Copyright Ian Wild

Potteries Motor Traction
1969
Daimler Roadliner SRP8
Plaxton B46D

130 was the first of the final batch of ten Roadliners (130-139) to be delivered to PMT. They had Plaxton bodies to their standard timber framed design with BET style front and rear screens. Apart from the Perkins V8.510 engine, they were similar mechanically to the previous deliveries although they had the miniature Westinghouse air gear shift with a sixth position to operate the centre doors. The Perkins engine was a vast improvement on the Cummins V6 but did suffer from premature cylinder bore wear causing high oil consumption possibly due to some inadequacy in the air filtration system.
The bodies were built with a higher floor level requiring an entrance step (earlier buses had a step free entrance). They were built to the dual door layout then briefly in vogue. Heated windscreens were an innovation on these buses controlled by a wind up clockwork timer(!!) which quickly proved unsuitable for heavy duty bus operation. Some early deliveries went to Stafford Garage and I recall a report from the Inspector there about the indelicacy of young mini skirted mothers when retrieving their push chairs from the luggage pen which had rather a high rail round it!! 130 was the only one in the batch to have the once standard cream panel above the saloon windows, 131 onwards had all red roofs. These were also the first new buses not to have the familiar prefix letters to the fleet number (following on from SN1129 which was the last of the short Marshall bodied Leopards delivered the previous year). The above photo was taken on 1st July 1969 shortly after delivery at the weighbridge at Shelton Iron and Steel where we took the first of each batch of new buses for weighing. The driver is Bill Davies who was a Management Trainee at the time.

Copyright Ian Wild

This is a shot of an earlier Roadliner KVT 180E fleet number S1080 being towed into Stoke Central Works shortly after being burnt out at Swynnerton on 25th March 1969 it was rebodied with an identical body to the 130-139 batch returning to service on 1st August 1969.
PMT cancelled a further order for Roadliners and substituted single deck Fleetlines but date wise they are outside the time period of this website.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

10/03/11 – 07:48

I was the first driver to go into service with 138, it was a Saturday afternoon I was based at Newcastle garage and both 138 and 139 were put on the Burslem Silverdale service on the shift change over. I don’t remember driving anything so fast and it was a struggle not to run early on this service, going up hills was not a problem at all with these vehicles it was "just like driving a mail train as they say"

Michael Crofts

28/07/11 – 15:27

Funny you should mention 138; I’m sure that was the one I saw at Preston North End’s Deepdale ground in the late 1970s having gone there to watch Port Vale play. Only the driver of our Bostock’s coach, who was as big a bus nut as I was, and myself made any comment. It had been sold by PMT to a local independent.

Mel Harwood

22/05/12 – 07:54

I would imagine that it was 137 you saw in Preston as it was latterly owned by Holmeswood Coaches of Rufford … coincidentally the present owners of Bostocks.

Martyn Hearson

10/05/17 – 07:18

I remember Roadliners that West Riding operated, on a trip from Horbury to Flockton on the Wakefield Huddersfield service I think the service number was 89 or 86 this particular Saturday was entering Flockton the Netherton Midgley side and there is a sharp left hand bend just as we approached the bend round the corner came lorry cutting the corner on our side of the road the driver could only put the bus as near to wall and trees on our side of the road as he could and hope that we missed each other which we did ,from the front of the bus came a substantial number of choice Yorkshire adjectives expressing the doubt that our West Riding had of the driver of the lorrys parentage and when we got to Flockton the driver removed the assorted foliage from front nearside wingmirror mounting and doors and nearside open windows, as we got off in Flockton our driver said to my mum are you an lad or rite lass, mum said yes the driver said aye lass that were close at least I haven’t scratched it they only got this b***** yesterday!

David Parkin

03/03/20 – 06:53

From a laymans point of view and having travelled many times on these buses I always thought they offered a much better ride than the previously delivered Roadliners. Travelling on the early batches of Roadliners was much more of a bouncy ride, so was there a change to the suspension on the last batch?

Leekensian

12/03/20 – 06:05

No, the final batch had Metalastik Toggle Link suspension units the same as the previous Roadliners. Thinking about it, I recall a better ride-maybe different rated shock absorbers?

Ian Wild

18/03/20 – 06:49

I recall that two of the original batches of Roadliners were converted to Perkins engines – S1065 & S1078 spring to mind, but did not prevent their early withdrawal along with the majority of the Roadliners.

Leekensian

             Copyright John Barringer

Luton Corporation Transport
1938
Daimler COG5
Willowbrook L26/26R

Probably the only surviving picture of fleet number 68 registration CNM 43 chassis number 10337 taken just after withdrawal in 1952. Luton Corporation Transport purchased a fleet of Daimlers in the early 1930’s to replace the tramway system that had served the town for a number of years. I suppose the thinking was that ex tram drivers would be able to come to terms much easier with semi automatic pre-selector gearboxes and fluid flywheels than the crash gearboxes offered by other manufacturers. These were mated to Gardner 5LW engines which on the face of it seemed rather small to haul these machines up the steep inclines each side of Luton town. Many of these old Daimlers soldiered on into the 1950’s despite sketchy wartime servicing and the Luton bus garage receiving a direct hit from a Nazi bomb.
The low bridge Willowbrook coachwork had much character with the unusual feature of an upstairs with one gangway each side of a raised dais giving each bench seat only three places instead of the usual four. This meant that whichever side you sat downstairs you would still risk banging your head.
The drivers cabs were also a bit claustrophobic and had a small box section let into the roof to accommodate tall drivers.
For some reason the Gardner 5LW engines were much quieter in these compared to the Eastern National Bristol’s that also ran into Luton. Perhaps the fluid flywheel had a cushioning effect or maybe they had flexible engine mounts. In any case one characteristic of the Bristol’s was that each window would vibrate in turn as the engine revs gathered pace.
One notorious hill that tested these Daimlers to their limit was Crawley Green Hill to the east of Luton. I worked for Vauxhall Motors in the 1950’s and would sometimes wait at the top of this hill to catch a bus to Stopsley. The water supply in Luton contains a high proportion of chalk and no doubt this was used to top up their radiators. This resulted in a well laden bus boiling at about halfway up this hill and the driver having to switch on his wipers to clear the screen of condensed water. You will notice that number 68 has the engine side panel leaning against the wing in the time honoured way to give an extra cooling effect. Despite this the drivers cab would be writhed in steam at the top and a short wait would be required to cool them down.
At tick over and in neutral they would emit a ‘wind in the willows’ whine that would stop abruptly as first gear was engaged. As the driver put his foot down the bus would shake slightly as the fluid drive began to bite and to the sound of creaking coachwork the bus would slowly move forward like a dowager duchess perambulating at a garden party.
Happy days!

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Barringer

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

17/02/11 – 08:59

I love John’s wonderful literary description of the characteristics of these most interesting vehicles – a batch which, incidentally, I’ve never encountered before. While three window upper saloon windscreens were fairly common before WW2, this particular arrangement is most unusual and has the suggestion of the bay windows in many houses. The phenomenon of "each window vibrating in turn" was also frequently evident in the Leyland TS and TD diesel models, particularly when setting off in second gear. Sadly there are few, if any, such controlled acoustic delights in today’s "sophisticated" offerings.

Chris Youhill

17/02/11 – 09:49

Come on, Chris. Yorkshire folk tell it as it is.
…..in today’s characterless sewing machines!

David Oldfield

18/02/11 – 07:27

John Barringer Great to see these old photos surfacing even when not my ‘location’ I must explore more of the website.
Thanks for this one.

Ian Gibbs

18/02/11 – 07:29

A very evocative description that takes me back, too! Luton dabbled with Willowbrook bodywork for much of the 1930’s, but these were the last of the breed. They all went between 1950 and 1954. The double gangway certainly restricted the seating capacity, the full code being L26/26R!
I’d say that these buses were about the last of the bay-windowed breed, too, although Dublin were still ordering such fronted buses in the late 1940’s, if not a little later. Personally, I rather liked this style of front.
The Bovril adverts are ones I’ve never seen before, and don’t make outrageous claims, either!

Chris Hebbron

18/02/11 – 07:30

I’m very pleased to see this as I was about to post a question regarding pre-war Willowbrook bodies with the upper deck arrangement which John describes. In an article about Mansfield Independents in Buses Extra in 1985, Roy Marshall recalls that Ebor had some of these, with a continuous sunken gangway which allowed the conductor to work round the top deck in a circle. Now, try as I might, I just cannot imagine how this was configured, how would it have been continued under the front canopy or over the rear platform? Do any plans or diagrams or even photos exist? In the same article, Mr Marshall mentions that Trumans of Shirebrook bought a Guy Arab in 1946 and fitted it with a 1931 Park Royal lowbridge body on which the sunken gangway had been built up to normal height forward of the front bulkhead to meet postwar certification regulations, an accompanying photo clearly shows the area above the cab and canopy screened off by a series of handrails. My point is that on every lowbridge vehicle I’ve ever been on, the sunken gangway stops at the front bulkhead (i.e. back of the cab). Even if pre-war construction and use regulations allowed different, how would the driver get into the cab and surely driving would have been well nigh impossible! Did any other coachbuilders have a go at this layout or was it unique to Willowbrook?

Chris Barker

18/02/11 – 10:42

Interesting that 1937 Thames Valley Leyland double deckers had a 3-panel "bay window" upstairs at the front, but were bodied by Brush, years before any business connection with Willowbrook. The small outer windows of the Brush version were less angled than those on the Luton deckers. The TV buses had a conventional single sunken gangway, but I’m fascinated to see that Willowbrook used a double gangway as late as ’37!
Chris Barker’s question exactly echoes one that’s been niggling me for years: how did you get from one gangway to the other??? A cross-gangway immediately behind the front bulkhead (front passengers downstairs Mind Your Heads!) would make sense, though it would entail a long circular tour for anyone nearside rear, but the view of seat-tops in the few surviving photos of double-gangway double deckers suggests otherwise. Another possibility might be to drop the last eighteen inches of the downstairs gangway, just aft of the axle, to platform level, so as to afford headroom for a cross-gangway upstairs over the platform, immediately forward of the stairs. This way everyone not sitting would get their allotted 5’10 1/2" of headroom, though tall folk would need to be careful as they boarded the platform. But here again the pictures don’t point to that solution. John Cupis, a friend who spent his childhood at Staines, Middlesex, tells me that on the London lowbridge STs there was a gap in front of the rearmost seat upstairs to allow you to cross between gangways, but that "you had to stoop" as you crossed.
The Luton top decks look to be built as far forward over the cab as possible, presumably to accommodate the 9 rows of seats necessary to get 26 upper-deck seats.
Thanks for the photo and detailed account of this very unusual and characterful batch. Luton Corporation always seemed to go for something different!

Ian Thompson

18/02/11 – 11:35

A rare commodity indeed was the BET "Federation" style double decker. Single deckers were common, but there were few double deckers, the 3 window front top deck being a feature.
Common with East Yorkshire, built by Brush and ECW. Also Thames Valley?
YWD had a few. Who else?
The Willowbrook body here has more of a bay window effect, as Chris points out, but perhaps was influenced by the BET ideas, although by no means a regular Willowbrook feature.

John Whitaker

19/02/11 – 06:47

That front upper-deck window seems particularly appropriate to the symmetrical double-gangway layout. Front seat passengers must indeed have felt as if they were sitting on a sofa looking through a bay window!
The Daimler COG was years ahead of its time in terms of refinement. They did indeed have flexible engine mountings, and John’s description (apart from the creaking bodywork) could equally well apply to a Daimler CVG built many years later. Manchester bought COGs and CVGs from 1940 to 1963, and there was hardly any difference in the riding experience at all.

Peter Williamson

20/02/11 – 08:21

I’m grateful to John Cupis for sending me photos, taken 60-odd years ago by the late John C. Gilham, of London Transport lowbridge STs, both outside and INSIDE! To read the rest of my comment and see the great shots click here.

Ian Thompson

25/05/11 – 06:33

I suspect that this vehicle was already being used for spares as it has already lost one headlight. Did these buses ever have the engine side panel closed. I can imaging some of the drivers cursing the 5LW engine on Crawley Green as not only is it very steep, it is also lengthy and had a bus stop at the foot. A dead start on a Saturday lunch time outbound with a full load of seated passengers and probably another half dozen standing would mean 5 minutes climbing in first gear with speed probably in single figures.

David Manning

25/05/11 – 16:58

The pre-selector boxes made a wonderful, tuneful sound with variation of pitch, especially on overrun: and when stationary, they would have a distinctive "hunt" as a reminder to get a move on!

Joe

26/05/11 – 07:29

Joe, unless I’m mistaken (I’m no engineer) I believe that the delightful symphony while standing, and it WAS delightful – in neutral – emanated from the fluid flywheel rather than from the preselctor gearbox.

Chris Youhill

27/05/11 – 08:40

I’m sure you are right Chris- I should have said "transmission"!

Joe

05/08/13 – 17:48

My father worked as a conductor for many years with Luton Corporation buses he received a gold watch for 25yr service but died shortly after receiving it.

Walter Gunning

Copyright Ian Wild

Derby Corporation Transport
1949
Daimler CVD6
Brush H30/26R

I don’t know a great deal about Derby buses. This was taken on a short visit in August 1967. It’s a Daimler CVD6 with I think a Brush body. The olive green and cream livery was quite unusual and sombre and the provision of a polished rear bumper (just visible) seemed really old fashioned.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.

———

Brush were popular around their native Loughborough but "disappeared" after about 1952 when taken over by neighbour Willowbrook. They continued with their railway (locomotive) work and I believe they still exist (but not necessarily by the same name).
Derby and Nottingham were both big Brush customers but their biggest was possibly BET.

David Oldfield

———

This bus is identical to four vehicles purchased second hand by Samuel Ledgard and new to Exeter Corporation – these, too, had the useful but "dated" offside rear bumpers. Ledgard also bought the entire batch of ten similar buses withdrawn indecently early by Leeds City Transport. An immediate furore occurred in the Council Chamber and angry questions were asked as to why they had been sold and yet were in widespread use on busy services in and around Leeds – and just to rub salt in the wound they were to be seen daily passing their former home depot at Headingley!! At once a ban was placed on the sale of any further LCT vehicles for use within the City. The Brush bodies were beautifully built and were very heavy, but this posed no problems for the superb smooth and powerful Daimler engines.

Chris Youhill

———

Not sure they were taken over by Willowbrook David, more that they chose to leave the bus business, and sold their designs to neighbours Willowbrook. I live in Loughborough, and this is what local enthusiasts tell me, as well as the many retired folk who live here and worked at "The Brush".
Brush had a major national share of the bus body business, and were by no means a regional player though.
Brush do still exist in the town, much reduced, but more involved with transformer work and the like. At one time, they were the second biggest builder of tramcars in the UK. (Dick, Kerr being No1 with the ERTCW works at Preston).
The Derby style, also used by Exeter, Leeds Bradford et al is a composite development of the wartime design, whereas the post war metal bodies were much more rounded and stylish as seen on the Leicester Mk 111s.

John Whitaker

———

31/01/11

I’m very pleased to see this posted as I’ve been considering recently, the fact that Brush seemed to have several styles in production at the same time. There was the type shown, which as John says was a progression of the utility design, then the type supplied to Maidstone Corporation and Yorkshire Woollen which had metal window pans with more rounded corners. In addition, the Leicester Regent III’s (and also six for Ebor of Mansfield) again referred to by John, were a completely different design.
I’ve also wondered about their durability, as some were disposed of after relatively short lives, such as the Leeds examples which Chris refers to and the Bradford ones (although both had second lives with Ledgard and Green Bus) Nottingham only kept their Daimlers for nine years but the trolleybuses were built like tanks and would have lasted forever! Derby got over twenty years out of the batch shown, and I note Chris’s comment about them being beautifully built, so is there any truth in the suggestion that some operators had problems with Daimlers cooling system?
Derby had three batches of Daimlers, the ACH’s, the BCH’s (8ft wide) and the CRC’s of 1952 which were apparently finished by Willowbrook and had curved fronts, whilst the Crossleys and Fodens of the same year had the flat front as shown. Luckily a Daimler and a Crossley are still with us, if only a Foden could have made a trio!

Chris Barker

———

31/01/11

I stand to be corrected, but wasn’t this batch the first of the 8 foot wide version? The Leeds, Exeter, Bradford, SHMD, Nottingham and earlier Derby ones were 7 foot 6 wide – Derby No.27 (ACH627) is preserved. Derby had quite a large fleet of the 8 foot CVD6s with Brush bodywork. The obvious difference inside was that the light fittings were a polished flat circular plate, instead of the chromium plated "volcano" on the earlier vehicles. I have seen a comment in connection with SHMD that the "Brush bodies were rubbish". However, to me they always exuded charm. It is true that the Nottingham ones had a relatively short life, but then, Daimlers were little more than a footnote in a fleet that was massively dominated by AECs. By the way, for anyone straining to read it, the blind reads "Priory Estate via Sussex Circus". I never understood why they insisted on blanking off half the window and having such ridiculously small lettering!

Stephen Ford

———

31/01/11

Although not using a Brush design one of the biggest customers for Loughborough built bodywork was Midland Read who bought both pre and post war Brush bodywork The Falcon works of Brush were also responsible for many first generation diesel locos for British Rail most notably the class 47 also known in some circles as the Brush type 4

Chris Hough

———

31/01/11 – 15:00

Chris B mentions that it was said in certain quarters that the Daimler cooling system could give problems. I don’t know about this from the operators’ points of view, but I can say for certain that those splendid engines did run very hot all the time, Winter included, and "boiling" was not unknown. One unusual feature was that the exhaust manifold was on the inner (driver’s) side of the engine, which ensured a scorched left leg in Summer and welcome warmth in the colder times. The practice at Samuel Ledgard was to fit all second hand buses with those excellent "KL" underseat heaters – two downstairs and one under the front seat "up aloft." They certainly had the method off to perfection because all worked extremely effectively. I can relate without exaggeration that one Daimler in particular, former Exeter JFJ 55, was so hot in even the worst of weather that passengers were known on occasion to beg for the heaters to be turned OFF !!

Chris Youhill

———

31/01/11 – 20:16

Hence (presumably) the practice of driving them with the side access panel open & leaning on the mudguard: ah the smell of hot diesel… you just don’t get it today.

Joe

———

01/02/11 – 05:30

Indeed, I can just remember the Derby Daimlers operating with the bonnet side open, it was always a joy to see them running like that!
On the subject of Brush bodies, I had forgotten to mention the Ribble PD1’s and PD2’s which were yet another style, so when John W states that Brush sold their designs to Willowbrook when they left the bus business, it seems there were plenty of them!

Chris Barker

———

01/02/11 – 05:33

I have it on good authority that Birmingham’s Daimler engines were certainly plagued with overheating problems. Elsewhere smoking is the main problem I’ve heard of.
On the subject of Brush bodies it should not be forgotten that there were also 50 on Daimler CVG5 chassis for Manchester. According to "The Manchester Bus" by Eyre & Heaps these caused the company a major headache because they had not realised they had to be built to the Corporation’s own curvy design, but in the end they were among the finest bodies Brush ever built.
However, I first encountered the Brush name not on any of the products mentioned in these comments, but on an electric milk float!

Peter Williamson

———

02/02/11 – 06:18

Chris Y mentions about the exhaust manifold being on the driver’s side, and the smell of burning flesh from the driver in Summer! London Transport’s D’s were nearly all CWA6’s, but they did take about 10 CWD6’s to aid Daimler’s development of it. The non-standard engine, the exhaust heating and access problem and the fact the the timing chains were at the back of the engine, ensured that, in 1950, they were re-engined with surplus AEC engines. However, I well recall one CWD6 bearing a chalk comment in the driving cab "Dxxx, the fastest D of them all"!.
Incidentally, Chris Y talks about the ‘Sutton’ Daimler CWA’s going to Samuuel Ledgard, and I also thought there were no exceptions. However, I’ve found that SL took just one Merton one. It was Brush-bodied D126 (GYL 291), with them from 8/56 to 6/60. Does it ring a bell, Chris? (No pun intended!).

Chris Hebbron

———

02/02/11 – 10:04

I didn’t make things quite clear originally Chris and I actually meant that the twenty two 1946 Park Royal "HGF"s were all from Sutton Depot. I remember GYL 291 very well indeed and there is a super picture of it in "London’s Utility Buses" (page 127) by Ken Blacker. By coincidence it is passing Streatham Common within yards of the top of Leigham Court Road where my relations were and so its possible I may have ridden on it there as a youngster. Pictures of some of the twenty two "HGF"s also appear in the same splendid book. Ledgard also had just one more London utility Daimler – Duple bodied D178 (HGF 805). There is no doubt at all that these vehicles literally saved the Firm from going under due to death duties after Samuel Ledgard died in April 1952. Only those of us actually "on site" can appreciate the heroic heavy work that they did. Despite being second (or more) hand their performance and reliability were a credit to the maintenance in London and here in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Some of the schedules involved heavy loadings, tight timetables, hilly terrain and daily mileages in excess of two hundred and yet failures were virtually unheard of. "Lost mileage" was an obscene term at Ledgard’s, and any rare occurrence resulted in a thorough enquiry and, if necessary, the rolling of a guilty head or two !!

Chris Youhill

———

02/02/11 – 10:04

GYL 291 came to Sammy via Bee Line did it not Chris. So sayeth "Beer and Blue Buses", one of the best bus books I ever bought!

John Whitaker

———

02/02/11 – 20:53

GYL 291 certainly did arrive with Ledgard thus John. "Beer and Blue Buses" is indeed a splendid volume – marred only by the picture of a certain young conductor on the front cover – yours truly. I willingly helped my friend Don considerably with certain aspects of the book, notably operational issues and photo captions, and just a few of my own early pictures and my route map are included.

Chris Youhill

———

02/02/11 – 21:13

Thx, John, for clarifying its second owner, who obviously looked after it well.
Chris Y – bearing in mind the fragile nature of the bodies (and LT gave up overhauling them part-way through) did Ledgard’s not have body problems with them?

Chris Hebbron

———

03/02/11 – 10:40

Chris H – As GYL 291 was always at the Armley Head Depot and was our only Brush utility I can’t comment on it individually but I’m not aware of it being troublesome. As far as the utilities bought new by Ledgard are concerned the Roe and Duple bodies caused remarkably little trouble through out their existence. The same can’t be said for the two Pickering bodies on the Guys which fell into awful dilapidation long before they were replaced at eight years old !! Also, in contrast to the very satisfactory mechanical performance and reliability of the "Sutton HGFs", it has to be acknowledged that many of their Park Royal "relaxed utility" bodies needed a fair amount of rectification from time to time – this treatment though was invariably successful though and ensured further front line service. One exception was the very sad HGF 940 (D 263) of Otley Depot which was in such awful condition bodywise that, after only one recertification, it was the first of the twenty two to be withdrawn, and prematurely at that. The body of HGF 948 (D 271) was transferred on acquisition to one of Sammy’s own CWA6s, JUB 649 and made a very fine vehicle which was a pleasure to work on. The chassis of HGF 948 then received the rebuilt coach body from a 1935 Maudslay – Sammy’s were never afraid to tackle enterprising engineering exercises, but this strange scheme had everyone baffled and remains an enigma to this day !!

Chris Youhill

———

03/02/11 – 17:59

Re. Chris`s comments on HGF 948.
This was an amazing exercise which no enthusiast has ever really understood. How much service did the resultant coach actually enjoy, as I never saw it in service.
It is the sort of exercise which is more appropriate to the lifetime of Mr Ledgard, and not to the regime of the "executors" Ledgards just has to be the finest independent for enthusiasts to get excited about, and the book "Beer and Blue Buses" brings it all back to mind. Well worth the money, although a price rise is to be expected due to the sartorial elegance of a certain person on the front cover! Must be worth another fiver Chris!

John Whitaker

———

03/02/11 – 20:14

Is this book still available? If so how would I obtain a copy?

Chris Barker

———

04/02/11 – 06:50

John, regarding HGF 948 I’m happy to say that, despite its strange creation, it was extremely busy on all classes of work throughout its time with Ledgard. Arriving in April 1954 it ran until withdrawal after an accident in January 1960 and was sold in the April. Your kind remarks are greatly appreciated but I’m happy to say that there will be no increase in the price of the book as a result of my appearance on the cover – in fact many wags have been heard to loudly declare that a drastic reduction is called for !!
Chris B, the book is still available in many West Yorkshire book shops and, I believe, by mail order from the Samuel Ledgard Society or from the author, Don. Postage is expensive on account of the great weight of the book and so collection is preferable naturally. If you care ask Peter for my address and E Mail me, indicating your locality, I’ll see what arrangements can be made should you decide you’d like one.

Chris Youhill

———

05/02/11 – 05:35

Chris Y – Thank you for the detailed and interesting reply. I must say that I have warmed to SL following your various enthusiastic comments; a company, like Provincial, not afraid of ploughing its own furrow in a thoroughly professional way, especially through the hard times.
Now, how about a photo of that Maudslay/Daimler CWA6 conversion!

Chris Hebbron

———

05/02/11 – 05:45

Well, many thanks Chris for that, I do visit Leeds from time to time, so if there’s anywhere there which may have it, I’d be happy to seek it out on a future visit

Chris Barker

———

05/02/11 – 09:26

Thanks for the reference to "Beer and Blue Buses", John and Chris. I plan to go to the Dewsbury Bus Museum Open Day on March 13th. I wonder whether a stallholder there will have a few copies? Hope so!

Ian Thompson

———

27/02/11 – 20:42

I think what stands out on this body is the hallmarks it still bears with Brush’s austerity style, and these bodies were produced in 1949 and still identical to the style that Derby took in 1946 (22-27)! It doesn’t detract that they look handsome in Derby’s tasteful colour scheme.

Chris Hebbron

——— Top of this posting ———