Maudslay Marathon VME 243

VME 243 a Maudslay Marathon with a Whitsun body.
I ask were Whitsun main body builder to Maudslay? All I have on this one is a note stating Mark III. Any help would be appreciated re 1st owner it later appears in the North East around 1958.
A photo of a Whitsun bodied coach would be of interest to me.

Alan Coulson

19/01/15 - 15:52

Here is a nice little album of Whitson products - there's even a Maudslay Marathon featured, but it's one which had been rebuilt to full-front, so probably doesn't look remotely like VME 243 did. Whitson bodies don't appear to have been fitted to Maudslay chassis any more than any other make - and I haven't managed to find anything on VME 243, I'm afraid.
http://myntransportblog.com/2014/11/28/

David Call

19/01/15 - 16:16

Whitsons had a quite pleasant coach design series, as portrayed in David Call's link to the gallery. The interesting thing is the advert of a Whitson Sentinel saloon. It looks to me an almost exact copy of the design used by Beadle for some of it's products on Sentinel chassis in this era! Were Whitson subcontracted by Beadle for this work and allowed to advertise in this way? or did they just do a "close run thing"? Going back to the 1950's Dinky Toys, both the Luxury Coach and the Observation Coach were based on Whitson-bodied Maudslay Marathons - how many of us ran a fleet of these?

Michael Hampton

20/01/15 - 06:34

Two things intrigue me about the Whitson photos: one is that Southern Vectis, a Tilling company, had a 1949 Crossley SD42 coach (a distress purchase, or the result of taking over a competitor, perhaps?) and the upper AEC Regal, which had a body quite similar to Provincial's Reading-bodied AEC Regal - 69.

Chris Hebbron

20/01/15 - 08:57

The Southern Vectis Crossley was new to Nash Ventnor, one of five coaches acquired following the take-over of the operator in 1956. It was sold on in 1960. The Reading body on the Provincial Regal bears a strong resemblance to Duple's contemporary Vega design, one of which, on a Bedford SB, was already in the Provincial fleet prior to the construction of this body and one other virtually identical one, These were bespoke and it was not uncommon for Reading to build such bodies closely resembling existing bodies to meet operator requirements. The two Provincial Regals were rebodies of secondhand chassis complete with new registrations.

Philip Lamb

20/01/15 - 11:48

As regards the "Whitson Sentinel", there are a few things to correct. Firstly, the only Sentinels with Beadle bodies were the SB prototypes and the SLC4/35 coaches attributed to that bodybuilder. All production STC4/40s and STC6/44s were bodied by Sentinel themselves. The similarity to contemporary Beadle products is due to both firms using parts supplied by the Metal Industries Group (which owned Sentinel at that time and was the source of most Beadle body panels etc. MIG's subsidiary Welsh Metal Industries made most of the bits and also produced bus bodywork in its own right (including some very ugly Foden PVD6 double-deckers). In 1953 Sentinel decided to cease bodywork production and subsequently listed Whitson bodies as the "default" option on the SLC6/30 chassis (although several of its distributors came up with regional alternatives). In the case of SLC6/30 coaches Whitson used their rather attractive Grand Prix design, but for the two "dual purpose" orders received it produced a hybrid design, externally very similar to the Sentinel bodied STC6/44 due to the use of the same (WMI produced) body panels and window frames. Beneath the surface however the panels were attached to wooden framing as opposed to the metal frames used on the original STC6/44 design.

Neville Mercer

20/01/15 - 16:37

Many thanks Neville for explaining the Beadle connection with the first Sentinels, and the Whitson connection, too. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused by my comments.

Michael Hampton

21/01/15 - 06:26

Gentleman,
Thank you for your input you never fail to deliver.
David that was excellent contribution re Maudslay and Whitson which I found very interesting I take it ME is a Middlesex registration the county from where Whitson were based. I wonder if this is a lead to any further information like new to first owner. With reference to 2nd. Photo Maudslay with Whitson body 1948 I ask would VME 243 be 1948 or later .
I am unsure how registrations were allocated ie county by county to operators or in fact were some factory registered in county of manufacture.

Alan Coulson

21/01/15 - 15:34

Alan, ME was indeed allocated to Middlesex C.C. and VME was apparently current from Jan 1950 to September 1951. It was ostensibly used for commercial vehicles only, but such disciplines were apt to be applied loosely.
VME 243 does not appear on 'Bus Lists On The Web', and that is my own main source of information, you probably need someone with a Maudslay chassis list or Whitson body list to ascertain first owner.
There is no way that VME 243 could have looked anything like LPH 429 - the latter was rebuilt to full front years after its original construction (it has a late 1950s, or early 1960s, look to it).
If VME 243 was a half-cab (which is most likely) then it would have looked something like either of the Crossley coaches depicted in the album. If fully-fronted, then it would have either had an exposed radiator (like FNV 557) or a concealed one (like the Foden observation coach).
Most large operators registered their vehicles with the authority in whose territory their head office was situated. So the huge BMMO (Midland Red), whose head office was in Bearwood, Smethwick, registered their vehicles with Smethwick C.B.C, which was a relatively small authority with only one registration mark allocated (HA). In the early post-war years, almost 15% of Smethwick-issued registrations were in respect of Midland Red vehicles.
Crosville, perhaps half the size of Midland Red, registered their vehicles in Chester, so their vehicles always received 'FM' registrations.
Northern General famously registered their vehicles with Durham C.C, but also, to a lesser extent, with Gateshead C.B.C or South Shields C.B.C.
Smaller operators usually followed the same practice, but their vehicles were sometimes registered by the dealer through whom the vehicles had been supplied. Some dealers were more inclined to do that than others.
Registration by the manufacturer was rare (except in the case of their own demonstration vehicles) but not unknown, in fact I think Sentinel, for instance, often registered their products.

David Call

22/01/15 - 16:53

David, the reason why so many Sentinels were registered in Shropshire is that the company had a totally disproportionate number of demonstrators. At one time they had no fewer than SIX on the road, and these were updated annually. It's amazing that they lasted as long as they did given the very limited sales that this armada of demonstrators produced. It's why we love them - they tried so hard!

Neville Mercer

22/01/15 - 16:54

Thank you for enlightening me on registration procedure putting a new date of 1950/51 to the coach. I will pursue Maudslay chassis list and Whitson body list to try and establish the 1st. owner.

Alan Coulson

23/01/15 - 16:09

In addition to those mentioned by David, NGT had two depots which were north of the River Tyne. Until the boundary changes of 1974, they were both in Northumberland. Tynemouth & District and Wakefields Motors were based at Percy Main, in the County Borough of Tynemouth. Vehicles new to them were registered in the Borough and had 'FT' registrations. Tyneside were located in the Municipal Borough of Wallsend, and so their vehicles had 'JR' 'NL' or 'TY' Northumberland County registrations.

Ronnie Hoye

24/01/15 - 07:20

Referring back to Michael Hampton's comments on 19/01/15 about the Dinky Toys Luxury Coach and Observation Coach, I too had these in my coach fleet! However, whilst agreeing that they were both based on the Maudslay Marathon and that the Observation Coach was Whitson, I had always understood that the Luxury Coach was the longer windowed variant of the Duple A type. The Dinky model and the Duple (on AEC Regal chassis in this case) can be compared here:- www.diecastgems.com/281-luxury-coach/ and www.sct61.org.uk/zzlyd135 .

David Williamson

25/01/15 - 06:37

Thank you David (W) for mentioning the Dinky variant of the Maudslay coaches produced in the 1950's. You could be right about the Luxury Coach being a Duple rather than a Whitson. But looking at the link to the Whitson coaches provided by David Call, I see that FNV 557 is a very close design - the windscreen depths are different in the originals, but on a Dinky model this may not be especially significant. However I have just counted the window bays, and the Whitson FNV 557 has one more than the Duple body, and the Dinky, so a Duple it must be!

Michael Hampton

26/01/15 - 06:25

From memory, the Dinky model in the 1950s was explicitly marketed as a Duple Roadmaster (assuming we are thinking of the same model!)

Stephen Ford

26/01/15 - 08:34

Dinky's Observation Coach most closely resamples a Whitson-bodied Maudslay. The Luxury Coach looks like a Duple A, again probably on a Marathon III chassis. The Roadmaster was an underfloor-engined coach, based on a Duple Roadmaster-bodied Leyland Royal Tiger, the BOAC coach is a Harrington Contender, There was also in the early postwar years a half cab coach which was a Plaxton, I think if my memory serves me correctly on a Crossley chassis.

Mr Anon

26/01/15 - 10:27

I agree with Mr Anon re the Dinky models he mentions (having been corrected earlier about the Luxury coach being a Duple rather than a Whitson). The definition of the half-cab coach is interesting, though. Strangely, I don't recall this ever being attributed to any particular original, either as a child, or in later adult years. So a Plaxton-bodied Crossley adds an even nicer mix to those fleets we youngsters had all those years ago!

Michael Hampton

26/01/15 - 13:16

Stephen F - As Mr Anon has said, the Duple Roadmaster was a body for underfloor-engined chassis. Here's an example of the Dinky model. www.vectis.co.uk/page/viewlot.aspx
And one of an original. www.sct61.org.uk/rl123

David Call

26/01/15 - 13:17

Though the Dinky Toys 'Luxury Coach' was clearly based on the full-fronted Duple A-type, the real thing always had the five-bay body, as the four-bay version as used for the model was only ever fitted to AEC Regal III chassis.
As for the earlier Dinky halfcab coach, over the years many people have come up with all kinds of suggestions as to what it was based on, but my view has always been that it was simply the Dinky Toys designer's own freelance 'generic' coach of the period. The half canopy and the style of side flash that widened and swept down to land over the rear wheelarches was very similar to the many prewar Ribble coaches that must have been a familiar site to him around the Liverpool area where he would be based, and may well have been an influence.

John Stringer

28/01/15 - 16:44

Alan C, VME 243 was apparently new in 3/50 to the A & W Omnibus Co, of North Harrow, Middlesex, and the seating is given as FC33F. This information has come from John Kaye via the sct61 website. There is no way of telling from the 'FC' code whether the vehicle had an exposed or concealed radiator.
A & W appear to have been around for quite a few years - a local service was transferred to the LGOC in 1930 (assuming it was the same A & W, but it seems likely) - but the company was compulsorily wound up in 1951.

David Call

29/01/15 - 07:03

John S, I'm somewhat in agreement with you about the basis of the pre-war Dinky halfcab coach. Ribble's chief engineer, Capt (?) Betteridge, had designed a coach body for the company, initially with a straight waistrail and subsequently with a curved waistrail. It was built by a number of coachbuilders (Brush, English Electric, Burlingham, Duple, from memory) on Leyland Tiger and Cheetah chassis and also on an AEC Regal demonstrator. The Dinky model, to my mind, has the window profile of the second Betteridge style, though the cab area and the side flash are different. As you say, these Ribble coaches would have been a familiar sight around Liverpool, where, of course, Dinky models were made.
You mention that the Duple A-type four-bay version was only fitted to the AEC Regal III chassis. No lesser an authority than Alan Townsin put this in print in his Duple book. However, Black and White had two batches, one half cab and one full front, of these bodies on Bristol L6G chassis, though whether they appeared on other makes, I do not know. Here's a Black and White L6G - www.sct61.org.uk/bw103

David Williamson

29/01/15 - 07:08

David C. Thank you for update. I to discovered the A&W of Harrow late on 28th the link of John Kaye I like to explore sct 61 any particular page? also interesting is compulsory winding up 1951 of A&W.
My information is complete history of ownerships as shown for VME243 is,
A &. W. of. Harrow North London. In 3-1950.
N. &. S. Kibworth Leciestershire. 6-1953.
Buckmaster Leighton Buzzard Bedfordshire 1955.
Cosy. Meadowfield. Durham. 7-1956
Priory. North Shields Tyneside. 12-1960
Carney Roker. Sunderland. In 2-1961.
R.P.Hardie Chester-le-Street Durham 2-1963
Withdrawn. by. 6-1972
It is known VME had exposed radiator this is from photograph (Internet) showing Cosy this I can confirm.

Alan Coulson

29/01/15 - 11:17

You're absolutely right David W., somehow I had forgotten all about those Black & White Bristols with the 4-bay Duple A-type bodies despite probably having several photos of them and being an ardent Duple devotee - thanks for reminding me of them.

John Stringer

Comments regarding the above are more than welcome please get in touch via the 'Contact Page' or by email at obp-admin@nwframpton.com

Quick links to the - Best Bits - Comments - Contact - Home