Rotherham Corporation
1949
Crossley DD42/7
Crossley H30/26R

A dull overcast day in Rotherham in summer 1962, and the crew of corporation Crossley 191 appear to be abandoning their charge outside the Angel Hotel in Bridgegate and heading for the busman’s canteen at the back of the Municipal Offices in search of some hot tea. This initial batch of twelve Crossley-bodied Crossleys, 185-196, dating from 1949, were a staple on the short service 70 to the blast furnaces and rolling mills at Templeborough, or on the longer and even busier 69 service through to Sheffield, joint with Sheffield Corporation.
Behind is Park Royal-bodied AEC Bridgemaster 139 (VET 139), just a year old when this picture was taken. In an article in ‘Buses Illustrated’ in June of the previous year on the conversion of the Mexborough and Swinton trolleybuses to diesel buses, and which were operated in conjunction with Rotherham Corporation, the writer Terry Shaw commented that he’d always considered that Mexboro’s Brush-bodied Sunbeam single-deckers were ugly until he caught sight of one of these Rotherham Bridgemasters, five of which made up Rotherham’s contribution to the trolleybus conversion scheme. It’s not hard to see what he meant, as they literally were a ‘box on wheels’ Mexboro’ chose Leyland Atlanteans, almost equally as boxy but still one up on these ‘biscuit tin’ Bridgemasters.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Dave Careless

08/07/17 – 06:06

I agree the Park Royal Bridgemasters were truly appalling in appearance. The Rotherham livery application with a black mudguard on the nearside and a cream panel on the offside accentuates the asymmetrical front end. But then any livery application would have struggled to disguise this dog’s breakfast of a design. It makes the Crossley in front look sheer class!

Philip Halstead

09/07/17 – 06:32

Was Park Royal the only bodybuilder for the Bridgemaster? I@ve never come across any other body for them. And was it an integral vehicle, or did it have a chassis?

Chris Hebbron

09/07/17 – 06:33

Glad you agree, Philip. Even from the back the Park Royal body looked ugly and overly heavy, whereas the Crossley, with that outstanding emergency window, appeared very classy and well thought out.
A friend on Merseyside used to joke that Park Royal built the Bridgemaster bodies in one continuous line, and a set of shears simply came down every 30′-0" and chopped one off! Not all that hard to envision, really!

Dave Careless

10/07/17 – 07:36

The first few pre-production Bridgemasters were built at the Erwood Crossley factory and looked a good deal better. Nothing outlandish just the tidy rounded body typical of Crossley bodies of the late 50s, although by this time much influenced by Park Royal. Park Royal were very capable box makers in the late 50s and 60s! See the Crossley Story by Eyre, Heaps & Townsin. The Bridgemaster was integral, unlike the later Renown.

Andrew Gosling

10/07/17 – 07:36

The Bridgemaster was an integral vehicle, using (I understand) some of the same construction techniques as the Routemaster. So no other body make was available, which was part of its undoing.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about Bridgemaster bodies, along the lines that Crossley did it properly, whereas Park Royal made a mess of it. In fact the change of styling when production moved to Park Royal was coincidental. Crossley had developed the original body using the Park Royal styling features which were current at the time, but Park Royal’s double deck bodywork as a whole then took a nasty turn at the behest of BET management (who in the end didn’t place the orders to justify it).
It’s also true that the rear-entrance Park Royal Bridgemasters were not nearly as ugly as the front-entrance ones, and I don’t think this was just because of the entrance position. I’m almost convinced that they were completely different bodies.

Peter Williamson

10/07/17 – 07:37

To answer Chris the Bridgemaster was of integral construction using only the Park Royal body largely because AEC and Park Royal were in the same group of companies. The later Renown had a separate chassis and was bodied by other companies who generally made a much better job than Park Royal. The East Lancs bodies on Renowns for Leigh and West Bridgford showed what could be done to make a very attractive bus.

Philip Halstead

14/07/17 – 07:28

Thx Peter/Philip. I guessed that the Bridgemaster might have been integral, since only the Park Royal body ever appeared on them. And I agree that the rear entrance ones were the less unattractive of the two types and the Leigh/West Bridgford Renowns were a great improvement.
Both types passed me by, because my travels never took me to an area where they ran.

Chris Hebbron

14/07/17 – 16:18

If it hadn’t been invented by AEC/Park Royal, you might have thought the Bridgemaster was a deliberate attempt to wean us enthusiasts away from liking half-cabs.

Stephen Ford

15/07/17 – 06:48

The BET has a lot to answer for with the Bridgemaster design. The influence was felt on conventional half-cabs. Park Royal produced a very respectable half-cab e.g. Nottingham Regents and those built under the Crossley name were equally attractive, eg Stockport Titans (although several of these were actually finished by the Corporation). The production Bridgemaster was a worthy forerunner of the worst buses ever manufactured, Southampton’s PD2s (reach for hard hat)

Andrew Gosling

16/07/17 – 07:49

In 1948 Liverpool Corporation ordered 50 DD42/7 double deckers with Crossley bodywork to a revised design, being of four bay construction with a completely flat front (in plan view). Beauty is in the eye etc, but the result was very attractive in my opinion, and Rotherham Corporation must have felt the same, because all its Crossleys, the twelve in the 1949 batch, the further six bought in 1951 and the final six of 1952/3, had the Liverpool style of body (the very last true Crossley ever built was No.213, HET 513 of the final batch). Incidentally, the final batch of Crossleys is missing from Peter Gould’s Rotherham listing.
Turning to the Bridgemaster, the construction principle certainly owed much to the Routemaster insofar as it consisted of an integral body supported on front and rear subframes carrying the engine, gearbox and axle units, but the actual subframes differed significantly between the two models. Alan Townsin has remarked that it is surprising that little effort seems to have been made to achieve a degree of commonality between the components of the Routemaster and the Bridgemaster, even allowing for the fact that the latter was low floor design with a synchromesh gearbox option. The earliest Bridgemasters had RM style coil sprung rear suspension, but from 1958 air suspension became standard. The good looking body style by Crossley on the first five Bridgemasters had framing and other components in aluminium, as did the Routemaster, but, again, no attempt seems to have been made to use RM body components. Having taken the decision to close the Crossley works, AEC transferred body construction to Park Royal, where, at the behest of the BET, steel framing replaced aluminium, making the complete vehicle heavier than its market competitors. Park Royal came up with a stark body design that somehow exaggerated the flat panel beneath the driver’s windscreen that completely obscured the offside wing. The nearside wing remained exposed in the conventional manner which gave the already ugly duckling a curiously Nelsonian appearance when viewed from the front. Considerable subframe redesign was necessary to allow a front entrance to be accommodated, and the Park Royal body then became even more gaunt than before. Aesthetics was clearly not a strong point with Park Royal at that time, because the ungainly aspects of the Bridgemaster body were reflected in the firm’s products on other chassis, and faithful customers of long standing quickly took their business elsewhere.

Roger Cox

16/07/17 – 10:28

No.696 (of 1960) taken on 11 May 1967

No 708 of 1961 also taken on 11 May 1967

No.752 of 1963 taken on 30 July 1963.

After all the comments about Bridgemasters following the Rotherham Crossley article these pictures show that not all Bridgemasters were identical as shown by East Yorkshire’s first three batches of Bridgemasters. Note the doors on the rear entrance versions and the upper deck modified outline for Beverley Bar operations.

Malcolm J Wells

16/07/17 – 16:45

Yes, Malcolm. As I state above, the original Park Royal rear entrance bodies were built on an earlier form of the front subframe, which had to be redesigned to permit a front entrance body to be fitted. The frontal profile of the ensuing front entrance Park Royal body was even more ‘frowning’ than the earlier type.

Roger Cox

Red Bus Service
1931
AEC Regal 662
Craven B32F

VO 6806 is a petrol-engined AEC Regal 662 with Craven B32F body new in 1931 to Bevan & Barker Ltd. (t/a Red Bus Service), Warsop Road Garage, Mansfield, one of three similar vehicles. The company was taken over by Mansfield District Traction on 1st January 1957 along with eight vehicles – seven AEC’s and a Bedford.  Of these an AEC Regal 0662/Massey and four Regent III double deckers (one with Massey and three with Crossley bodies) were retained by MDT for further service, but this, another Regal and the Bedford OWB utility were immediately withdrawn.
VO 6806 was handed over to the British Transport Museum at Clapham for preservation, but this establishment was extremely London Transport orientated and the handful of provincial vehicles in their collection remained quietly in the background until in 1968 Halifax GM Geoffrey Hilditch persuaded them to loan him the Regal – along with an ex-Jersey PLSC Lion, an-ex-Swindon Arab utility and an-ex-Rotherham Crossley – ostensibly to take part in a parade through the town to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the undertaking. The vehicles were subsequently used in other local events and all four took part in the 1973 Trans-Pennine Rally, and the Regal is shown here manoeuvring in the tight confines of the original Harrogate location (before in later years moving to The Stray) at the end of that event.
I believe that the four were officially transferred into Halifax Corporation ownership for the duration of the loan – indeed the Crossley was used for driver training on occasions – but when Hilditch moved to Leicester around 1975 they went with him to the best of my knowledge. Their present whereabouts are not known to me, although I gather they are all still in existence somewhere. It would be nice to see them out and about again though.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

03/07/17 – 07:55

Actually, on having a closer look this doesn’t look like Harrogate and may well have been Harry Ramsden’s Car Park at Guiseley en route.

John Stringer

03/07/17 – 07:56

Both this Regal and the Leyland Lion are currently shown as being part of the Science Museum collection, though it is unclear whether or not they are on display or in running order.

Roger Cox

04/07/17 – 07:09

All four of these were (the last I read) at the Science Museum reserve collections centre at Wroughton, Wiltshire.

Stephen Allcroft

04/07/17 – 07:10

Roger is right and I believe the AEC is stored at Wroughton. I was surprised how many vehicles are stored there including a Guy Arab which GGH also looked after. The state of some of them is not good but at least they are under cover. I guess we were lucky to see them running when we did thanks to GGH. I just wish we could see the exhibits more often as it is a national collection – no pun intended but there is a Leyland Nxxxxxxl there too!

Sam Caunt

04/07/17 – 07:11

If they are at Wroughton and I think they are then they are being stored in an uncared for state. One of my colleagues was there recently and was asked not to take pictures because of the poor state of the vehicles.
Colin Billington has tried several times to get vehicles moved to secure homes and inertia/unwillingness to take a decision has frustrated him.

Roger Burdett

05/07/17 – 06:27

Just as an aside to this interesting post, Bevan & Barker sold only their stage service and buses to Mansfield District in 1957. Their garage still stands (on Leeming Lane North actually) and they continue in business to this day as well regarded motor engineers and petrol station. (no relation to me incidentally!)

Chris Barker

06/07/17 – 07:38

Wroughton, opened in 1940, was both an RAF and RNAS station for many years, with lots of original hangars, which hold the Science Museum’s varied "exhibits" in a far-from-ideal environment, hence their slow deterioration.

Chris Hebbron

07/07/17 – 07:44

Ribble white lady in the background.

Peter Butler

01/12/20 – 05:32

With regard to Chris Barker’s comment on 05/07/17, the Bevan and Barker garage on Leeming Lane North is up for sale as at November 2020.

Mr Anon

13/04/22 – 08:00

The Science Museum (Wroughton) website says that the museum is Permanently Closed, what does that mean?. That is, where have the contents gone?

Roger Ingle

Hebble Motor Services
1965
AEC Reliance 2MU4RA
Park Royal DP39F

Photographed late on a summer day in 1966 at Stump Cross, a location very well known to our regular contributor and esteemed authority on Halifax matters, John Stringer, is AEC Reliance BJX 134C, No.134 in the fleet of Hebble Motor Services. The bodywork is by Park Royal, seated as DP39F, and the vehicle is seen in typically rugged terrain en route from Halifax to Cleckheaton. Those days of pre political correctness are reflected in the legend “One Man Operation” displayed in the destination box. This Reliance was the last of a batch of four, BJX 131-134, Nos. 131-134 delivered to Hebble in July/August 1965. The National Bus company took control of the BET bus empire in 1968, and, in the following year, management of Hebble (together with Yorkshire Woollen) passed to West Riding at Wakefield. The subsequent reallocation of services between these companies then saw Hebble expand to twice its BET size, but in 1971 the situation was turned entirely on its head when (to the delight of a certain Geoffrey Hilditch) NBC passed the Hebble business over to the Halifax Joint Omnibus Committee. Of the four Reliances 131-134 (renumbered 666-669 by Hebble in 1970) only the last (shown pictured above) entered the Halifax JOC fleet as No.320 in March 1971, when the bodywork configuration had become B43F, though whether this was inherited as such or was a JOC conversion I know not. I am sure our OBP experts will supply the answer. The 2MU4RA version of the Reliance had the AH470 engine coupled with the Thornycroft six speed constant mesh gearbox which demanded proper respect in use (I drove the Aldershot & District examples so I speak from experience). As far as I can establish, 320 would then have been the only constant mesh gearbox bus in the Halifax fleet since the expulsion of the last Nimbus, a type that was almost (I loved ‘em and drove them at every opportunity) universally detested by the driving staff. I bet 320 was not popular to say the least.
A truly comprehensive and lively discussion about the final years of the Hebble company may be found on OBP at this link.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

26/06/17 – 07:24

Interesting looking lorry passing in the opposite direction. The square stepped wheel arch reminds me of a Guy Warrior. Can anybody identify it?

David Hargraves

27/06/17 – 07:04

Thank’s Roger, I’ve never been esteemed before !
The problems you suggest may have occurred at Halifax with the arrival of 134 (latterly 669 under the YWD-based scheme) into a synchromesh and semi-automatic fleet did not happen.
Towards the end of 134’s time with Hebble one of their Plaxton Panorama-bodied Reliance coaches with synchromesh gearbox (either 20 or 21) suffered a gearbox failure in the Cheltenham area whilst working an outbound journey on the South West Clipper. A changeover (presumably by Black & White) was provided – not exactly a unique occurrence – to continue the rest of the journey to Paignton but no assistance was forthcoming regarding a repair (probably because it was happening too often). Consequently a Hebble mechanic and apprentice were instructed to grab the first Reliance that returned to depot, remove its gearbox, shoot off down to Cheltenham with it in the service van (a very hard worked vehicle) and swap the boxes over in time for their coach to change over the loaned coach on its way back. They then returned to Halifax with the defective box and it was duly ‘repaired’ (probably after a fashion). Then being in a constant state of vehicle shortage there was no time to bother getting the right boxes back into the right vehicles, so 134 received the repaired synchromesh box and retained it for the rest of its days, the coach retaining the constant mesh one.

As a result BJX 134C arrived at Halifax JOC (as 320) thus equipped, being no different to their other Reliances. Due to the strange Hebble trim layout it received a most unusual interpretation of the Halifax DP livery, starting out like a DP at the front and ending up in service bus livery at the rear. Here it is seen entering St. James Road prior to turning into the Cross Field Bus Station, Halifax sometime in late 1971. Please forgive the dreadfully out-of-focus shot but it is the only one I ever took of it in this livery.

Not long afterwards it was refurbished as a service bus with bus seating, its racks and luggage boot removed and repainted into normal bus livery. It passed into WYPTE ownership in 1974 becoming 3320 but never received PTE livery, being sold for scrap soon afterwards. This second photo shows it passing along Towngate, Northowram in the Spring of 1973.

John Stringer

27/06/17 – 09:10

Thanks, John. I knew that you would come up with the comprehensive answers – an esteemed authority indeed. You confirm that the conversion to bus seating was a Halifax exercise. Circumstances certainly acted in the favour of this vehicle where the gearbox was concerned. I suppose that is why only this one out of of the batch of four was accepted by GGH. Had it retained its original Thornycroft box in Halifax service I am sure that the gear changes would have been heard right across the West Riding – anything with a crash/constant mesh box was an anathema to the Halifax drivers.

Turning to David’s enquiry, I can see the resemblance to the Guy front end, but nothing I can find matches it exactly. Pantechnicons were often built closely to operators’ requirements so you could well be right. I will send a closer view if the front end to Peter to help with identification.

Roger Cox

05/07/17 – 06:25

Could the body on the pantechnicon be by Marsden/Vanplan.

Stephen Bloomfield

15/11/19 – 07:29

The lorry looks very much like one of George Pickersgills Removals, Harold Long from Henry Long Transport Bradford owned them for a while.

Mr Anon