Old Bus Photos

Bournemouth Corporation – Daimler Fleetline – ALJ 341B – 41

Bournemouth Corporation - Daimler Fleetline - ALJ 341B - 41

Bournemouth Corporation - Daimler Fleetline - ALJ 341B - 41
Copyright Diesel Dave

Bournemouth Corporation
1964
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
MH Cars H44/33F

Here are two photos I took in November 1964 at The Square in Bournemouth of one of the corporations unique Daimler Fleetlines fitted with bodies by MH Cars of Belfast the only bodies by this manufacturer delivered to the UK mainland they were part of an order for similar buses being built for Belfast Corporation at that time but diverted to Bournemouth who were suffering a vehicle shortage, registered ALJ 340/41 fleet No’s 40/41. Reported by Buses Illustrated magazine as being delivered in Belfast livery but repainted before entering service, does any one know what happened to them after they left Bournemouth?
I may be wrong but I think MH Cars later became Potters who in turn became Alexanders (Belfast).

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave


ALJ 340B has been preserved, initially at Mallard Road, but the 2012 PSVC listing gives her at Winkleigh.

Pete Davies


11/09/12 – 07:23

An interesting purchase by Bournemouth. I suspect that Alexander had been involved with MH Cars all the way down the line, as this body style is very much like those supplied by Alexander to Newcastle in 1964.

Paul Haywood


12/09/12 – 07:15

It’s not a particularly pretty bus, but it’s not quite as bad as the first Alexander Atlantean body. Sheffield had just one, 369. My favourites are outside the scope of this forum – Sheffield’s Voith/AN68s with peaks on the Alexander body (with flat screens upper and lower).

David Oldfield


18/04/13 – 07:25

It always been rumoured that these two Fleetlines were diverted from an order for Belfast Corporation Transport. I am not sure the source of this but the two Bournemouth chassis numbers bear no relation to the batch of 150 Fleetlines which Belfast ordered even though they were built in between the two batches. The chassis numbers of 40/1 are concurrent with the CRU batch but not any Belfast vehicle. I believe they were built at the same time and may have been to a virtually identical specification to Belfast’s vehicles. I have also seen it reported that they were delivered in Belfast red but have never seen a photograph of either in this scheme and I am sure someone would have taken a photo on such an unusual event.

Bill Headley


24/08/13 – 10:32

I have a photo of the ex Belfast Fleetlines in the Bournemouth body shop in Belfast livery having the destination screen layout altered to Bournemouth’s standard pattern, prior to painting in Bournemouth livery. So these two buses definitely arrived in Belfast livery.

David Chalk


25/08/13 – 06:28

Could you post it, David?

Chris Hebbron


25/08/13 – 06:29

NLJ 272

I visited Winkleigh on the 7th October 2012 where many of the preserved Bournemouth buses are now stored. I’m certain the bus on the right of this photo is Daimler Fleetline ALJ 340B referred to by Pete Davies.

Mac Head


11/10/13 – 17:18

David, I would love to see the "delivery" photo of the MH Cars Fleetline at Bournemouth in Belfast red.
I believe I have finally got to the bottom of the mystery. What became Bournemouth 40/1 (ALJ 340/1B) were nothing to do with a Belfast Corporation order which is why their chassis numbers don’t tally with any Belfast vehicles. The chassis were originally destined to be bodied and delivered as demonstrators to Coras Iompair Eireann in Dublin for a trial. It appears that Leyland objected quoting an unwritten agreement between CIE and Leyland and the proposed programme was abandoned. Bournemouth was struggling for new vehicles because of a strike at Weymanns in which the CRU xxxC batch were caught and these two "complete" vehicles were offered and sold to Bournemouth. The fact that the chassis numbers immediately precede the Bournemouth batch appears to be coincidental. So it would appear that the mystery is finally solved.

Bill Headley


15/10/13 – 07:05

One further question for David – did 40/1 (ALJ 340/1B) arrive on trade plates or did they have Northern Ireland registration numbers on them?

Bill Headley


13/02/14 – 10:46

My brother and I grew up in Bournemouth in the 1970s having moved from Bury (Lancashire). We were overwhelmed by the difference between the Bury Corporation/Selnec Fleet and that of Bournemouth. The Bournemouth Fleetlines and Atlanteans were modern, bright and impeccably clean compared to the Leyland Titans of Bury/Selnec. We lived on Route 17 which seemed to always get the newest vehicles. We were amazed when we first saw the two MH cars bodied buses and grew fond of them because of their quirkiness. We didn’t see them that often though and I think only travelled on them once or twice. Our favourites were the CRU … C batch of open toppers on Route 12 which followed the same route as Route 17 in Alum Chine. We sometimes tried to use them coming home from school but the drivers refused to accept our bus passes on that route!!
Happy Days!!

David R


14/02/14 – 06:47

The brother of David R. My brother and I went to different schools in our teens with very different school bus times. Whereas he started school at just gone 8am, my school at the other side of town started at 9.25am, but finished at 4.30pm. in the first year of secondary school, our school bus route 44 (45 was from Southbourne and 46 from Winton and Charminster. The morning run in 1975 we always received the dual door Leyland Titan PD3/1s, but the evening run was always Daimler Fleetlines or Leyland Atlanteans. However, on a number of occasions we received the MH Cars Fleetlines – which if I remember rightly seated 78 instead of the usual 73? (i am sure someone will know the answer to that). what always amazed me was the MH cars Fleetlines never seemed to operate the 45 or 46 school bus runs – only the 44! The other rarity was during the winter, we would sometimes receive one of the open top fleet – roofed of course! It was always fun to spot ‘Durham’ or ‘Northumberland’ doing the 44 school run! indeed happy days that year, before the new batches of vehicles started to appear, and the PD3/1s disappeared…

Jonathan R


14/02/14 – 13:32

Yes that’s right Jonathan. They put on a special service in the morning at about 07.35 to take the kids who lived in Alum Chine/Westbourne to the Square to catch the normal service route 29/32 to Charminster to be at East Way at 08:15 for school start time at 08:20. School finished at 15:25 and if we were quick to catch the 15:28 from East Way to the Square in time to get the 15:45 route 17 back to Westbourne and Alum Chine. It was quite a rush in the afternoon I can say!!
The whole point of the staggered school start times was so that one batch of buses could do 2 school runs thus reducing the total number of buses needed.

David R


06/04/14 – 18:20

I grew up in Bournemouth during the 1960s/early 1970s, and remember 40/41 when they were new. They were used on route 1 to Christchurch in their early days. Unfortunately, I lived only a mile from Bournemouth School and was envious of those boys who got two (or more) bus rides a day as part of their education! At primary school we did have various bus rides for swimming, etc, but these never involved 40/41 and in fact I do not think I ever rode on them despite being a frequent user of buses for getting around the town.
As David R points out, there was a close relationship between the Corporation and the Education Dept. at The Town Hall – all our local journeys for school purposes were undertaken in Corporation buses.

Grahame Arnold


08/04/14 – 07:47

Ah yes the trips to Stokewood Road Swimming Baths.
IIRC we had the Leyland Leopards for some of those journeys! I also think we used a Roadliner from time to time. The only time we used another "firm" was when we used Shamrock and Rambler for the CCF (Combined Cadet Force) journeys to Portsmouth and elsewhere.

David R


05/07/14 – 17:28

I was born in Boscombe (Hospital) sixty years ago and for the next twenty one years lived in Barrack Road, Christchurch, with the passing Bournemouth Corporation buses, trolley buses and the green Hants & Dorset Bristols. Before the introduction of the rear engined Daimlers I remember seeing a white and blue version in use. Does anyone know if it was a trial unit or does this have any bearing on the ‘Belfast’ debate?

Mike Giles


06/07/14 – 08:20

Bournemouth had the Daimler Fleetline 7000 HP demonstrator on trial for a while – which was in a blue livery as I recall, and had also had the Alexander bodied Leyland Atlantean in the Glasgow orange livery on loan as well (SGD 669). Also tried at about that time was 7552 MX, an AEC Renown demonstrator, which was in a blue and white livery.
In the event, Bournemouth ordered Fleetlines and Atlanteans with bodies by Weymann (who had been body supplier for the postwar trolleys), but with a front end very similar to the Alexander demonstrator.
My understanding at the time was that delivery of the completed vehicles was somewhat protracted – problems at Weymann’s I believe – and hence two MH Cars bodied vehicles were obtained to the Belfast design (and apparently they were vehicles already completed for the Belfast order). They definitely lacked the ‘style’ of the vehicles Bournemouth wanted, but were a ‘stop-gap’ measure by the transport department who wanted new vehicles urgently .

Peter Delaney


11/07/14 – 16:32

The two Bournemouth MH Cars bodied vehicles were not "part of an already completed order for Belfast". They were built as a joint venture between Daimler and MH Cars and MH Coachworks to supply a fully "Irish built bus" which they could offer to CIE. The plan was to give two Fleetline to CIE on extended demonstration. The two chassis 60929 and 60930 were built long after the second batch of Belfast chassis (which had been 60644-60706)and were supplied to MH in CKD form to be built up in the MH factory at Dunmore in Belfast. Knowing that Belfast was successfully running 150 Fleetlines already 60929 and 60930 were built to full Belfast specification and were even painted in Belfast’s red and cream livery.
In the meantime Leyland having got wind of the proposed deal for CIE to have two MH Cars Daimler Fleetlines on extended demonstration, cited an agreement between Leyland and CIE. To meet CIE’s needs and to get vehicles immediately, Leyland cobbled together a group of Atlanteans from Bolton, Glasgow and Liverpool and dispatched them to Dublin.
At the time Daimler were aware that Bournemouth’s forthcoming batch of Fleetlines were bogged down in an industrial dispute at Weymanns and did a deal to sell them these two additional vehicles "on the cheap". This is why these two vehicles arrived in Bournemouth in Belfast colours and to Belfast specifications. The one thing I cannot ascertain is – did they arrive in Bournemouth on Northern Irish number plates or did they arrive on trade plates?
David Chalk said he had photos of them on delivery but hasn’t uploaded them and I am not aware of any other photos of the pair pre-delivery. I hope this clarifies the background to these two vehicles.

Bill Headley


12/07/14 – 06:47

Thank you to Bill for clarifying the background to this – I had missed seeing his earlier post (having answered the comment about blue & white demonstrators) – the MH bodied ones certainly ‘appeared’ to be standard Belfast buses at the time! The sequence of chassis numbers, though, is ‘interesting’ – I seem to recall that order books / chassis registers for Daimlers of that period survive in the Coventry Archives.

Peter Delaney


13/07/14 – 06:59

Just found this page and can add some information re; surviving examples of the 1965 Daimler Fleetlines.
Of the open-top batch (180-189, there are 3 known survivors all of which are driveable but undergoing various form of restoration works.
180 – Based in Midlands, last seen in Bournemouth colours but may appear in a new colour scheme (tbc)
184 – Owned by myself and based in Dorset and currently is having it’s upstairs floor replaced, with some frame repairs. It will be restored to Bournemouth colours. Although in good structural and mechanical condition, it’s suffered from having a lot of modifications from original spec over the years.
187 – Last seen residing in Sussex and will be restored to London Transport colours.
Of the fixed top batch (190-199), the last known survivor was 197 but this hasn’t been seen since BPTA days about the late 1990’s I’d say. I’ve never been able to track this one down and it’s fate is a bit of a mystery.

Nick Jackson


12/04/15 – 07:12

Both 40 and 41 were a diverted to Bournemouth as part of the 150 strong order for Fleetlines being bodied by MH Cars in 1963/64. Bournemouth had a pressing need for new vehicles urgently in the summer of 1964 as the Atlanteans on order were running late. Bournemouth was already in negotiation with Daimler for the 1965 delivery and it was found that two Fleetlines could be diverted very quickly. As said above, they arrived in Belfast colours and were modified and painted before use.
The reason that the two chassis numbers are out of sequence with the remaining Belfast buses is because Daimler issued numbers based on when orders were received and not when the chassis were built. The two received separate chassis numbers as they were ordered separately, but arrived in Belfast colours as they were intended for Belfast and would have had chassis numbers in the Belfast sequence if they had not been diverted to Bournemouth. The tale about CIE being involved is completely without foundation.

James Prince


13/04/15 – 07:41

bmouth 40_41

Here is the photo of one of the two vehicles having its blind apertures altered to Bournemouth’s style at Mallard Road Depot in June 1964. Although already partially repainted, it’s clear that the front panel is still in Belfast Red and the windscreen surrounds are still white.
Copyright unknown

Chris Hebbron


16/04/15 – 06:40

I worked for Bournemouth Corporation as a mechanic from 1978-80 when I left as a result of an injury. I distinctly remember a number of the older Fleetlines (the ones without power steering) being sold to Hong Kong. They were cracking buses and were fitted with Gardiner engines and were very much more reliable than the Leyland Atlanteans which made up the bulk of the fleet.

Terry Hall


27/09/16 – 13:35

Just to update everyone 40 (ALJ 340B) returned home yesterday to Belfast and is now safely stored away pending further restoration work. This some 50 years after she was built at MH Cars (chassis assembly from Daimler kit) and MH Coachworks (bodybuilding. She is the sole remaining example of an Irish built/assembled Daimler Fleetline and the only MH Coachworks bodied vehicle preserved – there are some school bus Albion Vikings around.

Bill Headley


28/09/16 – 06:28

Great news, Bill!

Pete Davies


28/09/16 – 06:29

This handsome vehicle wears its years lightly and is well worth preserving. The Bournemouth livery and blind aperture layout only enhance its looks. Let’s hope this stays, rather than changing it to the Belfast livery.

Chris Hebbron


30/09/16 – 04:23

Two very fine looking vehicles indeed, enhanced even further by the lovely Bournemouth livery. I imagine there would have been some "head scratching" in order to accommodate the four sets of winding gear for the superb and informative destinations displays – I always wondered at the little "trunk road" coloured ones – "via Old Christchurch Road" etc.

Chris Youhill


04/10/16 – 05:31

Pleased to hear of progress but slightly saddened she wont be based in her home of so many years.
One question: why is the nearside front window slightly larger than the drivers side front window?

David Rawsthorn


05/10/16 – 07:01 4

The driver’s window had to open, unlike the nearside fitting.

Roger Cox


05/10/16 – 09:35

It must have been a very strange sensation for body builders to be carrying out such extensive frontal alteration work on brand new vehicles.

Chris Youhill


06/10/16 – 06:17

Yes I though that may have been the case.
What still puzzles me is that the blind apertures are the wrong way around when compared to normal. On the Weyman and Alexander bodied vehicles the number and via small apertures are nearest the nearside whereas on the MH cars vehicles the small apertures are driver side. Was it simply for ease of altering the original Belfast layout?

David Rawsthorn


06/10/16 – 17:03

I’m sure you’re right there David – the performance must have been complex enough without and additional "perfections." I must say that I always considered these to be two very handsome and appealing vehicles. I haven’t been to Bournemouth for perhaps almost forty years but I do remember being very disappointed from afar (Leeds) when the very unprofessional blue fleetnames were introduced. Last time I was there I was most impressed by the bus stop advertisements showing a spider’s web and the cautionary "Use us or lose us" – a sinister warning of the ever prominent declining passenger figures in the Industry.

Chris Youhill


13/10/16 – 07:12

Yes when the then new "blue flash" livery was applied many of the locals were decidedly unhappy. Then they added the blue skirt which seemed to be a further retrograde step and then they introduced the brown flash livery.
Personally I liked the original yellow with green and mauve band. It worked really well. As I said in an earlier post it seemed to my brother and I that the buses were kept in immaculate condition. We were also very fond of the open toppers the CRU – C batch and then the NFX – P batch. Happy memories.

David Rawsthorn


13/10/16 – 15:27

On the subject of "favourite batches" one group of vehicles bring back especially happy memories for me – the open top Leyland TDs. I once enjoyed a lovely ride on service 12 to Hengistbury Head – the glorious sound effects from the open top deck were pure nostalgia, and I seem to remember in particular one steep climb from the sea front where the mature deep prewar Leyland tones were pure music to my ears.

Chris Youhill


17/10/16 – 07:14

Yet another question about this vehicle.
Why does it have twin front headlights as built, not changed by Bournemouth Corporation Transport when the destination layout was changed, but changed at some future point in time.

David Rawsthorn


18/10/16 – 07:41

On the subject of Bournemouth there is one of the Burlingham bodied Tigers currently for sale on eBay.

Andrew Charles


18/10/16 – 09:21

Yes seen it is for sale. £22K. A lovely vehicle but sadly have neither the wherewithal nor the storage.

David Rawsthorn


18/10/16 – 09:21

Expect it to be sold by now.

Roger Burdett


25/12/16 – 06:19

40/1 were delivered with dual headlights but were later converted by Bournemouth to single sets of headlights. 40 has already been restored to dual sets and has a new front panel with a Daimler badge restored as well.

Bill Headley



Can I ask a technical question Bill?
Are both headlights in a pair dip and main beam or is one main beam only?

David Rawsthorn


26/12/16 – 10:10

Re dip and main beam in vehicles with four headlights, I’ve come across the following combinations over the last 50 years over a range of vehicles and in different countries:
Both pairs work in tandem.
Outer pair on in dipped mode, inner pair off, then all four on for full beam.
Outer pair on in permanent dipped mode, inner pair come on for full beam leaving outer pair dipped.

Phil Blinkhorn


26/12/16 – 17:56

Having once had the Leyland car equivalent of the original Atlantean, the Princess, I can tell you that four standard headlamps (two full beam only) are hopeless, especially for urban driving. The dipped smaller unit gives a poorer light in most situations. If all four could be dipped other drivers would not accept this and retaliate. If these followed the same pattern, why give a bus lights designed for unlit, little used roads? Luxury cars (and many now) had a full size normal pair and two extra, smaller "driving" lights for full beam.

Joe


04/10/17 – 07:31

ALJ 340B

As an update I just wanted to let people know that sister vehicle 40 (ALJ 340B) which recently returned to Belfast to undergo further restoration has now been returned to roadworthy condition having passed it’s MoT. It’s a great credit to new owner Richard Shannon that so much has been done so quickly. Work continues….

Bill Headley


ALJ 341B_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


29/04/18 – 16:30

ALJ 340B_3

Now restored to its’ original colour scheme is former Bournemouth 40 (ALJ 340B). It is fitted with Belfast Corporation destination blinds – which it never actually carried but this is the destination screen layout it carried when delivered. There is a photo on this thread showing the screens being alter to Bournemouth layout. This former unused Daimler/MH Coachworks demonstrator and its’ sister 41 (ALJ 341B) were disposed of to Bournemouth directly from the manufacturers and were never owned by Belfast Corporation Transport. 40 made its’ first appearance yesterday in Belfast in its’ original guise.

Bill Headley


 

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

 


 

Lancaster City Transport – Daimler CWG5 – FTD 70 – 70

Lancaster Corporation - Daimler CWG6 - FTD 70 

Lancaster City Transport
1943
Daimler CWG5
Crossley (1952) H30/26R

I’ve looked at the website several times, and made a few comments. I’ve decided to offer a few of my colour slides for inclusion in the forums. Sadly, the black and white prints I once had (taken on a 2s 6d camera bought from Woolworths in 1962) were not of suitable quality for publication and have long gone. My first offering is the Lancaster City Transport Daimler CW, FTD70, captured inside Kingsway Garage on a Saturday afternoon in August 1969. She had been given a 1952 Crossley body to replace her original "Utility" feature. As with many of the fleet at the time, she carried adverts for cough medicine, dishwashing and similar products from the makers of ZOFLORA.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


15/06/12 – 15:27

Compared to its near neighbour Morecambe Lancaster had a very mixed fleet of Daimlers, Crossley, Guys, Titans, AEC saloons and later Leopards and Panthers. Having a fleet of less than 100 buses the numbering system was also unusual the fleet number being the registration number thus buses were numbered in the 800s !
I knew the fleet well in the seventies when they had amalgamated with Morecambe whose main fleet bus was a collection of elderly AEC Regent IIIs. In an effort to withdraw these the undertaking bought many second hand buses including a lowbridge Atlantean from Trent a Wallace Arnold coach Burnley PD3s and some Maidstone PD2s which retained their former livery. They were even brave enough to buy a Seddon Pennine demonstrator! A company that is much missed, even today Stagecoach still use second hand buses on local routes, Plus d’change!

Chris Hough


16/06/12 – 07:25

A very atmospheric garage shot Pete – you can almost hear the echoey sound of buses being started up in the distance. Hard to believe that the chassis would have been twenty-six years old at the time. Not bad for a "wartime stop-gap", and the Gardner 6LW would have been nicely run-in by then as well! The Crossley body looks to be in tidy fettle too if the shine of the paintwork is anything to go by. It looks quite handsome, and certainly less dated than the ‘traditional’ Crossley style, with its strange shallow windows over each rear wheelarch. Does anyone know if the latter feature was just a Crossley styling quirk, or was it of structural necessity? I’ve often wondered.

Brendan Smith


16/06/12 – 07:25

Is this a Crossley body, without the raised section over the rear wheel arches? Then there’s all those vents, at lower sides and upper front…and it really does look like a half-width front saloon window? Why? Are we sure that this is a G6 and not at that vintage an A6? Or even just possibly a D6? Questions, questions….

Joe


My mistake here, it is actually a Gardner 5 not a 6 glad you raised the question Joe, I have corrected the header, sorry about that.

Peter


16/06/12 – 10:17

I assume, Chris, that when you say ‘ex-Maidstone PD2s’, you mean ex-Maidstone & District and not ex-Maidstone Corporation. You say they retained their original livery, and the corporation’s brown and cream would have stood out rather. Interestingly, (to me, any way), John Stringer points out that Calderdale JOC also retained M&D’s livery on some second hand AEC Regent Vs. Old and faded though the paintwork might have been by the time M&D sold their old vehicles, the fact that other operators felt able to retain it, even temporarily, says something for its durability and the quality of M&D’s maintenance. Incidentally, were the PD2s in question of 1954 vintage, (RKP registration marks), fitted with Orion bodies?

Roy Burke


16/06/12 – 11:3

Roy, in answer to your query about the Maidstone element, they were most definitely Maidstone Corporation, which were in a pale blue by then. I have several photographed on duty in Morecambe. Following Lancaster’s practice of the time, 998 AKT became Lancaster’s 998!
Joe, yes the official records show it as a Crossley body it was rebodied in 1950 (OBP Lancaster Fleet List) or 1952 (BBF Lancs Municipals) the original body was a Massey H56R. The strange half depth windows towards the rear of many such vehicles were, I believe, a Manchester feature.

Pete Davies


16/06/12 – 11:35

They were Maidstone Corporation PD2s but by then the brown and cream livery had been replaced by a light blue one.
The small bulkhead window on the CWG is a standard Lancaster feature and was due to there being a rather large notice panel on the inside. This can be seen on a prewar Daimler at //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com  
This Crossley body is of the later style without the shallower windows at the rear. These originated with the Manchester practice of cutting the chassis frame short immediately after the rear axle and cantilevering the platform from the body structure, the idea being to prevent chassis distortion (expensive to repair) in rear end accidents. This was not adopted by other operators (and I think even dropped by Manchester) so the body style eventually reverted to this more conventional outline.

David Beilby


17/06/12 – 07:44

Probably the nearest relatives of this later Crossley style were the 13 trolleybuses of Bradford Corporation, which were rebodied by Crossley, and entered service in early 1952. The chassis were of 1938/9 AEC 661T, and Karrier E4 origin, and very handsome vehicles they were too!
Lancaster was a fleet of great interest. It had many Crossleys of more obvious, and earlier parentage, and wartime Guys rebodied with Guy/Park Royal bodies…plenty of enthusiasm generating influences, and a super fleet I well remember, mostly on visits to "Bradford by the Sea" (Morecambe!).

John Whitaker


17/06/12 – 07:45

Thanks, Pete and David, for putting me right on Maidstone Corporation. I’d forgotten about the livery change, which was a bit after my time. I was also wrong footed by the reference to Morecambe, thinking of green. The vehicles in question would have been 1957 tin fronts with Massey H61R bodies. We, (we being M&D staff), always thought Massey bodies an unlikely choice by Maidstone Corporation, but no doubt they had their reasons.

Roy Burke


17/06/12 – 07:46

David B, Thank for your comment about the large interior notice board. I’d quite forgotten them as the reason for the smaller windows. Perhaps, after over 40 years in Hampshire, I can be forgiven! There was a venture, shortly before I moved south, to have adverts in those spaces: some were illuminated, but I certainly don’t recall the earlier notices.
Some operators had a similar board at the back of the lower saloon, on the staircase panel, and it housed the timetable and fare charts. I had very little in the way of dealings with Morecambe & Heysham buses, but they had that arrangement. I wonder if Lancaster’s ever had that function.
Incidentally, I had a classmate with the same surname, in my primary school days. Did you go to Ryelands???

Pete Davies


17/06/12 – 08:06

There is a shot of a Maidstone Titan working in Morecambe at www.sct61.org.uk there are also shots of other second hand vehicles bought by Lancaster at the same site.
Some buses bought as driver trainers also ended up on service including a former Merthyr PD3 and a Southdown "Queen Mary" The former Lancaster depot still exists as up market flats called the old bus depot the parking area being the old depot with the flats added on top.
After amalgamation the new undertaking bought the only Y type bus bodies (with small windows) south of the border. However the planned panoramic Alexander bodied Leyland Atlanteans never materialised.

Mr Anon


17/06/12 – 08:07

David, thank you for the interesting information about the cantilevered platforms on the Manchester Crossley bodies. Fascinating, although one can’t help wondering why Manchester had such a fixation on severe rear-end damage being inflicted on its buses. The modified structure must surely have been more expensive to have had installed ‘just in case’. Or are Mancunian drivers more prone to running into the back of double-deckers than in other places? We should be told…..!

Brendan Smith


17/06/12 – 11:28

Brendan, the driving habits of car drivers in the Manchester area should indeed be publicised more. I have seen CCTV footage of a car which had been impaled after the driver tried to ignore a set of rising bollards installed to regulate a bus lane . . .

Pete Davies


17/06/12 – 16:20

CAK 640_lr
Copyright J Copland

The Crossley style body on the Lancaster Daimler CWG5 is similar to those that Bradford had on a few AEC 661T and Karrier E4 trolleybuses and received in 1952. These 13 re-bodies were well finished and introduced a new image of trolleybus in Bradford. Sadly Bradford did not re-body any of their utility motor buses and had 6 Daimler CWG5s (468 -473) similar to Lancaster which they were disposed of in 1953. A photo of Bradford AEC 640 and Karrier 682 at Thornbury re-entering service again in March 1952 shows the lovely Crossley body style.

Richard Fieldhouse


18/06/12 – 07:53

I note that John Whitaker comments on his encounters with Lancaster’s buses during his visits to "Bradford By The Sea". That isn’t quite what some of my classmates in the Sixth Form at Morecambe Grammar School used to call the place. Their usual reference was to "British West Bradford".
Apart from the University services, which Lancaster City Transport and Morecambe & Heysham Corporation Transport operated in conjunction with Ribble, the fleets never met until after Local Government Reorganisation in 1974, and not immediately even so.

Pete Davies


18/06/12 – 07:53

David B – I’m a little confused by your comment that no operators, other than Manchester, took Crossley-bodied vehicles with shallow rear windows. Both Portsmouth and Luton Corporations had them, to my certain knowledge. Is it that other operators took them with the shallow windows, but not with the cantilevered platforms? Could you clarify, please?

The Crossley-bodied trolleybus is very handsome, Richard F, and it’s interesting to note the flared side skirting, a la post-war Weymann.

Chris Hebbron


18/06/12 – 07:55

Ashton also rebodied many of their wartime Guys with the same style of Crossley body. The link was even closer, though, as Lancaster had one Guy Arab which was rebodied by Crossley registered FTE 182 and Ashton had a batch of four registered FTE 183-6.
Whilst the method of allocation of buses in wartime made the appearance of consecutive registrations in different fleets more likely, that they should then receive virtually identical bodies when rebodied is quite remarkable.

David Beilby


18/06/12 – 07:56

I don’t think the cantilevered rear platform was all that unusual. "The Manchester Bus" (Eyre and Heaps) records that Manchester got the idea from an inspection of a borrowed early production London RT. This presumably means it was a feature of all RTs, but less obvious because London didn’t see the need to strengthen the structure in a way that showed itself visually.
Something else that isn’t widely known is that the entire body, not just the cantilever platform, was designed by Manchester Corporation and not Crossley. It’s rather remarkable in my opinion that Crossley could end up with such a handsome product by simply taking Manchester’s design and stripping it of its most Mancunian features. Similar bodies, but with a Liverpool-inspired flat front, were fitted to 50 AEC Regent IIIs for Glasgow Corporation.

Peter Williamson


18/06/12 – 11:06

Thank You, Richard, for the Bradford Crossley trolleybus submissions, which illustrate my point about what handsome vehicles they were.
Chacely T. Humpidge, that champion of the trolleybus, had just been appointed, and he used these rebodies as a statement of intent for his new, neat, clean cut image, and distinctive identity with regard to destination display, which followed on into the later "East Lancs" period.
I found the Lancaster and Morecambe thread to be of particular interest, but, as I seem to be a relic from an earlier age, my recollections are of the Morecambe pre-war fleet, and the subsequent period to about 1950, when Morecambe, or "British West Bradford" was a thriving resort.
I do, however, seem to remember at least one of the Maidstone Masseys running in the ginger livery at a much later visit to the town, but memories are prone to trickery.
A pity though, about Morecambe. A visit last year showed that it is far from the place it used to be, but then, that applies to many other places too.
Better to remember the heyday; green AEC Regents on the promenade with customers galore amongst the holidaymakers!

John Whitaker


19/06/12 – 08:15

. . . and of course it’s the same body as this beauty, which is still with us. //www.flickr.com/ 

Peter Williamson


19/06/12 – 14:01

Many operators bought all Crossley deckers in the early postwar period most of which had Manchester style bodywork. This was available with either straight or drooping corners to the upper deck bodywork. Crossley also built bodies on other chassis most notably a batch of Guy Arab IIIs for Blackburn. The last all Crossley deckers were bought by Rotherham and were very attractive beasts. One of these survives in the Science Museum large exhibits collection.

Chris Hough


28/07/12 – 19:18

This CWG5 is a rare bird, for only 100 were ever built, after which they became CWA6’s, with AEC’s 7.7 litre engines, apart from a few at the end of the war which became CWD6’s with Daimler’s own engine.

Chris Hebbron


29/07/12 – 16:22

Re. the CWG5. This was more of a COG5, with ferrous metals replacing the lightweight alloys, and probably using some pre-war stock of parts, whereas the CWA6 was more of a re-design, with a new radiator.
Of the 100 CWG5s, 40 were built with Brush lowbridge bodies, and 30 each in highbridge form, by Duple and Massey.

John Whitaker


02/08/12 – 11:28

The CWG5 was the wartime version of the COG5. It had the same wheelbase measurements as the COG but used cast iron parts in place of aluminium alloy parts and also had a Kirkstall Forge rear axle. The Gardner 5LW engine was flexibly mounted so with a fluid flywheel and Wilson pre-selector gearbox, this bus was perhaps the most refined of the utility buses available when it appeared in December 1942. No doubt Lancaster Corporation recognised this fact with their re-body programme. Sadly other operators such as Bradford Corporation disposed of their six CWG5s (468 – 473) in 1953 to scrap dealers Rhodes of Nottingham. Perhaps the steep hills in Bradford were a deciding factor to get rid of them. It would be interesting to know how many of the 100 CWG5s built were re-bodied for further service.

Richard Fieldhouse


02/08/12 – 17:09

Chris H , you’ve renewed happy memories for me there. Samuel Ledgard’s final allocation of "Utility" buses consisted of eight Daimler CWA6/Duple – or did it ?? Well no – two of them were CWD6s, both of which were allocated to Otley Depot throughout their existence. My word what a fine pair of machines they were, and not only because the Duple bodies were very sound indeed and rarely needed any serious attention, and no rebuilding to speak of.
Even now I daren’t put in print the power and the speed that JUB 647/8 could display – suffice it to say that the legal lettering "speed 30mph" was a joke !! Also the melodious hum of the Daimler engines was a real joy, and in Winter the offside exhaust manifold provided fabulous heat – in Summer too, but no problem as cab windows could be opened.

Chris Youhill


03/08/12 – 07:50

You were lucky to get a couple, Chris Y, for only a dozen of the Duple batch you mention were CWD6’s. Aside from the reversed exhaust system which warmed the cab unintentionally, the engines also had the timing chain at the rear of the engine, a nuisance to get at for retensioning/replacement. I don’t know whether LT replaced the engines with reconditioned ex-STL AEC 7.7’s for these reasons, or to achieve complete standardisation. You could always tell the CWD’s for they had vertical rods down the rad instead of the grill. I always remember one CWD having ‘D???, the fastest D of all’ written in chalk above the windscreen. The ‘D’s were excellent vehicles and many went to Ceylon in their after-life. How the somewhat suspect bodies stood up to the humidity, I’ve no idea, but they lasted some years, even into the slow demise of the bus system there. LT’s Guys, conversely, gravitated towards Jugoslavia.
As an aside, a friend of mine had a Renault 16, whose engine was designed originally for a rear-engined car , but fitted at the front of this model. The timing chain, thus became inconveniently situated at the back of the engine. When his timing chain failed, his solution was to cut a hole in the car’s bulkhead, sort out the problem, then pop-rivet a plate over the hole! It saved pulling out the engine with all that that entailed!

Chris Hebbron


03/08/12 – 17:13

How many CWD6’s were built? Were the dozen that Chris H mentions, the remaining production additional to LT’s Daimlers and for provincial operators, or was it just a dozen with Duple bodies?
Ledgard had two, Trent had two, but theirs had Brush bodies, is it known who had the remainder?

Chris Barker


03/08/12 – 17:14

Chris H…at the risk of thread drift wrath, your memories of working on the (excellent) Renault 16 are a sharp recollection for me. If you had never removed the rocker box cover before, my challenge was 30 minutes to to simply take it off and put it back on again! With experience and knowing that you start by undoing the gearbox linkage down at the off side front corner of the engine compartment, I got it down to a three minute job! Simply getting it back onto the cylinder head required the finger dexterity of a surgeon and the problem solving skills of a MENSA crossword compiler…but once learnt..Ahh the satisfaction!

Richard Leaman


04/08/12 – 07:41

I’m not aware of any other of LT’s D’s being CWD’s; later, relaxed, ones had Park Royal bodies and were all CWA6’s. A quick trawl of the web suggests that other CWD6’s were distributed in penny numbers (all but one I found, had Duple bodies) Dundee (4), Northampton, S. Yorkshire, Aberdeen and Cleethorpes (1 Duple and 1 Brush). A couple (Aberdeen is one) are preserved, which surprised me. SEE: https://secure.flickr.com/

Chris Hebbron


04/08/12 – 11:38

I am assisting with "thread drift" again, Chris, as I was interested in your comments about disposal of London buses.
Yugoslavia saw the arrival of some 16 Guys, plus the 65 post war STDs and G436, but many Guys went to Kenya, and the former Southern Rhodesia, and, of course, all over the UK, with significant numbers to the Scottish Bus Group.
I think you have hit the nail on the head with CWD6 deliveries, Chris, as the only additions I can suggest, and I am not sure, were a batch of Newcastle buses with post war style Massey bodies, but were there any more with utility bodies, before the Daimler engine went into the CVD6? I would love to know!
A very "thirsty" engine, according to Bradford staff, but one of the silkiest and smoothest bus rides I can remember, from experience of Bradfords 2 batches.

John Whitaker


04/08/12 – 17:24

I think these remarks about the Daimler engine are neatly timed with David Page’s recently posted recording of the Gash CVD6: smooth, helped by the preselector changes. Is this the best bus of all? (ducks). I wonder, though, if the aristocratic fuel consumption has anything to do with the quantity deposited all over the exterior of the engine & the ground beneath: I think it was fuel, not lubricating oil: after all, part of the thrill of a CVD6 was the smell!

Joe


04/08/12 – 17:25

I’ve been checking Alan Townsin`s book, and the Newcastle JVK Daimlers were CWA6, but the paragraph seems to suggest that identical buses for Rochdale, still delivered under the MOWT arrangement, were CWD6. Leeds had 2 batches of CWD6 though, JUB596-8 (Brush utility), and JUM 571-6, (Roe).
I think I remember a ride on Sammie`s JUB 647, complete with platform doors, on a Bradford to Menston journey. It was certainly a "flyer" if memory serves me right! Most of my Ledgard "CW" memories are HGFs though, but it would be nice to think that on the Menston occasion referred to, our captain and pilot was Chris Y! Trouble is, I cannot remember when it was…too many senior moments these days!
I have this mental imagery of a cotton coated conductor, bracing himself against the stair well at the upper deck rear, as the bus hurtled down "The Branch". perhaps that was you, Chris!!

John Whitaker


04/08/12 – 17:26

I have found some more CWD6s, Chris:-
Exeter GFJ 82,83 (Brush), and Birmingham FOP 420 etc.
Keep looking…between us we shall collar the lot!

John Whitaker


04/08/12 – 20:54

Of course, much of this CWD aspect revolves around when CWD to CVD production changed, for Daimler didn’t offer any engine, other than their CD engine, for some time afterwards, if memory serves me correctly. After a quick look, the earliest CVD’s I can trace were 60 for Venture of Consett between 1946 and 1948, the first still with painted steel rads!

Chris Hebbron


05/08/12 – 07:31

Hi John W – a most interesting trip you had on 647, but sadly I can’t claim to be the driver or the conductor. As I said above, JUB 647/8 were at Otley Depot throughout their existence and should not therefore have been seen on the Bradford – Harrogate service. So, you were able to enjoy a real "one off " journey on that occasion as 647 must have been changed over in Otley or nearby to replace a defective Bradford Depot vehicle. I would love to have been with you as I’m sure the Daimler will have flown up the long and tortuous Hollins Hill like no other, in spite of the extra 3 hundredweights imposed by the retro fitted platform doors !! Incidentally the Bradford – Harrogate service (Ledgard’s longest) was referred to even officially to the end as "The B & B" – having been taken over from Blyth and Berwick before WW2 – and despite having being renamed after Samuel’s death in 1952 as "S.Ledgard (Bradford) Ltd."
The only involvement Otley Depot had with the route consisted of one morning and one evening peak hour extra, Mondays to Fridays, between Otley and Menston Village – and these were shown in the timetable as "Operated for the convenience of workpeople and liable to suspension if not required."
Another happy memory – JUB 647 was the first preselector bus that I drove in service on the fourth day of my career as a driver in 1961 – 06:40 am Otley to Leeds on Monday, and the powerful rapid ascent of the three mile long A660 from Otley thrilled me, as had the gorgeous refined hum I’d enjoyed previously when conducting this fine motor.

Chris Youhill


05/08/12 – 09:18

Hello Chris Y.!
My "647" memory could well be distorted; It must have been late 1960, and I was going to Pool in Wharfedale to view my first car purchase there, a 1936 Austin "Ruby". I am sure it was a Duple with doors, so were there any others? My return journey was again with Sammy, this time a single deck Albion! If only we could replay our memories!
To round off the Lancaster CWG5 theme, and having wandered off to London Guys world wide disposals, it is perhaps apt to recall that 4 of these Gs were bought by Lancaster in 1953!

John Whitaker


06/08/12 – 11:42

Ah John – I think that perhaps solves the mystery. It is just possible that JUB 647 might have done the odd hour on the route in the event, as I mentioned above, of a changeover but is a one in a million chance. It was, however, quite common for Daimlers with "retro fitted in house" doors to operate on the long route. Most likely it would be one or other of the ex London Transport Sutton Depot "HGF"s with Park Royal "relaxed specification" bodies – in profile these loosely resembled the Duple outline. The only other possibility – a very strong one – could be JUA 918, one of four received in the dark days of the War, but with unmistakeable Roe body. Originally wooden seated, JUA 918 was superbly overhauled and was fitted with platform doors and, I believe, ex Midland Red very comfortable seats with "M"shaped tops to the backrests. In that form it spent much of its time on the "B & B" and was a magnificent vehicle – the 7.7 AEC engine was always in top form and performed impressively. However if, on your ride, you had the impression of "Duple" I imagine it would be one of the "Sutton HGFs" – better not get me going there, as I worshipped those and the Firm had twenty two of them, several fitted with doors in keeping with the post 1952 policy of the Executors of improving the image and putting WW2 firmly behind us.

Chris Youhill


Thanks Chris.
I , too, loved the HGFs I also remember JUA 918 as a regular on Bradford-Harrogate. Probably as you say, an HGF, as I recall the "Roeness" of JUA 918, and feel sure my memory would be more accurate if that were the case.
I loved Ledgard in this period particularly, as our beloved WYRC Co. had become very standardised , and the enthusiast in me craved for more interest and variation. You certainly got that with Sammy! Funny that the other JUAs were not similarly overhauled, as the earlier Roe utility bodies were exceptionally sound, or so I was led to believe. None of your Pickering qualities here!
Another favourite Ledgard Daimler which I always sought out, was GYL 291, the only Brush member of the Daimler CW fleet.
What a wealth of memories, and how on earth are todays younger enthusiasts going to have such rich flash backs, when they are my age, with the present scene as it is!

John Whitaker


07/08/12 – 12:09

John, yes indeed the Roe utility bodies were sound and trouble free as were the Duples. The four "JUA"s and the two Pickering Guys were Ledgard’s first taste of WW2 wooden seat double deck austerity. As you rightly say, the overhaul of 918 was the most spectacular and 915/7 toiled away unspectacularly at Armley depot, while 916 was at Otley throughout its existence. After a most unusual, unique even,long period out of use but stored inside the back of the depot – such buses were normally kept outside, or inside at Ilkley "running shed" – 916 was again prepared for C of F to the usual impeccable standard displayed by the craftsmen of every speciality. For the first time ever a platform repeater bell was installed, encased in a metal box to prevent tampering – and tampering there would definitely have been, for this infernal but well meant device emitted sufficient decibels (no pun intended) to call out every fire brigade within five miles, well, four miles perhaps !! Upon emerging from the process, with commendably long C of F for such an elderly utility bus, 916 gave many more years superb front line service and could maintain the busiest schedules without difficulty.
I too fondly remember the two second hand "one off" CWA6s at Armley depot – GYL 291 (Brush) and HGF 805 (Duple) – but with the greatest admiration of all the twenty two Sutton depot "HGF"s, the undoubted saviours of the Firm in the dark days of the mid 1950s when the difficulties remaining from WW2 and the Death duties following Samuel Ledgard’s death in 1952 surely almost brought the Firm down.
JUA 916_lr

One of my favourite pictures here of JUA 916 after its spectacular return to the front line, on a lovely day at Bramhope Church – the vehicle by now 16 years old, who would think it. Picture by the late Robert F. Mack to his usual splendid standards.

Chris Youhill


07/08/12 – 14:23

Many thanks, Chris Y., for the wonderful photo of 916, and all the superb Ledgard memories your responses have generated for me!
It really was a truly wonderful fleet, both from the enthusiast viewpoint, but also in terms of a very well run business, which was sadly missed when it disappeared in 1967.
I am always surprised when I am reminded how "fragile" the company was in the early years of the "Executors", as Samuel was a very astute, as well as straight talking Yorkshireman, and I just wonder sometimes how it came to be that his astuteness did not fully extend to his thoughts of his own demise! Perhaps there was nothing more he could do in his final years.
As well as the early "exec" period, which was a delight, the earlier period presented a very "corporate" image, with those batches of pre-1950 Leylands, complete with all the "UA and UBness" of Leeds registrations, punctuated by the occasional"AK/KYness" of my native Bradford!
I have just resolved some pressing computer problems, and now I have the time, I find I cannot put down my "Beer and Blue Buses" book!
Thanks,

John Whitaker


08/08/12 – 07:12

I’m delighted to see the photo of JUA 916, Chris Y – I can almost imagine myself aboard now – very evocative!
It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a Roe utility body, as you say, looking very ‘fit’ for its age. Was the body much modified by this time? The front actually seems to have a curve upstairs and possesses neither drop side windows nor front opening ones. The headlamps are certainly lower than the ‘norm’ I’m used to. Also, the front upper part of the bulkhead. looks as if it’s been pop-rivetted one – a little odd.

Chris Hebbron


08/08/12 – 12:09

Roe built very few, if any, highbridge motorbus utility bodies after this time, concentrating on lowbridge Guys, but they did build this style for several fleets, including Doncaster, and the rebodied South Shields war damaged Daimler trolleybus.
They returned to highbridge bodies in 1945, with the W4 trolleybus contract, to a squarer style. Bradford 703 – 714 refer.
East Yorkshire had a batch of wartime Arabs with similar bodies to the "JUA"s, but adapted to Beverley Bar shape, where the existing arched roof dome proved advantageous. Roe utility bodies seemed to enjoy longevity, but they would, wouldn’t they!
BCT 703-714/734-739 were the last to be taken out of service for rebodying, withdrawal preference being given to the Park Royals. Roe always took some beating!
I just wish that the Crossgates Carriage Works were still producing such quality vehicles!

John Whitaker


09/08/12 – 07:21

The complete list of Roe highbridge utility bodies on Daimler CWA6 is: Trent 8, Ledgard 4, Northampton 4, Kippax 1, Felix, Hatfield 1, Ebor, Mansfield 1. Total 19.
There were three other highbridge utilities, A Regent for Doncaster and Leyland TD7’s, 1 for Yorkshire Traction and 1 for Yorkshire Woollen.

Chris Barker


09/08/12 – 07:22

Sadly John, the magnificent Crossgates Carriage Works – and the lovely office building where all brand new vehicles were photographed – has recently been demolished and Optare are now at Sherburn in Elmet.
When new housing is built on the famous site I think the streets should be named :-
Titan Terrace….
Regent Mews…….
Valkyrie Vale……
Lion Walk………..
Daimler Drive……… and so forth.

Chris Youhill


09/08/12 – 09:21

Chris, How about "Renown Avenue"…a postal address I would be proud of!
When tram riding in Leeds, we always tended to gravitate as near as possible to Crossgates, to inspect what delights may be on view!

John Whitaker


09/08/12 – 11:27

John W and myself made many pilgrimage visits by tram to Crossgates Carriage Works to pay homage to our favourite bus builder Charles H Roe. I think the best outcome of this sad news of the works demolition would be the street names suggested by Chris Y and John for the new re-development of the site for houses.
Roe built quality bus and trolleybus bodies and will never be forgotten for their belief in teak frames and the patent waistrail.

Richard Fieldhouse


09/08/12 – 18:29

The solitary highbridge utility Roe bodied TD7 for YWD was HD7286 fleet number 480. It sustained serious damage in a lowbridge accident on the outskirts of Huddersfield in 1949 but such was the quality of the Roe bodywork that it was repaired and put back into service.
One wonders if these early utilities (1942) may have been built from pre-war seasoned timber the bodybuilders carried in stock, rather than the unseasoned timber they had to contend with later.

Eric Bawden


09/08/12 – 18:30

Thanks, Chris B, for that interesting and informative breakdown of the Roe highbridge utility bodies. It is a great feature of this site, that we can learn such detail from each other.
I think there were 2 rebodies as well, the S.Shields Daimler trolleybus, CWK 67, and the Grimsby 1931 Regent, EE 9860, which was the Roe prototype centre entrance bus, which was also war damaged.
I think I am correct in saying that Roe lowbridge utility bodies were only built on Guy chassis, but I am not certain, and am wondering also, if any Mark 1 Arabs were involved.

John Whitaker


FTD 70_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


27/09/12 – 07:13

There is a major misconception in this thread regarding the Crossley built stepped window design and cantilever platforms.
The design is actually a Metro Cammell design for Manchester and was patented as such. Over 700 bodies were produced to this design for Manchester and, as Metro Cammell could not meet all the orders, their production was on Leyland PD1 and PD2 chassis. Crossley provided the bodies on their own chassis as well as on some Daimlers and Brush built a number on the other half of the same Daimler batch.
Crossley adopted the design for its own product range (with or without cantilevered platforms, depending on the operator) and paid Metro Cammell a license fee for each vehicle built, thus an "all Crossley" bus of the late 1940s/early 1950s had a license built body and a licensed (or pirated, depending on how you view the Saurer saga) power plant.
All vehicles so built had a manufacturer’s plate stating that the body was built by Crossley under MC patents.
Crossley built the design on their own, Leyland and Guy chassis for a range of municipal operators around the country.

Phil Blinkhorn


Of course I should have included Daimler to the list of chassis bodied by Crossley.
Some other observations. The design was known by Manchester as the post war Standard, as opposed to the Standard of the pre Streamliner era in the 1930s.
The drooped front windows were a direct link to the Streamliners. I assume that, when Crossley built bodies without the droops, and later without the stepped windows, they still were licensed built bodies as the basic framing was the same.
Manchester took just one batch of PD1s with 7’6" bodies from MC, everything else was 8′ wide.
Crossley offered both widths throughout the period it built the body style and successfully rebodied a number of wartime austerity Guy Arabs as late as the mid 1950s, as well as adapting the body for 8′ wide trolleybus chassis.

Phil Blinkhorn


28/09/12 – 07:46

The comprehensive "Crossley" book by Eyre, Heaps and Townsin does not endorse the view that the Crossley body was a Metro Cammell design, though it does state that bodies of the same design were built by Metro Cammell and Brush. Several of the features of the post war Crossley body arose from a detailed study of the revolutionary body of the London RT, and the early drawings even show the fairing of the nearside wing into the body structure in classic RT style, though production did not embrace this feature. Insofar as the HOE7 engine is concerned, the prototype unit fitted to GNE 247 did incorporate Saurer principles in the toroidal piston cavity and four valve per cylinder head, but Arthur Hubble of Crossley refused to cough up the licence fee demanded by Saurer. Production HOE7 engines had a hurriedly redesigned cylinder head incorporating two valves per cylinder and a curious piston cavity of concentric ridges, and the engine was a dismal failure that contributed fundamentally to the demise of the company. There were no Saurer elements in the HOE7, and the prototype engine was withdrawn and scrapped after the difference with Saurer over a licence fee.

Roger Cox


28/09/12 – 14:41

Roger I take your point re the Saurer principles, having re-read the story of the HOE7, however the book is as vague as Eyer and Heaps "The Manchester Bus" in regard to the "ownership" of the Standard body design. What "The Manchester Bus" says is that "Crossley adopted the design for its own production"
I was brought up in Manchester from the late 1940s and spent a great deal of my youth riding these vehicles and spending time around the depots. Later in life I had access to the MCTD records.
The Streamliner of the 1930s was designed by Metro Cammell (Manchester’s preferred builder) and the MCTD Car Works. Bodies by Crossley and English Electric were badged as licence built.
When Stuart Pilcher instigated the post war Standard, MCTD again turned to the Birmingham based builder. The body outline and the cantilever platform were designed in co-operation between Metro Cammell and the Car Works. "The Manchester Bus" states, on page 149, "In May 1945 Titan 1396 went into the Car Works to have its rear end reconstructed using Metro Cammell’s bearerless cantilevered platform system which was then adopted for Manchester’s post war Standard body design".
This chimes with my belief of the last 50 odd years and my reading in the archives 30 odd years ago, that the post war Standard was essentially a Car Works/MC design.
Crossley actually built the first vehicles to the design due to order congestion at Metro Cammell and used their own frames to fit the outline but all the evidence I’ve seen shows the patent remained with Metro Cammell.

Phil Blinkhorn


29/09/12 – 07:29

Post-war Crossley body badges made no reference to Metro-Cammell and almost certainly didn’t include any of their patents.
I’ve always considered that one of the main aspects covered by patent was the pillar section used by Metro-Cammell, which was formed hollow section steel. The Crossley frame was quite different, formed from two angle sections with a zig-zag section spot-welded between.
I don’t know if there were any patents relating to the cantilevered platform, as the feature was first used on the pre-war RT which was not built by Metro-Cammell. I would expect any patents to be related to detail design and thus not related to the principle.
I’m not sure that any Crossleys built for other operators featured the cantilever platform. Oldham 368 most certainly does not and yet has the shallow windows at the rear of each deck.

David Beilby


29/09/12 – 07:29

"The Manchester Bus" describes the postwar standard as "the fourth of Stuart Pilcher’s designs" (page 153), and only acknowledges Metro-Cammell involvement in respect of the framing that supported the cantilever platform. Certainly during the time I worked for MCTD in the 1960s we believed the design was ours. At least we agree that it wasn’t Crossleys, something I have been trying to convince people about for the last 20 years!

Peter Williamson


29/09/12 – 12:27

Peter: You are correct, the conception of the design had nothing to do with Crossley. It was put together in the Piccadilly drawing office in co-operation with Metro-Cammell.
Manufacturers assiduously protect their innovations and the Park Royal design of cantilevered platform for the RT was so protected, leading to Metro Cammell and MCTD coming up with their method of cantilevering that led to the step windows.

David: Crossley could not have used the overall design as their own without the agreement of both MC and MCTD and it is my belief from my readings in the archives in the 1980s that the design was patent protected and Crossley had to pay royalties. As to badges, my memory may well be at fault but I have a memory of a MCTD post war Standard all Crossley with such a badge.
On the question of patents and how manufacturers protect not just detail design but overall concepts, and as we all keep referring to Messrs Eyres and Heaps publications, see p230 of The Manchester Bus. Manchester had designed its own airport coaches which were in outline similar to London Transport’s AEC Regal coaches bodied by Park Royal for BEA. MCTD had to pay a small royalty to LT as they had infringed the latter’s registered design for a high roof airport coach.
Apart from my memory of reading the archives, I can’t see either Stuart Pilcher or Albert Neal, let alone the ever eagle eyed and cost conscious Transport Committee, letting Crossley have the post war Standard overall design for nothing.
As to whether Crossley used the cantilevered platform, later versions of the body, such as Stockport’s last batch of DD42s, or Reading’s, did away with the stepped windows and probably didn’t have cantilevered platforms. You cite Oldham 368 which, like a batch delivered to Stockport, has the stepped windows but no drooped corner front windows and I accept your knowledge regarding that vehicle’s lack of a cantilevered platform.
But ask yourself this: why would a company, however it was able to use someone else’s design, keep the otherwise useless stepped windows on vehicles delivered to a range of operators over a period of 4 or 5 years if a cantilevered platform wasn’t specified?

Phil Blinkhorn


 

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

 


 

Newcastle Corporation – Daimler COG5 – HTN 222 – ?

HTN 22_crop_lr

HTN 222_lr
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Newcastle Corporation
1939
Daimler COG5
Northern Coachbuilders H56R

What looks like a pre delivery photo of three Daimlers for Newcastle Corporation, “note the blue light to the side of the destination blind” this has been commented on before on this site. Going by the registrations I would say they were built in the late 1930s, and to be honest if I were shown a picture of one of these in a different location I wouldn’t be able to say who the bodybuilder was, but I think the name on the building may be a clue.

ncb_insert

What on earth were they thinking of with the front wing and the headlights? They look as if someone remembered them about ten minutes before they were due to leave the factory and they were stuck on as an afterthought, for me they completely spoil the look of what is otherwise a rather handsome vehicle. I don’t know anything about them, maybe someone can provide information for the ‘?s’. But if I’m right about the date they would almost certainly ‘or the chassis would’ have still been around until about the early to mid fifties.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye


06/06/12 – 07:50

Yes, good looking vehicles, spoiled by the apparent afterthought of where to place the headlamps. Then again, perhaps they did omit the headlamps entirely, as these are where most folk would expect the fog lights.

Pete Davies


06/06/12 – 07:51

HTN 231, 233, presumably from the same batch of 1939 NCB bodied COG5s, finished up in 1956 with the LCBER bus fleet.
See my recent post, and fleet list on the subject

John Whitaker


06/06/12 – 07:52

This picture appears in Alan Townsin’s book "Daimler", where it is credited to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Libraries. The photo was taken in June 1939, and shows the first three of a batch of 18 COG5 machines with Northern Coachbuilders bodies, which were followed by two more with Northern Counties bodies. This batch of 20 brought the total number of COG5 buses in the Newcastle fleet up to 71, the highest number outside Birmingham at that time.

Roger Cox


06/06/12 – 07:52

From the registration number this looks like the same series as the two mentioned in the recently posted fleet list of Llandudno & Colwyn Bay vehicles (Nos. 1 and 2).

Stephen Ford


06/06/12 – 11:38

Bus headlamps are a fascinating topic to study. Several operators in the late thirties decided that low mooted headlamps or maybe fog lamps were more effective for smog conditions in many of the major cities. The first LPTB RT AECs had no main headlamps in the traditional place, and similarly Coventry had some Daimler COG5s with only low mounted lights similar to the Newcastle COG5s.

Richard Fieldhouse


06/06/12 – 11:38

I gather from photos published elsewhere that it was not until January 1949 that legislation specified how the headlights had to be placed. Nottingham favoured low-down "driving lamps" like this from 1935 and only modified them when the law changed. Did it improve visibility in fog? We tend to forget that headlights were not used routinely on (reasonably) well-lit city roads until comparatively recently. I wonder how practical they were when fitted with blackout shutters during the war? I have also seen (possibly on this site – not sure) buses with the two headlights mounted at different heights.

Stephen Ford


06/06/12 – 17:34

I cannot remember where, Stephen, but you are right about asymmetrical headlight siting.
Interesting to see these NCB bodies. They bear no resemblance to those I came to know post-war in Sheffield. They are quite a well balanced design and it seems a pity that they were abandoned after the war.
I have wondered, occasionally, whether the post-war design was deliberately similar to Weymann. (There is a vague similarity, and NCB’s order for about 40 bodies on various chassis was primarily to fill in for the fact that Weymann did not have the capacity to fulfil all its orders at that time.)

David Oldfield


06/06/12 – 19:42

Rather a splendid frontage to the NCB factory, which I’m rather surprised no one in this posting has picked up on.
Don’t suppose it has survived.

Eric Bawden


06/06/12 – 20:02

Long gone I’m afraid, Eric, but the Mill is still there but missing the top

Ronnie Hoye


08/06/12 – 17:15

Headlamp heights: the classic example is the early post war Morris Minor which pictures show with headlamps tucked in at the side of the radiator grille: then they had to be lifted into two fairings in the wings. The early Hillman Imp had excessive toe in on the front wheels to lift the headlamps- it is said: someone miscalculated, I assume.
Those old headlamps (CAV?) really did dip- the outer one just went out, often leaving the inner directed at the kerb. Consequently, the outer lamp was rarely used. Nowadays these would be foglamps, which was possibly the idea- or perhaps it avoided awkward brackets. The mudguards suggest quite some travel on the front suspension!

Joe


08/06/12 – 17:16

To try and answer David’s query about post-war NCB body design, one has to look-back to the war period. NCB was designated by the Ministry of War Transport to supply only re-bodies. In late 1944 the LPTB was directed to order 20 bodies for their war-damaged AEC and Leyland trolleybuses. NCB delivered a body similar to the pre-war style of LPTB trolleybus in late 1945 and all were delivered by mid 1946. These NCB bodied trolleybuses had a suffix C after their fleet number.
LexmarkAIOScan1

In June 1946 Bradford Corporation received their first of six NCB re-bodied 1934/35 AEC 661Ts (607, 614, 615, 616, 621 & 622). These bodies closely resembled the London C suffix trolleybuses and the back views were almost identical such as the emergency upper deck window and the platform window. The front windows however were more of the utility body style with opening vents and a result referred to as semi-utility. A rear view of 607 is appended. From this unique NCB semi-utility design emerged the standard NCB Mark 2 body by late 1946. This type was then seen in many towns and cities on both new and old chassis. This NCB body had an improved, more rounded front style and a reduced rear platform window but a similar LPTB rear upper -deck window shape. This may explain the link in NCB design with LPTB MCCW, Weymann and BRCW trolleybus bodies.

Richard Fieldhouse


08/06/12 – 18:00

Thanks Richard. Logical and highly likely.

David Oldfield


The links below are to comments that were updated at 18:20

Richard`s explanation is succinct and clear. It was obviously an easier design move, to develop the Bradford Mk1 "semi" design into what became the standard post war style.
What I would also like to know is whether the pre-war style, as used by Newcastle, Aberdare and others , was a metal framed design. If so, there is another reason for going down the "London rebody" route, as the post war style of NCB body, well known in so many fleets, was a composite product.
Another interesting aspect about this company, is their adoption of an "ECW" style about 1950, which superseded the standard type. Trolleybuses for Cleethorpes, and Mark 111s for Newcastle refer.
After the post war boom, aided by the failure of EEC to re-enter the market, NCB collapsed, and were wound up c.1951.
Published literature refers to the company operating in a converted aircraft hanger. Is this the same building as the one shown in the header photograph?

It may be interesting to also point out that NCB built significant numbers of Park Royal designed utility bodies on wartime Guys for London Transport.

John Whitaker


09/06/12 – 07:46

John, the building in the photo was on Claremont Road in the Spital Tongues area, and overlooked Hunters Moor and Exhibition Park, I think the aircraft hanger you refer to was in Cramlington which is about 7 miles north of Newcastle.

Ronnie Hoye


09/06/12 – 07:47

John the reason for the ECW clone – with strangely unbalanced and unequal bays – was that someone from ECW management went to NCB just before they folded. The reason that they folded was that their owner/principal shareholder died and the death duties did for the company. Interestingly, the machinery and raw materials were bought by Charles H Roe – and, one assumes, used subsequently for their own production. Doubly interesting since there is no record of Roe bodies being iffy but the NCB composites had a quite dreadful reputation – especially for the frames sagging in middle and later life. Sad since I thought Sheffield’s last batch, MWB 1950 Regent III, were quite handsome.

David Oldfield


09/06/12 – 07:48

The ‘ECW style’ Northern Coachbuilders bodies supplied to Cleethorpes on BUT trolleybuses and Newcastle on AEC Regents followed the appointment of Mr B W Bramham as General Manager at NCB. Prior to his move to NCB Mr Bramham at been at ECW since 1936 and before that he had been at Charles Roe’s.
I understand that NCB offered both wooden and metal framed bodies. Many of the wooden framed bodies suffered from poor quality timber, which caused them to look ‘down at heel’ in later life.

Michael Elliott


09/06/12 – 12:10

You are correct, David, when you refer to sagging NCB bodies!
Although Bradford`s 1947/8 regent IIIs lasted until 1962/3, I have this abiding memory of curved waist rails! Strangely though, contemporary bodies on the rebodied 1934/5 AEC trolleybuses never demonstrated this feature! But that, perhaps, is an indication of the superiority of electric traction! (half joking!)

John Whitaker


09/06/12 – 17:40

I read somewhere that someone from NCB went to work for Barnard, and that Barnard then produced a few bodies to NCB design. But when was this, and which NCB design? Or did I dream that?

Peter Williamson


11/06/12 – 15:09

Bradford also had 6 1950 Daimler CVD6s, with Barnard bodies, Peter, and I too heard from somewhere that there was an NCB connection. The body plates on Bradford`s Barnard Daimlers referred to "Barnard Norfolk Ironworks"….I remember it well, so whether they were composite or not, I have no idea.
I have not seen photographs of identical vehicles in other fleets, although I understand there were some, and there was a vague resemblance to the NCB design.
Again, I have memories of buses with curved waist rails towards the end of their BCT lives, but all 6 were sold on for further service in 1959.

John Whitaker


22/09/14 – 14:40

The reason for the very low down head lights or fog lights (often NOTEK!) on our lovely old buses was that in the 30s and 40s we had in both the north Newcastle and Leeds etc as well as London extreme smog!
This was a really lethal mixture of coal fire and industrial smoke from foundries and steel furnaces etc (all moved to China now!) with very high levels of soot in it and then heavy fog to hold it down and stop it dissipating easily!
I have experienced smog in Leeds and London where the services were stopped it was so bad and the conductors had to guide the drivers of the buses back to the depots with make shift flares and torches!
That’s the reason for the low down bus lighting to try and prevent glareback and focus what light came through on to the near side kerb!
The clean air act changed all this and then now all heavy industry emigrated to China!

Stuart Beveridge


13/10/15 – 06:38

Yesterday Purchased Geoff Burrows and Bob Kell’s book on NCB published this year, it is very good. It also answers various of the points here; the utility drawings were originally provided by Park Royal and NCB did assemble and finish some PRV frames on Guy Arab MoS for London Transport.
However the post-war series 1 design was based on NCB’s own wartime frame. When the team working on it were designing it they worked empirically by adjusting the drawings of the initial Bradford trolleybuses, lowering the lower deck waist-rail and then producing a more curved back until somebody in the drawing office realised it was looking almost identical to a 1939 Weymann; that’s when the trademark upper-deck front windows and the LT derived emergency exit were added; the rebodies for Northern were in build as the last of the Bradford trolleys were being completed and the design lasted until 1951.
All NCB bus and coach bodies with a few exceptions were composite, those exceptions being the initial Newcastle corporation Daimler COS4 single-deckers and the Guy Arabs exported to Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) although William Bramham would have moved to metal framing had the business continued.
Sam Smith who founded the company also owned Rington’s tea, Smiths Electric Vehicles and a cardboard packaging frim called Cut-Outs (Cardboard) Ltd as well as a stake in Domestos.
The company wasn’t liquidated and the name was used for mobile shops etc built at the Smith Electric Vehicles place on Team Valley as well as coachwork repairs and sign-painting at Haymarket. The Claremont Coachworks building was sold to Newcastle Co-Operative society and the stock in trade and Machinery to Charles H Roe to pay Sam Smith’s death duties; of the staff made redundant some went to Saunders Roe, most notably Mr Bramham.
The Barnard bodies were based on the NCB series one but were even more prone to degradation. The chief designer and his head draughtsman left NCB after an order for BET single-deckers ended up being badly delayed leading to a partial cancellation and also ended up costing NCB money.The Leyland Tigers for Yorkshire Traction and Stratford Blue were due in 1947 and the last did not arrive until 1949. The people concerned joined Barnard in 1948. It was not so long after the ECW was nationalised; resulting in a sales ban and Mr Bramham joining NCB.
The draughtsman ended his career as managing Director of Bus Bodies South Africa.
The low-level driving lights were also used by United and the Northern Group

Stephen Allcroft


14/10/15 – 07:15

Apologies, a slight misreading of Messrs Kell and Burrows’ book and thus an apology. The Ceylon Guy Arabs were composite but teak rather than the usual oak and ash employed by NCB which would have been eaten away in months.
They were however built in an attempt to establish an export trade which would have then given them permits for steel and aluminium.

Stephen Allcroft


15/10/15 – 07:15

The mudguards maybe something to do with brake cooling which became an obsession with Manchester post war.

Phil Blinkhorn


16/10/15 – 06:02

There was something really obscene with death duties if it forced companies into liquidation, throwing employees into unemployment! I realise it was unwise for privately-owned companies like NCB and Ledgard not to become Ltd companies, but that’s not the point, for even smaller companies that didn’t warrant becoming Ltd companies would also have suffered.

Chris Hebbron


 

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