Aberdeen Corporation
1965
Daimler CVG6
Alexander H37/29R

CRG 325C is a Daimler CVG6 with Alexander H66R bodywork. She entered service with Aberdeen in March 1965. This was one of only three or four Councils in Scotland still with its own Transport Department at Local Government Reorganisation in 1975 [a year later than in England] the undertaking was renamed Grampian Regional Transport, a precursor of First. We see her at Duxford on 18 September 2005.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/10/15 – 06:21

"Trafficators" on the mirrors? -about 40 years ahead of its time.
What’s the metal "pad" on the mudguard for? Not seen that before- and the grilles under the canopy are presumably heating…. and a ventilator in that window, too.
All together though, a very handsome bus: the tin front- perhaps plastic front- Daimler CV’s were the best looking half cabs of all (discuss).

Joe

05/10/15 – 06:22

Makes you wonder how they managed to fit 66 seats into a 27′ long decker. The Sheffield standard for buses of this length was 59 and I don’t recall the seat spacing being all that generous.

Ian Wild

05/10/15 – 09:51

I did wonder if, perhaps, the vehicle should be listed as a 30 footer, but a number of other places managed to fit sixty-odd seats in that length, cramped as it might have been. Did she start as a 58 or 59 seater and get the capacity increased for normal duties, was she for school services only in later years, or is there some other reason? Are there any readers out here who can tell us for sure?""

Pete Davies

06/10/15 – 06:31

Samuel Ledgard had several 27 footers with similar large capacities and, as far as I recall from conducting/travelling, no problem with legroom
The vehicles were :-
1949 – 1954 Regent V/Roe H37/28R
XUG 141 Daimler CVG6/Burlingham H36/28R
SDU 711 Daimler CVG6/Willowbrook LoLite H37/29RD.
The quite appreciable difference in the fairly narrow "window" of 26/27 feet is fascinating and quite remarkable.

Chris Youhill

06/10/15 – 06:32

Simple explanation for the "trafficators" on the mirrors. They are not trafficators but luminous yellow blobs as fitted to the back of the mirrors, a forerunner of the reflective yellow mirrors fitted to First vehicles. I believe that some other operators put aluminium plates on the near side wings, from memory Sheffield Regent V’s had them fitted but they did not cover the same area as those fitted to 325,and to all other Aberdeen tin front buses. Dundee buses also had fitting similar to those fitted in Aberdeen.
I presume it enabled staff to stand on the wings without scratching or breaking them.
325 was always a 66 seat bus and is only 27 ft. long. Aberdeen fitted five rearward facing seats along the front bulkhead

Further note, the luminous blobs have now been removed. At the time the picture was taken it was still owned by First, hence the luminous blobs. It is now owned by the Aberdeen and District Bus Preservation Group and is kept at the premises in Alford, Aberdeenshire.

Stephen Bloomfield

06/10/15 – 06:34

Halifax Corporation’s last five CVG6/Roe’s of 1956 had 65 seats (H37/28R) and were 27 footers. The lower deck comprised five pairs of double seats facing forwards and two sideways facing seats for four (a bit optimistic)over the rear wheelarches. The upper deck had eight pairs of forward facing seats, a double seat on the nearside opposite the top of the stairs (which were of course of the Roe straight variety) and a three seater seat at the rear, set back slightly behind the top of the stairs.
The Aberdeen example shown could have managed 66 seats using the same arrangement but with the first row of downstairs seats replaced by a five seater rearward facing seat against the front bulkhead.

John Stringer

06/10/15 – 06:34

The odd number of seats downstairs suggests that they had a reversed 5-some across the front bulkhead. Combined with inadequate leg room to the first forward facing seats (interlocking knees!) would give a "good" seating capacity there. We should not forget that even among the Scots, Aberdonians have a reputation to maintain! (An Aberdeen breakfast is said to comprise a slice of toast – no marmalade!)

Stephen Ford

06/10/15 – 06:35

65 seats on a 27-ft rear entrance double decker was fairly common. The extra seat to give 29 downstairs was usually achieved by having a rear facing five seat bench across the front bulkhead, Lodekka style. I am not personally familiar with these buses but would assume that was the layout.

Philip Halstead

06/10/15 – 07:06

The London Routemaster had 64 satisfactorily spaced seats within an overall length of 27 ft 8 ins, so I suppose the quoted figure of 66 in the Aberdeen Daimler’s Alexander body was possible, even if not entirely comfortable. On the subject of tin/plastic fronts, I thought most of them were pretty dire, and the AEC variety, often quoted by many enthusiasts as their favourite, was garish in the extreme to my eye. It was just an over inflated caricature of the contemporary Rover car front end. My own preference from the mediocre line up was the Johannesburg front on the Guy Arab, but this wasn’t offered for very long before the old Birmingham style became standard again.

Roger Cox

06/10/15 – 07:06

I would hazard a guess that the metal plate on the nearside mudguard was a canny Scottish idea to reduce damage to the paintwork by Fitters in dirty overalls whilst working on the engine (or night staff leaning over to check/top up the engine oil level). Seems a logical idea, did any other Operators fit these plates?

Ian Wild

06/10/15 – 07:07

With bodies by Park Royal and Willowbrook on a Guy Arab IV or Leyland PD2/12 chassis, the 1956/7 intake of D/D’s for the NGT group were all 63 seats, but 66 would seem a bit cosy, or should that be cramped?

Ronnie Hoye

06/10/15 – 07:07

Manchester Corporation and others had 65 seat 27 foot double-deckers. If the downstairs front seats had been turned to face backwards as a five seat bench (as on Bristol Lodekkas) they would have seated 66.

Don McKeown

06/10/15 – 09:39

Interesting information on the variations in these apparently high capacities. Of the eight Ledgard vehicles I mentioned only the Willowbrook "LoLite" body had the rearward facing seat for five behind the driver.

Chris Youhill

07/10/15 – 06:20

Chris-do tell us more about "LoLite" bodies? I tried it in Google and got a page of searches based on Lolita. At first glance, the word looks like one for a vandal-proofed body suitable for the more difficult-to-conduct routes.

Joe

07/10/15 – 06:22

Reading about these "large" capacity buses has me wondering about the "moderns"(sorry about that) that I am seeing around Lancashire.
A company called Tyrer has a 3axle DD marked on the back as a 102 seater and their company website has a picture of a similarly 3axle 100 seat executive coach.
Does anybody know what they might be.

John Lomas

07/10/15 – 15:54

Joe – the one that Ledgard had (SDU 711, later West Yorkshire after takeover, was the former Daimler demonstrator. The low height was, as far as I remember, achieved very successfully by attaching the body direct to the top of the chassis members. It was a very good looking bus, looking "comfortable" with itself, and was extremely strongly built with substantial upper saloon corner pillars.

John – the giant 100 seats plus buses that you mention sound very like some re-imported from China, possibly Dennis Dominators or Ailsa Volvos – open to correction there.

Chris Youhill

08/10/15 – 07:22

One of the views on the firm’s website shows the cab area, with something like the Volvo logo on the steering wheel.

Pete Davies

08/10/15 – 07:23

The 100+ three-axle vehicles are probably from Hong Kong where this type has been common for several years. The high seating capacity is mainly achieved by the use of three and two seating across the bus. With the population of Hong Kong being generally smaller in build than us Europeans this works over there. Think it would be a bit cramped with British bus loads though.

Philip Halstead

09/10/15 – 17:17

With a little help from Pete, these are apparently new Volvo B9TL tri-axle deckers, bodied by East Lancs. Quite a good-looking bus, but I much prefer the look of the Southdown East Lancs bodied Royal Tigers and PD2/12’s found in the 50’s and 60’s when I was a wee lad growing up in Brighton.

Anon

28/10/15 – 13:27

Growing up in Aberdeen in the 60’s I can confirm that Grampian 325 had three seats at the rear of the top deck and a rear facing 5 seat bench behind the lower deck bulkhead. Also 325 was the last open platform bus delivered in Scotland.

Danny Stephen

29/10/15 – 06:25

I notice that CRG 325C has the wider form of the so-called "Manchester front". We’ve been discussing this subject over on the sct61 site. The conclusion so far is that the standard CVG6 had a chassis frame that tapered towards the front and used a 7’6" front axle. When a change had to be made to the chassis frame design for any reason, a straight frame was used with an 8′ axle and the wider cowl. Examples explained this way are for 30-foot chassis, manual gearboxes and forward entrances, and also for the final batch for Northampton which was simply using up parts.
That seems to make these Aberdeen examples the last unexplained anomaly, unless anyone has any ideas.

Peter Williamson

Huddersfield Corporation
1966
Daimler CVG6LX.30DD
East Lancs H41/29F

This is the last Huddersfield Corporation vehicle delivered (numerically) with a front engine and is currently preserved. It was new in 1966 to the Corporation, being withdrawn in 1980, having served 6 years with the WYPTE.
The photo was taken in 2005 at a local bus rally and shows the vehicle turned out in superb condition and displaying the old Corporation livery with the front end swoops.
It is still active and I photographed it at another local rally earlier this year.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Tim Jackson

27/06/15 – 06:40

I rode on this bus this year at Llandudno, and was surprised to be given an ultimate ticket. Perhaps the owners have a big supply of ticket rolls.
A lovely bus, Daimlers don’t get the attention they deserve. Pity about the forward entrance!

Don McKeown

28/06/15 – 05:52

Well Don, Huddersfield used Ultimate ticket machines so that added to the authenticity of riding on it. Despite having served over six years with WYPTE it somehow managed to retain its Huddersfield livery to the end.

Eric Bawden

02/07/15 – 05:45

What’s that white(ish) circle on the offside tyre? It looks like a light to me, but can’t be original . . . and surely can’t be legal now.
I’m assuming that these had Daimatic transmission. Did that completely supersede pre-select, or was pre-select available until the end of production? if it was, then I’m assuming it would have been air-actuated . . . surely that "lethal" spring(?) system had been confined to the bin by then.

Philip Rushworth

02/07/15 – 08:34

It is a light and there should be a corresponding one on the other side. If you look for photos of the bus on Flickr you can find a selection with two, one or zero lights. I believe it is currently displaying the correct two lights.

David Beilby

03/07/15 – 06:38

Philip, Northampton’s last Daimler CVG6s delivered in 1968 had pre-selector gearboxes. For some reason it seems to run in my mind that they may have been of the thigh and knee bruising spring-operated type, as I seem to recall Northampton also specified vacuum brakes on the vehicles. Air-operated systems require the use of an air compressor, whereas vacuum brakes require the use of an exhauster, which would not be compatible with an air-operated gearbox. Ideally we need a Northampton expert to confirm this.
The Huddersfield Daimler CVG6LXs were handsome vehicles, whether bodied by Roe, or East Lancashire. I have fond memories of riding on one or two of the latter between Huddersfield and Halifax, and being impressed by their turn of speed. They sounded wonderful and were also comfortable buses to ride on. That ‘Corporation’ livery was special as well, with the extra cream and streamlining at the front, and it’s distinctiveness is sadly missed.

Brendan Smith

03/07/15 – 06:39

Philip, these did indeed have Daimatic semi-auto transmission, but as far as I know the pre-select spring operated transmission was still available. I think all the Northampton CVG’s had them right up to the last "G" reg.examples, though I doubt any other operator would have bought any for years.

Eric Bawden

05/07/15 – 07:30

I believe that Northampton specified vacuum brakes right up to their last deliveries hence with no air pressure system on the buses the pre selector spring operated transmission was the only option. Generally Operators who specified air brakes took the 2 pedal Daimatic transmission.

Ian Wild

08/07/15 – 05:42

Thanks for the various replies. Did any operator purchase air-actuated pre-selector buses in preference to the Daimatic transmission? Am I correct in assuming that the Daimatic transmission was just a CAV-actuated SCG box built/purchased(?) under license?

Philip Rushworth

Lancaster City Transport
1952
Daimler CVG5
Northern Counties B35F

NTF 466 is a Daimler CVG5 with Northern Counties B35F body, built for Lancaster City Transport in 1952. There were three of them, but 467 and 468 were withdrawn in 1958. They had B32R bodies [with door!] when new and 466 was converted in the operator’s workshops to forward entrance layout in 1958. Now restored to her original livery, she carried Trafalgar Blue and White for a time after the ‘shotgun marriage’ of Lancaster and the adjacent Borough Of Morecambe & Heysham in 1974. [The other three Councils involved – Carnforth Urban District, Lancaster Rural District and Lunesdale Rural District – didn’t seem to object anywhere near so much, but Lancaster and Morecambe & Heysham had never ‘got on’.] She was retained for so long after her sisters for a very simple reason. Her 7ft 6in body was narrow enough to fit through the gateway of Lancaster Castle. Most of the place had been used as a prison for many years and this was the last vehicle in the fleet capable of taking the inmates to the prison’s farms. She is seen in the museum in St Helens on 15 August 2012, and the adjacent information board tells us she was known – for fairly obvious reasons – as ‘the prison bus’.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

10/05/15 – 16:28

A beauty, looking good. Would have loved the big old CAV headlamps (if indeed she once had them) but you can’t have everything! I can’t spot the date she actually retired- was it a record?
Am I right to wonder if she also got one of those neck-cricking OMO "squint" windows to the cab when the door was moved?

Joe

10/05/15 – 16:49

I believe it was withdrawn in 1977 but kept as a keepsake until the end of LCT in 1993

Paul Turner

11/05/15 – 07:12

I quote from a former employee of LCT, Richard Allen, who supplied me with much information about the company which enabled me to provide a fleet list for this site: "NTF 466 was new as B36R just like NTF 467/8. It was rebuilt to B32F for OPO from 01/58 and in 06/1970 it was upseated to 35 in connection with the prison contract which it worked. It was considered too slow and laborious for OPO when underfloor engined buses were arriving, so 467/8 were never considered for conversion and were sold at the end of 1958".
It doesn’t answer your question, Joe, about windows, but if it did acquire something different it doesn’t sound like it was used for very long!

Dave Towers

11/05/15 – 07:12

Am I right in thinking that Trafalgar blue wasn’t the first choice of the "transport department" – didn’t they plump for a maroon colour with "City of Lancaster" fleetname to start with? I think the blue livery/Lancaster City Council fleetname was the result of a decision to adopt a "house-style" across the Council.

Philip Rushworth

12/05/15 – 06:57

Philip, In the early days of the merged operation, both sides kept their old colours with CITY OF LANCASTER in Tilling style as the fleetname. I have photographs of both backgrounds with that name. Certainly, the Trafalgar blue and white appeared to be the "house style" which came in fairly quickly.

Pete Davies

14/05/15 – 07:19

There was a good article in the February-March issue of ‘Classic Bus’ on the Lancaster-Morecambe & Heysham merger. It is written by Thomas Knowles who was GM of the combined undertaking from the outset and he outlines the problems he had with bringing the two former operations together. It contains plenty of good photographs.

Philip Halstead

This bus was repainted in Trafalgar blue in 1977 as part of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee celebrations and ran a service along Morecambe seafront over that summer its prison bus replacement was a Tiger Cub with single door East Lancs bodywork.
A friend who was a management trainee with Lancaster once told me that this bus also survived so long because the prisoners could not overpower the driver in his separate cab!

Chris Hough

12/12/16 – 06:38

As a belated update on this vehicle it was also fitted with a rear facing seat at the front so the guards could watch the prisoners. It has problems with its brakes which is why it is not in current use, however there are plans for it to be repaired and returned to the road for 2017.
It is a fine looking vehicle and should be very popular on the free bus running days at the Northwest Transport museum in St Helens.

John P

13/12/16 – 07:15

Do I interpret, from your info, Pete, that the two Rural District Councils ran buses? If so, they’re the first I’ve come across.

Chris Hebbron

13/12/16 – 09:38

No, Chris. Only Lancaster City and Morecambe & Heysham Borough ran buses (trams previously). The two RDCs relied on Ribble and while Carnforth UD had no bus operations, it was the northern terminus of M&H service 73 which was operated jointly with Ribble. This was in addition to Ribble services passing through.
I meant in my original copy that the two Councils never ‘got on’. The remarks by each about the other were little short of hatred, very much like the supporters of one football club say about the supporters of their neighbours. Portsmouth and  Southampton, Aston Villa and Birmingham City, or Manchester City and Manchester United, for example!

Pete Davies

13/12/16 – 14:16

Sorry, Chris H, I must insist, the replacement for 466 on the prison work was not a Tiger Cub but one of the dual-doorway Leopards, the batch being 101-103 (101-103 UTF). I don’t recall ever seeing a Tiger Cub on prison duties.
What I can’t now remember, for sure, is whether one of the Leopards was used consistently, or whether all were used in turn, but if I had to guess, I would say it was the former.

David Call

15/12/16 – 13:55

Pete D, I think you must have rushed that last comment, since I’m sure that if you’d thought about it you would have realised that what you were saying wasn’t quite correct. Service 73 was essentially Ribble service 73, since, throughout the period of service 73’s existence, M & H did not themselves use route numbers. As to whether it being Ribble service 73 also made it M & H service 73, irrespective of M & H not making a point of using route numbers, let alone displaying them on vehicles, I wouldn’t like to say. We’d probably need a contemporary M & H timetable to determine that one.
Sometime in the mid-1960s, as part of a Ribble policy of renumbering its Northern area services as 5xx or 6xx, service 73 became service 573. Not long afterwards (I’m not sure exactly how long, though) M & H received its first AEC Swifts, 1-6 (CTJ 101-6E). These were intended to be used OPO from the word go, and one of the routes they went on was Morecambe-Carnforth, upon which they displayed the number 573. Unfortunately, because the rest of the M & H routes were at this time still unnumbered, there was no great incentive for drivers to wind off the 573 display, so M & H’s other OPO routes seemed to become ‘573’! In due course (I think it was around 1970) M & H did introduce its own route numbering system.
Interestingly, when the M & H journeys on Morecambe-Carnforth went OPO, the Ribble-operated ones remained crew-operated, and this situation remained for about twelve months. In a company/municipal situation, you would have thought it would be the company which would be the first in with OPO.

David Call

16/12/16 – 06:24

Yes, Mr Call, you are of course correct. Apologies to the readership for any confusion. I’ll go back to sleep!

Pete Davies