Something has puzzled me for decades and perhaps someone on here can provide a definitive answer.
As is well known, MCTD's Albert Neal had no time for the original Orion body and the first batch of the so called upgraded bodies delivered in 1955/6 did not exactly impress. For almost 2 years the department worked with MCW (officially its preferred supplier) to improve the breed and in 1958/9 100 PD2s arrived with beefed up Orion bodies and a unique to Manchester upright front profile which allowed 37 seats on the upper deck in relative comfort as against 36 in a more cramped layout as found on the earlier batches. A further 90 PD2s were so bodied between 1961 and 1964.
There was no balancing Daimler order for the original PD2s and, with Manchester taking 70 Fleetlines between 1962 and the end of 1964, only 10 CVG6s appeared in 1961, a further 20 in 1963 and and 5 CCG6Ks also came along in 1963 - all with Orion bodies, all seating 37 on the upper deck BUT without the upright front profile.
Assumedly there was less legroom on the top deck of the Daimlers but why the difference? Burlingham had provided 30 much modified upright front profile versions of its bodies on CVG6 chassis in 1957 and 50 identical bodies on PD2s in 1958, all seating 37 on the upper deck.
I've heard it stated that it was not worth having the upright profile Orions built on the small batches of Daimlers - but why not? Was it a matter of cost? Presumably the jigs existed as did the moulds for the extended glass fibre domes. Can any one help?
Phil Blinkhorn
03/03/13 - 16:39
On the face of it MCTD, Burlingham and MCW went to considerable (ratepayers!?) expense to increase upper deck seating by one. I wonder what the payback on that would have been.
Despite travelling on all these buses over the years I can't recall where the extra space was found. I presume that the rear seat over the platform was extended from a 2 seater to a 3 seater to create the additional seat. The extra amount of space created between seats as a result of the more upright front profile must have been pretty small, maybe 2" max and whilst that would be very welcome on Ryanair's 737's I not sure that the ratepayers of Manchester ever recorded their thanks for this use of their money.
Orla Nutting
04/03/13 - 07:46
Orla, the additional seat was the rearmost on the upper deck above the platform. Whilst never a Manchester ratepayer I would like to record my appreciation of the extra legroom on Parrs Wood's Burlingham and MCW bodied PD2s post 1957. The extra room available over that on 3460 and its brothers was well utilised when having to carry school bag, games kit and, by the time I was in the sixth form, sometimes also a change of clothes if heading off overnight on a Friday on the X5 for a trip to Heathrow!
More seriously the work put in was not just to increase legroom/capacity. The Burlingham bodies combined good looks, especially the Leylands, with a solid build within acceptable weight limits and fuel consumption whilst the Orions were a much better body than anything that had borne that name previously - though Albert Neal had to accept the glass fibre domes which never lost their ability to crack.
Phil Blinkhorn
04/03/13 - 09:01
Couldn't agree more with Phil about the quality and looks of the Burlingham PD2s. By the time I was living in Manchester, as a student, they - and the Orions - were reaching the end of their lives (OMO and second generation Mancunians taking over apace).
In 1956/7 Sheffield had 105 of the atrocious unfinished, single skinned, lightweight Orions - 20 PD2s, 40 Regent Vs, 45 Regent IIIs (including 9, even worse, low-bridge). In comparison with the 118 Auroras delivered in 1953/4 they lacked both style and quality. Mercifully, the next 26 in 1960 reverted to the Aurora quality - as indeed did the many Atlanteans and 10 1963 Regent Vs. At least Manchester (and Sheffield) eventually got what they wanted. I always preferred the upright Manchester Orions to the "standard" pinched face versions for PD2/3s.
David Oldfield
04/03/13 - 12:01
I think I've aired my distaste for lines the Burlingham bodies on the PD2's elsewhere and my utter distaste for those on the CVG's. They are just so unbalanced and rank with Alexander half-cab upright profiles (which always look like the top deck was designed for another bus) or some of Soton's Park Royal bodies. I'm sorry to say that Stockport's Longwell Greens (not surprisingly) are similarly low on my likes list though they are relieved by Stockports superb and long lasting livery (well, upto the 'orange' days anyway) which always ensured that civic pride was alive and well in the Transport Dept (something that couldn't be said of M/cr until the advent of the Mancunians).
Conversely, or contrarily, I rather like the MCW upright Orion profile on the PD2's though if that had been applied to the later CVG's they would have looked as ugly as the Burlingham version. Perhaps Albert Neal realised that when he saw what his efforts had produced on the Daimlers!
Anyway, we shall just have to differ in our appreciation of these particular vehicles.
Orla Nutting
04/03/13 - 15:16
Nice one Orla! From conversations over the years I think you might be in a minority though you would no doubt hope to fill more than the telephone box the Liberals used to hire for their annual conference at the time when the vehicles were delivered
Phil Blinkhorn
04/03/13 - 15:18
One thing that always annoyed me about Manchester was their indiscriminate painting of window frames (and radiators) which made them look cheap and nasty. Pictures of Burlinghams and Orions as delivered in (a brighter?) red and cream gave out messages of a class act confident of its abilities. The "all red" just shouted "third rate" to me. [Why did they do it?]
David Oldfield
05/03/13 - 07:00
I too have always been puzzled by the question of the Daimler Orions having a standard front profile. I have seen it suggested that the upright form would not have suited the Daimler "face", but whilst this may be an arguable point, I cannot see MCTD being influenced by it. It didn't stop them in the case of the Burlinghams. The only thing I can think of is if there was some reason why different jigs were needed for the two chassis types, in which case there may be something in Phil's suggestion that the setup cost was not justifiable for such small numbers. (And don't forget the Transport Committee, which, if the Albion Aberdonian debacle is anything to go by, had some pretty odd ideas about costs!) Talking of Burlinghams, I think that in general Manchester enthusiasts appreciated these mainly because they were a blessed relief from the Orions, whereas Burlingham enthusiasts from elsewhere did not, because they felt that the upright profile was at odds with the Burlingham ethos.
Peter Williamson
05/03/13 - 07:03
David, the painting of radiators and window rubbers by MCTD has been the matter of discussion on here before if I remember.
The window rubbers are easy to explain - it's easier, quicker and therefore cheaper to mask the glass and leave the rubbers exposed.
The radiators are a little more complex it would seem. Manchester deleted the cream upper deck window surrounds and all lining out on the introduction of hot spray booths in 1957/8. The last Daimlers with exposed radiators had been delivered in 1951 and by the time they reached the spray booths there were a number from all post war batches with pitted radiator shells. It was easier to overspray these than replace them.
The first 100 post war Leylands were all delivered with painted radiators by Leyland or the bodybuilder - I suspect the former. The next 100 had cast aluminium shells some of which had got very dull by the time they reached the spray booth and some of these these were overpainted, some were cleaned up. Thereafter chrome radiators were specified and the same regime as applied to the Daimlers was used.
Crossleys seemed to have fared much better at escaping the painted radiator syndrome.
From the photos I've access to and memory I would say painted radiators were really in the minority. The balance to a casual observer would be skewed by the number of tin front Daimlers which would leave an impression of a preponderance of painted radiator vehicles.
I'm aware that certain depots would give instructions that no radiator that need not be painted should be painted and I know of times when radiators were cleaned of paint when the garage foreman got a bus back which he thought shouldn't have been painted.
The problem with Manchester's spray booths was that the hot spray paint was very glossy on application but faded quickly in traffic fumes and sunlight (yes, sunlight in Manchester!). If you look at a picture of a two or three year old vehicle in the all red scheme and compare it with a resprayed vehicle painted at a similar time you will notice a difference.
When Manchester borrowed the LT Routemaster 1414 in 1963 and it operated alongside Parrs Wood's resprayed vehicles it was obvious just how different the standard of painting was between two overall red with one stripe relief colour schemes.
Parrs Wood was possibly the most picky depot when it came to looking after its vehicles. It kept rear wheel trims far longer than any other depot, had fewer painted radiators and I've heard inspectors outside the depot berate crews for poorly set blinds yet none of its vehicles new or resprayed looked as good as the Routemaster.
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