East Yorkshire – Leyland A13 – BT 8777 – 54

East Yorkshire - Leyland A13 - BT 8777 - 64

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1923
Leyland A13
Leyland B26

As photography is my hobby I have been busy restoring the old family photographs and I came across the above shot of my father and the bus he drove, he is the tallest person in the photo, I hope the photo maybe of interest to you. During the First World War my father was trained as a Heavy Lorry Driver and below is his War Office Warrant Card. He was always thankful for the Army as it had taught him a trade.

warrant cardHandS

 

In the 1920’s a Bus Driver had to have a good mechanical knowledge in case the bus broke down, if it did he had to repair it himself, there was no AA in those days to get you going again. The route was Hull & Sutton.

 

Photographs and Copy contributed by Malcolm Burnard


09/12/12 – 15:49

Now! You do not see many shots of these on the internet, especially one of such good quality. You obviously take your hobby very seriously. Thank you for posting it.

Trevor Knowles


BT 8777_cu

09/12/12 – 16:43

A super high quality photo, for which many thanks.
Can any of the EYMS chaps identify the vehicle as I cannot make out the reg. That very narrow rear side window suggests it is not a Leyland bodied A13.

John Whitaker


09/12/12 – 17:39

On the excellent EYMS website which I’ve mentioned before there is reference to a BT 8773, a 1926 Dennis bodied Dennis 50cwt, acquired with the business of Hull & District Motor Services. Could this be the vehicle depicted? I’m afraid that I’ve personally no knowledge of vehicles from that time, I wouldn’t be able to tell a Leyland from a Dennis or any other make.

David Call


09/12/12 – 17:40

The original poster says EYMS 64 Reg BT 8777. Keith Jenkinson’s book on EYMS states that D W Burn of Withernsea took delivery of a new 26 seater Leyland A13 in September 1925 followed by another of the same type in March 1926.He also purchased a Leyland C9 with 26 seats in 1926 and sold all three Leylands to EYMS in October 1926. It may well be that the bus in question is one of the A13’s bought from Burn.

John Darwent


To be fair to Malcolm I did the heading to the posting as it looked like BT 8?77 and working from Kieth Eastons fleet list on site I came up with a Leyland A13 originally owned by Noel Tompson of Sutton.

Peter


10/12/12 – 07:13

I would certainly support Peter’s identification as BT 8777. The fact that the bus is being used on the Hull-Sutton route is at least consistent, although one would have to know more about EY operating practice to be positive. Looking at the inset photo, there is no doubt that the first and last digits are 8 and 7 respectively, but the other two are less defined. Without the benefit of the EY fleet list, I would have guessed at 8177, possibly 8277. The third character might be a 3, although it would depend on whether local practice used a flat-top or rounded version.
From my less-than-expert point of view, I would also say that the radiator looks like a Leyland type for the period.

Alan Murray-Rust


10/12/12 – 07:14

Sorry, I hadn’t looked properly at the close-up of the registration – the final ‘7’ looks pretty definite and I haven’t been able to find a better match. It probably helps that the bus is shown operating between Hull and Sutton, although all respect to John Whittaker’s assertion that the vehicle shown is not a Leyland-bodied A13, of course.

David Call


10/12/12 – 08:56

Could well be a Leyland body David, as there were many variations. It just does not shout "Leyland" to me, body wise, but I am easily fooled!

John Whitaker


10/12/12 – 09:26BT 8777_cu_2

If you look in the top left rear window and use the ‘Ctrl +’ trick you can see the registration, as far as I can make out it is the BT and the last two numbers which look like the down strokes of a seven. I can not make out the first two numbers due to the woodwork. Can you do a blow up of the area.

Trevor Knowles

Don’t forget the ‘Ctrl 0’ to return to normal.


10/12/12 – 11:01

ford t

I thought you maybe interested in a shot of my father and his Model T Ford it appears to be taken at the same time and location. It’s a bit grainy but the original photo was very small.

Malcolm Burnard


11/12/12 – 07:16

Interesting that the bus had pneumatic tyres, by no means common at this time.

BUS - M Hulot

Slightly off-piste, but I just love the pose of your father, Malcolm, by his Model ‘T’ Ford. It reminds me of Jacques Tati’s ‘Monsieur Hulot’ and even me, I suspect, showing off my corporal’s stripes HERE:

Chris Hebbron


11/12/12 – 07:17

Firstly, apologies, my list is wrong in that BT 8777, was in fact numbered 54 not 64 by East Yorkshire.
The Chassis is definitely a Leyland, and the bodywork has a very striking resemblance to other early Leyland bodies. The destination reading "HULL & SUTTON" would indicate that it did pass to EY from Noel Thompson who was situated in the village of Sutton-on-Hull, it was at that time outside the city of Hull. My information on former owners is not at hand at the moment so I cannot comment on any former ownership of the vehicle. Finally it is good to see such a clear photo of such an early vehicle, well done.

Keith Easton


11/12/12 – 10:05

Well that was a bit of a struggle chaps, but it seems a consensus has been reached!

John Darwent


11/12/12 – 10:09

One small correction, Malcolm. Both the RAC and AA were providing roadside assistance from their inception (1897 and 1905 respectively) and the RAC campaigned successfully for the abolition of the man with the red flag walking in front of the car. Of course, how many patrols and where they were was another matter. It would certainly be practical for bus staff to be able to carry out minor repairs/adjustments/punctures where needed.

Chris Hebbron


11/12/12 – 11:32

Been looking at my dad’s Fleet list. He has 54 as BT 8981 Leyland A13 and 55 as BT 8777 Leyland A13, B26, New 7-23, ex Noel Thompson of Sutton. I am wondering if he has transposed these numbers by accident from another list. Luckily of course he has complete lists of the AT, BT and WF registration cards for the bus and carriers vehicles so it was easy to look in the BT list to see BT 8777 is chassis number 35638 later disposed to Peacock in Hull.[?] Handwritten notes, fun is! Curiously in some of the earlier photos Dad has there are several with staff and buses together, if I have time I will look to see if he is in any of them!
Apologies for another off piste swerve but I also love the Model T Ford, looks like a post 1915 Trafford Park built T. Clue is the black painted radiator. Great cars, electric lights, electric starter. I owned a later Tudor from 1926, not much different to this, no indicators, no brake lights, no speedo, no front wheel brakes! Happy motoring

Matt Gibbs


12/12/12 – 07:05

B004-53-THO

Please find attached a photo of Noel Thompson’s fleet prior to take over by East Yorkshire, buses are left to right: BT 9809, Dennis 2 1/2 ton 29 seats, (EY 53); BT 8981 Leyland A13, Leyland 26 seats (EY 55); BT 8777, Leyland A13, 26 seats (EY 54); the other three are unidentified, but appear to be a Vulcan (possibly BT 7852 EY 52?), and a Ford (possibly BT 8549) plus another totally unidentified.
I would be pleased if anyone could provide positive id’s for these. With regard to Matt’s comment: I took the numbers for 54 and 55 (BT 8981 & BT 8777 respectively) from the PSV Circle publication PB17 (page 7). If Matt has positive confirmation of the transposition, I would be pleased to amend my records.

Keith Easton


12/12/12 – 17:18

BT 9809_lr

The fleet numbers of BT 8777 & BT 8981 seem to be causing some confusion, my copy of PB17 show 54 as BT 8777, 55 is BT 8981 & 53 is BT 9809, but one thing I have noticed from all this is that EY must have fitted the ex Thompson vehicles with roof destination boxes as the original photo of 54 shows and I have sent a photo of 53 now fitted with a roof box.

Hope Ian is getting better and I am looking forward to the Bridlington book.

Mike Davies


13/12/12 – 06:27

Yes Mike, My copy agrees with that also. With regard to the fleet numbers 49 to 52 which are on my list, none of these numbers have been officially confirmed, and I have a short essay detailing how I arrived at the conclusions I came to. If anyone is interested I can supply a scanned copy of it.
Also may I add my wishes for Ian’s speedy recovery, I was sorry to learn of his illness on the site. (Not to mention his work on the Bridlington book, for all us Bridophiles).
According to Ians book on EY, my photo shows BT 9808, BT 8981, BT 8777, BT 7853, BT 4718, AT 6517 and BT 8549. I hope this is of interest.

Keith Easton


13/12/12 – 16:28

Malcolm Burnard’s comment that, in the 1920s, bus drivers had to have a good mechanical knowledge reminded me that, a few years ago, I came across an extract from the Drivers’ Rule Book issued in 1929 by Ribble Motor Services. In the hope that these may be of general interest, here are those referring to mechanical aspects.
Rule 4. Immediately after reporting for duty, drivers MUST obtain wheel-changing equipment (jack, bar and brace).
Rule 21. Drivers must, when coasting, listen for chassis and body noises; these can best be heard when the engine is running slowly.
Rule 22. Ask your conductor to inform you of such items as loose and noisy windows, squeaking pillars, loose and drumming panels, loose floor traps, etc.
Rule 23. Tighten up any bolts etc found to be loose.
Rule 40. Drivers must not, in any circumstances, interfere with or alter the adjustment of the carburettor or magneto, the only exception to this rule being if a bus has completely broken down a considerable distance from any of our garages and one of these two units is suspected. In this case the driver must do what he thinks necessary to get home.
Rule 41. If it becomes necessary to adjust your brakes on the road, make as little adjustment as possible, care being taken to see that the near and offside are adjusted evenly, and after this from time to time all brake drums are to be felt for undue heating. To enable him to fulfil these tasks, the driver was issued with a tool kit, which he was required to have with him whenever on duty. The kit comprised:- bag (1 no), hammer (1 no), punch (1 no), tube spanners (3 no), tommy bar (1 no), pliers (1 no), chisel (1 no), screwdriver (1 no), double ended spanners (3 no), piece of rubber tubing (1 no), 6" King Dick spanner (1 no).

David Williamson


14/12/12 – 07:10

David, I’m intrigued about this 6" King Dick spanner, what would it be used for?

Andrew


14/12/12 – 10:46

Thx, David, for the 1929 Rule Book extract, bound to bring a smile to our faces in this day and age. It’s a wonder that any bus ran to time in those days. I’ll bet they didn’t provide bath/shower facilities on return from duty.

The 6" King Dick spanner might have been used to beat the conductor with for reporting, endlessly, various rattles and squeaks! Other uses are best left to the imagination! Seriously, I have a couple of their spanners from when my father died, in 1947. KD are a very old company and I was surprised to find it still exists today, although I’ve never seen mention of them.

Chris Hebbron


14/12/12 – 16:24

I’m afraid I have no idea of the intended use of the KD spanner, or any of the other tools for that matter. I can’t imagine what a chisel would be used for, for example.
The same Rule Book had some ‘dress code’ rules, which seem rather quaint by today’s standards.
Rule 3. Drivers when on duty must be clean and neat in appearance, courteous in demeanour and language, not lounge about, nor read newspapers.
Rule 9. The wearing of clogs by drivers when on duty is forbidden.
The following items of uniform were supplied:- winter coat (1 no), summer coat (2 no), cap (1 no), cap cover (1 no), brass buttons (15 no). Note that shirts, ties and trousers were not provided by the company. Presumably the brass buttons were attached to the jackets, and the company wanted the same number returned when employment ended, hence they were itemised separately.

David Williamson


15/12/12 – 07:43

The brass buttons were quite likely of the type attached by inserting the loop on the back of the button through a small buttonhole and fastening the button with a spring peg through the loop. This meant that the buttons could be removed and polished without the polish being applied to the material of the garment, and also the garment could be washed without putting the buttons through the wash. 15 seems a large number for a single garment, so there may have been enough for both summer and winter coats.

Alan Murray-Rust


15/12/12 – 07:43

The rule forbidding the wearing of clogs by drivers persisted in some municipalities until quite late. Halifax Passenger Transport Department had a similar embargo in the mid 1960s, on road safety grounds. Anyone familiar with the traditional wooden soled clog will know that, whatever its qualities may be, proper control of accelerator, brake and clutch is not numbered amongst them.

Roger Cox


15/12/12 – 07:44

The mention of a tool kit for a bus reminded me that London Transport provided in the cab of the RT a saw presumably to saw through the life guard. I can not recall any other operator doing this.

Philip Carlton


15/12/12 – 11:57

In contrast to Halifax Passenger Transport, neighbouring Todmorden J.O.C. apparently allowed the wearing of clogs (or else turned a blind eye) and it continued with a small number of staff certainly through into the Yorkshire Rider era.

John Stringer


29/03/13 – 17:13

When I conducted for West Yorkshire in the early 1960s, "clogging it" was the term for driving a bus at maximum speed, e.g. on the last trip of the day back to town. I remember having difficulty trying to count my change while sat on the rear seat of the bottom deck as the driver clogged a 1937/8 rebodied K5G over potholes and cobbles, of which there were many in Keighley.

Martin S


30/03/13 – 07:30

Martin, I too have heard West Yorkshire staff use the term "cloggin’ it", as well as "trammin’ on", "goin’ full pelt", and "goin’ full belt" which similarly related to driving at top speed. The only time I was actually frightened whilst travelling on a bus, was as a thirteen year old on board a WY KSW. I was returning home to Harrogate from school in Bradford, and having a ‘Bradford – Harrogate’ bus pass, decided to break my journey in Otley to look around the bus station and nearby Sammie Ledgard depot. As the KSW was about to turn into Otley bus station, I was descending the stairs, unaware that the driver had suddenly decided to "clog it" around through the middle entrance ready for the return journey to Bradford. The centrifugal force was hair-raising, and I honestly thought I would literally be thrown off the bus. All I can say is that I was glad of the solidity of the handrail and its mountings, and my hitherto undiscovered vicelike grip on same! To add to my predicament, in those days I didn’t even know any decent swear words to use to let the conductor know of my concern!

Brendan Smith


07/09/14 – 08:00

6''%20%20King%20Dick%20spanner

The 6" King Dick spanner referred to in the list of tools is an adjustable one, as shown in the attached picture. They were used for bolt sizes not catered for by the 3 ordinary spanners provided, or if two of the same size were required, one to hold a bolt while the other tightened the nut.

Lloyd Penfold


08/09/14 – 06:30

Interesting tale, Brendan: whilst many drivers from various companies would clog on a bit on an open road (except Tracky as I suspect the buses wouldn’t) my jaundiced views on Tilling/West Yorkshire (see elsewhere) are coloured, too, by experience of some of their drivers who never seemed to want to be seen by other motorists as Knights of The Road.

Joe


17/10/14 – 05:14

I’ve just found Keith Easton’s photo of Noel Thompson’s fleet and recognise it as a different angle to one I have of the same occasion. My view shows vehicles to the right of BT 8777 to be Vulcan BT -983, Atlases BT 5226 – AT 6517 – BT —- and Ford BT 8549.

Steve Thompson


17/10/14 – 10:51

Hello Steve. Any chance we can have a look at your photo of Thompsons line up ?

Mike Davies


BT 8777_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


28/04/16 – 06:49

I’m sat with my Dad looking at the photo in question and will try to send you a copy. However Dad has the following info. Dad thinks Vulcan is BT7093 and belonged to W. Cyril Dixon and the destination is shown as Preston which is where Dixon came from, he was a partner with Noel Thompson. Dad thinks their idea being if they sold out to EY and had more buses/routes they may have got more money from the sale! Dixon owned another bus and possibly there is another photo in the old EY files possibly of this vehicle. Sadly littke is known of the elusive Dixon! Dad seems to remember seeing a photo (prob too expensive sine he didn’t buy it! ) of a ramshackle bus side view and that Dixon is in the photo. This photo of the Thompson fleet was seen on a stall at the Pudsey postcard fair in a large wooden frame for sale? Several years ago. Dad has an excellent scan copy of it but can’t remember who from. Apologies if it was you Keith but I have no access to his files at present.

Matt Gibbs

P.S. he’s thinking of working on a history of the Hessle operators!

 

Walsall Corporation – Sunbeam F4 – NDH 958 – 341

Walsall Corporation - Sunbeam F4 - NDH 958 - 341
Copyright Tony Martin

Walsall Corporation
1951
Sunbeam F4
Brush H30/26R

Former Walsall Corporation 341, by August 1970 owned by the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive, leaves Walsall Bus Station for Blakenhall. It is a Sunbeam F4 with much rebuilt Brush body and should be showing route 15. In the background is former Birmingham City 2593 registration JOJ 593, a 1951 MCW H54R bodied Guy Arab IV, transferred to Walsall in February 1970 with others to partially replace the trolleybuses, though it and its sisters were as old as the vehicles they replaced!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin


07/12/12 – 06:55

Nice view, Tony. Thanks for sharing. Others on this site have commented on the full front Vs half cab arrangement of motor buses, citing the amount the driver could or could not see on his nearside – among other factors – yet MOST trolley buses were full front.

Pete Davies


07/12/12 – 08:11

Just speculation but I wonder if the use of full fronts on most trolleybuses was to protect the control gear from water ingress as this was generally on the bulkhead where the engine would be on a motor bus.

Phil Blinkhorn


07/12/12 – 08:12

Surely, Pete, the driver of a Trolley knew that the nearside window was the limit of its width, whereas the problem in the half cab was that the front nearside corner disappeared if a high bonnet obscured the mudguards? Anyone know first hand? Presumably the mirror, if mounted on the nearside corner was a help. Do you remember when you, the driver, could see the front of your car?!

Joe


07/12/12 – 09:56

Actually, Joe, the discussion I remember was about how much less the driver could see with a full front! In the event, the rear engine came along, with the door directly opposite the driver, and the argument was stifled. There was a similar sort of discussion when I was working, and about half the folk who commented said they liked the tip-up seats in shelters and the other half hated them. They went off the market after too many people fell off and the makers’ insurance company jacked up the premium. In a way, I suppose, those who hated the things won.

Pete Davies


07/12/12 – 13:34

I wonder if the issue with full front buses was steaming up in that awkwardly inaccessible left hand cabin. This would probably be more of an issue with the rising emissions from internal combustion engines than the drier warmth from electrical machines. This would not be a problem with rear engine buses of course, and the passenger door gave easy access to the nearside front screen if necessary. I guess everyone will know that the original fleet of Notts & Derbys trolleybuses were half-cabs.

Stephen Ford


08/12/12 – 09:26

I have heard that the cabs of Walsall’s F4As, with their curved glass windscreens gave excellent visibility. There is one behind 341 above and my photo of 872 which is elsewhere on this site.

Tony Martin


08/12/12 – 09:27

A lot of early t/buses were halfcab, because they probably thought they should look like buses. Some even had fake radiators. The 1931 London ‘Diddlers’ were halfcab with a central headlamp on the bonnet front, a la trams!

Chris Hebbron


08/12/12 – 09:28

The Notts & Derby trolleybuses that Stephen refers to had the motor and associated electrical equipment under the bonnet (with ‘dummy’ radiator with the AEC/English Electric badge attached). The London United ‘Diddler’ trolleybuses also had the motor under the bonnet but no attempt was made to provide a ‘dummy’ radiator but there was a single headlamp in the panel where a radiator would have been. There were other instances of trolleybuses with half cabs – Birmingham Corporation for example. Most trolleybuses had the motor located between the chassis side members under the lower saloon floor with a short prop shaft to the rear axle. With this arrangement there was no need to provide a half cab arrangement and the nearside of the full width cab was usually taken up with the contactor cabinet, although some operators, like London Transport, opted to have the contactor cabinet mounted on the nearside of the chassis with access via flap in the vehicle’s ‘skirt’ (or ‘valance’ – depending on which term you choose to use).

Michael Elliott


25/04/18 – 05:41

In Bob Rowe’s new, 2018, book on Walsall Trolleybuses, there is a copy of the tender for the bodies of this batch. Especially interesting is that the Corporation specified that the seats should be covered in leather made in Walsall.

Tony Martin

 

Nottingham City Transport – Daimler Fleetline – 62 NAU – 62

Nottingham City Transport - Daimler Fleetline - 62 NAU - 62
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Nottingham City Transport
1962
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
Park Royal H77F

October 2012 saw the 50th anniversary of the introduction of rear engined buses by Nottingham City Transport. The subject of the image is a Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX, fleet number 62, registration number 62 NAU. It had a Park Royal H77F body. It was delivered new to NCT on 12.12.62 and entered service on 18.12.62. It is seen here at the Farnborough Road/Pastures Avenue, Clifton Estate, terminus of service 68 when new and is loading passengers for a journey to Broad Marsh Bus Station in Nottingham via Clifton Bridge (service 68 journeys operated by South Notts and West Bridgford UDC ran via Trent Bridge). The large Daimler badges with which 62 and others of the batch (nos 46 to 63) were fitted when delivered were quickly removed and replaced by a Daimler scroll, as there was an air intake at this location and the large badge partially obscured this. This year also saw, on 29th October, the 60th anniversary of the introduction of the joint service operated by NCT, South Notts and WBUDC to Clifton Estate, although the 68 was not introduced until 1956 when the initial development of the estate was nearing completion.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Michael Elliott

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.


04/12/12 – 15:44

50 NAU_lr

With reference to the posting above of 62 NAU when new, here is a view of one of her sisters, 50 NAU, towards the end of her working life. She is seen peering out of the doorway of the Burwell & District depot in Burwell on 25 August 1978. Nottingham’s livery always was one of the smarter ones and the view of 62 does it credit.

Pete Davies


04/12/12 – 16:58

This is a good example of a well applied livery helping to ease the rather brutal lines of the ‘Orion’ derived body design. The tasteful layout of the fleet name and the red wheels set off the green very well. I remember one of this batch coming to Rochdale to be shown to the Transport Committee in the Autumn of 1962. It was probably brand new and was parked outside the Town Hall along with the light blue AEC Renown demonstrator and the Leyland Atlantean demonstrator in Maidstone & District style green and cream. It was just after the 1962 Commercial Motor Show at which the Renown made its debut. Rochdale chose the Fleetline for its next double deck purchases.

Philip Halstead


05/12/12 – 07:39

Interestingly in Pete’s picture 50 NAU has a much more modern windscreen and front panel than 62 yet has retained, or had re-applied, the large Daimler badge.

Eric Bawden


05/12/12 – 07:40

As has been mentioned before on this site, Northern General allowed their subsidiaries a certain amount of independence when it came to vehicle buying and spec. Between 1960 and 62 Percy Main acquired 25 Leyland PDR1/1 Atlanteans, ‘9 Metro Cammell and 16 Roe’ but then while most of the rest of NGT were still ordering Leyland’s Percy Main switched to CRG6LX Daimler Fleetlines. Between 1963 and 68 they took delivery of 35 in total, the first two batches of 10 and 5 were MCW’s and the remaining 20 arrived in three batches of 7 – 3 and 10 and were all Alexander bodied. I could be wrong about this, but I believe orders for more were cancelled when NBC came into being, but from my experience of driving both the Fleetline was a far superior vehicle to the Atlantean, but like the AEC Reliance, the Bristol REL and the FRM Routemaster they didn’t fit into NBC and BL’s ‘master plan’

Ronnie Hoye


05/12/12 – 08:03

50 NAU was fitted with the 1964 pattern windscreen and dash arrangement following accident damage circa 1968/69. From memory it ran off the road on Carlton Hill and hit a house. At the time of the accident it was allocated to Bilborough Depot and was working a ‘works special’.

Michael Elliott


05/12/12 – 09:19

Peter mentioned he was sure someone would comment upon the newer front end on the Burwell vehicle. It looks to me like a ‘Manchester’ lower panel, as Birmingham had on some of theirs towards the end of 1966, but I had no idea why it should have been treated. Thank you, Michael, for enlightening us.

Ronnie, interesting comment about the freedom of operation in the NGT group. I suppose it is hardly surprising that the same degree of freedom seems to have filtered throughout what is now the ‘Go Ahead’ group. There has been discussion on this site in the past about the NBC and BL ‘master plan’, and we all know what happened to both!

Pete Davies


05/12/12 – 10:40

Philip, slightly off topic but was it my imagination that the lower deck window line on all of Rochdale’s Fleetlines was higher than normal or were the wheels smaller?
Compare www.flickr.com/
with www.sct61,org.uk/
Back to Nottingham, I often wonder if the department’s development of their own unique body style which, like the various developments or not were at least different and interesting to look at, was a reaction to the bland Orionism of early rear engined bodies or just a determination to be different.

Phil Blinkhorn


05/12/12 – 10:57

Pete, that’s not a Manchester panel, see www.sct61.org.uk/ for the differences

Phil Blinkhorn


05/12/12 – 11:55

Thank you, Phil B

Pete Davies


05/12/12 – 17:54

The Daimler badge fitted to 50 NAU was not the original `large` one, but the shorter version, common on most Fleetlines.
I found the appropriate part no. in the Fleetline parts list and ordered 4 from the local BL parts dealer, they duly arrived, price around £18 + VAT and were fitted to 50/53/61/3 NAU.
By the time 56 NAU arrived at Burwell, (via Ensign) I had secured a supply of the original `longer` badges that had been supplied to Walsall Corporation, but were too long to fit on the rounded front panels of their `short` Fleetlines.
I won`t reveal how much I paid, but it was less than £18 each! (I still have one wrapped in the original VERY sticky waxed paper)

Jim Neale


05/12/12 – 17:55

To answer Phil on the Rochdale Fleetlines, yes you are right they did have the lower saloon window line about a foot higher than normal. The reason was that despite the Fleetline having a drop-centre rear axle, Rochdale adopted a two step entrance with a high floor line throughout the lower saloon. In my view this had two negative affects. Firstly, it made the buses look very ungainly from a three-quarter front view and secondly, as the lower driving position was retained it put the driver in a very intimidating low position against boarding passengers. This must have been an especially uncomfortable position for drivers when later on these buses were used for opo with fare paying passengers towering above them. To me these were some of the ugliest buses ever built and massive contrast to the previous Regent V’s.

Philip Halstead


06/12/12 – 07:12

Thanks Philip. I always thought they were odd. I used to see them regularly in the 1960s and 1970s but was normally driving past them, so couldn’t study them closely, and I never rode on one.
They certainly were ungainly looking – not helped by the acres of cream paint, the SELNEC livery, for once did help a bit.

Phil Blinkhorn


06/12/12 – 11:46

Picking up the thread of Philip H’s comments on bad design. The safest layout for stairs on any type of double decker are those were you ascend towards the front of the vehicle. Worst that can happen if the driver anchors up sharply is that anyone on the stairs will either fall forwards if they’re going up, or end up on their backside if coming down, but it’s unlikely they will end up in a heap at the bottom. That said, for some reason know best to whoever ordered them, the second batch of MCW Daimler Fleetline’s delivered to Percy Main JFT 276/80, had the stairs going the other way, in the same case scenario people on the stairs will fall backwards or go head first base over apex, but the only way they can go is in the direction of down. As well as in my opinion being dangerous, the layout also reduced the seating capacity by three, so a bad idea all round I would have thought

Ronnie Hoye


03/10/20 – 10:34

I seem to remember that, when still quite new, 62 NAU became "The Pork Farms bus", with all advertising space (including LT-style adverts flanking the destination screen) devoted to the local Pork Pie manufacturer. Either this one or 63 carried a green/cream livery applied differently for a while – green lower panels/between deck panels and cream window surrounds and roof, if my memory serves me correctly.

I have just searched for on-line photos of 63 NAU, and it was this one that had the different (experimental?) livery application – proved by a Roy marshal picture in the Transport Library.

Terry Walker

 

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