Newcastle Bus Lost in London

Here is a strange one for you, (VK 2399) is a pre war Newcastle Corporation AEC complete with advert for our local rag, so what’s so strange about that when it comes from me? Take a look at that bus stop, isn't that a London Transport compulsory stop, so how did a Newcastle bus end up on service in London? War time vehicle shortages perhaps?

Ronnie Hoye

07/10/12 - 14:39

Nice one Ronnie! Wartime loans were very common. This looks like one of the 1930 Newcastle Regents with English Electric body.
See David Beilby’s gallery, where I think there is one of the same batch when new.

John Whitaker

07/10/12 - 18:07

Definitely a wartime loan, look at the shielded headlights. The question is when. There are no blackout or shrapnel precautions on the windows so this may be a late war loan around the time of the September 1944 "dim out".

Phil Blinkhorn

08/10/12 - 08:17

I've seen a lot of photos of provincial buses lent to London Transport to cover losses in the Blitz and none of them ever had blast netting on the windows. Conversely, photos of ex-LT buses in the provinces during the war also didn't have such netting. It would seem that blast netting was far from universal throughout the UK. Incidentally, LT affixed little gratitude plates between the downstairs front windows on the bulkhead which said, "LONDON 1940-1941"

Chris Hebbron

08/10/12 - 08:17

London borrowed a lot of provincial buses during the blitz, but there is some question as to whether they were needed or were loaned just a morale-boosting exercise, as London was not really short of buses at that stage.
Ken Glazier's book on "London Buses and the Second World War" makes some reference to the loans, but without specific details as it concentrates on London's own fleet.
It would seem that none of the hired buses received the anti-blast netting on the windows, so the absence of it doesn't help to date the photograph. I think most of the returned buses went back quite quickly, once the blitz ended.

David Beilby

08/10/12 - 08:27

A superb picture of an elegant vehicle. The London loan theory is borne out conclusively by the presence of the depot and running number stencils on the waistband behind the cab door.

Chris Youhill

08/10/12 - 08:35

As John points out, wartime loans and swaps were common, and it worked both ways. After having lent two Dennis Lancets to London Transprot in late 1939, (used, I believe on London Country services), York-West Yorkshire found themselves in 1942 swapping their Bristol K5Gs for 8 London Transport ST Regents of 1929 vintage that were themselves on loan to West Yorkshire Road Car.

Roy Burke

08/10/12 - 11:55

Whatever the date of the picture, I wonder about the blackout and shrapnel precautions on loaned vehicles.
I would hypothesise that this, like many pictures of loaned buses, were posed pretty much as soon as the vehicle arrived and used to boost morale on the basis of "the whole country is pulling together".
As LT blacked out the windows of its vehicles and applied anti shrapnel nets, why wouldn't it do the same for loaned vehicles? Not doing so would mean that loaned vehicles could not be used in the hours of darkness and the lack of netting would indicate an element of Russian roulette for passengers.
In fact it did treat loaned vehicles in the same way as its own. See this link.

Phil Blinkhorn

09/10/12 - 07:51

Roy mentions W. Yorkshire lending two Dennis Lancets to LPTB in 1939 which served in the Country Area. I wonder if this was one of them:

Fortunately, I can fill in details re Phils photo. This Manchester Corporation Leyland, No. 3235 (VR 5755), took part in the 1946 Victory Parade in London, along with one from Halifax Corporation and two pre-war RT's. The very obvious anti-blast (not anti-shrapnel)netting on the windows of all of them was put on especially for the parade and applied to the outside, either to accentuate it or make it easier to remove afterwards.
As I said earlier, I've never seen any lent buses with anti-blast netting. Conversely, they all bore white painted corners, albeit with individual ideas!

I should add that anti-blast netting with LPTB was a somewhat haphazard affair. Front and opening side windows were, I believe, made of toughened glass and were never treated. LT's and ST's had so many side windows (especially upstairs) it hardly seemed worth the effort! I've seen photos of Central Area buses, in 1942, still totally untreated! Country Services were not so keenly treated, even though Kent (Biggin Hill et al) was in right the firing line! The diamond clear panel was not the first version which had a small square one could barely see out of. Lowbridge bus passengers had a particular problem of visibility. I can't imagine anyone getting off at their correct stop without either counting the stops to their right one, or the conductor/ress calling out the stop, the most likely scenario. Still, where there's a will..... ! As an aside, we had a straight dual-carriageway near where I lived. It was nicknamed 'Machine-Gun Alley' and, young though I was, I recall seeing buses with bullet holes in them. My father said that they only allowed passengers downstairs on those routes. Keep Calm and Carry On!

Chris Hebbron

09/10/12 - 07:54

The theory about provincial buses in wartime London as part of an 'were all in it together' moral boosting exercise may well be right. I've had a look at the suggested links, and it seems to me the pictures of these vehicles being used on service have one thing in common, no trolleybus wires! I'm open to correction, but as far as I know trolleybuses didn't run within The Square Mile of the City, most of Westminster or the West End, so that would suggest these loan vehicles were in the main used in areas that even in wartime attracted tourists, don't forget, a lot of servicemen and women, were stationed near the Capitol. From 1942 onwards this number included a lot Americans, so a couple of day leave in London would be an obvious attraction.

Ronnie Hoye

09/10/12 - 07:55

Once again the PSVC comes to our rescue as their publication LT14, published a few years ago, lists all the vehicles hired by London Transport, and confirms VK 2399 as being on loan from 23rd October 1940 until 20th March 1941, based at Elmers End.
The question of safety netting on windows is interesting. There are eight photographs of wartime hires in the book, and only one of the vehicles depicted appears to be fitted with safety netting, and that on the upper deck only.

Michael Wadman

09/10/12 - 11:03

Chris H - I'm sure you're right about the West Yorkshire Dennis Lancet - the two letter registration seems to be "YG" which would confirm it.

Chris Youhill

09/10/12 - 11:04

Yes, Chris, you're right. Your picture is of one of the Lancets lent to London by York, but you already knew that from the fleet number - Y845. (On checking, I find my dates were wrong, however. The vehicle went to London from 27.10.40 to 14.7.41).
There has been so much written about vehicles going to London from the provinces to help with shortages that it's making me wonder how and why LPTB vehicles were lent to West Yorkshire instead of simply being kept in London. Explanation, anyone?

Roy Burke

09/10/12 - 11:06

The caption to Phils photo says:
"Three-quarter front nearside view of Manchester Corporation Leyland bus, fleet no 3235, reg no VR 5755, which took part in the 1946 Victory Parade. The protective netting on the windows was added after the vehicle was transferred to London in 1940/41; by then the worst of the Blitz was over!
The above implies that the netting was added during its loan, NOT for the parade for which the bus was sent back to London.
From your and other comments and some digging I've done, it is evident the application of blackout and netting was haphazard within the LT fleet, let alone on borrowed vehicles.

A Non

09/10/12 - 17:53

Sadly, Mr Non, some of the captions to the LT Museum can't be relied upon: I've had to get them to correct several from personal knowledge. I've seen photos of Manchester Corp'n buses in London without netting. Not conclusive, I know. Incidentally, Manchester supplied more buses than any other operator.
Several valid reasons have appeared above for LPTB's need for buses, but I do know that, for safety reasons (storage of petrol in garages, perhaps) that most of its petrol-engined vehicles were taken off the road for the duration, many parked in its Country Area garages. Fortunately, its 1935-40 Works Programme involved fitting diesel engines to its more modern fleet. Its non-converted ex-Tilling ST's, on the cusp of being withdrawn in 1939, were first choice for farming out to the provinces, the last not returning until 1947, most usually going straight for scrapping!

Chris Hebbron

10/10/12 - 09:26

I am more interested in the bus, as it is a rare picture of an English Electric design before the adoption of the ubiquitous "standard" V front 6 bay style, introduced in 1932.
But then, that's just me, as anything marked "English Electric" just gets me going!
I am a bit Pavlovian in that respect!

John Whitaker

10/10/12 - 12:03

I've done a good bit of reading round in the last day or two regarding vehicle loans in the light of some of the comments on this thread.
The situation is complex. Partly clouded by wartime secrecy which hasn't always been thoroughly researched and made more difficult by, except in few circumstances, lack of other than official photos - which were subject to censorship and often presented the best possible view, i.e without depicting measures which would have shown how vehicles were blacked out/protected and, of course, we are now over 70 years since the whole circus started.
Immediately before the outbreak of war most operators had become convinced that diesel power was the future and were in the process of either converting vehicles or were following a policy of gradual replacement. Average fuel consumption of diesel was roughly 40% of that of petrol powered vehicles, type for type.
In September 1939 all operators received a fuel allocation being around 50% of their 1938 usage. This led to many route frequencies being reduced or abandoned, some for the duration, others periodically. New routes and timetables were needed to serve war factories, airfields and army bases.
Wherever possible, operators withdrew petrol powered vehicles as soon as they could and renegotiated their fuel allocations to reflect the fuel mix.
Where vehicles were destroyed by enemy action, operators sought to borrow vehicles (London and Coventry being examples) and many operators needed to enhance their fleets to cope with new wartime traffic against a background of having time expired vehicles that needed replacing and few new vehicles being made available, the withdrawal of still reasonable petrol engined vehicles and the loss of vehicles to early War Department requisitions which left them short later in the war when unforeseen demands were placed on them by new traffic patterns - thus some seemingly odd vehicle transfers from metropolitan areas to less populated centres.
At the end of the war many of the requisitioned vehicles were returned in a very poor state. Some operators lost loaned vehicles to enemy action but most vehicles found their way home in a relatively reasonable state given the problems of wartime.

Phil Blinkhorn

10/10/12 - 12:13

John - you would have been all agog then in 1967, when I was in Arnhem and went to visit the War cemetery. This involved a journey by single deck trolleybus on route 1 to Oosterbeek. It was a fine vehicle and I was amazed to see on the tasteful polished woodwork the familiar emblem "Bodywork by English Electric Limited." Ten minutes later as I walked slightly uphill through the car park there was, incredibly, only one vehicle present - a Triumph Herald registered in my home city of Leeds.

Chris Youhill

11/10/12 - 11:27

Are you sure, Chris, that there was no BKW registered Austin 10 in Arnhem that day too!!
EEC just has to be my all-time favourite builder, even before ECOC/ECW.....must be my Bradford roots, and the 597-632 "Regen" trolleybuses in particular.
Bradford`s fleet was almost a mirror catalogue of the Preston product from 1928 to 1939, and I am therefore "ower t`moon" when pictures of the missing items in that evolutionary sequence appear!

John Whitaker

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