Alex Moulton – Moulton – Unregistered

Alex Moulton - Moulton - Unregistered

Alex Moulton
Moulton
1970
Moulton C23F

The Moulton was developed by Dr Alex Moulton of "folding bicycle and rubber suspension for cars" fame. He died, aged 92, early in December 2012. The coach was built in 1970 and is a one off. This curious-looking beast is now in the care of the Science Museum and resides at their Annexe at Wroughton Airfield, near Swindon, where I captured it on film during one of their too-rare open days, on 12 July, 1986. The bodywork, also by Moulton, seats 23 according to the PSV Circle listing. The vehicle was never registered for use on public roads.
The adjacent vehicle is a Bedford VAL/Duple new to and preserved in the livery of Reliance, Newbury: altogether more conventional in the "vehicles with three or more axles" department!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


06/01/13 – 07:09

Shows a certain amount of commonality with the Leyland Commutabus. This was the 1965 culmination of 1950/60s experimental work which laid the way for the Leyland National.

David Oldfield


06/01/13 – 11:21

I believe that the Moulton coach is available for sale to the right person. As part of the Science Museum’s quest to downsize its non-core exhibits, it is willing to part with this vehicle, for the right price, to someone or an organisation that will keep it in the right conditions (and probably to continue to allow public access). But as it has never been road-licenced, it would be a real challenge to get it certified at this stage in its life, with its range of strange features, in accordance with VOSA’s requirements.

Petras409


06/01/13 – 13:09

Can someone give us a run-down on the "strange features?"
-Perkins V8?
-Space frame giving lightness and flexibility of body shape?
Suspension? Independent? Rubber?
Two steering axles, two driving… or a FWD bus??!
Ventilation?

Joe


06/01/13 – 18:09

Sorry, Joe. all I know about the beast is in the caption.

Pete Davies


06/01/13 – 18:10

More pictures of this coach may be found here-: www.flickr.com/photos/

Roger Cox


06/01/13 – 18:10

It would be a complicated process, as the design has never been homologated for road use. Assuming it could be (and the Perkins V8 alone would almost certainly disqualify it under current regulations) you would have a mammoth task trying to build up a case for permitting this design to run on the road subject only to 1970s legislation. I don’t see anybody considering that task, with no guarantee of success, worthwhile, particularly when you consider that it would only run limited mileage due to its historic status.
Much simpler to give it an occasional run on a test circuit and avoid the bother!

David Beilby


07/01/13 – 15:38

Thanks Roger for the flickr ref which answers the questions. Wonderful, isn’t it! Lord Stokes- it seems- rejected it and drove away (metaphorically) away in his Triumph Herald.

Joe


07/01/13 – 15:39

Judging by the cab view in the Flickr set (thanks to Roger for the link) it looks a flimsy machine. Bedford running units? And quite apart from the air pollution hinted at by David B, I’m sure the screaming V8 would have blown itself up before long. The whole thing would have made the Bedford VAL look like a paragon of long component life and reliability. Forgive my blatant prejudices…

Ian Thompson


07/01/13 – 15:39

I hope it finds a good home as its certainly unique. I know this will sound a bit flippant, but it looks like the kind of thing you would expect to see on Thunderbirds.

Ronnie Hoye


07/01/13 – 15:40

With apologies for those not of a ‘certain age’ but maybe Mr Moulton was influenced by those Gerry Anderson "supermarionation" programmes like ‘Thuderbirds’? Perhaps this was a full-size mock-up of "FAB – 3" which might have stood for "Fairly Awful Bus"!

Paul Haywood


08/01/13 – 07:33

Ian- read the Science Museum description again: the idea was body strength and suspension. The engine/transmission was surely just a prototype. A very impressive machine and an indication of how British Engineering missed its way… could this have been our Setra? Lady Penelopes car was more VAL/Vauxhall- twin front axle and ghastly styling- in pink!

Joe


08/01/13 – 09:37

I thought this contribution might generate some comment. I’m a bit surprised there isn’t more!!!

Pete Davies


08/01/13 – 10:46

Maybe give it a run out at Sandtoft or Beamish.

Mr Anon


08/01/13 – 11:44

"Parker – get the Moulton ready to roll."
"Yes mi’ lady!"

Stephen Ford


08/01/13 – 16:15

I trawled obituaries for Alex Moulton and only one mentioned his coach. I paraphrase what was written: "Apparently, in 1969, he produced a revolutionary motor coach and invited Lord Stokes, then chairman of BMC, to his home, in order to examine the prototype. Moulton recalled: “He was supercilious: ‘Oh No, we couldn’t possibly do that.’”"

Chris Hebbron


08/01/13 – 18:08

As I said Chris- he drove off in his virtual Triumph Herald which was his tour de force in rescuing Triumph – but I think that is as far as he was going. Moulton’s obituaries are interesting: try reading them with Otto Kässbohrer who also took over a family firm and started producing self-supporting coaches (Setra). Moulton took over the family rubber firm and designed rubber suspensions for Minis, and then hydrolastic for cars and space-frame……coaches? I rest my case!

Joe


09/01/13 – 05:40

Moulton coach, original brief from BMC, fit your suspension to a Thornycroft 7 ton lorry, suspension good but chassis too weak allowing wheel hop. Lorry studies abandoned.
A stiff structure was required, ie the coach with a spaceframe body/chassis as a tubular all over "cage". When fitted with the Moulton "road bogies" the vehicle rode better than all else, BMC ordered the vehicle to be scrapped, "not invented here syndrome"
Dr Moulton ignored the instruction, hence the preserved one-off.
How nice to see this vehicle roadworthy again.

MM


09/01/13 – 15:58

Thanks to comments by Joe, MM and others I now realise that the Moulton was a serious project and not just a marketing department’s "concept (ugh!)!" vehicle, as I’d assumed it was. Chris H’s mention of Donald Stokes’s contemptuous dismissal of the Moulton prototype reminds me that as I was having a look round the Ailsa at the 1974 London Commercial Motor Show, tape-measure in hand and probably making admiring noises, someone sitting upstairs asked me what I thought of it. Having listened patiently to my enthusiastic but probably not very well-informed eulogy of the design, he said quietly "Well, I designed it. Glad you like it. My name’s Norman Watson. I work[ed] for Scammell at Watford, Herts. Donald Stokes doesn’t think much of it, though!" Somehow, I think Norman had the last laugh…

Ian Thompson


10/01/13 – 06:48

As someone who has driven Maxis, owned Allegros and Metros, and currently owns four Rover 100s (and whose contempt for Clarkson’s opinions is unequalled) I can confirm that the Moulton suspension concepts work extremely well. It does not surprise me in the least that Donald Stokes, a salesman rather than an engineer, should dismiss Moulton’s ideas out of hand. Once Stokes got his hand on the tiller of the once great ship "Leyland", it was full speed ahead for the rocks and oblivion.

Roger Cox


10/01/13 – 11:55

To be fair, ‘Red’ Robbo and his trade union cohorts hardly helped the whole unsavoury scenario.

Chris Hebbron


10/01/13 – 17:30

Stokes was a classic example of the Peter Principle in action. An excellent bus salesman but promoted far beyond his abilities and arrogant with it.
Having messed up the industry it was inevitable in this country that we gave him a knighthood and then a peerage.
You couldn’t make it up.

Paragon


11/01/13 – 05:23

It was ironic that Donald Stokes, salesman "par excellence" should have been duped into agreeing to a merger of LMC and BMC (Build More C**p) when BMC was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. It was the subsequent siphoning of funds to keep the ailing ex-BMC car/light-van business afloat that did for BLMC (Build Lots More C**p) – and as Chris says the Luddite (lemming?) tendencies of the car-workers at Longbridge didn’t help. Yet there was still a chance of salvation: I’ve read somewhere [and I will post the source if I ever come back to find it] that, in the early 1970s, GKN (steel manufacturers) wanted to purchase the Austin-Morris volume car/van business from BLMC – shorn of this, and concentrating on sports cars/executive/luxury cars (MG, Triumph, Rover, Jaguar/Daimler), 4x4s (Land Rover/Range Rover) and commercials (AEC, blah . . .), the future may have been so different.
Perhaps if (B)LMC had also sold on non-core activities – like Aveling-Barford/Aveling-Marshall (construction equipment), pedal-cars (factory closed 1971), Coventry Climax/Coventry Conveyancer (fork-lifts, fire pumps, competition/maine/military engines), Prestcold (refigeration equipment), Avon Bodies (body repairs and the odd hearse), Alvis (military vehicles) . . . and I don’t even know what Beans Industries, West Yorkshire Foundries, Alford & Alder (Engineers), British Gear Grinding & Manufacturing, Goodwin Barsby & Co, Barfords of Belton, Invicta Bridge & Engineering, and Grantham Electrical Engineering were doing or what their relevance to the core activity of BLMC was . . . earlier then the outcome for these businesses (many subsequently failed) would have been different too.
I’m not a BL-basher, I stuck with Rover to the bitter end (and when my father bought a new Triumph Dolomite [c.1972] was he proud!) – but now my wife and I run VAG-group cars (and now I know why MG_Rover failed). When I catch the bus to work next week it will be Volvo or Scania that pulls up. As an engineer I could cry.
But back to the Moulton! As an engineer I could rave about the engineering innovations and reported ride quality, but I’m with Ian’s views of 7/01: how much more work/development would have needed to take this design forwards to a viable project? AND if the design offered so many advantages why wasn’t it subsequently adopted by any manufacturer?: and as far as car suspension goes where are "Hydrolastic"(?) and, for that matter "Hydragas", suspension systems now? . . . Tooting Broadway, 5:45, mid-week, is not when you want your cars suspension to give up the ghost – believe me.

Philip Rushworth


11/01/13 – 08:38

I’m not too sure that Stokes was duped. Rather he was frog marched into the merger and then became enamoured with the level of power he found he wielded and his proximity to the levers of national policy.
The period spawned the appalling idea which has dominated British business ever since – "management experience in any given industry means the ability to manage any other".
This has been proved a fallacy on both an individual and corporate level thousands of times in the last 45 years when lifetimes of hard learned experience in a given industry has been steamrollered away by the money men who believe, to quote one ex boss of mine who was eventually sacked after destroying what had been a profitable company in one industry taken over by his company from a different sphere, "it’s the bottom line that matters, how you get the result you want doesn’t"

Phil Blinkhorn


11/01/13 – 14:26

Aerodynamically a bumble bee cant fly, but no one ever told the bee, some of these ‘bottom line’ accountants could learn a thing or two from that.

Ronnie Hoye


11/01/13 – 15:55

The bottom line accountant thinks that profit is the only thing that matters. Manufacturing products is an expensive nuisance incidental to the acquisition of cash. If you can make a profit without the manufacturing nuisance, so much the better. By this definition Dick Turpin got it right. "Stand and deliver!" The principle is well illustrated by Scott Adams’ Dilbert cartoons.

Stephen Ford


12/01/13 – 06:10

Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask, so at least, you new you were being robbed!

Eric Bawden


12/01/13 – 06:12

We all speak as we find, Philip. The Hydragas suspension gives much better pitch control over bumps in small cars with relatively short wheelbases. In 34 years to date of ownership of cars with Hydragas suspension systems, I have experienced only three occasions of unit failures. I think that this compares favourably with "conventional" springing, and all components have a finite lifespan. The Hydragas systems were more expensive to produce than ordinary suspensions, and pressurising the system has to be undertaken carefully by fully competent people. As we all know, accountants rule the roost in industry these days, and time is money. Bernd Pischetsrieder of BMW was very impressed with the Moulton suspension system, and was considering using it in the new Mini, but boardroom differences saw his departure for the VW group. (The less said about the present day oversized, overweight, overrated beast masquerading under the misnomer of "Mini" the better.) As for the bus that turns up being of Scania or Volvo manufacture, these machines are nowadays made in Poland – accountants, again, seeking low labour costs – and quite a few modern buses do come from Guildford, with Cummins engines and German gearboxes.

Roger Cox


12/01/13 – 10:19

So if Dennis still exists, technically, in Guildford, albeit not in the original premises I recall so well, what does it now do – assemble foreign manufacturers’ engines and gearboxes?

Chris Hebbron


12/01/13 – 16:21

Dennis – aka ADL – exists more than technically. It designs and produces chassis that operate in Britain and overseas. Yes, it uses proprietary engines and gearboxes nowadays (and Cummins does have a manufacturing plant in the UK) but so do other manufacturers, past and present – e.g. the bulk of Leyland Olympians had Gardner engines and ZF gearboxes. If buses were to be regarded as "genuine" only if all the components were produced "in house", then I doubt if any manufacturer would qualify. Do Volvo and Scania make their own braking systems for example?

Roger Cox


16/03/13 – 16:55

Philip R (11/01/13) included Beans in his list of BLMC companies whose purpose wasn’t clear. My father was on the management team briefly there in the late 70s. Then they were in the business of maintaining engines and conversion for marine use using a rather familiar brand name – Thornycroft.
Apparently the offices had photos of their old car and van production to act as a reminder of their past. I believe there was a foundry too.

Rob McCaffery


17/08/13 – 11:57

"Moulton Bus" I may be the last surviving member of the team to have built this bus. I’m 66 but was aged 23 at the time the bus was built. There was a comprehensive question list from "Joe" in the forum, I will try to answer. 4 wheel steering at the front, 4 wheel drive via a cast aluminium "transfer box" at the rear. The transfer from prop shaft to axles was by way of a chain drive (splash fed lube). The suspension was independent "Hydragas" modules with auto self levelling. We were working on making the front "Kneel" to accommodates elderly/infirm passengers. The body was aluminium "skin" pop riveted to a space frame and cosmetically prettied with strips. The bus had one accident when the nearside skin was torn off whilst trying to negotiate a passing oncoming truck in a narrow lane. The ride was akin to the smoothest motor car ride available at that time and I would suggest may still be comparable with todays rides. The bus was tested extensively at a nearby aerodrome, ride and handling were exceptional. The handling compared favourably with the hydrolastic cars of the day ! The bus could ride over a series of wooden railway sleeper with barely a jolt. I hope this has been interesting. If anyone would like to contact me please feel free. I hope the bus survives.

John Llewellyn


18/08/13 – 06:35

Thank you, John, for filling in some details of this unique vehicle. It must have been quite exciting being part of such an innovative team and project. Shame that it came to naught.

Chris Hebbron


05/09/14 – 06:30

I agree with the statement regarding Hydragas suspension, both Toyota and Audi entered into consultation with Alex Moulton to incorporate Hydragas into future models, Toyota planned to install a front-rear interconnected "bogie" system into their iQ car but bailed out for the contemporary setup of coil springs.
We have all been brainwashed into accepting modern cars with disagreeable ride action due to over-stiff suspension and the obsession with aggressive driving.

MM


05/09/14 – 18:00

Having had a look at the link Roger mentions above, 06/01/13 – I then went for a nosey before and after the Moulton and found this Ipswich single deck Trolley #44 DX 8871.

John Lomas


20/05/15 – 05:59

John Llewellyn’s 17/08/13 accurate response heightened the nostalgia for me. It was a great project.
Yes John, I too survive.

John Allison


Moulton Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


19/11/16 – 13:35

More details for the Moulton coach may be found in "From Bristol to Bradford" the auto biography of Alex Moulton, highly recommended!
The original application of the suspension was not for passenger coaches but for lorries. A Thorneycroft lorry was adapted, the ride was found to be far too good for qa lorry and that Thorneycroft chassis was unsuitable (lacking stiffness) and exhibited axle-tramp. Alex Moulton personally funded the construction of the prototype coach.
The geodesic space frame of the coach gave a high degree of stiffness to the coach chassis, a lesson from the problems of axle tramp on the Thorneycroft. Moulton derived much pleasure from driving the coach on the proving grounds.

MM

 

Walsall Corporation – Sunbeam F4 – ADX 191 – 353

Walsall Corporation - Sunbeam F4 - ADX 191 - 353
Copyright Tony Martin

Walsall Corporation
1950
Sunbeam F4
Park Royal H30/26R

On a snowy day in February 1967 Walsall Corporation trolleybus 353 is on a short working to Leamore. The vehicle was an ex-Ipswich Corporation Sunbeam F4 with Park Royal body which was acquired with seven others due to the closer of the Ipswich Trolleybus system in 1962/3. In the background is the Carl Street entrance to Birchills depot.
But don’t worry, the Summer of Love is just around the corner! (Not that it ever reached Walsall…)

Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin

———

04/01/13 – 06:49

The Ipswich destination box was an odd shape and it is strange how Walsall retained it, even going to the trouble of having blinds made to fit. With Walsall’s flair for bodywork rebuilding one would have thought they would have rebuilt these to their standard layout.
Accommodating the long word ‘Wolverhampton’ on these blinds meant writing the word diagonally.

Philip Halstead


18/10/13 – 07:41

Used to live about there on Bloxwich Road – watching some of the conductresses trying to switch the points into Carl Street could be amusing, but the sound of a trolley bus starting off from the stop outside our front window has lived with me for 60+ years ….

ex ENOC conductor

 

Hunter’s – Leyland Tiger TS7 – JR 6600 – 21

Hunter’s - Leyland Tiger TS7 - JR 6600
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

H W Hunter and Sons
1937
Leyland Tiger TS7
Burlingham B35F

Another from H W Hunter and Sons. New to them in 1937, JR 6600 was a B35F Burlingham bodied Leyland TS7.

Hunter’s - Leyland Tiger TS7 - JR 6600
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

In 1954 it was rebodied by Roe as a B39C, so it was around at the same time that they had the two Titans previously featured on this site. I’m 90 per cent sure they had another Leyland single decker but I’ve been unable to trace it. They had a well deserved reputation that you could virtually set your watch by Hunter’s bus and in addition to the service vehicles they had several coaches, all either AEC or Leylands, although they later switched to Volvo’s. They escaped becoming part of NBC and the formation Tyne and Wear PTE didn’t seem to affect them much because their depot and most of their single route were outside the area controlled by the PTE, so they were more or less allowed to continue much as before. However, I think the PTE may have had some influence over the decision to extended the route from North Shields beyond Seaton Delaval to Cramlington. The huge operational area covered by the pre NBC United Automobile Services empire was split up into bite size pieces prior to deregulation, and the area between the Tyne and the Scottish border was taken by the newly formed Northumbria Motor Services, which was in effect a management buyout. I don’t know the circumstances and I wouldn’t want to speculate, but Hunter’s became part of the Group. I think the name lived on for a while, but Northumbria Motor Services were swallowed up by Arriva, and like many other independents the name of W H Hunter is now, just a memory.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye


02/01/13 – 07:50

That is a huge seating capacity for a pre-war halfcab chassis. Was it extended when it was rebodied?

Eric Bawden


02/01/13 – 09:06

I wondered the same thing, Eric, and whether it was a road-based prototype for the "economy class" of airline seating!

Pete Davies


02/01/13 – 16:53

A most interesting question and 39 does seem a lot of seats in a vehicle of , presumably, 27’6" length. One would also have thought that a centre doorway, as opposed to the previous front door, might well reduce the available seat space. However, as the two pictures are taken from roughly very nearly the same perspective the vehicle appears to be the same length in both. It was unusual, but not unknown, for normal length prewar buses to have more seats than ideal space wise, but even the lightweight Lions and Cheetahs taken over by Samuel Ledgard in 1943 from the widow of G.F.Tate of Leeds originally seated 39 in their delightfully "old fashioned" Barnaby bodies.

Chris Youhill


02/01/13 – 17:35JR 6600_cu

I’ve given all the information I could dig up and I don’t know if the chassis was extended, but two things look a bit odd to me. On the Burlingham body, if you look at the seat above the letter ‘H’ it gives the impression that the seats over the rear axle appear to be facing each other, also the wheels are fairly flush to the side of the vehicle, whereas on the Roe they look to be slightly inboard, as if the vehicle has been widened but the axle length is still the same, or is it me?

Ronnie Hoye


03/01/13 – 06:42

7ft 6in chassis and original body, but 8ft new body, perhaps? If so, this wouldn’t be the only one, and they do look a bit strange!

Pete Davies


03/01/13 – 06:43

Ronnie, I would agree with you that the Roe body looks to be 8ft on a 7ft 6in chassis. The Roe body also has an extra window bay to the Burlingham.
It may be purely body style but the body overhang behind the rear axle looks to be longer on the Roe than the Burlingham, certainly, there are almost two full window bays behind the wheelarch on the Roe as against one and a half on the Burlingham. Also if you look at the exhaust tailpipe it appears to be in the same position in relation to the back axle in both photos yet the Roe overhang, again seems to be longer.
Don’t know if it has anything to do with this discussion but the front wheels, despite the absence of nutguard rings on the Roe are different to those fitted in the Burlingham picture.
As this body looks to be almost identical to the centre entrance Guys placed in service with Darlington in 1952/3 I wonder if Hunter’s body was tagged on to the end of the Darlington order, a not uncommon occurrence at Crossgates Works, even into the ’70s. I believe Darlington’s Guys were B41C.
Has anyone a nearside view of this bus with its Roe Body?

Eric Bawden


03/01/13 – 06:44

My word Ronnie, I think you’ve hit on two very pertinent features there for sure. As regards the "inset" appearance of the wheels on the newer Roe body I would say that the replacement coachwork is eight feet wide on the unaltered 7’6" TS7 chassis – a practice not unknown in the 1950s especially on single deckers. Your enlargement of the area above the "H" of Hunters reveals an interesting feature. The "A" shaped seat back appears to be a joint support for two seats, one on the left facing backwards and sharing the floor space with a forward facing seat to its rear, and one forward facing one on the right. The four passengers (plus four on the nearside) in the facing seats no doubt had to put their feet on the slightly intruding wheel arches. What a wonderful vehicle in both its forms !!

Chris Youhill


03/01/13 – 06:44

To my eye the newer body looks longer, though not much – the typical Roe high domed roof tends to mask this. 39 seats would mean 10 rows on the offside, 9 on the nearside (both including the rear 5-some). That sounds awfully tight in a length of 27’6" – minus the length of the cab and thickness of the front bulkhead.

Stephen Ford


04/01/13 – 06:45

Eric, I typed JR 6600 into my search engine, and up came the Park Royal vehicles site with what I take to be a pre delivery photo taken outside the Roe works. It differs slightly from the Darlington Guy’s, as when the doors are closed they form part of the side of the bus, whereas the platform steps are exposed on the Darlington vehicles.

Ronnie Hoye


04/01/13 – 17:43

Thanks Ronnie. After initial difficulty I eventually found the photo on the PRV site.

Eric Bawden


08/01/13 – 07:43

Noting some of the concerns about fitting 39 seats into a body on a 27’6" chassis so earlier today I took a tape measure to a 1952 Roe body with 39 seats although in an overall 30′ chassis and with a front entrance.
Putting 5 seats across the rear leaves a further 34 seats to be fitted by means of 9 sets of double seats on the offside and a further 8 sets with a door on the nearside. The length of the 30 footer from the bulkhead to the rear of the final pair of seats at the back was 22’2" with a gap of 29.5/30" between the same points on adjoining seats.
Turning to the shorter 27’6" bus under review and allowing the same distance from the front of the bus to the front bulkhead and similar requirements for the rear seats leaves circa 19’6" for the 9 sets of seats on the offside and would allow a gap of just 25" between the same point each set of adjoining seats. To me that looked a rather tight fit so I measured the seat gaps on some others from that era and all of them were in the range of 28-30"
To reduce the gap between seats by 5" in the 1950’s would, in my opinion, require smaller seat bases or otherwise it would be impossible to fit your legs in.

Andrew Beever


08/01/13 – 10:42

Andrew: Although I agree that the extra seats would be tight, your maths isn’t quite right. With a 39 seater there are 10 rows of seats on the offside, including the back bench seat. On the basis of your 29.5" pitch, the overall length of the 10 rows is 295". Reduce this by 30" and the ten seats now have to fit 265", so the pitch is 26.5". You lose 3" per seat, rather than your 5". I am over 6 ft, with long legs, and can just make a 27" pitch with a thin seat back with my legs straight, so the average person just about fits OK. Birkenhead used to cram 66 seats onto a PD2 without a 3 seater at the back or a television seat. Those seats were definitely tight for me, and probably similar in pitch to 39 on a 27ft 6in half-cab.

Alan Murray-Rust


08/01/13 – 13:43

Alan, I had specifically excluded the rear seat in my calculations since this seat is effectively fitted into the rounded rear corners with very limited foot room under it.

Andrew Beever


15/01/13 – 16:38

Hunter 21 (JR 6600) had Roe body GO3827 when rebodied 3/54.
Hunter 20 (JR 4901) was the other Leyland TS7 10076 rebodied by Roe in 4/53 (GO3680) also squeezing in 39 seats in its centre entrance body.
Hunter did, of course, have another new Roe body. Fleet number 30 was WTY 843J, a Leyland PDR1A/1R, with H43/29D bodywork

MikeB


16/01/13 – 10:48

Thanks for that, Mike, I’ve been racking my brains, or rather what little is left of them. I knew they had a second Tiger but I’ve been unable to find any records of it, did that also start life with a Burlingham body?

Ronnie Hoye


27/01/13 – 10:30

I’m sure the two single deckers were VTY 360. & TJR 573 this I have to say is from memory many years ago.

Bob Mandale


28/01/13 – 08:40

Bob, MikeB came up with the answer I was looking for. The two single deck buses you refer to were the replacements for JR 4901 and 6600. They were AEC 2MU3RV’s with Plaxton Highwayman B45F bodies. TJR 573 was delivered in 1961 followed by VTY 360 in 1962 (VTY 360 is coming as a separate posting soon). By that time the chassis on 6600 was nigh on 25 years old and from the registration I would estimate 4901 to be a couple of years older. Apart from WTY 843J mentioned by MikeB, I believe the two AEC’s were the last new service buses bought by Hunter’s as all subsequent vehicles were either coaches or D/P’s

Ronnie Hoye


03/04/15 – 05:31

Further to the discussion on the length of JR4901 and JR6600, can I mention that these two vehicles had a rear-facing seat for five across the front bulkhead, and an inward facing single seat on the nearside just ahead of the centre entrance. I also think that the entrance may have been slightly wider than usual for a single decker of that era. I don’t recall the seat spacing as being especially tight, so I would think that the bodies must have been slightly longer than the original ones. Incidentally, the original body above is described as B34F, but it looks to me to be a coach body.

John Gibson


01/06/15 – 07:20

There was a heck of a lot of rebodying of half cab single deckers from 1950 as 38 or 39 seaters once the 27′ 6" maximum length had been increased to 30 feet.
However, all is not what it seems. Buses for Trent, North Western and Potteries and the Hunter’s Tiger were lengthened without any alteration to the wheelbase of 17′ 6" because the C&U Regs until 1961 allowed the rear overhang to be up to 50% of the wheelbase. With a front overhang of about 2′ 3" on, say, Gardner 5LW or AEC 7.7 engined chassis – and a rear overhang of 8′ 9" it was legal from 1950 to go to a maximum length of 28′ 6" without altering the wheelbase. This was sufficient for another row of seats to be fitted without any alteration of the chassis.
Indeed, I think it was only Yorkshire Woollen District which actually lengthened the wheelbase of its Willowbrook bodied PS2s to 18′ 9" when they lengthened them to 30 feet.
Many of the Leyland PS’s taken over by Potteries in the early fifties were already 28′ 6" long and may have inspired PMT to rebuild its Weymann single deck 17′ 6" wheelbase OPD2s by substituting a 2′ 7" long bay for a possible rear door with a 3′ 7" long standard window bay, increasing the seating capacity in the process.

Alan Johnson

 

All rights to the design and layout of this website are reserved     Old Bus Photos does not set or use Cookies but Google Analytics will set four see this

Old Bus Photos from Saturday 25th April 2009 to Wednesday 3rd January 2024