Nadder Valley Coaches
1946
Bristol L5G
ECW B31F

In 1946 Southern Vectis added the first three post war examples of the Bristol L5G to its pre war and wartime fleet of the model. EDL 14 -16 arrived with Eastern Coach Works B35R bodywork, but, in 1961, all three were rebuilt with ECW B31F bodies for (what was then called) OMO operation. These later bodies incorporated the unprepossessing style of ECW radiator grille that must surely have been inspired by the dental profession. Having gained some 23 years of faithful service from these buses, Southern Vectis sold all three in 1969, whereupon EDL 16 passed through a dealer in 1970 to Nadder Valley Coaches of Tisbury, Wiltshire, with whom it is seen above in Shaftesbury in 1971. Nadder Valley ceased to operate EDL 16 early in 1972, and its subsequent fate is unknown.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

18/06/18 – 07:27

I am sure that a contemporary BI has these as rebodied by ECW rather than rebuilt.
Compared with a standard ECW L body the windows appear somewhat larger and the roof profile looks a little different although it could be an optical illusion. The treatment has an air of the SC4LK about it.
I guess it is difficult to decide where rebuild ends and rebodied begins. Is there a percentage of the original below which it becomes a rebody?

Malcolm Hirst

19/06/18 – 06:03

Yes, Malcolm, rebodied is the better word.

Roger Cox

19/06/18 – 06:03

Here is another shot of this bus on its arrival in Shaftesbury.

Roger Cox

19/06/18 – 06:04

I recall many years ago coming across a bus with this style of body in Morpeth Market Place. When I first saw it, I assumed that it was a Bristol SC4LK, a type that I had not come across as United did not operate any. However on closer investigation, I found that it was not a Bristol, but a Leyland. As far as I was able to find out, it was a Leyland PS1 originally with Cumberland Motor Services, who’d had it rebodied, although what it was doing in Morpeth I have no idea. I assume that it had been purchased by a local operator. Perhaps some-one has more details on this vehicle.

John Gibson

19/06/18 – 06:05

Bus Lists on the Web has this as rebodied FB35F.

Peter Williamson

19/06/18 – 06:05

Malcolm, Messrs Doggett & Townsin’s book ‘ECW 1946-1965’ states that the Southern Vectis trio were rebodied by ECW in 1961/62. It is stated in the book that: "The demand for a smaller and lighter type of single-decker was being met by the Bristol SC type, as described in the previous chapter, but the body design developed for it was also used for rebodying Bristol L-type and other chassis in a way which made them suitable for one-person operation. The forward-entrance layout and full-fronted cab suited this requirement, and the body design could be lengthened if need be".
Southern National, Western National, Thames Valley and Hants & Dorset are mentioned as having Bristol L coaches rebodied thus, these being lengthened in the process to LL dimensions, whereas the three Southern Vectis L-types were not lengthened. Cumberland also had a Leyland Tiger PS1/Associated Coachbuilders coach similarly rebodied by ECW. Looking at one or two photos, the rebodied heavyweights appeared to have strongly resembled the SC in many respects, including the side windows, roof contours and the later more ornate ‘mouth organ’ grille. The SC’s familiar one-piece rear window was also utilised. One subtle difference I’ve noticed between the SC and L-type rebodies relates to the windscreen. The lower edge of SC windscreens is horizontal, whereas that on the L-type has a slight downward slope towards the outer corner of each screen. The other difference relates to the front wheels – the SC having eight wheel studs/nuts per hub compared with the L-type’s ten. So Malcolm, your comment that "The treatment has an air of the SC4LK about it" certainly rings true!

Brendan Smith

20/06/18 – 06:54

Cumberland in 1949/1950 got a batch of Leyland/ACB coaches registered HRM 79 and JAO 831-840 Between May 1958 and April 1960 all the JAO’s and the HRM were re-bodied, ten by Cumberland as B34F and one JAO (837) by ECW as FB35F.
All were fitted for one-man operation.
The ECW bodied JAO837 was unique for Cumberland but it was like the ECW bodied Bristol SC4LK coaches. Meanwhile, the Cumberland half cab ones were very good looking buses.

Stuart Emmett

Lancashire United Transport
1938
Leyland Tiger TS8
Roe DP30F

Lurking in the back streets by Victoria Coach Station in 1961 and by then owned by a contractor is former Lancashire United Transport No.116, CTF 425, a Leyland TS8 of 1938 fitted with Roe DP30F bodywork. It was withdrawn by LUT in 1957. Lancashire United became a confirmed Leyland customer from the mid 1920s, though it dabbled in the thirties with some Dennis types, and built up a substantial fleet of TS7 and TS8 Tigers and TD Titans. It even managed to obtain examples of the relatively rare Tiger TS11 model during 1940. The LUT TS Tiger fleet was withdrawn during the 1950s, but three of the 1938 TS8s, CTF 434/5/8, originally fitted with Roe B32F coachwork, were refurbished in 1953 and equipped with full fronted Plaxton FC35F bodies. They lasted until 1960.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

11/06/18 – 06:00

Three further TS8s from 1939 were also rebodied by Plaxton in the same way as CTF 434/5/8. These were DTF 266/9/70. I was involved in a failed attempt to preserve DTF 269, the body of which was eventually lost to a fire.

Peter Williamson

12/06/18 – 06:34

Thanks for that additional information, Peter. I have tried to find a picture of these rebodied full fronted Tigers without success. A photo of a line up of some of LUT’s earlier 1936 TS7 batch with Metro-Cammell coachwork may be found here:- www.flickr.com/photos/gmts/16162288018

Roger Cox

12/06/18 – 06:35

After being a Leyland devotee before the war LUT pretty well forsook the make in the postwar era and became mainly wedded to Gardner engined products. Guy was the staple manufacturer for double deckers but they also had some late model Arab coaches and single deck buses from Atkinson. They were unusual for a Lancashire based operator in having no PD2’s and had only one batch of PD3’s bought at a time when Guy was having financial difficulties and the Arab was withdrawn from the market for a time. There were small batches of Daimlers but when Guy got back on its feet after the Daimler take-over they quickly returned to the Arab and even tried a solitary Guy Wulfrunian. Opo and Bus Grants spelled the end of the front engined bus and LUT ended its independent days buying the Daimler Fleetline.

Philip Halstead

14/06/18 – 07:46

There is a photo of one of the rebodied TS8s with a subsequent owner at www.flickr.com/photos/

Peter Williamson

15/06/18 – 08:23

Similar vehicle CTF 423 is preserved in the care of the Aire Valley Transport group I was lucky enough to have a ride on it a few years ago It gave a very spirited performance and was a pleasure to sample.

Chris Hough

24/11/21 – 06:31

Here is a picture of preserved TS8 CTF 423, LUT No. 114, taken at Croydon during the HCVC Rally of May 1972.

Roger Cox

Southern Vectis Omnibus Company
1940
Bristol K5G
ECW O30/26R

In 1937 Southern Vectis took two examples of the Bristol GO5G chassis, and then ordered two examples of the later K5G design. CDL 899, which arrived in July 1939 with fleet number 702, was followed in January 1940 by DDL 50, number 703 which, like its predecessors, had ECW H30/26R bodywork. These G and K buses had the high mounted version of the Bristol radiator, whilst all later Southern Vectis K types had the PV2 style. The next K chassis to enter the Southern Vectis fleet came in 1944/45, but these were four K6A machines which were very quickly converted to Gardner 5LW power, and all subsequent K/KS/KSW deliveries had 5LW engines from new. Nos. 702 and 703 were both converted to open toppers in 1959 for operation on the scenic coastal routes, where 702 is seen on 28 August 1967. Sitting “outside” as these veterans climbed up the stiff gradient out of Ventnor was a musical experience to savour. In 1969 703 was converted into a tree lopper, and finally sold off into preservation in 1979, but 702 continued in occasional and promotional service on the Isle of Wight. Happily, both CDL 899 and DDL 50 survive.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

28/05/18 – 06:45

Living In Portsmouth for twenty years from 1956, I experienced inside and outside rides on both these buses over the years. Outside was always pleasant, both from the weather and mechanical aspects, but inside was a cacophony that assaulted the eardrums. How the drivers ever put up with the noise is beyond me. I always assumed from the vibration that the engines were mounted directly on the chassis. And why did SV ever deign to eschew 6LW engines on such a hilly island, producing vehicles that were hard work for drivers and so sluggish, even these with their roofs cut off! I’m glad that they’ve survived, though!

Chris Hebbron

29/05/18 – 06:34

My G certainly is directly mounted and is extremely noisy but vibration in the saloon is low. Fitting a 6LW in a K was not straightforward and I have done it in a KSW which had a re-design to allow fitment but not straight forward.
Think on K it would have reqd body mods.

Roger Burdett

31/05/18 – 07:32

There were GO6Gs and K6Gs in South Wales where the hilly operating terrain really demanded them. Significantly none of them had ECW bodies which were fairly standardised. Pontypridd had batches of Beadle-bodied Ls and Ks with both 5LW and 6LW engines and the bodies were significantly different due to the extra length of the 6LW. Merthyr was another regular K6G buyer whilst Cardiff (not as hilly) bought a batch of unique KW6Gs with Bruce bodies.

David Beilby

31/05/18 – 07:35

Chris H raises a question which has interested me for a long time; why Tilling companies never had any K6Gs. I may be wrong but as far as I’m aware, until the advent of the KS series, Eastern Coach Works never produced any bodywork into which the 6LW engine would fit. If any companies in the group had a requirement for 6 cylinder power, then it had to be the 6A or the 6B, the Gardner 6LW was never an option. Of course there were Bristol K6Gs, popular with some South Wales municipals and independents such as Silcox but not in Tilling fleets. Similarly, when Hants & Dorset wanted L6Gs, they had to send them to Portsmouth Aviation to be bodied because ECW couldn’t fit the engine into their standard single deck body.
I imagine the Bristol radiator could have been moved forward in the style of the Guy Arab but was it the builders who were unwilling to alter their specifications or was it Tilling HQ who decreed that operators couldn’t have 6LWs in the 1930s and 40s?

Chris Barker

01/06/18 – 05:56

It is said that one of the design constraints of the Bristol AVW engine was that it should fit in the bonnet of the K type chassis, thereby limiting its capacity to 8.1 litres. Not until 1950, when the maximum length of double deckers was increased to 27ft 6ins, did Bristol/ECW offer 6LW powered versions of the K type, the KS and KSW. In these the bulkhead was moved back to accommodate the extra length of this engine. As other correspondents have stated, the K6G/KW6G buses built for municipalities and Silcox all had bodywork from builders other than ECW to incorporate a set back bulkhead. Taking up Chris Hebbron’s point about the challenging Isle of Wight topography for the 5LW, Southern Vectis continued to specify this small engine in the wider, longer and heavier KSW type of which it had 15 examples. Only when the Lodekka appeared on the scene did Southern Vectis finally accept the 6LW.

Roger Cox

04/06/18 – 16:37

CDL 899 was used for a while on the service to the Needles from Alum Bay and is seen nearing the end of its climb. I did wonder whether the noise could be heard across the Solent!

A second photo shows the addition of route branding.

Keith Newton

07/06/18 – 05:31

Lovely photos, Keith, thx for posting them. can well understand the engine noise on this challenging route. The front design of the ECW bodywork, with its scrunched-up windscreen, has the effect of making the high radiator barely obvious. It certainly was when it was fitted with a wartime utility body!

Chris Hebbron

07/06/18 – 05:32

The exchanges over this bus are quite revealing. I have never been closely involved in the bus industry and others may be better qualified to comment. Whereas in pre nationalisation days- the aftermath of the last war- you could obtain (probably beg) a Bristol with AEC engine and Roe body, as nationalisation progressed you could have a K chassis as long as it had a Bristol or 5cyl Gardner engine, an ECW body and any colour as long as it was green, red and/or cream. Choice was restricted and was down purely to chassis length. Later on, the Lodekka even eliminated height as an option: was this, much later and from comments here, the terminal Leyland disease? Certainly the command economy may have been dismantled in the 50’s but lived on for years on the Bristol-Lowestoft axis.
Back to the bus and what a lovely example- the odd feature to me is the absence of elfansafety railings on the upper deck- just the side panels raised above the seat backs. If the bus were to topple, that was you done, or overhanging trees, crane jibs or whatever. Tiny mirrors, but then the conductor would watch behind. Happy days!

Joe

10/06/18 – 08:32

Joe, I don’t think that the product policies of Bristol CV and ECW in the 1950’s and ’60’s were similar to those of Leyland in the 1970’s. First of all, one must remember that the restrictions were placed on BCV and ECW, who were only allowed to sell to the state-owned operators; while those operators could continue to select whichever supplier they wanted – and, indeed, they did so, particularly the Scottish Bus Group, but the THC also bought Bedford coaches, and sometimes lightweight buses.
It is also generally known that BCV and ECW maintained close contact with their customers during that era, and some specialist models were also produced, in numbers that were probably not really economic – I’m thinking of the SC and SU small single deck chassis. The Lodekka was of course a solution that provided the comfort of an highbridge layout within the overall height of a lowbridge bus – with a stepless lower deck floor to boot with the F series models.
It is also worth remembering that BCV and ECW were relatively low-volume producers, and their customers did have more choice. As such, significantly wider choices of engines, etc, would probably not have been viable.
By the 1970’s Leyland had a virtual monopoly of the heavy duty bus and coach market in the UK – and, judging from contemporary reports, seemed to believe that they knew what their customers wanted. I guess that the subsequent history tells us whether that was correct – or not!

Nigel Frampton