The adoption of the previously used Aurora name for what were basically forward entrance Orion bodies has been discussed. What is interesting is the use of the name and how the body differed from the Orion in ways other than the position of the entrance.
Peter Williamson has mentioned that the extra thick upper deck pillars surrounding the windows over the door/stairs was to accommodate the width of the door whilst retaining the standard size of window as shown on this ex-Salford example: www.flickr.com/photos/One It can be seen, however that the rearmost window is non-standard compared to the rear entrance body: www.flickr.com/photos/Two
The brochure shown here is presumably depicting a 30ft long body as there are no thicker pillars and presumably the windows were all a different dimension. www.ebay.ie/itm/MCW-Aurora The name however was retained.
Presumably the 4 bay version used the same windows as the 30ft version: www.flickr.com/photos/Three Having seen all that, what is this? A 27ft body on a PD2/27 chassis with the same shortened rearmost window as the ex Salford vehicle but no thick pillars and, presumably either the 30ft version's windows for the rest or maybe a special size?
Were the PD2/PD3 chassis changed to accommodate the forward entrance given the different weight distribution?
Phil Blinkhorn
13/12/13 - 17:37
Back to one of the bees in my bonnet - balanced design. I always hated the short Devon General Regent Vs - and for that also read the Salford PD2s as well as Halifax models. The short rear dome windows quite frankly looked like amateur cut-outs and the windows above the door and staircase just looked ridiculous. [The Leyland National had mixed length windows on short models and there is no reason why longer windows could not have filled this space.] One thing I always disliked was the reversion to small five bay windows on the Orion after the elegant (longer) four bay design of the Aurora. The 30' Orion/Aurora had these longer windows in a five bay design. The minority of 27' vehicles had the same proportions as the Aurora - as shown by the Southport PD2, including the long rear dome windows - which were far better looking than any short five bay variant.
Some people have disputed the use of the Aurora name for the earlier design. Whilst it bears very little resemblance to the Devon General show bus, there is very little to suggest that the "Rochdale Regent V" design isn't called the Aurora. Just because people didn't use the name, it doesn't mean it wasn't so. Very few people called the forward entrance version the Aurora either. I would like to think that information in a book by respected authors like John Senior and publishers like Venture had more than a modicum of veracity.
As for thick pillars on the 27' forward entrance Aurora; it has emerged that all forward entrance half-cabs had an intrinsic weakness in the door pillars. Is it too fanciful to think that there may be a connection here?
David Oldfield
14/12/13 - 07:01
As David says, the four bay forward-entrance Aurora did not have the shortened rearmost window, so there is no mystery about the window size. These offside views www.sct61.org.uk/a, www.sct61.org.uk/b also show the difference in the emergency door arrangement.
Were the PD2 and PD3 chassis modified for the changed weight distribution? If the PD2 was, it wasn't very effective, as I always found the Salford vehicles very uncomfortable to ride in, and I have recently read that the Halifax ones were no better, although their PD3s were.
Why were most Orions five-bay? Well for one thing some operators would never have bought four-bay bodies. This included Manchester, one of MCW's biggest customers. Also I don't know if the Brighton and Salford bodies were lightweights, but if not, then it's possible that the optional lightweight structure needed the extra framework of the five-bay body for strength.
Finally the controversy over the Aurora name. Contrary to David's belief, it WAS widely used for the Rochdale design. I knew of it long before I heard of the other two Auroras, and recent correspondence in Classic Bus magazine suggests that it was used by Hull Corporation and by Maidstone & District. What I question is whether it was ever used by MCW themselves, given that the beginning of its production run overlapped with the distribution of publicity material for the first Aurora, and the end of its run overlapped with the announcement of the final one. I don't suppose we shall ever know, any more than we shall ever know how MCW's trumpeted new design came to be usurped by a quiet evolution of Weymann traditional elegance.
Peter Williamson
14/12/13 - 14:50
Whilst I agree with David regarding balanced design, the four bay design has its flaws. Even the otherwise totally well proportioned RT has that extra blank, aft of the last lower deck window, which other builders filled sometimes on both sides, more often on the nearside only, with a small window.
Some builders managed to build four bay designs without the blank or trailing window. The epitome of well balanced four bay rear entrance design must be that designed by Northern Counties: www.sct61.org.uk/1, www.sct61.org.uk/2, www.sct61.org.uk/3 and www.sct61.org.uk/4
This transferred well when a forward entrance was required on a 27ft vehicle: www.sct61.org.uk/5
Alexander and Crossley also had rear entrance designs where the four bays seemed to be designed to fit.
The trailing window on the lower deck and over long last upper deck window spoils many otherwise well proportioned Roe bodies: www.sct61.org.uk/6 and www.sct61.org.uk/7
This upper deck layout was continued on the forward entrance design though it has to be admitted this beats the five bay forward entrance Orion hands down.
Regarding (very) bad four bay designs, the Southampton Park Royal bodied PD2s and Regents have already been rightly pilloried on the Ugly Bus page.
In terms of 27ft forward entrance designs, Massey's rare four bay design was well balanced and even the short lower deck window does not detract from a carefully thought out layout. www.sct61.org.uk/8 Longwell Green had a creditable effort with this: www.sct61.org.uk/9
Probably the best example of a four bay forward entrance design on a 27ft chassis was produced by East Lancs, which could have taught designers elsewhere a thing or two but they, like Massey's design, were few and far between www.flickr.com/photos/ and www.sct61.org.uk/10
Five bay forward entrance 27ft designs tend to be rare and, like the Salford and Halifax Orions, a bit of a mess. East Lancs did better for Warrington and even the short last upper deck window seems to fit with the rest of the layout: www.sct61.org.uk/11
A similar batch to the standard 8ft width was built for Lancaster and, again, look "right": www.sct61.org.uk/12
Which begs the question why MCW couldn't have done much better when converting the 27ft five bay Orion to forward entrance. Could it have been a rigidity problem which the pillars over the door frame helped overcome. The bulk of rear entrance Orion bodies were five bay. Was this just because of a preponderance of orders from certain municipalities which favoured the economic benefits when having to replace smaller panels and windows, or was it a rigidity issue stemming from the original light weight design. I favour the latter view which seems to be backed up by the design of the first 30ft Orion which went to PMT and had a six bay design using the windows from the 27ft version.
Whichever you favour, four or five bay, there is little to beat the output from Leyland's bodyshop with its double deck offerings from 1951 onwards in terms of a balanced, looks right design - and they were five bay.
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