Leicester City Transport
1961
AEC Bridgemaster B3RA
Park Royal H45/31R

217 AJF Leicester City 217 was one of the first vehicles to be delivered in the new cream livery with three maroon bands. It was withdrawn from service in 1971, worked for other companies until 1998 when it was bought for preservation and is now owned by individual members of the Leicester Transport Heritage Trust. It originally had only 72 seats but an additional row was inserted in the upper deck in 1963. It has been fully operational since 2011. More information can be found at this link.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones

08/05/14 – 07:53

It just shows how even an ugly duckling like the Bridgemaster can be enhanced by a quality livery. Good to see it preserved and in running order.

Ian Wild

08/05/14 – 07:54

Isn’t this livery just much more dignified than the red/grey/white Leicester City Council corporate livery that came after? – we’ll paint our buses the same colour as our "bin waggons" because, presumably, we think our passengers are rubbish. When I first visited Leicester in 1984 the LCT operation had echoes of various conflicting past ages: Ultimate and Solomatic ticket machines; and, yes, conductor operation; but two-door buses abounded; and on some one man buses change was delivered down a chute from a change-giver situated by the driver’s left shoulder (Roger Cox – or indeed anybody living in Halifax late 60’s/early 70’s . . . or in fact in Leicester late 70’s-late 80’s! – will get the picture). LCT was the first time I saw drivers/conductors wearing flat-caps as a matter of course – now, around in First Leeds country, if I ever spot a driver wearing a cap, then the odds are in favour it being a non-uniform baseball cap.
In how many respects was the Bridgemaster a low-height-cut-price-Routemaster-for-the-provinces?
And what a bloody indulgence of LCT to buy a small number of buses they subsequently decided were non-standard (didn’t see that coming then!) and so dispose of prematurely . . . all on the backs of their rate-payers presumably.

Philip Rushworth

08/05/14 – 10:58

The Bridgemaster was an AEC/Park Royal integral model, but there the resemblance to the Routemaster stopped. Among the most obvious differences the Bridgemaster was only available with a manual gearbox, it did not have power steering, was a lowheight design and completely different in appearance!

Don McKeown

08/05/14 – 10:59

Phil They also bought AEC Renowns which also left early along with the non standard Daimler CSG6/30s bought in the early sixties.
Many years ago Leeds bin wagons were a very similar shade to the buses while the lighting dept used blueand the direct works dept used grey The in the late sixties early seventies everything apart from the buses went bright red In Lancaster the bus shelters and the dust carts are still using Trafalgar blue the colour used fro the buses from 1974 to their demise Perhaps they overstocked!

Chris Hough

08/05/14 – 10:59

It is said that following the loan of a Sheffield Transport bus, the general manager of Leicester was so impressed with the blue and cream livery that he decided to adorn his buses with a virtually identical scheme in maroon and cream. Details of the Sheffield bus escape me at present, but what excellent taste that man had!

John Darwent

08/05/14 – 11:45

Variations on a theme. DBC 189C was a H44/31F East Lancs bodied AEC Renown, new to Leicester City Transport in 1965. Around the mid to late 70’s. it was sold to Hunter of Seaton Delaval, and is pictured in service with them on the road between Earsdon and Seaton Delaval. Did it too start life in the rather smart version of the Leicester livery?

Ronnie Hoye

09/05/14 – 08:56

Ronnie. Yes. John. Could it have been one of Sheffield’s 519-524 batch of similar Bridgemasters? Sheffield never had any particular problems with either Regent Vs or Bridgemasters in their mountainous operating area – and all achieved a full working life (12/13 for Bridgemaster and 13-17 for Regent V).

David Oldfield

09/05/14 – 08:56

The previous Leicester livery was not unlike the Hunters livery with the window surrounds in cream and the rest in maroon.

Chris Hough

09/05/14 – 09:58

Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

David – May well have been a Sheffield Bridgemaster on loan.  Pretty similar apart from opening top deck front windows. Go compare.

John Darwent

09/05/14 – 12:46

…..and as Ian said, at the top, what a difference a livery can make – just like on the Orion. Even 525, of the ugliest of PRV designs, looks good in STD livery – as it still does in preservation.

Question for all our experts out there. Recent reading has brought up an number of "forgotten" facts. One is the legislation requiring a downstairs emergency exit on 30′ long deckers. The Leicester Bridgemaster has one behind the driver’s cab, the "normal" position. Apart from those with platform doors – where the emergency exit was a door at the rear of the platform – only the Alexander Regent Vs of Sheffield had the additional emergency exit behind the driver. Why? Did the legislation come in during the course of 1960? STD’s Roe and Weymann Regent Vs arrived between January and April 1960. The Alexanders were the last to arrive, again in April.

David Oldfield

10/05/14 – 08:59

Leeds later 30 foot vehicles had an emergency window in the first bay on the offside rather like an upper deck emergency window

Chris Hough

10/05/14 – 08:59

Dont know for certain, David. By 1960 the NGT Group had entered the world of the Atlantean. The lower deck emergency exit was on the O/S between the rear axle and the engine. The only half cabs required to have an emergency exit on the lower deck were the SDO R/D Burlingham bodied PD3’s. They had a door on the back at the foot of the stairs, the Routemasters (O/S rear behind the axle, and the Ex East Yorkshire Renowns (centre rear). The Orion bodied PD3’s had the standard cut away section of the open platform which extended round the back, and allowed an escape route should the vehicle end up on its side.

Ronnie Hoye

10/05/14 – 08:59

The requirement for an additional emergency exit must have come in around 1959. The Leeds PD3s with Roe bodies didn’t have it but the tram replacement Daimlers in the reversed UA series did.

David Beilby

10/05/14 – 12:36

Thanks chaps. I was aware of the Leeds vehicles, Chris and David. Still anecdotal though. We’ve not pinned down a date, just more or less confirmed it by detection.

David Oldfield

11/05/14 – 08:21

There’s a small booklet that was produced by the Leicester Transport Heritage Trust in 2011 called "Maroon to Cream", The Story of Leicester City Transport’s Livery Change, by Mike Greenwood, which details the revision to the Leicester livery and highlights the Sheffield connection; it’s a fascinating little booklet that is well worth a read.

Dave Careless

11/05/14 – 08:22

Off-subject though this may be, I query the random positioning of front number plates on buses, and whether they were perhaps not subject to he Construction and use Regulations by which cars and motorcycles were bound.
Above we see Leicester Corp. Bridgemasters cast their plate high above the cab, under the destination indicator, BTC oft used a square plate slung the left under the cab, where the standard spot was at the base of the radiator – sometimes actually attached to the grille.
The only two ‘lets’ which I know to have been permitted in commercials, have been the rear plate of pantechnicons mounted atop the roof at right, and London Transport bypassing the white and yellow plates prescribed for all other vehicles in GB, by continuing with white on black. These allowances must have been arranged by the most complex legal wrangling and alteration of otherwise immutable law.
Thanks to all correspondents.who make this such a lively forum, with remarkable knowledge of the minutiae of omnibology and simply wonderful archive photographs, now saved for posterity by their exposure in OBP.

Victor Brumby

11/05/14 – 17:38

Leeds buses had a square registration plate affixed under the cab windscreen. However All the exposed radiator MCW Orion stock had a straight plate under the windscreen. The 60 all Leyland Titans had a transfer straight number plate under the cab window. The concealed radiator Daimler had a plate at the bottom of the tin front later Daimlers with Manchester style cowls reverted to the square cast plate. Later concealed Titans and Regents had their plates at the bottom of their tin fronts. All rear entrance buses had a square plate in the offside rear corner. These were usually painted. The last rear entrance Leeds buses 1966 AEC Regent had an illuminated plate over the rear platform window. All rear engined types had a plate at the bottom of the front dash positioned between the tow points. All rear engined deckers had a rear plate over the back window.

Chris Hough

12/05/14 – 08:34

Lincoln Corporation`s four Bridgemasters followed on from Leicester`s final batch by chassis nos. Does anyone know if they were cancelled by Leicester?
Lincoln were wedded to Leyland/Roe products and went back to them for several years. I have always wondered if they bought them at a bargain price, particularly as they were in the same traffic area and maybe the general managers were good pals?

Steve Milner

12/05/14 – 08:40

Manchester had square plates under the cab window as radiators were exchanged from time to time. There is a photo in The Manchester Bus of a vehicle carrying two different registrations after Burlingham delivered the first batch of the 1958 PD2s with plates on the bottom of the radiator and a swap was done later with a radiator for a 1959 Orion bodied PD2 and the mechanic failed to remove the plate from the original vehicle which would , along with its new radiator, have received the standard square plate. This left the newer vehicle with a correct UNB registration and an incorrect TNA one. The second batch of 1958 PD2s received square plates prior to delivery after Burlingham were reminded of Manchester’s requirements.
I don’t know of any hard and fast rules prior to the introduction of reflective plates, by which time, of course, front engined buses were being phased out by the manufacturers.

Phil Blinkhorn

Copyright Michael Crofts

Leicester City Transport
1966
Leyland Titan PD3A/1
MCW H41/33R

I became a bus driver in 1965 and was driving for PMT Stoke driving Regents, Guy, Daimler, Reliance and of course Leyland PD/3s. So as time went by I ended up working for Midland Red North. I was promoted to Driving Instructor in 1989 and to my delight was given a Leyland PD3 ex Leicester to do my training with. I would drive great distances with this vehicle for example Crewe to Oswestry to pick up trainee’s of course this was the best part of the day when I was driving. Happy days, Does anyone know if this vehicle was saved from the scrapman?

Photograph and Copy contributed by Michael Crofts

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

———

06/11/12 – 17:11

1966 would make it an early example of a genuine MCW – as opposed to Met Cam or Weymann. Not bad looking but it would be even better in its genuine Leicester guise.

David Oldfield

———

07/11/12 – 06:59

The registration looks to me like GRY50D – and checking it out has confirmed that is indeed the correct registration.
I’m a bit intrigued as to what David defines as a ‘genuine’ MCW product. MCW as a joint venture existed for decades (I presume similarly to ‘BUT’ of AEC & Leyland) – for many years the place of build being established by reference to the maker’s plate, Weymann bodied vehicles showing ‘Metropolitan-Cammell-Weymann’, and Metro-Cammell bodied ones showing ‘Metropolitan-Cammell Carriage and Wagon’. This changed sometime in the mid-1960s, when Metro-Cammell bodied buses started appearing with MCW builders plates, as the Weymanns. I can’t now remember exactly when this happened, but I do recall it as being well before there was any question mark over the future of the Weymann factory. At some point I think Weymann and the bus-building side of Metro-Cammell merged as MCW, but, here again, I can’t remember exactly when this was, but I do recall it as being before the losing of the separate identities, as you might say.
After a protracted strike the ex-Weymann works were closed and production concentrated at the former Metro-Cammell factory in Birmingham. I believe some bodies which were commenced at Addlestone (Weymanns) were completed in Birmingham.
Having lost significant capacity MCW then found itself unable to complete orders within the required timescales, the result being that some were cancelled (I presume by mutual agreement) and the intended customers were required to take their custom elsewhere. I remember one affected batch being Bradford 301-15 (which finished up with Alexander bodies) but I believe there were others. So at what point did ‘genuine’ MCW bodies appear?
In the example above, I notice that the lower deck seating capacity is given as 33 rather than the usual maximum of 32. Was there a rearward-facing seat for five behind the bulkhead?

David Call

———

07/11/12 – 06:59

Michael, nice views but she isn’t mentioned in the 2012 PSV Circle listing of preserved buses. Unless there’s a gap, I suspect the answer to your question has to be ‘no’.

Pete Davies

———

I have corrected the registration.

Peter

———

07/11/12 – 08:48

David. MCW was a joint marketing company. Weymann and Met-Camm had entirely different owners until 1966 when Weymann went under and Met-Camm (Cammell-Laird) bought what was left. MCW plates were put under the stairs of both manufacturers products certainly from the ’50s – leading to the ongoing confusion. MCW as a manufacturer is post 1966 – despite industrial relations problems leading to many Weymann orders post 1963 going to Met-Camm (either before or even during the production run).

David Oldfield

———

08/11/12 – 11:09

These MCW bodies always looked much better than the ones which tapered to the bonnet assembly which remained at 7ft 6ins wide, this gave the buses a severe look. The problem was overcome by adding around 6 inches to the front width of the bus on the offside as seen here.

Chris Hough

———

08/11/12 – 15:00

Chris, wasn’t it 3 inches either side? As far as MCW and its constituents are concerned MCW was formed in 1932 to produce bus bodies from the Elmdon works of Metro-Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company and the Addlestone works of Weymann.
Both companies produced bodies to their own designs which they marketed separately and to joint designs where they saw markets which neither factory alone could supply in quantity, for instance BAT (later BET) which became a major customer.
The Weymann name and the Metro Cammell names were dropped after the 1966 closure of Addlestone, MCW becoming the new name.
Enthusiasts, (myself included), publications and the internet are sometimes guilty of calling pure Metro Cammell designs MCW as it became a short hand. I’ve done it on this site, referring to various Manchester bodies, supplied by Elmdon pre the arrival of the Orion bodies, as MCW when they (such as the post war Standard, the Phoenix and the unique 44xx batch of CRG6Ks) were pure Metro Cammell.
Interestingly few pure Weymann bodies are wrongly referred to as MCW.
For my own part, I’ve put myself on the naughty step for 15 minutes and have promised to be more careful in future!

Phil Blinkhorn

———

08/11/12 – 15:01

The prolonged strike at Weymann was responsible for Halifax ordering Roe bodies for the 1965 PD2s. The chassis were driven from Weymann to Halifax and then despatched to Cross Gates. Leeds ordered 10 Weymann bodied Atlanteans for 1965 Nine duly appeared while the last one 340 CUB 340C was finished by MCW and eventually arrived in 1966. It had dual headlights and wrap around windscreens on both decks neither feature was on the original 9. It also had green window pans for the interior instead of the more usual aluminium finish. It was in many ways a one off and remained unique in the Leeds fleet Later MCW bodied Atlanteans had wrap round windscreens but single headlamps and standard interiors.

Chris Hough

———

09/11/12 – 07:49

Whilst GRY 50D doesn’t seem to have survived to the present day, two of its sisters have.
Identical twin GRY 48D has been restored by the Leicester Transport Heritage Trust.
And Park Royal bodied GRY 60D is likewise saved for posterity at the Transport Museum, Wythall.

Peter Murnaghan

———

23/11/12 – 15:18

I’m Vice Chairman of Taybus Vintage Vehicle Society in Dundee and we had a request from a lady in France a couple of years ago for a clutch for an ex-Leicester PD3 which still carried its original registration. I actually e-mailed the Leicester preservation Group and told them about it. From memory, I think the bus was GRY 55D, so it still survives. We were also able to point her in the right direction for a clutch so I’m hoping the bus is still running.

Mike Assiph

                     Copyright Chris Hebbron

Leicester City Transport
1958
Leyland Titan PD3/1
Willowbrook H41/33R

LCT bought an eclectic mix of chassis and bodywork for its fleet over the decades, but settled on just three (164-166) tin-fronted Leyland Titan PD3/1’s, with attractive Willowbrook bodywork, in 1958. 165 and 166 were withdrawn in 1972 and 1975 respectively, with 164 being withdrawn in 1974. It’s seen here, looking remarkably chipper, aged 19, at the Bristol Bus Show, in 1977.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

29/09/12 – 07:43

And would the gent who looks as if he’s volunteering to become lunch be Mr Hebbron, by any chance?

Pete Davies

29/09/12 – 07:44

This bus is currently under restoration on a farm outside Leicester.

Philip Lamb

29/09/12 – 12:15

I thought it was at Snibston Discovery Park in Coalville, fully restored ages ago, along with a 6 wheel Renown and the 1911 Leicester City Transport Leyland tower wagon used up to the end of LCT Tramways in 1949. The latter is the oldest preserved Leyland lorry.

If the photo is 1974, Chris, and the figure looking in is not you, then it would be Clive; (sorry Clive, but I cannot remember your second name!). He was the regular Leicester Museums staff member who drove the exhibits to various shows when they were stationed at the Corporation Road Pumping Station Museum in Leicester. Probably still does, from Snibston. Other LCT buses are restored, or under restoration, by the Leicester Transport heritage Trust, including tram 36.

John Whitaker

29/09/12 – 18:03

Handsome bus, dignified livery. By the time I went up to university in 1984 the bus fleet had been standardised on MCW Metropolitans and Dennis Domintors with a few Metro-Scanias thrown in: but the fleet still sported the dignified cream and maroon-banded livery, some services were conductor-worked, and tickets dispensed from Ultimates and Solomatics . . . not for long though, the red/white/grey Leicester CityBus identity was adopted as part of the Leicester CityCouncil corporate identity (that’s right chaps, paint your buses the same colour as your refuse waggons so that passengers get the message), and Wayfarer machines came in. Most LCT services (except those worked jointly with Midland Red/Fox?) were cross-city and, I think until a route revision round about the time I went up, used different numbers depending on direction of travel. Leicester, like Trent, used to place front number plates at ‘tween decks level – any suggestions as to why? was this just a midlands foible, or did any other operators adopt this practice? Willowbrook seemed to have a respectable business amongst major operators for both single and double-deck business around this time, but then in the 1970s seemed to concentrate on the lightweight market: I suppose the introduction of the Leyland National killed-off the BET standard business, but why didn’t it continue to chase the double-deck market? And why did Duple buy Willowbrook and then divest itself of the business? Why did it keep the Willowbrook identity when Burlingham and Nudd Brothers & Lockyer became Duple (Northern) and Duple (Midland) – in fact, why wasn’t Willowbrook amalgamated with Duple (Midland)? Anyway, back to the bus: did Leicester pay extra for the Leyland badge? which would explain why not all tin-fronts sported this feature, but not why Leyland didn’t think it worth advertising itself on its products; and why, when the tin-front was adopted for wider use, did Leyland not modify the grill to eliminate the space for the BMMO badge? – surely the costs of re-tooling would have been miniscule when compared to production volumes. So many questions! Hopefully some answers will be forthcoming, in the meantime I’m going to scroll up and drool over the bus a bit more . . .

Philip Rushworth

30/09/12 – 07:57

Number plates between decks was not just a midlands foible Philip as Southdown did up until I think the late fifties when they moved them to below the cab windscreen for some reason although for obvious reasons the double deck coach No 700 with full front Northern Counties body always had it’s plate below the radiator grill.
I think the livery on the PD3 in the photo was far better than the later predominately cream version and the red/white/grey is best forgotten and the Midland Red front although not very stylish was infinitely superior to the St Helens front which was such an ugly brute which never suited any bodywork.

Diesel Dave

30/09/12 – 07:58

Philip Willowbrook did build some VRs and Atlanteans in the seventies principally for the Northern General companies sadly they were not a patch on this example Leicester’s last rear entrance bus an East Lancs bodied PD3 ran in 1982.
Why Leyland kept the tin front design until the early sixties without getting rid of the space for the BMMO badge I cannot say but Edinburgh fitted a version of it to all its Titans finally building a fibre glass version themselves.
The bodies built by Willowbrook were somewhat ersatz copies of ECW (the VR) and MCW products.

Chris Hough

30/09/12 – 10:40

If you go to your web page and type in AFT53 you’ll find a picture of Tynemouth 223 being used as a training bus, it was one of 5 Willowbrook bodied PD2/12’s delivered to Percy Main in 1957. AFT 49/53 – 219/223. The original livery layout was mostly red with cream center band and roof, later on the roof became red ‘I thought they looked best in that livery’ and about 1968 this updated version of the first post war layout was adopted. As far as I know these were the only ones of this type in the NGT group. Northern were never fans of tin fronts, in fact I think the Routemasters were the only ones that came close to that description

Ronnie Hoye

30/09/12 – 12:04

The tin front design question is an interesting one, as the Leyland grille design changed slightly over the years and I see nothing sacrosanct about the part with the space for the BMMO badge.
This photograph also makes clear why Orion bodies (in particular) on tin-front chassis, tapered in so much at the front. This was to match the width of the standard tin-front which was clearly to suit 7′-6" chassis. Willowbrook opted to maintain more body width to the front resulting in a mini dash panel to the offside of the tin front.

David Beilby

02/10/12 – 14:46

Diesel Dave comments on the ugliness of the St Helens front. I’m making the rash assumption here that St Helens Corporation thought it rather pretty!

Pete Davies

02/10/12 – 14:54

The figure is not me, Pete/John and the photo was taken in 1977, so may or may not be Clive. I was worried, myself, about the wisdom of examining the mechanicals in the bowels of the monster, so I kept well clear. One can never be too careful!

Chris Hebbron

03/10/12 – 06:00

Thanks for clarifying! It looks as if that lid could stand duty as a guillotine.

Pete Davies

03/10/12 – 06:01

The later Leyland concealed radiator design was known as the St Helens front, because St Helens was the first operator to take delivery. The design was pure Leyland — a reverse of the situation re the original Leyland tin front, which was developed to match contemporary Midland Red styling.

Philip Lamb

03/10/12 – 06:02

David, the tin front wasn’t designed to suit a 7ft 6in chassis. The original design, as we all know, was for BMMO and the order was for 100 8ft wide PD2s with Leyland bodies. Again, as we know, the standard Leyland 8ft wide body was a widening of the original 7ft 6in wide body.
For some reason Leyland widened all but the the front of the 8ft body. This didn’t cause any design problem with the traditional layout of radiator and front scuttle panel and, as the BMMO requirement for a tin front was expected to be only for them, the tin front was designed to blend with the body.
Whilst the tin front was eventually offered on both 7ft 6in and 8ft chassis, the BMMO order was the only one, in either width, to specify Leyland body work.
Liverpool adopted the tin front and its 1954 delivery of PD2/20s (8ft wide with bodies by Alexander) did not have the narrowing and the tin front on these vehicles was the full width of the bus – as were tin fronts on bodies by other builders for a range of operators using the 8ft wide chassis.
Doug Jack’s "The Leyland Bus" has a range of pictures showing a variety of 8 ft wide tin front PD2s without any narrowing of the body, some with full width tin fronts, some with the 7ft 6in version on 8ft wide bodies.
The question is why 8ft wide Orion bodies narrowed as they did to use the 7ft 6in version of the tin front.
The Edinburgh Holmes designed tin front replacement was unutterably ugly. As for the St Helens front, it was designed to give better visibility and Leyland saw it as being akin to the design on the current Vista lorry cab (which they shared with Dodge), thus giving a form of "house style".

Phil Blinkhorn

03/10/12 – 10:12

One of the attractions of this site is the wide scope of observations from correspondents with differing interests. With my ‘operational’ background, my reaction at the illustration was, as others have commented, of a smart vehicle in attractive livery, but I wondered about the destination display. The route numbers are large and very readable, which was fine for locals who knew where they were going, but the actual destination box itself isn’t too helpful for passengers who needed to check their intended destination, and is out of proportion with the numerical display. The positioning of the number plates is distracting, and doesn’t make things easier for them.

Roy Burke

04/10/12 – 07:22

Philip,
A reference in "Local Transport in St Helens 1879-1974" by TB Maund and MJ Ashton says "St Helens commissioned an unusual asymmetrical front which was subsequently used elsewhere and known as the ‘St Helens front’ ".
As a passenger on St Helens Corporation and Crosville to school from 1961-68, I always assumed that St Helens Titans had fibreglass fronts because Fibreglass Ltd (a subsidiary of Pilkington Brothers) were based in St Helens.
Thus, some Corporation spending was kept within the boundary and kept some local people in employment. This is something long-lost in our economy, much to the delight of Volvo, Scania etc.

Dave Farrier

04/10/12 – 13:35

On the subject of highly placed registration plates it may have been a geographical thing as both Trent and Barton also place them over the cab on double deckers.

Chris Hough

11/02/14 – 07:00

I worked for LCT for 5 years, and my understanding of the positioning of the number plates was that the body fitters were sick to death of having to refit them after minor shunts. So the chief engineer of the day, early 1960s, decreed that the damned things be removed to a higher place of safety. Presumably, other operators took the same view and for the same reason. A minor shunt, that maybe just dented the bottom of the grille, could be ignored until the next repaint, whereas damaged or missing number plates had to be attended to immediately or the vehicle was out of service until fixed.

Rob Haywood

11/08/14 – 07:16

The man looking at 164 is NOT Clive. It’s not me either but I did drive this to rallies when working for Leicester Museums and Clive Stevens worked for me. He still volunteers at Abbey Pumping Station Museum. We also drove the 1939 Renown, once all the way to Brighton.

Bob Bracegirdle

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

02/11/14 – 15:24

As an ex. LCT employee, 1956-61, I can confirm that the positioning of the front number plate between decks came about long before tin fronts – pre WW.II in fact. It was positioned there so that reconditioned radiators could be swapped between buses without the necessity to swap number plates.

Paul Banbury