Leeds City Transport
1957
Daimler CVG6
Weymann H33/27R

Photographed in April 1970 in the dignified livery of Leeds City Transport is Daimler CVG6, Weymann H33/27R, YNW 555, No. 555, one of a batch of twenty delivered in September 1957. This bus remained in service to pass to WYPTE on 1 April 1974.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

10/10/18 – 05:21

Like many municipalities, Leeds Corporation got full value out of its vehicles, in this case, at least 17 years. Of course, with the impending threat of having to hand over its vehicles to the WYPTE, it might well have just decided not to replace the older ones at that stage!
Do we know when it was finally withdrawn?
One of my two trips to Leeds was to travel its tram system, with its Felthams, in 1957/58, I think. I was shocked at its closure soon afterwards, which seemed illogical with so much of it on reserved track and no employee mentioned impending doom on my visit. Does anyone know what changed to shut it down in such a short timescale?

Chris Hebbron

11/10/18 – 05:32

Volume 4 of "Leeds Transport" actually reports that 555 was withdrawn on 30/09/1971 and went to a Barnsley dealer for scrapping November 1972.

Dave Towers

12/10/18 – 06:50

Thanks for that correction, Dave, which I entirely accept. Not possessing a historic Leeds fleetlist, I did find a site that listed this batch of Daimlers as passing to the PTE, but now cannot find it. I understand that these Daimlers had air operated brakes and gearchange, which mercifully shielded unwary drivers from the decidedly painful (I speak from experience with the Halifax examples) affliction known as "Daimler knee".

Roger Cox

23/10/18 – 05:48

The Leeds Tramway was earmarked for closure from the very early fifties. This was despite a good deal of pro tram sentiments among the public.
These and a similar batch bought a year earlier were Leeds fist buses with tin front.

Chris Hough

06/06/21 – 06:39

Yes as Chris said the Leeds system was earmarked for closure in the 1960’s but events brought the sad end earlier than expected on the 7th November 1959. Its quite amazing the number of photographs, both black and white and colour, of the system that are still around. It must be said that a great debit is owed to the National Tramway Museum and the LTHS and collectors such as Robert Mack, Keith Terry and Jim Soper and no doubt countless others.

David Walton

01/09/22 – 07:19

Recently I have been looking at the Leeds and District Transport News back issues for the 1950’s and Daimler CVG6 and CVD6 are both referred to at different times as having the name Victory. I think this could be a mistake, the CVD6 could be rightly given this term, but not the CVG6. What does your readership know about this.

David Patrick Walton

04/09/22 – 06:52

Why not the CVG6…please explain, David? Surely the chassis was what mattered, not the engine. Incidentally, there were CVA6’s, too, although not in Leeds.

Chris Hebbron

05/09/22 – 07:04

Does David not understand the Daimler naming system?
COG Coventry Oil engine Gardner. Pre-war. AEC engines also available.
CWG Coventry Wartime Gardner. Wartime. AEC engines available.
CVG Coventry Victory Gardner. Post-war. AEC/Daimler available

David Oldfield

06/09/22 – 05:26

I would suggest that the "naming" suggested by David Oldfield referred to the model coding system rather than the naming of the chassis as such.
The Daimler CWA6, CWD6 and CWG5 models were all known as "Wartime Daimlers".
Thus the Daimler CVD6, CVG5, CVG6 and CVA6 became known as "Victory Daimlers" in the early post-war years to reflect the new Daimler chassis introduced after the war, irrespective of the engine fitted, but I have not heard the name Victory being applied to anything new after about 1948/9.

John Kaye

Birmingham City Transport
1937
Daimler COG5
Metro-Cammell H30/24R

Between 1934 and 1939 Birmingham Corporation Transport, which adopted the name Birmingham City Transport from 1937, took some 800 examples of the Daimler COG5 model, which, despite its modest five cylinder Gardner power unit, was a sophisticated performer with an effective flexible engine mounting and a fluid flywheel/epicyclic gearbox transmission. Most of these buses were bodied by Metro-Cammell, though many were fitted with Birmingham Railway Carriage & Wagon (BRCW) bodywork, all to the distinctive Birmingham H30/24R design. Many of these reliable buses survived up to 1954/55, with a solitary example, No.1235 of 1939, being withdrawn in 1960. CVP 207, No.1107, was one of the 1937 batch, but in 1950 it received the Metro-Cammell body from similar bus No.1216 of 1939 vintage, which was then withdrawn. In 1954 1107 became a snowplough, but returned to passenger service in 1957 when the Corporation took over some Midland Red routes. On being finally retired in 1959 it thankfully escaped the scrapper’s torch, and now resides with the Transport Museum at Wythall. 1107 is seen above at Brighton during the 1969 HCVC Rally.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

16/08/18 – 06:09

There were still a couple of these pre-war COG5s tucked away in the back of Moseley Road Depot when I moved to Birmingham in September 1961. Doubtless a few others elsewhere on the system.

John Grigg

Maidstone & District
1964
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
Northern Counties H44/35F

Maidstone and District was an early user of the Leyland Atlantean, taking both normal and lowheight examples classified DH and DL respectively, from 1959 until 1963, when the Daimler Fleetline became the favoured choice. CRG6LX No.DL76, 76 YKT was delivered in September 1964. The Northern Counties body is shown as H44/35F on BLOTW but elsewhere is stated to be H44/33F. DL76 is seen in Tonbridge on 1st October 1967 by which time the BET was concluding negotiations with a view to the sale of its bus industry interests to the government. The imperfect state of the front panel of DL 76 indicates some prescience of the future world awaiting it under NBC.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

17/01/18 – 06:31

H44/33F seems more likely. The first Atlanteans of my local BET operator, Tynemouth and District had H44/34F seating, reduced on the next batch of Atlanteans, and the first batch of Daimler Fleetlines to H44/33F. This was achieved by reducing the inward facing seat over the front wheel arch from 3 to 2. 34 seems to be the maximum that could easily be fitted in downstairs, 35, although not impossible, would imply very cramped seating.

John Gibson

17/01/18 – 06:33

Roger, I would interpret the bent front panel another way – all was not perfect before National Bus company was formed whatever some fondly like to remember! Had it not been formed I would not have arrived at M&D from Eastern Counties in January 1970! It is perhaps an appropriate location to remind us of Mr Macawber: Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery! Perhaps the main reason BET were willing to sell out!
At that time all the M&D Fleetline DD were 77 seaters as indeed were the highbridge Atlanteans (according to the 1971 fleet list). DL 76 > 6076 was still at Tonbridge in 1971 having been converted to "OMB" as was the current expression. Tonbridge had no bodybuilders and had a small running shift, so it was no doubt waiting to go to Tunbridge Wells for repair – the dreadful split level garage that was eventually closed only in 2017!
See also www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/m_&_d_selected_memories.php

Geoff Pullin

17/01/18 – 06:33

Northern Counties made one of the best jobs of bodying the first generation rear engined buses. The engine shrouds hide the rear end bustle and the proportions look just right. In this instance the whole show was helped by a tasteful traditional livery that fitted the lines of the body. Although a bit boxy I thought the flat screens were better than the later versions where BET style curved windscreens were grafted on and never seemed to blend in right.

Philip Halstead

17/01/18 – 06:34

Nice looking bus, the livery helps. We had similar at PMT new in 1963. They were specified with a seating material called Replin which quickly became very soiled and were later retrimmed in very basic red vinyde. I prefer the M&D single headlamps to the twin headlamps fitted to the PMT batch. I like the Southern Region green Station nameboard!

Ian Wild

18/01/18 – 05:28

Not being familiar with the M&D fleet, I’m assuming that the prefixes DL and DH referred to the overall height rather than the upper-deck seating layout, hence the Fleetlines were DL as they had the drop-centre rear axle.

Geoff Kerr

21/01/18 – 06:22

The old M & D garage at Tunbridge Wells was originally operated by Autocar and was in existence prior to 1933 when London Transport expected to acquire it(they had to make do with the little garage in Whitefield Road which became the operating base for Greenline 704)The garage faced directly onto the main road and also Woodbury Park Road.Why do todays operators consider covered accommodation unnecessary?

Patrick Armstrong

24/03/18 – 06:17

A quick reply to Geoff Kerr; DH referred to ‘Diesel Highbridge’ and DL to ‘Diesel Lowbridge in the Maidstone & District fleet. I was not a lover of the Fleetline because, as a driver, I found the engine tended to resonate through the bodywork into the cab and would give me a severe headache after an hour! That is if the engine was not perfectly tuned and many ‘bus engine was not perfect! I also once had the misfortune to have an engine cowl corner fall away from the body and dragged it along road by the cables when returning to Maidstone from West Malling.

Freddie Weston

24/03/18 – 18:13

The ‘D’ stood for ‘Double Deck’, not ‘Diesel’, Freddie. The corresponding Single Deck code was ‘S’.

Roger Cox

07/06/18 – 05:27

Having known many M&D staff over the years I can say that TW was not very good at looking after vehicles. Many were the PD2s and Reliances that managed to mysteriously get to Brighton so that Edward Street fitters could do a brake reline or other maintenance task that TW didn’t want to do. It was very noticeable in old M&D days that the vehicles from GR & H would be very well looked after, whereas TWs looked like bumper cars.

Bob Cornford

28/05/22 – 06:30

The seventh edition of Ian Allan’s British Bus Fleets, Area 1 South East which I believe was dated 1966 as the latest buses shown have delivery dates in 1965 shows the M&D Fleetlines in a class from DL57-DL111 built in two batches, 1963 and 1965. DL76 was one of the earlier batch. They were all Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX with Northern Counties LD77F (LD is defined as lowbridge with a central upper deck gangway) seating 77 with front entrance. There is a note that some were to be converted to CO77F (CO is defined as a convertible open top double deck bus). They operated my then local route 97 after the AEC Regent V DLs that I took to school although the route subsequently went to single deckers despite the Horsmonden rail bridge being removed.

Rob Weller

31/05/22 – 05:47

Firstly, the LD code mentioned by Rob Weller is no longer used. It was fine when there were just two heights of double decker – high (H) and low (L or LD depending on layout). But then operators started specifying intermediate heights, and there was no clear dividing line between H and LD. So LD was dropped, and now the distinction is purely about layout – H for a double decker with a centre gangway, regardless of height, and L for lowbridge with a sunken side gangway for at least a part of the bus’s length. Frankly I’m very surprised at a 1966 Ian Allan publication using LD, as I have an earlier edition of BBF19 which shows all of Crosville’s Bristol Lodekkas as H.
Secondly, for operators with low bridges to contend with, what matters is the overall height rather than the layout, hence M&D’s use of DL for these Fleetlines.

Peter Williamson