Devon General Omnibus & Touring Co Ltd
1960
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Roe H44/31F

The ugly lines of the Park Royal inspired Roe bodies on the early Atlantean chassis are barely disguised by the Devon General livery in this photo taken in Teignmouth on a sunny day in July 1973. I suppose we should be thankful that it hasn’t yet succumbed to the insipid NBC poppy red colour scheme.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

04/01/16 – 06:27

I’ve seen plenty of examples of poorly located bus stops, but this one looks to be an extremely challenging stop to catch a bus from!

petras409

04/01/16 – 06:28

Copyright Unknown

Ian, I think a lot of the problem with the appearance of DL901 arises from the over-zealous use of front facing advertising literature coupled with the opening front lights which really squash up the windows. Sheffield had half a dozen similar Roe-bodied Atlanteans which I personally find quite pleasing to the eye bearing in mind it was early days for mass produced rear engine machines.

John Darwent

04/01/16 – 09:44

I think the stop in question was only for top-loaders, ie, those of "O (seating) (doorway)" layout.

Pete Davies

04/01/16 – 09:45

petras409 makes a fair point about the bus stop, if it is for the road on which 901 is travelling, but I think it could be positioned for buses using the road where the people (possibly aging bus spotters marking off numbers in their Ian Allan fleet book) are sitting. Perhaps a member of this site knows the location in question, and if buses traverted/traverse that section of road.
In today’s more disability conscious world I doubt if that bench would be allowed to be placed in the middle of the footpath.

Stephen Howarth

04/01/16 – 16:43

As suggested, the surroundings are more puzzling than the bus! As John D says, the design of early rear engined decker bodies was very much based on function, as Roe designs generally always were. Peaks, glass fibre mouldings, one piece windscreens and fairings came later. This bus has its traits exaggerated by- possibly- the camera angle and the white roof, plus as noted, the window vents. The interesting bit is the bus stop sign and the bench! Possibly the road was not wide enough for two buses of this width to pass (and had only one pavement?) and perhaps there was a one way system for them with a bus stop opposite the seat… but did people sit with their backs to the road? What was the view that demanded a seat to see it, over a busy, noisy main road? Odd.

Joe

04/01/16 – 16:44

The location is on the outskirts of Teignmouth, and the Atlantean is just descending the "ramp" to Shaldon Bridge, where it would cross the Teign, before heading off along the clifftop run to Maidencombe, St Marychurch and Torquay (present day route 11). The stop certainly relates to the road on the left, which is the main road to Newton Abbot – present day route 2 from Exeter via Exminster, Dawlish, Teignmouth – a journey that takes an hour and three-quarters, every 20 minutes throughout the day.

Stephen Ford

04/01/16 – 16:45

I think that the bus is taking the approach to the T’mouth to Shaldon Bridge and the road on the left is the one to Newton Abbott.
It is feasible that there was at that time a stop on both roads explaining the white sign to the left of the pole but the orange rectangle to the right of the pole doesn’t look like a bus stop sign.
The seat is, as you say, in the middle of the pavement but is facing that way because that is the view across the estuary.

John Lomas

05/01/16 – 06:03

The bus 901 is on the road to Shaldon via a road bridge and en route to Torquay via the coast road. The bus spotters or tourist are looking out over the River Teign from beside the bus stop for the number 2 to Newton Abbot which goes along beside the River, on the top road. A great shot of 901 in our traditional colours.

Iain

05/01/16 – 06:04

Thank you, Stephen and John, for informing us about the location. Has the stop been declared busy enough or exposed enough to warrant a shelter? One with a normal-sized roof must surely try attaching itself to any "unwary" vehicles coming the other way, up the hill. As my shelter supplier used to say, "It needs a fence panel with an ironing board as a roof."

Pete Davies

05/01/16 – 06:05

I always thought that Devon General’s livery was superb. The Metro-Cammell bodied Atlanteans were far more attractive than these, especially when viewed from the rear.

Don McKeown

05/01/16 – 15:46

Here’s the approximate location on Streetview : https://www.google.co.uk/maps/

Stephen Ford

05/01/16 – 17:07

As seen in Stephen’s Google link, the site of the old bus stop is shown by the concrete post still standing near the seat just a few yards down from the present stop.

John Darwent

06/01/16 – 05:43

Although not too clear, there is also a bench in the same place as before, but facing the road this time, with not so impressive a view as before!

Chris Hebbron

06/01/16 – 05:44

Nice shot, even to the point of the Austin A40 (seen heading away from camera) being in matching colours to the bus. An extraordinary coincidence!

Grahame Arnold

06/01/16 – 16:38

The problem with this body design is that the upper deck windows are relatively shallow, and are also set high relative to the general level of the roof (i.e. the roof is also shallow). This ruins the proportions of the bus as a whole, particularly in the case of full height vehicles, and also has the additional disadvantage that the upper deck windows are too high set for small children to see out. I don’t think the opening front windows really make a difference, but the layout of the colours of the DG livery is not really flattering in this case.
The upper deck structure appears to be the same as those infamous Leyland Titans that Southampton CT purchased in the early 1960s, and it also looks the same as that on the early Weymann/MCW lowheight Atlanteans. The lower vehicles looked more acceptable, because the proportions were better balanced, with equal depth windows on the lower deck.
There may be good practical and functional reasons for having shallower windows on the upper deck, but the outward appearance can be compromised. The MCW Orion suffered in this respect, but at least the upper deck windows were set lower, and the deeper roof improved the overall look, compared to these PRV/Roe vehicles.

Nigel Frampton

07/01/16 – 06:15

Nigel, I have often wondered whether the shallower windows on the upper deck of such vehicles was an attempt by the bodybuilder(s) to standardise the upper deck structure for both lowbridge and highbridge models. Upper deck framing, window glasses, window rubbers, emergency exits and front and rear domes would then be identical regardless of overall height. Also, given that front and rear domes were increasingly being fabricated from GRP around that time, perhaps utilising only one shape for the front and one for the back would have made production easier, and/or reduced costs. The influence of the BET Group on bus design should not be underestimated either, and may well have played a part in some designs having a similar ‘look’, despite being from different bodybuilders. These are just thoughts mind.

Brendan Smith

07/01/16 – 06:18

John D – that’s a superb shot of Sheffield 945, looks as though it was brand new when photographed. Thanks for posting. Nigel, I’d not related the shallower roof of the Roe vs the MCW versions of the bodies on early Atlanteans – that makes the difference.

Ian Wild

08/01/16 – 06:42

I don’t have any records on Devon General’s early Roe bodied Atlanteans, but a shufti on Ebay and Flickr have thrown up interesting anomalies. Amongst the photos of the batch which are subject of this thread, are those of 898 898 DTT, 905 DTT and 901 901 DTT which are shown with the opening front windows on the upper deck and the destination indicator in a mid position between decks. Also shown are pictures of 908 908 DTT and 901 901 DTT (again) but without opening front windows and with the destination indicator moved to a much lower position. The latter two pictures show the buses with the awful NBC red. So, the question is, was there a partial rebuilding programme of this batch?

John Darwent

08/01/16 – 06:44

Brendan, I believe that you are correct. I have certainly seen the suggestion that the PRV/Roe bodies with shallow upper deck windows came about as a result of BET pressure on costs repeated elsewhere. Standardisation obviously brings benefits, and it certainly wasn’t invented by the NBC! The Tilling/BTC/THC group managed it as well, but with a lot more style than these PRV upper decks.
I presume, and I guess that you can confirm this, that there will be more common parts than just the windows themselves, but presumably some elements of the framework under the skin as well? As far as I can tell, the lengths of the windows on an ECW bodied F-series Lodekka, a VRT and an RELL, were the same, but the depths were different. I suppose, even if it was only the glass, there would still be scope for standardisation of window sliders and hoppers, but I can imagine the operators would have been looking for more.
The kings of window size standardisation seem to have been Ulsterbus. The X type body, fitted to Bristol RELL and Leyland Leopard chassis made extensive use of a standard plain glass, but the last side window was a different shape. The successor body (N type) went even further, using only that standard size, including the window in the rear panel. At around the same time, Ulsterbus were buying several secondhand Bristol REs, and they generally stuck to ECW bodies to ensure standardisation. I recall a comment from the management of the company, during a visit there around 1985, saying that they had also bought one (or possibly more) Bristol RESL-8s from Ribble, and they were most disappointed to find that the windows were a different length!

Nigel Frampton

08/01/16 – 10:49

John D,
The repositioning of the destination boxes on Devon General Atlanteans was the result of One Manning during the 1970s. They had all been delivered with conductor operation in mind, so the destination displays could be changed upstairs, in front of the front seats. Originally, they were nice and clear, with two lines of destination (ultimate and via points), as shown in the picture above.
But, as part of the conversion to OMO, the blind boxes were masked down to a single ultimate display and lowered, so that they could be wound from the diver’s seat.
This gave the front view a very unbalanced aspect and particularly disfigured the lovely Sea Dog convertible Atlanteans, in their cream and maroon reversed livery.
This OMO conversion didn’t affect the upper deck windows, as most of the Atlanteans continued to have opening front windows after the conversion. The pictures you have seen with plain glass may be the result of upper deck repairs following damage.
Western National also bought a large batch of MCW Atlanteans from Maidstone & District and similarly ‘uglyfied’ them too, with lower blind boxes.

Petras409

08/01/16 – 16:59

Petras409. Many thanks for the interesting explanation regarding the changed appearance of some of the batch.

John Darwent

London Transport
1939
Leyland REC
London Transport B20F

FXT 122 is a Leyland REC with LPTB B20F bodywork. She dates from 1939 and is seen at Longcross, Chobham, on one of those occasions that “Wisley” wasn’t at Wisley. In the Jenkinson listing of 1978, the REC is translated as Rear Engined Cub, which may or may not be correct. According to Ian Smiths London Transport website the CR in the fleet number stood for Cub Rear

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

31/12/15 – 13:00

I believe the vehicle is rear engined and was the first rear engine PCV class.
I thought they were AEC rather than Leyland but would not wager any money on it.
The styling is Q related I think and was the Q single decker the first inclined mid-engined PCV?

Having looked on the internet it seems I would have lost my money as all references seem to be Leyland

Roger Burdett

31/12/15 – 13:02

I’ve been waiting for one of these to come up, here is a shot for the other side.

Mr Anon

01/01/16 – 07:04

Sorry, Roger. Definitely a Leyland. Perhaps even AEC weren’t brave enough!

Pete Davies

01/01/16 – 07:05

What was the gear selection system on these vehicles. Were they manual or semi-automatic. Also, were they one-man operated or crew. Two very interesting photos.

Norman Long

01/01/16 – 10:56

I cadged a brief ride that day at Longcross and I’m sure that the gearbox was a conventional 4-speed. The engine (indirect injection) sounded remarkably like a Perkins P4, with that characteristic combustion tinkle, and it has the same bore and stroke. The rear hubs fooled me: I guessed they must be double-reduction, but apparently they house universal joints at the outer end of each cardan shaft, as the axle is arranged on the de Dion principle, which doesn’t give independent suspension but does cut down unsprung weight by mounting the differential either on the chassis or in unit with the gearbox.
In the late forties on a visit to my aunt and uncle’s at Ealing, Mx, somewhere near Brentford(?) from the window of another bus I saw one of these vehicles, which looked very strange—even slightly creepy—to my 8-or-9-year old eyes.
Fine restoration job, and thanks to the owners for saving another rare bus, full of innovation and individuality.

Ian Thompson

02/01/16 – 06:45

Ian is correct in his description of the CR, which was built at Leyland’s Kingston factory (actually in Ham) which had once produced Sopwith aircraft. The six cylinder indirect injection engine, which had been developed for the later production Cub KPO3, had a capacity of 4.7 litres developing 65 bhp, and it was mounted longitudinally at the rear of the chassis frame. The radiator was also located at the rear. The engine cover inside the vehicle was equipped as a luggage rack. The gearbox was the standard Leyland four speed “silent third” – sliding mesh 1st and 2nd, helical 3rd. Given the limitations conferred upon the passenger capacity of this small vehicle by the engine layout, it was particularly galling for the LPTB to have to adopt a space wasteful front end design similar to that of the contemporary underfloor engined TF (Tiger Flat) Green Line coach model. Had the doorway been located in the logical position ahead of the front axle (as was the 5Q5 version of the AEC Q) then the Metropolitan Police would have insisted upon an open, doorless entrance. It is often stated that the production of the CR was curtailed by the outbreak of war, but this is not the case. Always prone to over ordering, the LPTB originally decided that it required 73 examples in addition to the prototype. Having redone the sums, this was cut to 58, and then to 48. All, except the 1937 prototype, were delivered after the start of the war, the last arriving in December 1939. Many of them saw service in the first year or so of the war, but then went into storage in 1942. Several went into storage in 1939 from new. They began to reappear in 1946 when their original function had largely been usurped by larger buses. Instead they were employed on Central Area routes with conductors to meet the pressures of post war demand, and proved woefully unequal to the task. Breakdowns were frequent and spares in short supply. By the early 1950s they had all gone.

Roger Cox

02/01/16 – 08:50

Another bus spotters’ delight…….and operators’ nightmare! Thx for your usual detailed information, Roger, especially the gearbox information which I’ve always wondered about and which even the London Bus Museum website doesn’t explain. Although Merton Garage had the odd one allocated to it (Sutton didn’t, to my knowledge), I never saw one around my area at all.
The Town & Country Act of 1947 rather ‘did’ for expansion of London (and other cities), where unbridled ‘ribbon’ development stopped, handicapped, in any case, by a lack of building materials. The ‘Northern Heights’ extension of the Tube’s Northern Line, plus some other Tube bits and pieces, were never completed and the CR’s intended feeder services never expanded.

Chris Hebbron

02/01/16 – 17:51

According to the Ian’s Bus Stop website, Merton (AL) did get at least 4 CRs in 1946/7 – including one in green livery – mainly for route 88, and Sutton (A) at least two for the 213 and latterly 93.
The 1 1/2 deck Leyland Cubs designed for the ‘inter station’ route and a number of single deck buses (including some pre-war Green Line coaches) also saw central bus service (on routes with a double deck allocation) around this time.
All were crew operated – the OMO agreement for central buses had by then lapsed, and the practical (and industrial relations) complications of having one or two OMO buses on a crew route would have been a bit too much to handle.
Operationally, I understand that the single deckers only ran on ‘spreadover’ workings (i.e. peak hours only) and I would have thought that if any garage had more buses than crews on any day, the single deckers would have been left in the garage.
Hired in coaches followed in 1947, and new Bristol Ks diverted from ‘Tillings’ companies followed in 1948.

Jon

03/01/16 – 06:11

Correction to my earlier comment! What I glimpsed at Brentford (?) all those years ago was probably not a CR but a TF, whose existence I’d forgotten all about until reading Roger’s reference to it. I recall the mystery bus as being of normal length. As I know practically nothing of what LPTB buses ran on which routes, perhaps someone—Chris H, perhaps—could say whether TFs did or didn’t go through Brentford. The combination of 8.6-litre Leyland engine and epicyclic gearbox in the TF must have made for a very tuneful ride.

Ian Thompson

03/01/16 – 10:43

CR’s and TF’s did have a generic likeness, Ian, and green CR’s did run in Central services and vice versa at times, adding to the confusion. The TF’s ran the Green Line services and you will be interested in that the 701 ran from Gravesend to Ascot, passing through Brentford, from 1946 to 1975, as did the 702 from Gravesend to Sunningdale from 1946 to 1973. I did travel on a few TF’s and they did exude an aura of understated luxury.

Chris Hebbron

06/01/16 – 16:37

Thanks, Chris H, for confirmation that TF passed through Brentford. The vehicle through whose window I snatched that one childhood sighting will have been a trolleybus on the 655 route. Incidentally, my only LT ride (on the long back seat for 5 upstairs where you can look down onto the staircase) was with the same Ealing aunt, and I’m sure the bus said “Hammersmith” on the destination box. Chiming gearbox and snuffly petrol engine that seemed to backfire occasionally; six wheels; straight staircase; what more could any bus-mad kid wish for? Up to what date could that have been? Thanks in advance for any info.

Ian Thompson

07/01/16 – 06:08

Probably 1949.
According to Ken Glazier’s book ‘Routes to Recovery’ (about London Transport in the immediate post war years) the last double deck LTs were withdrawn in January 1950, the last examples running from Upton Park garage on route 40 (which didn’t go anywhere near Hammersmith)
Apart from the last scheduled allocations, a number were spread around garages to supplement the scheduled allocation until late 1949.
From Ian Armstrong’s ‘London Bus Routes’ website –
Hammersmith (Riverside) garage had a fairly substantial allocation of LTs on routes 11 and 17 (London Bridge – Shepherds Bush – no relation to the later north London incarnations of the route number) and 73 until 1949.
Mortlake’s routes 9 and 73 had LTs until 1948 and 1949 respectively (some at Mortlake were initially replaced by green RTs as deliveries had got out of step with needs).

Jon

07/01/16 – 06:10

Many LT’s were based at Leyton, Loughton and Potters Bar Garages, on your side of London, Ian. LT’s mainly left those garages around 1947/48, but were still to be found in decreasing numbers ALL around London until the final deathnell came in February 1950. Even two of the first 150 open-staircase ones survived to the end by then some 20 years old. These were due to replaced in 1942, had the war not intervened. I had a lucky escape from an open-staircase one as a baby. An aunt of mine was climbing the stairs with me in her arms, when she slipped and lost hold of me. A passer-by at the rear of the bus, by chance, caught me in the nick of time. Of all the LT’s, my favourite was the last ones made, in 1931, called Bluebirds. See here: //tinyurl.com/zllt7hk

Chris Hebbron

13/01/16 – 06:02

Thanks, Jon and Chris H, for the information on LT routes and dates.
Very nearly having my school cap blown off on the stairs of open-staircase Titan Reading 36 (RD 777) seemed exciting at the time, but that hardly compares with Chris’s extraordinary rescue!
Thanks also for the Bluebird link. LT741 is a very rationally-designed and handsome vehicle, and the superb interior shots answered all sorts of questions. Pity that no Bluebirds survived, but we can say that of a host of fascinating vehicles that live on only in tantalising photographs.

Ian Thompson

12/04/16 – 06:11

Here is a picture of CR 14, FXT 120, taken at South Croydon during the HCVC rally in May 1972. This bus was delivered in 1939 and went into service in Country Area Green livery at Windsor garage before being withdrawn into store along with the rest of the class by 1942. In 1947 it was overhauled and repainted into Central Area red livery, though the purpose of this expensive exercise appears somewhat elusive as it was only used by Chiswick as a training vehicle during 1948. Just one year later, in 1949, with characteristic profligacy, London Transport then repainted the bus back into Country green for service on rural route 494 between East Grinstead and Oxted via Tandridge, Lingfield and Felcourt, a route that then became a Guy GS operation after the the surviving members of the CR class were withdrawn entirely in 1953. CR14 was selected as an exhibit for the LT Clapham Museum, but, in 1967, it was sold off into private preservation. Although in the photo the vehicle is shown with route 12 destination blinds, the probability of a CR being used on that very busy route must have been remote in the extreme. However, it does seem that some examples of the class may have been used occasionally in the Croydon area for Relief duties on route 68 (South Croydon – Chalk Farm).

Roger Cox

30/08/16 – 06:46

I can confirm that red CR buses were indeed used on the 68 route. I used to often see “two of them” (numbers unknown) parked at Beulah Hill, junction with Spa Hill (Norwood) on my way to secondary school. I’ve no idea why there was need for two of them. My intelligent guess is that this would have been in the late 40s or very early 50s.

Derek

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

20/09/16 – 07:06

Among the first rear engined buses were the SOS REC type built by The Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Company, better known as Midland Red in 1935. The company didn’t find them successful and rebuilt them with underfloor engines.

Mr Anon

21/09/16 – 05:49

Since the CR vehicles were based on the Leyland REC chassis, Ian, was there any connexion between the SOS REC’s and Leyland’s, or was it merely a coincidence of titling?
Could someone come up with more information on BMMO’s SOS REC’s?

Chris Hebbron

22/09/16 – 07:12

Chris, there are some details of the SOS RECs on
//MidlandRed.net
There were four of them fitted with transverse mounted petrol engines so I think only the name was the same.

Gary Thomas

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1960
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2
Harrington C35F

This is the pretty village of Thornton le Dale in North Yorkshire on 11th June 1968. A pair of East Yorkshire Tiger Cubs are parked up amongst the cars awaiting the return of their tour passengers. Elegant, attractive coaches enhanced by the livery and the classy gothic script fleetname.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

27/12/15 – 09:02

Thanks for posting, Ian. These vehicles appear to have carried names. The EFE model of 692 has her named as Pocklington Star.

Pete Davies

28/12/15 – 06:32

Pocklington Star still exists, it was bought last year by Richard Macallister of Sowerby Bridge

Don McKeown

28/12/15 – 06:34

So far as I know, nine of these East Yorkshire Leyland PSU1/2 Tiger Cub coaches were given names;
675 WAT 675 Humber Star
676 WAT 676 Dales Star
677 WAT 677 Wold Star
678 WAT 678 Buckrose Star
679 WAT 679 Hunsley Star
692 6692 KH Pocklington Star
693 6693 KH Holderness Star
694 6694 KH Driffield Star
695 6695 KH Middleton Star

Ron Mesure

29/12/15 – 09:34

East Yorkshire still name some of their coaches with these names.

Chris Hough

30/12/15 – 06:33

The Tiger Cub was PSUC not PSU. The EYMS ones were late examples of the PSUC1/2, the O:400 powered PSUC1/12 was introduced soon after.

Stephen Allcroft

30/12/15 – 06:33

Just one point of divergence. I would not myself describe the use of a difficult-to-read name style like this as classy! It was someone’s idea of classy perhaps, but firstly it is not Gothic in the strict sense- Old English may be better- and it commits the great sin of departing from a company house style. The great examples of a good-looking easy to read style- apart from the timeless LT Gill Sans- were Transport or Rail Alphabet used- and mostly still used- for road signs and railways. These did drag some of the bus industry into the 20th Century, but some were still using transfers from the year dot until NBC brought decent typography but awful colours to our buses. I am not a graphic designer but I know what I like!

Joe

30/12/15 – 13:58

The truth comes out! "Joe" is really a pseudonym for Ray Stenning! Happy New Year to one and all.

Neville Mercer

31/12/15 – 07:18

Joe, LT and TfL do not use Gill Sans type face. Since the formation of the L.P.T.B. in 1933, transport in London has used Johnston type face which had been used from 1916 by the predecessor companies.
Eric Gill, who was a student of Johnston, introduced the Gill Sans type face in 1928 and this has subtle differences from the Johnston one.

John Kaye

31/12/15 – 07:19

Oh! Joe. Cue ‘Eastenders’ drum effects! Happy New Year Neville and Joe – and of course wishing a Happy New Year to everyone else as well.

Brendan Smith

31/12/15 – 10:47

No, Neville, you have unmasked the wrong man. It was the butler. Or Colonel Mustard-and-Purple. I do not subscribe to the idea that liveries went wacko only recently- look at "streamlining" or those spats and swoops- but in the main the conservatism of the old big groups kept things very staid. I am really talking only of fleetnames, house styles and logos. The last Sheffield transport logo was very neat but for true minimalism, you need Doncaster Corporation: not only did the blinds tell you little else but the terminus it was coming from or going to- no route numbers- there was only a coat of arms with the motto "Comfort and Joy" (in Latin because it was Donny) which did not really fit the vibrating Utility AEC still doing valiant service.

Joe

01/01/16 – 07:01

I must take issue with Joe’s comment that the East Yorkshire fleetname on these vehicles "…commits the great sin of departing from a company house style."
The point here is that the company had a separate house style (or corporate identity) for the coaching part of its operations. This was not at all unusual – many of the "company" or area agreement operators used a different livery for their coaching activities. Sometimes it was just a different arrangement of the bus fleet colours (typically, a "reversed" livery), others used different colours (e.g. West Yorkshire, Eastern Counties, Crosville or Rhondda), while others also used a different style of fleetname, as East Yorkshire did – e.g. United, Western Welsh or Bristol Greyhound). Some went even further, and used a different name as well as livery for their coaching divisions, e.g. Devon General with Grey Cars or Western and Southern National with Royal Blue. The same could, of course, be said about the NBC itself. So the concept of a separate identity for the coaching business is certainly not unusual, and I certainly would not call it a "great sin". I have no doubt that the companies concerned did so for good business reasons.
As far as the font used, I would not dispute that clarity and ease of reading are important for things like destination blinds and other notices and signs. Fleetnames, however, are in a slightly different category, in that they often serve as the company logo as well, so that ease of reading is not necessarily the first priority. The NBC fleetnames were certainly bold, in some cases more so than their predecessors, but rather uninteresting as well – but I do agree that the colours were dire.

Nigel Frampton

01/01/16 – 07:01

Can not agree about a difficult to read fleet name as I think my pic of 677 on 24 August 1968 in the Coach Station demonstrates.

Malcolm Wells

03/01/16 – 16:19

In the early 1960’s, I worked as a Conductor at Colchester ENOC depot, during vacation from College. East Yorkshire’s Harrington Tiger Cub "Pocklington Star" was a regular visitor to the depot as one of their tours overnighted at The George in Colchester. The vehicle looked quite splendid among all the Green and Cream Bristols.

Russell Howard

04/01/16 – 06:25

"NBC brought in decent typography"??? The fleet name lettering on NBC buses was unimaginative, ugly and crude, well in keeping with NBC’s centralised, blunderbus approach to many aspects of the industry. The font used was a modified bold version of Futura Bk, tidied up a bit to make the letters look more evenly spaced to the eye. NBC’s Henry Ford attitude to bus liveries – any colour you like as long as it’s red or green – negated any identification benefit that the heavy fleetname might have afforded. Like the Malvina Reynolds "Little Boxes" song, they all looked just the same, but worse – even the colour distinctions were denied. Freddie Wood’s NBC trumpeted that it was "The Biggest Bus Company In The World", and bland uniformity was the name of the game. In the days preceding NBC corporatism, fleetname styles and company colours represented the identities of individual operators, just as the logos of Kelloggs or Ford or Boots, for example, have stood the identification test of decades. You don’t require to read the lettering on a Mars Bar at sixty paces to know what you are buying, any more than bus passengers of the past needed to peer myopically at the fleetname of the local double decker before boarding the thing. The decipherability of destination blinds is a different issue altogether. It is invariably advisable to ensure that one’s travel objective is shared by the driver of the bus one is travelling on.

Roger Cox

15/04/16 – 07:12

East Yorkshire Stars: Went on a tour of the Yorkshire Dales when the whole fleet of Cavaliers were present. I seem to remember that there was a 36ft version called Bridlington Star. A one-off. Do I remember rightly?

Mike

25/10/16 – 07:00

Following up Don McKeown’s note dated 28/12/15 re Pocklington Star…..does anyone know if Richard Macallister still has it and if so how I might contact him?
I drove 692 for Eddie Brown when I was nobut a lad…am now a retired nostalgic old !!!..but I would love to see 692 again.

Dave Hollings

25/10/16 – 14:05

Regarding Roger C.’s comment about destinations. I recently got on the Stagecoach service 124 from Creigiau to Cardiff. At the Radyr roundabout the driver took a left, rather than straight on to Cardiff, at which point all the passengers pointed out the mistake. The driver’s response? " Don’t worry, I normally drive the 122, so sit back and enjoy the ride. All the buses end up in Cardiff anyway." I bet that got the computerised route monitoring system thinking!

David field

25/10/16 – 16:07

Yes, David F, but if the Traffic Commissioner’s ‘monitors’ were in the area of the 124 when it followed the 122 instead, they’d record it as a failure to run. In my experience, it is not recommended for the management or staff to upset the TC!

Pete Davies