It seems to be normal practice to describe rear-entrance single deckers as B35R etc. whether or not they had a door (and there were a few in the Edinburgh and Sheffield fleets and no doubt others which did not). I've never seen the description B35RD. I suppose it was because the open-platform arrangement was more usual on double-deckers that the D began to be added.
Geoff Kerr
17/01/13 - 07:54
Geoff, you raise a point that my friends and I debated 50 years ago this year when Manchester's Royal Tigers 12-18 had doors added at the top of their narrow rear entrance steps. The whole batch, 1-18, remained stubbornly described as B42R for the remainder of their lives and Heaps and Eyres list them thus in "The Manchester Bus" with a footnote on the fitting of the doors.
Phil Blinkhorn
24/01/13 - 07:22
The coding for the rear entrance single deckers as B35R is correct, rather than B35RD. The reasoning is as follows. The D was only added to the body code for vehicle types where there were not normally doors added. For the same reason, a front entrance double decker, such as an Atlantean, Fleetline or FLF Lodekka does not have 'D' on the body code - the fitting of doors was implicit in the vehicle type. So a rear entrance Bristol /ECW L series with doors did not have a 'D', whereas a rear entrance Bristol/ECW K series with doors did have a D, as the 'normal' body style on such chassis was an open platform.
A similar situation arose with the F for full front - this was added to a full fronted body on a vehicle type that would normally be a half cab, for example. However, when the under-floored or rear engined types were produced, the full front was implicit in the vehicle type, so a Bristol/ECW LS, VR type (etc), an Atlantean or Fleetline did not need the F on the body code. Trolleybuses were normally full fronted, so although the Weymann Orion style bodies built on Leyland Titans were normally half cabs - so an F would be needed if built to 'full front' - the related full front bodies built on the Bournemouth MF2B trolleybuses are not described as FH65D (dual door)but as H65D - the flat front was implicit in it being a trolleybus body !
Of course, there are 'oddities' that don't fit the pattern - like the AEC trolleybuses built for Bournemouth in the mid 1930s, with half cab body, bonnet and dummy radiator - trolleybuses that were not full fronted !
Peter Delaney
24/01/13 - 12:22
Peter, Whilst a great deal of what you write makes sense the reasoning that the configuration is implicit in the vehicle type in the case of both rear entrance and front entrance single deckers does not.
The so called "Edinburgh" rear entrance was used in quantity by a range of operators on single deckers, both front and underfloor engined, from the early 1930s until the early 1950s. Some were fitted with doors from new, some had doors fitted later in life, most always had open platforms. Without the addition of the letter D to differentiate there is no way of telling the configuration without a photo or some sort of note and this causes problems for historians.
There were a good number of underfloor engined single deckers with rear entrances in the style of Manchester's Royal Tigers and North Western's Atkinsons. Without some form of differentiation, those who didn't see them, haven't photo proof or have just forgotten are left wondering what their door configuration was.
Similarly central London RFs were doorless, country and Green Line machines had doors, so how could the uninitiated, looking at a fleet list with no pictures or notes, differentiate between a central and a country based machine especially given the swapping and renumbering between the fleets that commenced in the mid 1950s. Again, where doors were later fitted, dating and differentiation is important to the historian.
Also I'm confident that there are examples of front engined forward entrance singles with and without doors where no differentiation is made.
The classification system is generally excellent and tells a great deal in a simple, easily understandable format when combined with the vehicle type but the anomalies that exist are already causing queries and, as time goes by will cause more.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/01/13 - 06:55
Phil - As I said there are 'oddities' that do not fit the basic pattern -- and the 'Edinburgh' single deck design was one in mind when I wrote. As a 'fellow historian', I appreciate the point that you make. The 'system' was designed many years ago, of course, and I think before the likelihood of some of the 'exceptions' to the pattern existed. Maybe there should have been a ND added for the single deckers without such (in the way that NSu meant a service in the timetable was 'Not Sundays') - but the system was developed as it was, and to change it now would likely cause even more difficulties !!
In any event, the recording of door positions is not always accurate (some of a fleet of particular interest here in the 1930s are sometimes listed as F or R - but close examination of photographs shows they had dual doors - something the Metropolitan Police licensing department required at the time).
My earlier note was to explain why the codes appear as they do -- maybe in hindsight they 'could' be 'otherwise', but that is always the case with any 'system'. As a 'historian' I put on record how they have come to be as they are. For those wanting an 'absolute' answer to how a vehicle was built - or later altered, a good photograph (preferably with 'dating evidence) is really the only way to be certain. Documentary records - even 'official' ones can often be 'unreliable' - sadly !! (Take the seating capacity - different town's licence records (pre 1931) for the same vehicle, at the same time, record different numbers - a clear photograph where the actual number of seats can be counted is the only way to be sure).
Peter Delaney
25/01/13 - 13:40
Peter,
As a matter of interest do you know when the configuration system was devised? My first certain memory of coming across it is around 1960 when I first started reading Buses Illustrated but I think some of the trade magazines my father brought home in the early 1950s may have used it.
As you say, photo proof is the only sure way of accurate confirmation. Unfortunately, even today, few people take other than either full side on or three quarter front shots of one side of a vehicle leaving much to memory - something understandable in the days when cameras and film were relatively expensive but incomprehensible now everyone has a camera of one sort or another.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/01/13 - 13:46
The 'logic' behind the D or no D for doors seems to be the following. It is only applied (in my experience anyway) to double deck vehicles with a rear platform. The difference in appearance and structure between those with and those without doors is sufficiently great - a consistently so - that the designation is meaningful. With the traditional single deck layout, the location of doors was variable, either at the top or bottom of the entrance steps, with the result that visually the presence of doors was not necessary immediately apparent at first sight.
Presumably single deckers with a genuine rear platform might also have been designated ...RD if the platform had been enclosed, although this would rather have negated the point of the platform in the first place.
Finally, when they find that they have have to fit doors to the rear platform of Boris's abortion, they will doubtless be designated DD, which will be entirely appropriate!
Alan Murray-Rust
25/01/13 - 17:39
My understanding is that the bodywork codes were devised by the Omnibus Society or the PSV Circle in the late 1960s, but confirmation would be welcome.
Roger Cox
26/01/13 - 06:13
Roger, as I stated above, the codes were certainly in existence in 1960 and were used in Buses Illustrated.
Phil Blinkhorn
26/01/13 - 06:16
I think Alan is right in saying that it is the structure of the entrance, rather than the provision of doors, which causes an extra letter to be added.
R is used for the normal configuration. On a double decker this is an open platform; on a single decker it is an enclosed entrance, with or without doors. When a double decker has an enclosed entrance it also has platform doors, and so RD is appropriate. When a single decker has an open platform, it should be coded RP. For a discussion on RP and the lack of consistency in its use, see http://sct61.org.uk/sh222a. The codes were devised by the PSV Circle, but much earlier than the late sixties, as Phil has already said.
Peter Williamson
26/01/13 - 11:40
Looking back through my early copies of 'Buses Illustrated' the PSV Circle body layout codes seemed to have adopted by them in 1953, though the PSVC itself was formed in 1949 if I remember rightly.
John Stringer
26/01/13 - 15:42
With hindsight and probably far too late to change the system, especially as much of the evidence for pre war singles will have been lost in the mists of time, a better designation system for single deck bodies may well have been:
| Rear entrance platform "Edinburgh"style | BxxR |
| As above with door | BxxRD |
| Rear narrow non platform entrance | BxxN |
| As above with door | BxxND |
| Forward entrance with door | BxxFD |
| As above without door | BxxF |
| Front entrance with door | BxxFrD |
| As above without door | BxxFr |
By "narrow entrance" I mean such as Manchester's Royal Tigers.
This, or a similar system, from the off would have been consistent with the system for double deckers and made single decker configurations and door arrangements much clearer, especially when doors were added or removed.
Phil Blinkhorn
26/01/13 - 16:55
I think we have to accept that there has to be a limit to what is shown in the body code, as otherwise the system would become far too complicated and there would be a lot of rarely-used combinations that users would not be familiar with.
Dual-door single deckers are an example. Some early LSs and Red and White's first Royal Tigers had front-entrance/rear exit bodies, but there is no distinction between these and the more-familiar front entrance/centre exit. Oldham's Tiger Cubs were dual-door with narrow entrance and exit but the Panthers had wide entrances and exits for better passenger flow - is this not an equally important distinction? The Panther Cubs had outward-opening centre doors but there is no indication of this in the body code.
I think the system has served us well and any changes would cause confusion, not least because you would have to understand the date the code was written to know which rules applied. The system would have to be completely different so that there was no misunderstanding what system was being used.
David Beilby
27/01/13 - 07:46
David Beilby has summarised it exactly - for all its 'imperfections', the system we have is a convenient 'shorthand' to describe a body. To change the system would cause much greater confusion, I'm afraid, than the issues raised in this forum. If one were to account for all the 'possibilities', then one of the 'Edinburgh' style 'no door' underfloor saloons might be prefixed FB and end R, and a Bristol ECW LS saloon could be FB41RD. The codes as they were originally developed were a 'quick guide' -- it could otherwise get very cumbersome (a different code for 'front' or 'forward' entrance, for example - or for sliding, hinged, or jack knife doors. For a 'detailed' historic record of such things, a clear photograph is really the only way - but for the brief code gives a pretty good summary.
The date when the PSV Circle and Omnibus Society first introduced these codes I do not have - but as far as I can see, it was not in use pre 1950, but is definitely so by 1954. Because the 'standard' body style for the chassis style is implicit in the codes used, it still 'works' pretty well to describe buses built around 60 years later - as well as those some 50 years earlier !!!
Peter Delaney
27/01/13 - 07:49
The discussion about layout description left one layout missing that was rare in the UK but quite normal in Australia and South Africa with British-built buses. This was front and extreme rear entrance as built for Rochdale, St Helens and Ipswich on AEC Regal IV chassis. In Australia we designated it B--FR as B--D simply does not fit when you see a photo of the vehicle. The B--FR layout was the norm in Brisbane, Sydney, Perth on AEC Regal IV and Leyland Worldmaster chassis, Johannesburg had B--FR layout on Daimler Freeline chassis. Of course the Rochdale ones were later converted to B--F and many were sold to Lancaster.
Ian Lynas
27/01/13 - 12:20
I'm not sure where the idea that I was advocating adding the type or motion of doors to the codes came from. What I was suggesting was that a very specific design feature that could always be defined from the double decker codes was not always definable when dealing with single deckers. Those of us old enough can remember the type of entrance and if doors were fitted to most post war UK singles but, without the appropriate photo or accurately written publication, would have difficulty knowing for certain the specifics of vehicles that were built/rebodied pre 1945.
The problem is not one for the casual enthusiast or for those of us with good memories, it's one for researchers in 20, 50 or 100 years time. As Howard Goodall pointed out in his TV programme on the history of music last night, we know the Greeks and Romans had music but we have no written record to be able to play what they played and heard. We know they had music because they left paintings and artwork showing instruments. The 20th century has left many pictures of single deckers and we know they had some form of entrance but the pictures may not show enough to be specific as to the position or the existence of a door.
If in 2120 the only picture of a Halifax Regal III was the one featured on these pages back in October, and the only knowledge was that the vehicle had been B32R converted to B32F, it would not only be impossible to tell, without a date for the photo, whether this was a photo before or after conversion but it would be impossible to tell what sort of rear entrance was used and if a door was fitted. Similarly, were the date known and the photo was post conversion, there is no way of telling if a door was fitted to the forward entrance.
I'm not nit picking here. This comes from decades of interest in PSVs alongside decades of research into airlines and airliners where supposedly well photographed and documented aircraft are the subject of speculation and debate because basic details were not recorded and have been lost in the mists of time as short as 30 years.
Phil Blinkhorn
30/01/13 - 06:10
The PSV Circle the formulators of the coding system for bus bodies was formed in 1943. The coding system was in use in Buses Illustrated and Ian Allen ABC Bus Fleets by the early 1950s.
I agree with Alan that the suffix 'D' to denote platform doors was applied to rear entrance double deckers only. The assumption was that in other locations doors would be present, but this was not always the case (Grimsby's central entrance Regents for instance).
Codes from the PSV Circle coding system that are no longer used include 'U' to denote bodywork to utility specification,'LD' to denote lowheight bodies with conventional double deck seating on both decks (the Bristol 'Lodekka' for example)and, the already mentioned,'F' denoting full front bodywork on what would have usually been a half cab. I've also noticed in older publications use of the figure '8' after the entrance position to denote bodywork of eight feet width.
Michael Elliott
03/02/13 - 11:29
Although it's off-topic for this forum, with regard to one of the comments made earlier, for the sake of historical accuracy perhaps it should be mentioned that the New Bus for London *does* have rear platform doors (and the body code is H40/22T).
Michael Wadman
07/02/13 - 06:53
I'd like to follow up Phil's comment about information available to the researcher 100 years hence.
The first significant feature is that we do have a system, even though it has its gaps. It does for instance rely heavily on unstated information; we all know that a Leyland Tiger PS1 with B..F body looks fundamentally different from a Royal Tiger PSU1 with the same coding, but will this difference be obvious in 100 years time? It's worth noting that even the PSVC fleet histories of the 1960s in my library don't explain the body codes, and they are likely to form basic research documents in future. Pity the poor researcher in other countries where no similar coding exists; I have what should be definitive histories of German trolleybus systems where the passenger capacity of the vehicles isn't even stated.
One also has to consider what bits of information are really likely to be of interest to the future researcher. In respect of the Halifax Regal that Phil uses as his example, even at 50 years distance I am more interested to know why Halifax took the trouble to revise the entrance position than whether or not the entrance had a door or not.
Alan Murray-Rust
07/02/13 - 14:16
Alan makes an excellent point regarding finding the reasoning behind changes in configuration. Whilst some organisations were very careful in leaving a detailed paper trail regarding the decisions taken, many records of that type have been lost during the shambles following Ridley's stupidity and we, not to mention future historians, are left in the hands of dedicated amateurs. Whilst their dedicated work is invaluable, their records and work often have gaps and, from time to time, the information they have is erroneous based on hearsay, rumour and misinterpreted information - something made worse by proliferation of errors on the Internet.
Phil Blinkhorn
Comments regarding the above are more than welcome please get in touch via the 'Contact Page' or by email at obp-admin@nwframpton.com
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