Am I right in thinking that trolleybus operations in the UK were subject to Light Railway, rather than normal PSV legislation, and if so what difference this made to licensing etc. Presumably there would at least have been some sort of earth leakage test for each vehicle on a regular basis.
I seem to remember that Huddersfield trolleybuses only had the tax disc and no c.o.f. or any other type of disc displayed.
The West Riding Transport Society did tours of the Teesside, Reading and Bournemouth systems with its two preserved Huddersfield trolleybuses 619 and 631 after the closure of their home system and I believe they got round MOT requirements, bearing in mind that by this time they would be taxed "Private" because there was a loophole in the rules to the effect that if facilities were not available to MOT a vehicle it was exempt from that test. I think this loophole may have been aimed at the more remote smaller Scottish Islands at that time.
Can anybody throw any further light on this, potentially, complex subject?
Eric Bawden
26/06/12 - 07:00
Ref the comment about light railway legislation. My father was a trolleybus driver after the war starting on the tracklesses as they were known locally in 1947, as far as I am aware he didn't need to take a PSV 'bus' driving test until the late '50's when the trolleybus system started to be run down and the crews needed to qualify to drive diesels.
Andrew Charles
26/06/12 - 07:00
I can do no more than confirm your basic premise that trolleybus operation was regulated under Light Railway legislation. I remember this being given as the explanation for a rather bizarre incident which occurred when Manchester Corporation sought to convert their trolleybus operation to motor buses. Along one stretch of road the only existing all-stops motor bus service was run by A Mayne & Sons. This made Maynes the "established operator", under Road Service Licensing regulations, since trolleybuses didn't count. Maynes objected to Manchester's application, and could have won, but instead a deal was struck improving their position on another joint service, which is what they really wanted.
Peter Williamson
28/06/12 - 07:54
It’s an interesting question, but unfortunately one that doesn’t seem to have interested the writers of trolleybus books, who are pretty silent on the matter, leaving us to try to work out the situation from comments that they make in passing.
I’m not sure that all trolleybuses were covered by Light Railway legislation: I would have thought the Tramways Act more likely, although those in London at least were authorised directly by Act of Parliament. But it’s clear that they were not covered by the 1930 Act.
In his work on London trolleybuses, Ken Blacker writes of tram route 83 (Stamford Hill – Moorgate) which the LPTB had not intended to convert to trolleybus operation because they didn’t regard the loadings as sufficient; but the Traffic Commissioner refused to allow a replacement motor bus service to terminate in Finsbury Square, despite several trolleybus routes already doing so. So the Board converted it to trolleybus anyway, as route 683, as the Commissioner had no jurisdiction over trolleybuses.
It’s also clear from writings that trolleybus routes had to be inspected and passed by Officers of the Railway Inspectorate, just as tramways were.
In some respects, however, trolleybuses were like buses. Unlike trams they had to be registered, and photos show them carrying what appear to be road fund licence discs – but not PSV discs. Also their drivers had to have appropriate driving licences: when I got my first licence in the early ‘seventies, the list of possible categories still included a specific category for “Trolley vehicles.”
Also, they appear to have been subject to the same dimension and weight limits as motor buses, and were required to pass the tilt test. This last item is only mentioned in Ken Blacker’s book because the LUT “Diddlers” as originally built failed the test, and had to have special dispensation from the Ministry for every route that they operated on.
Michael Wadman
29/06/12 - 07:56
When the first rubber-tyred electric passenger vehicles were introduced in 1911 in Bradford and Leeds they were called Railless or Trackless Cars. Both these names relate to the tram and the trolleybus was clearly a hybrid, neither a tram nor a bus. For this reason a trolleybus was never classified as a PSV and the driver did not require a PSV Licence. However to operate a trolleybus service did require an Act of Parliament and for each approved route, this was subject to inspection by the Ministry of Transport. The term "Trackless" was used in common speech by many I knew in Bradford even in the fifties and did still appear in some Official Bradford Transport documents in the late forties. I believe the Trolleybus Acts granted, were based on the 1870 Tramways Act.
Richard Fieldhouse
29/06/12 - 10:56
Trolleybuses, like tramways, were subject to the 1870 Tramways Act with applications having to be made in a Private Bill to Parliament and receiving Royal Assent after objections had been heard by all parties, including local authorities who had control over where the routes would go, easier if the operating authority was going to be the municipality who wanted to get rid of ‘old-fashioned trams’. However, starting from scratch was more troublesome.
I’ve mentioned elsewhere the reasons for getting rid of trolleybuses, but with trams, a 1928-1930 Royal Commission sealed their fate by stating that no more systems be built, with existing systems being wound down, leading to their eventual doom at the very moment, in large cities/towns, when traffic congestion was starting to build up. Many of these cities operated certain routes with reserved track and limited continuation would have been beneficial. After all, it never happened to this extent in other countries. Of course, a lot of extra money would have been necessary to update them. One killer with trams was that the operating companies were required, by law, to maintain the area in which the track existed, even though other road-users greatly contributed to the wear and tear! But with a majority of reserved track, this would not have been a major problem.
The ‘Sparks Effect’, which certainly brought back passengers after tram’ trolleybus conversions, was perceived to be very positive at the time, but turned out to be a short-term cul-de-sac deleterious to tram transport. And after some expensive re-instatement of tram systems (we’ll forget Edinburgh for now!) we now have cheaper ‘guided buses’ in Cambridge and Fareham! It remains to be seen how successful these are. It all makes for variety, though!
Chris Hebbron
15/10/12 - 09:25
One or two facts often overlooked by publications on trolleybuses.
Before nationalisation of the electricity generating industry under the 1947 Act and the setting up of regional distribution companies, most trolleybus operators were using electricity generated by the councils that owned them.
This was a happy circumstance for many operators especially in WW2 when they had a means of mass transit not dependent on their oil/petrol allocation and, as almost all municipal electricity was generated from coal, not under threat from lack of supply as the UK used to have an extensive and very productive coal mining industry.
Operators started to query the benefits of operation when they became subject to ever increasing commercial prices with no benefit to the rates.
The street furniture that was needed for operation - poles, wires and attachments - were actually subject to local rates.
The Railway Inspectorate had had responsibility for overview, inspection and integrity of all UK trolleybus systems until 2006. Incidentally guided busways of any sort were also the responsibility of the Railway Inspectorate up until that date.
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