Old Bus Photos

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

 


 

Spiers Tours Birmingham – Daimler COA6 – FOF 251

Spiers Tours Birmingham - Daimler COG5 - FOF 251
Copyright Victor Brumby

Spiers Tours Birmingham
1939
Daimler COG5 – re engined COA6
BRCW H30/24R – MCCW H30/24R – Burlingham FC37F

Yet another great shot from Victor of another ex Birmingham Daimler CO5G with the following note.

“FOF 251 – Ex Birmingham Corporation no 1251 rebodied and operated by Spiers Tours Birmingham. Daimler.”

Victor is defiantly correct with his rebodied comment but with the aid of my BBF 14 and Peter Goulds excellent website it would appear the body in the shot above on FOF 251 is its third.

1251 – FOF 251 received a MCCW H30/24R body from 939 – COH 939 in 1948/9. A comment in BBF says against the 919-963 batch ‘Many bodies interchangeable 1948-49’. This comment appears time and time again with different dates against batches of COG5s one has to ask the question did Birmingham have the same system as London Transport had with interchanging RT bodies when the vehicle were being overhauled?

After a little more research it gets more interesting and starts to dismiss the interchanging at overhaul theory because 939 was withdrawn in 1949 but what is even more interesting so was 1251, so why interchange the bodies then withdraw them both?

Photograph and Part Copy contributed by Victor Brumby

———

08/12/11 – 06:27

…..and that’s a Burlingham coach body.

David Oldfield

———

08/12/11 – 06:28

The new body is by Burlingham. Yelloway of Rochdale had a pair of identical ones on Leyland PS2/7 chassis with FC37F layout. They were HDK 801/2 of 1951.
This was probably Burlingham’s last attempt at modernising the body design for front engined chassis before the onslaught of the underfloor engine and the introduction of the Seagull.
There is a photo of HDK 802 in the book ‘The Yellow Road’ which covers the history of Yelloway from its rise, heyday to the sad decline in the post-deregulation era. But that’s another story.

Philip Halstead

———

09/12/11 – 10:36

Please see Harper Bros AEC Regal III posting – including comments today (9.12.11) – for the half-cab version of this body. To make life easy here is a quick link.

David Oldfield

———

10/12/11 – 07:23

Yet another fascinating subject! If it was withdrawn as a double decker in 1949 (didn’t Birmingham vehicles usually have longer lives?) It’s fair to assume that this body was fitted in that year or 1950. It’s always a source of wonderment to me, not living in those times, that operators did such things, presumably it would have provided a slow and loud ride, but then there were no motorways or by-passes in those days! One thing occurred to me, I know that the COG5 was a fairly common choice for coaching before WW2 but I don’t remember hearing of any examples of CVG5’s as coaches post 1945. Weren’t all Daimler coaches post war of the CVD6 variety?

Chris Barker

———

10/12/11 – 08:47

As far as I know, you are correct about CVD6 coaches.

David Oldfield

———

10/12/11 – 12:25

Was it the case then that TVD (Daimler) would only supply CV chassis with their own engines when they produced these post war? Gardner only seemed to return later with the various "tin front" CVG6’s, which then seemed to eclipse the Daimler engine & fluid flywheel. Anyone know more?

Joe

———

10/12/11 – 15:05

Salford certainly had a fair sized batch of post-war CVG6s (as opposed to CVDs)with exposed radiator and the quadrant-style pre-selector change.

Stephen Ford

———

10/12/11 – 15:07

With Gardner under pressure to supply several other bus and lorry manufacturers, Daimler sought to relieve this constraint on its output, and increase in house value by offering its own oil engine. The Daimler 8.6 litre engine was developed immediately prior to the outbreak of WW2, prototypes having being constructed in 1936. The destruction of the Radford works in the heavy air raids of 1940 and 1941 put back the production process until 1945. The design emulated the feature used successfully by Dennis (and later by Meadows also) of employing timing gears at the rear of the engine rather than a front mounted timing chain as used by Gardner and others. This resulted in a compact unit, but meant that the engine had to be removed from the chassis to allow access to the timing gears. Had the engine been as outstandingly reliable as the Dennis designs, then this would not have been a problem. Sadly, the CD6 unit soon became noted for its fuel thirst, and a marked variability in quality between individual engines, the best being good, but the worst examples being considered as bad a the Crossley HOE7. London Transport, having had experience of a batch of thirteen(!) CWD6 buses taken in 1945, refused to take any more Daimler engines, and replaced the thirteen it had with AEC 7.7s in 1950. Like the Crossley, the smooth running CD6 engine seemed best suited to coach work rather than the heavier demands of double deck or stop start stage carriage duties, and most CVD6 chassis were bodied as coaches. There were exceptions, such as the large batch of CVD6 double decks operated by Birmingham. By the mid 1950s, with bus and coach travel beginning to suffer from private car competition, the Daimler engine largely vanished as an option, one of the last examples probably being the turbocharged unit fitted experimentally in a Halifax CV ‘decker in 1964, by which time it was a rarity. Interestingly, the prototype Fleetline had a Daimler engine, and one wonders if the firm ever seriously considered this for production. The Freeline single decker also had a Daimler engine option. Gardner engines continued to be offered in CV chassis throughout the brief reign of the CD6, and, of course, beyond, where they became standard in the Fleetline.

Roger Cox

———

11/12/11 – 06:52

Not a lot to say after Roger’s comprehensive and knowledgeable post. The AEC was the standard war-time engine on the CW version and was popular and reliable enough to survive into CV time (as indeed did the Bristol K6A). Most CVD6 deckers were, like the Crossley DD42s, delivered because operators were desperate and they were available. [The Salford CVD6s were diverted from Chester.]
Sheffield were never a Daimler operator until the Fleetline effectively replaced the AEC Regent but their only post war Daimlers were CVD6/NCB. There were no further orders for half cab Daimlers.

David Oldfield

———

11/12/11 – 06:53

According to Peter Gould’s site it was 1252 and not 1251 which received the body from 939. 1252 then survived until 1954.
My (admittedly limited) experience of COG5s suggests that FOF 251 would have been far from noisy. I only had one ride on a Manchester one, but it was every bit as sweet and refined as the CVG5s built more than 15 years later, and in fact with eyes closed the riding experience was identical. Slow it might have been, though, especially as with 37 seats it must presumably have been extended beyond its original length. Prewar COG5-40 coaches had five-speed gearboxes and probably lighter bodywork.

Peter Williamson

———

20/12/11 – 10:24

FOF 251 was fitted with an AEC 7.7 engine some time after it received its Burlingham coach body as this would have been a much smoother unit for coaching duties. This was before it joined Spiers tours so in the photo it is, in effect, a COA6!
It was scrapped in 1964.

Steve Calder


 

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

 


 

Courts of Nuneaton – Daimler COG5 – FOF 269

Courts of Nuneaton - Daimler COG5 - FOF 269
Copyright Victor Brumby

Courts of Nuneaton
1939
Daimler COG5
BRCW H30/24R – 1949 English Electric H28/26R

Another fine shot from Victor with the following comment which was hand written underneath the photograph.

“FOF 269 – Ex. Birmingham Corporation Daimler highbridge ‘sit-up-and-beg’ body. Birmingham no 1269. Operated by Courts of Nuneaton.
JVO 230 – Barton Leyland lowbridge no 507.”

Interesting information I have come up with for Birmingham 1269 is that in 1949 it received an English Electric H28/26R body from No.765.
765 was a 1935 Daimler COG5 registration AOP 765 with a B R C W H26/22R body but according to my British Bus Fleets 14 – Birmingham City Transport due to war damage 765 was rebodied with an English Electric (M C T D) body in 1943. I am guessing that the (M C T D) stands for Manchester Corporation Transport Department who kind of adopted what Victor calls the ‘sit-up-and-beg’ look. Hopefully someone out there will put me right if I am wrong.

With regards Barton 507 which is/was a Leyland Titan PD1 dating from 1948 which had very smart Duple L28/27F bodywork. The reason I use is/was is because there are a few shots of it on the net at various running days so it would appear to have been preserved.

Photograph and Part Copy contributed by Victor Brumby

———

01/12/11 – 07:31

Whatever the machinations – and whoever actually built it – that is a Manchester Corporation (style) body.

David Oldfield

———

01/12/11 – 07:32

The English Electric body is definitely of Manchester Corporation ‘standard’ pre-war design. The downward curving upper deck windows at the front and side-front are the main characteristics. In Manchester this design was painted in a ‘streamlined’ livery which featured swoops to match the body design features.

Philip Halstead

———

01/12/11 – 07:34

Coincidently, at a bus group meeting two days ago, I was talking to Trevor Brookes who was the first owner of JVO 230 in preservation. He bought it in the early 1970s, I think direct from Barton, and kept it for quite a few years before becoming an operator himself as Genial Travel of Colchester with rather more modern vehicles.

Nigel Turner

———

01/12/11 – 17:15

I seem to recall reading, some time ago, that the downward swoop of the front and side windows caused water to accumulate at the four low points and rot the two front pillars.

Chris Hebbron

———

02/12/11 – 07:25

The body was one of a batch built by English Electric for Manchester and intended for Daimler COG5 chassis. However, production of the chassis was stopped by bombing of the Daimler factory. The bodies were fully finished and lettered for Manchester as can be seen in the background of a photo in my gallery at: //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com
The finished bodies were moved to Manchester for storage and some of the surplus ones sold to Birmingham as seen in the photo above.

David Beilby

———

02/12/11 – 11:46

Thx, David for that info. and photo. It’s amazing what sometimes lurks in the background of photos, but it remains hidden unless someone observant/knowledgeable picks up on it, plus good fortune to see the photo in the first place!

Chris Hebbron

———

02/12/11 – 16:16

Some of these "surplus" Manchester Corporation bodies went on to Arab I chassis, and some went to other operators on unfrozen chassis. Examples were Sheffield, and Newport.
The English Electric variants must have been among the last bodies produced by that firm.
Alan Townsins work on the utilities outlines most of the detail.

David. The photo of the rear of the "Manchester" EEC body is absolutely fascinating! With the Aberdeen tram being a "Preston" product too, could the photo have been taken at Preston do you think, before the trams were delivered and before the Manchester storage occurred?

John Whitaker

———

03/12/11 – 06:44

The Sheffield bodies were MCCW and sent to Weymann’s to be finished – making them the only true MCW bodies before 1967.

David Oldfield

———

The photograph is definitely at Preston. This photo is part of the English Electric photo archive which I am gradually scanning and putting in my gallery for all to see. There’s some very good stuff in there and I’ll probably end up putting one or two more strategic links on this site in time.
I haven’t got the Manchester Bus book in front of me at the moment, but I believe all the English Electric bodies were fitted to either Manchester or Birmingham Daimlers. The ones you refer to were Metro-Cammell bodies, which also went to Coventry and one or two other places.

David Beilby

———

03/12/11 – 06:48

Well I really think that this is a Crosslly body, just look at the front windows and the last two side windows by the entrance very Crossley. Manchester and Stockport used them being local near Mc vites on Crossley Road at Heaten Chapel

Nigel Ganley

———

03/12/11 – 06:51

1269, (FOF 269) was numerically the very last Daimler COG5 delivered to Birmingham City Transport. It entered service along with 1262-1268 on 1 November 1939 and was fitted with one of the twenty English Electric bodies surplus to Manchester’s requirements after most of their order for COG5s were destroyed at the Daimler factory in 1940. The EE body was fitted to 765, (AOP 765) on 19 May 1943 making 765 the earliest BCT bus to have a Manchester style body. The original body on 1269 was built to BCT specification by BRCW but were not as robust as the more numerous MCCW equivalent bodies. As a result BRCW bodies were disposed of early,with 1269 getting the EE body as a direct swap on 31 August 1949 with 765 going for scrap. 1269 remained in service until31 October 1953 but remained in store until sold on 4 September 1954 to W T Bird of Stratford. 1269 was sold almost immediately to Lloyd, Nuneaton who ran it until January 1956 and then sold it on to Court of Chapel End whom it is with in the photograph. It lasted with them until September 1958 and was sold to Mayfair Garage of Fazeley who broke it up.

David Harvey

———

03/12/11 – 08:58

Nigel. You cannot make that assumption. Crossley, like everyone else, built the bodies to Manchester’s exacting, even quirky, standards. It was almost impossible to tell the difference. [You had to look at things like rain gutters!] It just happened that Crossley occasionally "borrowed" some of these Manchester signatures when building bodies for other operators.

David Oldfield

———

04/12/11 – 07:49

According to Paul Collins’s book on Birmingham Corporation, 12 of the 20 ex-Manchester English Electric bodies were fitted to Leyland TD6c chassis, 4 to Daimler COG5s and 4 kept as spares. One of the TDs, EOG 231, whose original body had been damaged beyond repair by enemy action, is illustrated in the book. Another, EOG 215, later turned up with Laurie (Chieftain) of Hamilton, sporting, would you believe, an extremely natty tin front whose postwar Foden-like profile matched those prewar Manchester curves beautifully. There’s a photo on Scran www.scran.ac.uk/ but it will cost you a £10 subscription to see more than a thumbnail.

Peter Williamson

———

04/12/11 – 07:50

What interests me is where the location could be. We now know that the date is pre Sept. 1958 but did Court’s have any stage services? the vehicle doesn’t appear to have a destination blind. I’ll hazard a guess at Leicester because Bartons reached there with their service 12 from Nottingham and used PD1’s on it but the destination shows Private so then again it could be on a private hire job somewhere. Very interesting selection of surrounding vehicles too, what appears to be a Plaxton half cab body to the left, a single deck COG5 behind, the rear end of a Plaxton Venturer body to the right and a BMMO S type, the presence of that and a Barton in the same picture points me back to Leicester though!

Chris Barker

———

04/12/11 – 16:43

Sorry, Chris – I didn’t note the location of the Barton Titan and the Birmingham Corp. Daimler. They are at Kettering, at Wicksteed’s Park, a sort of antediluvian Disney World which it pleased folk to visit from round the Midlands on a weekend during the 1950s and 60s. So – a private hire, as you opined.

Victor Brumby

———

04/12/11 – 17:33

Wicksteed Park is still going today and is frequently advertised as a ‘day out’ destination in ‘what’s on’ tourist leaflets etc. Have to admit I’ve never been.

Philip Halstead

———

04/12/11 – 20:34

Ah, the hazards of guessing! but what a fabulous pair of vehicles to use on an excursion or private hire, those were the days!

Chris Barker


 

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