 August 1982 while on hire to Southampton City Transport on park and ride duty in connection with the Tall Ships Races. Portsmouth and Thamesdown loaned buses for the event – I saw some of the Portsmouths but none of the Thamesdowns. My apologies to those of our number who cannot abide the NBC green . . . She has Southdown’s normal Northern Counties body of (in this case) FCO69F layout. She dates from 1964.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

29/06/15 – 06:55

Like many, I prefer buses with half cabs, but I quite liked the Southdown ‘Queen Mary’ Titans in their original form and I think that this one may have curved windows at the front which really didn’t go with the overall design. I also hated National green.

David Wragg

29/06/15 – 10:24

Thank you, David. I, for one, have never quite understood how a full front could possibly help with cooling the engine (and/or the cab!) Now, it could be achieved quite easily with a half cab. Still, design is what matters, rather than fitness for purpose. There are schools in Southampton which won design awards, but the roofs leak like sieves!

Pete Davies

30/06/15 – 06:43

At least this NBC Green is fresh, with a gloss. Probably done specially for the occasion! Three weeks hence and it would be faded and matt finish!
Of course, I exaggerate, but only slightly!
Nice to see a three-quarter rear view of a Queen Mary.

Chris Hebbron

30/06/15 – 09:53

This is an interesting question Pete. Forward control "Queen Mary" lorries became almost universal in this country but I suppose the driver tended to be over rather than alongside the engine. Nevertheless smaller goods vehicles had the engine in the cab. Was it also a question of designing buses for looks- with poor insulation and airflows? On the other hand, half-cabs gave better access and better visibility, especially on the kerbside- allowing for some tin-fronts, but at the cost of looks and municipal pride. Then we got Wulfrunians, Ailsas and a whole lot of rear engines… problem solved?

Joe

30/06/15 – 09:55

Thank you, Chris. There were two of these in overall advertising livery, "Maritime Britain" which are too dreadful for publication, as well as some of the early ‘flat front’ VR members of the fleet. I have one in mind for a future offer.

Pete Davies

01/07/15 – 06:29

There are hundreds of photos of the iconic Southdown Northern Counties/Leyland Titan PD3/4 showing the front near quarter but not so many of the rear end. At first glance I wasn’t sure if I was looking at a Bristol VR top half or a Bristol FLF bottom half. I was never a fan of the NBC livery or the fact that so many interesting liveries were lost, if only we all had digital cameras in those days.

Ron Mesure

02/07/15 – 05:56

There’s an old saying -"An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance". By the early 1960s in the psv world, the ‘modern look’ was enshrined in the likes of the Atlantean, Fleetline and Wulfrunian, none of which remotely rivalled the traditional front engined chassis in terms of reliability or cost effectiveness. Southdown, amongst others, sought to achieve the best of both worlds by fitting full fronted bodywork to front engined machinery, progressively pursuing this policy to the bitter end with curved glass and panoramic windows. The public, it was thought, would be taken in by appearances. It was the adoption of one person operation for double deckers that finally knocked this philosophy on the head. I agree that the best of the Southdown PD3 "Queen Marys" (there is a school of thought that vociferously refutes this nickname, but it was widely used nonetheless) were the original flat screen versions. The desperate later efforts with curvy glass and panoramic side windows looked like creatures from the Heath Robinson Design Bureau to my eye, akin to fitting wide tyres, twin headlamps, bonnet airscoops and a rear spoiler to a Reliant Robin.

Roger Cox

02/07/15 – 08:35

Well said, Mr Cox!!!

Pete Davies

03/07/15 – 06:36

…not to mention go-faster stripes!
Patrick Hutber, a Sunday Telegraph journalist/economist coined the saying that "Improvement means deterioration" which equally applies to the sort of problems which arose with changes from front to rear engine’d buses you mention, Roger. The slightly later Ailsa, while not perfect, trod a good path of compromise in both engineering and OMO terms and was quite popular, if not the runaway success it arguably merited, being everything the Wulfrunian was not!

Chris Hebbron

Midland Red (Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Co)
1962
BMMO S15
BMMO DP40F

This was one of the second batch of S15s. Broadly similar to the S14 bus, these were designed as dual-purpose vehicles and featured bucket-seats and double rear wheels as well as, on this second batch, some chrome trim. Circa 1969 the batch was relegated to bus work after being repainted into the standard bus livery. While dual-purpose they had black roofs. In this shot 5056 is seen at the Black Country Living Museum in September 2014.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

25/06/15 – 06:46

I recall 5048 HA (allocated, I think, to Coalville depot) as a regular performer on the Birmingham – Nottingham route X99 in the 1960s. Those bucket seats were pretty comfortable.

Stephen Ford

25/06/15 – 13:34

There’s something in the ‘copy’ which intrigues me, Les, and thanks for posting. There is mention of double rear wheels as if this is something of an innovation. Given the company’s leadership in so many aspects of bus design and operation, were these really the first Midland Reds to have twin wheels at the rear?

Pete Davies

26/06/15 – 05:22

Peter, As I understand it, most of the S14 class were fitted with single rear wheels as part of a desire to produce a light-weight vehicle. Unladen weight was not much over five tons according to M.W. Greenwood’s excellent book – ‘Midland Red Buses’. The S15 was a further development of the class but with modifications, including twin rears, to produce a dual-purpose vehicle.

Les Dickinson

26/06/15 – 05:23

I am no expert on Midland Red, but I suspect that the S14 had single rear wheels as an experiment. Both AEC and Leyland tried this with their underfloor-engined buses, but found that road holding suffered.

David Wragg

26/06/15 – 05:24

I think what Les meant to convey was the fact that the previous S14, built to a lightweight design, had single rear wheels.

Nigel Edwards

27/06/15 – 06:42

Nigel is quite correct regarding single rear wheels on the S14. Although I drove S15s in service (5050, 5055 and 5073 (now preserved)), I never had chance to drive an S14 so I can’t comment on their road holding.

Larry B

27/06/15 – 06:43

Thank you for filling this gap in my knowledge of Midland Red.

Pete Davies

28/06/15 – 05:54

There are 2 S15 in preservation but this one is the only one with original DP seats. It has also been retro-fitted with the 10.5 litre engine. The driving position is not comfortable and requires some getting used to given a tight cab and upright pedals. I sold it after getting a left knee problem and so did the previous owner for the same reason. It is really fast on the road and my claim to fame is 2hrs 40mins from Gateshead to Digbeth some 4 years ago after a Bus Rally.

Roger Burdett

25/12/15 – 07:54

I conducted this bus 5056 HA in 1968 and 1969 when I worked my student holidays at the Coalville garage

Wayne Robinson

26/12/15 – 06:56

Roger B- I’ve just seen reference to your record breaking run from Gateshead to Digbeth. Were you trying to recreate the glorious days of the Midland Red Motorway Expresses? Don’t let the rozzers read this, but it would mean an average speed of at least 75 mph start to finish!

Paul Haywood

27/12/15 – 09:02

Paul
In hindsight I probably meant 3hrs 40mins. It certainly was a fast trip but we would not have gone over 70. The vehicle is geared for 75 with the gearbox/engine combination.

Roger Burdett

29/12/15 – 10:46

I was ‘taken for a ride’ on the top deck of Roger’s beautiful D9 (5424) around Bewdley at a Meet. I can vouch for his spirited handling and was treated to his own version of the "tilt test"!, afterwards speaking to him he did say "I drive like a bus driver", long may he do so.

Nigel Edwards

30/12/15 – 06:27

I travelled from home from school at Godalming to Guildford back in the ’50s and remember a couple of occasions when a bunch of us managed to get down the hill in time for an earlier bus than the usual one, we all piled up stairs but by the time we were leaving Farncombe the conductor had to come up and tell us to get down stairs because there was an insufficient number of passengers downstairs so the weight in the bus was to high for stability.
He probably didn’t use those exact words but the meaning was clear.

John Lomas

01/01/16 – 11:33

The conclusion submitted by Larry B (above 27/06/15) is quite correct as my memory of working at Redditch Garage in 1968 includes one morning with an S14, in the snow on the hilly terrain the only way to make progress was to place the rear wheels in the gutter and "sidewall" the bus along. The S14 was notorious for poor rear holding even in wet weather.

Tony Morgan

23/05/22 – 06:01

Re the BMMO S14 & S15 (speaking as a former BMMO engineer) the S15 was a slightly modified dual purpose version of the S14 and this included twin rear wheels. There is no suggestion that these were the ‘first BMMO vehicles with twin rear wheels’ as the company had been building buses since 1923 and up till the monocoque generation they had a normal chassis and yes, twin rear wheels. The S14 however was designed with light weight in mind even to the point of single rears on many (miscellaneous) examples and it was so light it was bouncy and rattily but also very light on fuel. However it lent itself to early OMO operation with various cab layouts being tried out,both open and fully enclosed although it didn’t cope well with the rough Leicestershire country roads that these OMOs ran on! Nevertheless many S14’s including OMOs retained their single rears to the end around 1971 and one such was 4714. This feature enabled you to stand in the pit and change the rear pads without removing the wheel! Yes they did slide on wet roads. But they were running almost empty as it was a railway replacement route, the 697 along the route of the former Nuneaton to Ashby/Burton line that had closed to passenger service from 1931 to closure in 1971.

Michael Hunt