Old Bus Photos

Chiltern Queens – AEC Reliance – 474 FCG

Chiltern Queens - AEC Reliance - 474 FCG

Chiltern Queens
1963
AEC Reliance 4MU3RA
Park Royal C49F

This AEC Reliance of Chiltern Queens is seen outside Reading General Station on 9 September 1981. I don’t know anything about her, but I suspect she came from Aldershot & District. I’m sure someone will advise.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


24/09/15 – 06:07

480 FCG

Yes, this is one of the batch of fifteen such vehicles delivered to Aldershot & District in 1963, though the first one, 466 FCG, was displayed at the 1962 Earls Court Show. A&D always had a small engine policy, and these 36ft long coaches had the 7.685 litre AH470 engine driving through the Thornycroft designed six speed constant mesh gearbox. The correct chassis designation for these vehicles is 4MU4RA. Despite their modest power, these coaches were nice to drive provided one took the trouble to treat the gearbox with respect. In 1966 came a further batch of five 49 seat Reliance coaches of very similar appearance, though this time the bodies were built by Weymann, and the 6MU3RA chassis employed the then new 8.2 litre AH505 engine driving through the AEC five speed synchromesh gearbox. The picture shows the last of the earlier batch, 480 FCG, in a dark green and cream livery, leading 467 FCG through Farnborough on an excursion to Hampton Court in 1969. This must have been a hot day as both vehicles are in motion with the doors open, a practice that was then, as now, illegal.

Roger Cox


24/09/15 – 16:17

Thank you, Roger. It has always puzzled me a bit that Chiltern Queens, as with a number of other operators, had completely different liveries for buses and coaches, rather than the ‘reversed’ style. Their choice, of course!

Pete Davies


24/09/15 – 16:18

I’m sure Roger Cox knows a lot more than me about these things, but was it illegal to have the doors open while in motion? Some London Transport RFs had no doors while plenty of rear entrance deckers had either no doors or had manually operated ones that were rarely closed especially on town services.

Nigel Turner


24/09/15 – 16:19

Roger’s comment about the legality of running with doors open highlights the sometimes absurdity of UK legislation when one considers that the Metropolitan Police for years banned doors on another type of front entrance single decker – LT’s Central area RFs

Phil Blinkhorn


25/09/15 – 06:30

Comparing the two photos in this thread, someone had done a great deal of work changing the trim and the window vents.

Phil Blinkhorn


25/09/15 – 06:30

These have a passing resemblance to some Roe bodied Reliances of at around the same time although they were 30ft dual entrance examples.
The Metropolitan Police were a very conservative outfit being reluctant to sanction pneumatic tyres covered tops and even cab doors!

Chris Hough


26/09/15 – 06:00

On the question of doors on buses, the regulation seems to have been that, if fitted, these had to be closed when vehicles were in motion. This then raises the matter of conductor/hand operated doors at the rear of double deckers so fitted, which were regularly seen open in service owing to the impracticability of the conductor being able to operate them at every stop. In real life, the rules seem to have been enforced as much by each company’s disciplinary system as by the law. In London, the Metropolitan Police were always reactionary in their non acceptance of new engineering technology. To the list given by other contributors may be added four wheel brakes.
Phil has raised an interesting point about the greatly modified trim and fittings worn by the Chiltern Queens machine. A&D were very fond of Auster windows as seen on the Reliances in their original form, but replacing these with sliding vents would not have been a major task. The bodywork is another matter, however, and one wonders why anyone would go to such trouble. Not only have the trim lines been repositioned and the bumper removed, but the headlamps have been repositioned also. Unless this vehicle suffered front end damage necessitating a rebuild at some point in its life, the whole exercise must have been of decidedly dubious cost effectiveness.

Roger Cox


27/09/15 – 05:48

Looking around on Flickr the history of 474 FCG is confusing. It ran originally with headlamps as delivered to Aldershot and District but was later rebuilt as Roger noted and seen above. In the early shots the ventilators have all been replaced but in at least one later shot it had managed to acquire one of the Auster vents back. They also had 478 FCG (at least) which had the headlamp modification too, but on which only half the ventilators were replaced. It’s worth noting that both had their original coach seating replaced by bus seating.

David Beilby


27/09/15 – 05:49

If you look at the photo of the Chiltern Queens vehicle carefully, you will see that it has also been fitted with two piece power doors. The front dash appears to be a replacement of the original. I am therefore wondering if A&D (or AV) did in fact carry out the modifications themselves, when the vehicle was downgraded from coach work?
Ironically, the Captcha code I had to enter here included the letters "DP"!

Nigel Frampton


28/09/15 – 07:02

Initially, I thought that the 4MU3RA chassis designation in the heading was an error, as this batch of coaches were delivered to A&D as the 4MU4RA type. However, given the extensive alterations subsequently made, I wonder if the Thornycroft six speed constant mesh gearbox in 474 FCG might have been replaced with the five speed AEC synchromesh box, which would have been much easier to use on normal bus work.

Roger Cox


29/09/15 – 07:02

Looking through Buses magazine April 1975, under Alder Valley it was reported that "AEC Reliance 338 (474 FCG) a 1963 vehicle with Park Royal DP49F bodywork has been sold to Chiltern Queens, Woodcote". Buses magazine also records further ‘FCG’ withdrawals in 1976: 336 (472 FCG) with C49F bodywork, which went to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Crowthorne; 337/8 (473/80) also reported as C49F; fire-damaged 370 (466 FCG) which was recorded as being DP49F. It would appear that some of the batch were converted at some point to dual-purpose vehicles, which may explain the revised trim on 474 FCG. However, on Flickr ‘hivemind’ there are two photos which show 474 FCG operating for Chiltern Queens with and without folding doors. Unfortunately they are both offside shots, but no folding doors are visible on the black and white photo, whereas they are on the colour view. So it would appear that the powered door conversion, and probably the bus seats conversion, were carried out while the Reliance was with Chiltern Queens. Unless as the saying goes "someone knows otherwise!".
Reliance 474 FCG can be viewed at this link:
http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/474fcg,parkroyal/Interesting

Brendan Smith


03/10/15 – 13:37

On the question of the legality of leaving doors open while the bus was in motion, I have no idea. The LT Central area RFs were without doors and I was working in the PSV section of the Metropolitan Traffic Area in 1963 or 1964 when a call came through saying that a passenger had been killed alighting from an RF while the bus was moving. At that time, it was common for many, usually male, passengers to jump off as the bus was coming to a stop. That was OK with rear entrance and forward entrance vehicles, but the front entrance RF was turning left at the time and the front nearside wheel was sticking out and caught the poor man before the driver could stop. Horrible! I only hope it was quick.

David Wragg


07/10/15 – 06:29

This might be something on which Chris Youhill could comment: in response to complaints about poor ventilation/over-heating in Leeds’s (fixed/panoramic-windowed) 33ft "Jumbos"/"Tommy Lord Boxes" the GM, Tom Lord, informed the "Evening Post" that in hot weather drivers would be allowed to run with the front doors open . . . a stiff reprimand from the Traffic Commissioner’s Office followed.

Philip Rushworth


07/10/15 – 15:49

Talking about poor ventilation, last year I travelled on a new Blackpool tram. It was May and not an unduly warm day, but the tram was uncomfortably warm and I noticed the conductors were in shirts//blouses. When I remarked that aircon would have been useful, especially as it was electrically driven, they said that the drivers’ cabs were going to be fitted with it, but not the passenger compartments!

Chris Hebbron


08/10/15 – 07:20

That’s quite correct, Mr Hebbron – the passengers don’t matter to most operators. After all, they only keep the firm going and pay the wages!

Pete Davies


09/10/15 – 07:24

Neither do they care about the conductors, Pete D, who have to work on the trams all the time, whereas the passengers do, at least, get on and off!

Chris Hebbron


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

Economic Bus Service – AEC Reliance – 8031 PT – 5

Economic Bus Service - AEC Reliance - 8031 PT - 5

Economic Bus Service - AEC Reliance - 8031 PT - 5

Economic Bus Service
1962 Economic
AEC Reliance 4MU3RA
Plaxton B55F

The fad for changing registrations – for whatever reason – strikes again. 8031 PT is a 1962 AEC Reliance 4MU3RA with Plaxton B55F body, built for Economic of Whitburn, Tyneside We see in the rear view that there is an alternative plate, WNL259A. Seen in Showbus at Duxford on 28 September 2008.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


22/09/15 – 07:11

There has to be reason for this registration change, rather than a fad. Surely no owner would want to despoil their vehicle in this manner. If any owner does not keep up the Road Fund Licence on the vehicle or declare SORN, then its registration can easily be lost and if thats were the case, its nigh on impossible to reclaim it as the DVLA would then only issue an Age Related Mark, as we see here. Perhaps there is another reason but I think this the most likely.

Mike Norris


22/09/15 – 13:48

Mike, thank you for your comment. I was thinking in particular of those operators who change their normal UK registration to a Northern Ireland one, or a so-called ‘cherished’ one to disguise the age of the vehicle, rather than those which have been off the road for some while.

Pete Davies


22/09/15 – 13:49

I always thought that small coach operators did this to disguise a second (or third…) hand vehicle bought with a year letter. Plaxton or Van Hool bodies did not otherwise date a lot (for example) and this is why we had so many seemingly N.Irish registered coaches.
This has rebounded a bit here as A regs were I think, quite rare?

Joe


23/09/15 – 06:42

"A" reg (1963) was quite rare because only a limited number of Counties or Boroughs had run out of registrations. Some more came on board with year letters in ’64 and the year letter "C" (’65) was the first year when it became universal.

John Lomas


23/09/15 – 06:44

The re-registration might not have had anything to do with the preservationist who I’m pretty sure would have considered the original registration to have been very much the ‘fabric’ of his/her pride and joy. Mike is correct regarding the non-use of a registration number renders it lost.
The original registration of this bus would have been worth a reasonable amount of money and may have been sold and re-used on another vehicle before the bus was sold into preservation and as a result, without tracing the current owner of the plate and paying a princely sum to buy it back, they would have to settle for what DVLA would assign – like the ‘A’ suffix plate now carried. Another option, if one didn’t like the latter style, would be to perhaps try and buy a lower cost dateless plate the likes of which are often seen in magazine and newspaper adverts and on the internet. WSV*** plates can be seen on preserved vans and cars. These look near enough right and in keeping with those types of vehicle but in the bus world they are second best because the enthusiast world knows a lot more about what registration numbers are what. (As I write I have just searched on the internet for a ‘low cost’ dateless registration plate and see that it would be around £600-700 for a number plate with an ‘X’ in it like 790 XUU (not as widely sough after as initials as there are few personal names beginning with ‘X’ and ‘U’ I suppose).
Quite a lot of London Routemaster number plates were sold during the latter days of those buses being in service. I used to regularly see a couple of big and shiny BMW cars bearing plates once carried by Routemasters (456 CLT and VLT 115 if I recall correctly which would be from RMC1456 and RM 115 respectively). If a preservationist had for example bought one of those re-registered buses the true number would now be in the hands of a private user and unless the preservationist could track down the current owner of the plate, have substantial cash and then do a good deal, he/she would have to settle on a near alternative. (As I write I have just searched on the internet for a VLT registration and see that VLT 71 from former RM71 is available for £4275! The same site has VLT 10, VLT 17 and VLT 259 available but you have to call in for a price – that suggests they will cost quite a few quid!!)
A possible example of settling for a close alternative, although I am not sure if I am correct with my assumption, is the preserved former Northern General Routemaster RCN 699 which became PCN 762. See http://www.nebpt.co.uk/index.asp?pg=31 which states that ‘This vehicle originally carried registration number RCN 699. It was re-registered as EDS 508B and later given the number it now carries, PCN 762, another Gateshead registration from the same period’.
A modern day commercial coach operator wishing to disguise the true age of a coach would be able to buy a quite low cost Northern Ireland plate from the aforementioned website for only £49. This is peanuts to them really if it means that the passengers don’t then know just how old the coach they have hired really is. It is true to say that one of the prime reasons for operators putting dateless number plates on their vehicles was/is because the public would moan like nobody’s business if anything other than ‘this year’s coach’ turned up for them even though it might have cost around £300k or maybe more only a few months before. Adding a £600-700 ‘XUU’ plate on such a vehicle is worthwhile (but perhaps it should be left until the current year number is old hat). Park’s of Hamilton is an operator that has been into dateless number plates in a very big way for many years. Their collection of ‘HSK’ plates has been used over and over.
Is it me or does the current system of using year identifier numbers like 14, 54, 15, 55, 16 etc not have quite the same impact as it used to when we used ‘year letters’?

David Slater


23/09/15 – 06:44

Answer to mystery of registration plate 8031 PT/WNL 259A. The history of this coach is new to Economic Sunderland in 1962 spent its entire service life with them.
Coach was sold to local Tyneside Jazz Band where the original registration was unfortunately sold on, date unknown no known name of purchaser either.
In 1985 coach was purchased by Purvis Brothers of Seaburn Sunderland ( Alan & John ) it was restored in 1989 -1994.
A photo during restoration dated 1991 shows coach with registration of WNL259A. The plate being white with Black lettering and numbers in another of Peter Davis previous posting this figuration of number plate was raised.
After restoration and later shown on the rally circuit coach is next seen in 1997 at Wetherby here it is showing the registration plate 8031PT a black plate with White lettering and numbers.
At a show at Seaburn Sunderland in 2006 the coach was in ownership of Robin Hawdon of Gainsborough showing WNL 259A ( Ex 8031PT) from which no further details can be found. It would appear and it is only assumption that the plate seen on the coach at Wetherby 8031PT was to show coach as it was originally however as the Purvis Brothers drove their restored coaches to shows this would clearly show to be incorrect assumption.Well known in the preservation society the brothers may well have repurchased the registration whilst retaining WNL259A this enabling them to interchange plates.

Alan Coulson


24/09/15 – 05:58

From information I have about this bus it is reregistered WNL 259A & displays this when on the road to rallies & the owners have 8031 PT plates which are temporarily fixed when off the public highway, I saw it at Wakefield in 2013 with 8031 PT on the front & WNL 259A on the rear!

Keith Clark


24/09/15 – 05:58

One other thought, prompted by something Alan wrote, was that during the time the former Northern General Routemaster carried EDS 508B as its official registration for use on the roads, that plate was covered up with a ‘display plate’ bearing its original number RCN 699 whilst on show at a rally. It might be the same situation with regard to the Economic bus seen at the Sunderland rally in 2006 perhaps displaying 8031 PT on a ‘show plate’.

David Slater


24/09/15 – 05:58

Thank you for your further comments, folks.

Pete Davies


24/09/15 – 16:12

Yes, it shows PT on the front . . .

Pete Davies


24/09/15 – 16:13

Today 24/Sept/15 I have found photo of 8031PT showing to Hoults’ of Newport, East Yorkshire more research is needed if found I will post ASAP may fit in between Byker Jazz Band and Purvis restoration coach is seen in same livery. I ask does anyone know of Hoults, in picture it looks like it could be used as building contractors bus or a owner driver ferrying coal miners.

Alan Coulson


25/09/15 – 06:26

8031 PT did pass to Holt of Newport in October 1976 and was used as a PSV by Holt until July 1977. I saw it stored with DTE 772B in the Gilberdyke area circa 1978/9. I have a note of DTE being noted under tow in York in February 1979.

David Hick


25/09/15 – 06:27

Alan, 8031PT was with J.A.Holt (Holt’s Coaches) of Main Street, Newport, Brough, East Yorkshire until 1978 when it passed to Byker & St Peter’s Jazz Band.
It was re-registered to WNL295A in January 1985, the month that it was acquired by the Purvis brothers.
The registration 8031PT is currently on a Nissan X-Trail, presumably owned by someone with the initials PT.
I would guess that the PT registration was sold when it was with the Jazz Band, and that the Purvis brothers had to apply for the WNL-A registration in order to get it back on the road.

Dave Farrier


26/09/15 – 05:57

Transdev Keighley are in the process of upgrading the vehicles designated for the 662 Shuttle Service (Keighley – Bradford) and as well as interior re-furb Wi-Fi etc they have applied a pleasing blue livery and re-registered this 2005 batch with Northern Ireland plates bearing all or part of their fleet numbers.
On a separate subject I also note that they seem to have abandoned the constantly scrolling destination screen displays opting for a simple fixed ultimate destination in most cases other than on service 66 to Skipton which has a scrolling message advertising the newly increase frequency.

Gordon Green


28/09/15 – 07:05

David Hick/Dave Farrier. Thank you for your notes.
David the photo I saw see’s 8031 on snow covered ground in Chucklebuster photostream date unknown. I have asked for date/place, a dealers yard maybe.
Coach is next to OBE 582E showing to McMasters albeit in a distressed state (OBE) that is.
BLOTW, under the More button is 73 photo’s of 0831 PT also listed as Everyone’s photo’s.
Northernblue109 shows a fictional image of this coach to a PTE Tyne & Wear in Yellow livery.
David/Dave from your notes I suspect photo in Chucklebusters to be dated pre-1978 as it went to Holts in October 1976 thus giving indication of when photo was taken,I am awaiting confirmation of exact date.

Alan Coulson


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

Maidstone & District – AEC Reliance – 3 YKK – S 3

Maidstone & District - AEC Reliance - 3 YKK - S 3

Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd
1963
AEC Reliance 2U3RA
Willowbrook B53F

S 3 was among Maidstone & Districts first 36ft long vehicles being an AEC Reliance 2U3RA with a Willowbrook B53F body delivered in September 1963 as part of a batch of four, the body was to the early BET design with a curved rear dome and the four piece flat glass windscreen. The style of which was later fitted with first the curved windscreen and later still the peaked rear dome, overall I did like the BET design. The distinctive Maidstone & District livery always looked good on any type of body, with it’s cream ‘moustache’ below the windscreen and cream bands below and above the side windows, that above the windows having a subtle light green edging which combined with the dark green main colour looked pure class. This was one of very many fine liveries lost to NBC’s corporate dead hand (and head) now only seen at rallies etc. Todays colour schemes, I refuse to call them liveries, nearly all scream TAT, never CLASS, there that is my rant for today!!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave


24/08/15 – 06:04

I agree entirely Dave about modern colour schemes. I’ve just been to Blackpool for the first time in many years and the once smart fleets of cream and green buses and trams have been replaced by a mish-mash of black and yellow on the buses and purple and white on the new trams. To compound the felony most of the vehicles in both fleets are festooned in hideous adverts all over the vehicles including the windows. There were two of the Balloon trams running on the day of my visit on Heritage Tours in the original liveries and again compared to the modern stuff they looked sheer class.

Philip Halstead


25/08/15 – 06:19

PMT had two similar batches of buses, ten like this on AEC Reliance chassis, the other ten on early Leyland Leopards. They squeezed in 54 seats (I seem to remember an inward facing single behind the entrance door). Thinking back, they must have been a bit cramped for leg room or maybe people were smaller generally in those days. I agree entirely that the later BET design with curved front and rear windows was a true classic – even this version had a touch of class about it.

Ian Wild


26/08/15 – 05:50

NGT’s Percy Main depot ‘Tynemouth & District’ had two 49 seat D/P versions from 1962, FFT 812/3 – 262/3. They were on a Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R chassis. On Saturdays during the summer months, drivers on 0800 spare would often find themselves doubled up with a Northern driver doing a Dup to Blackpool. The bodies were stylish and well built, and the Leyland wasn’t a bad vehicle, however, I always found them to be a bit on the clumsy side, perhaps it was the low sitting position, or the lack of power steering.

Ronnie Hoye


26/08/15 – 05:50

One of these days someone with clout within the hierarchy of a significant operator, is going to (1) tell the PR/Marketing gurus to go and play with an alligator, (2) bring back a modest dignified livery, not invented by "Toys R We", and (3) restore windows (and former window apertures), to the purpose for which they were invented – looking through! He (or she) might even throw out stupid punning route descriptions, and substitute a series of proper route numbers that starts at 1 and carries on until all the routes have been covered – usually without getting anywhere near the 3-digit variety, let alone the 500, 600, 700 etc. series.

Stephen Ford


26/08/15 – 17:24

And so say all of us, Stephen.

David Wragg


26/08/15 – 17:24

Absolutely spot on, Stephen, and magnificently put.

Steve Crompton


27/08/15 – 06:36

I fully understand what Stephen F means. But let’s not forget that traditional London Transport used route numbers up to the 700s well before this site’s 1970 date. It seems that 1-199 were red bus routes, 200-299 were single-deck routes, 300-499 were green bus routes, 500-699 were trolleybus routes, and 700-799 were Green Line routes. At the trolleybus conversions, though, some were renumbered into the 200 series. Southdown also had an "area scheme" for their route numberings, such as the 40’s in the Portsmouth area, and the 50’s in Chichester and Bognor. If these overran, the equivalent 100 series were used. But there were no 200’s until after NBC took a hand, and 700’s were used for Limited Stop services. I remember BMMO and Crosville had letter prefixes to some services for local areas. So although there may be a case for using low numbers for bus routes, not all traditional bus companies followed that philosophy forty or fifty years ago!

Michael Hampton


27/08/15 – 10:45

Portsmouth Corporation befuddled many a holidayer by giving some routes a different route number for each direction – 18 one way and 19 on the return, for example. But, later, it stopped doing this, leaving two systems in place. As for route suffixes, it used them for the same route, but shortened sections. The highest I recall was the 143 which went up to 143F! Stagecoach West, my local operator, however, uses them for deviations on a basic route.

Chris Hebbron


27/08/15 – 17:06

Quite right Michael and Chris. Obviously big operators will in any case need to go into the hundreds. Midland Red was an obvious example (Lichfield-Stafford route 825 etc), and so were Western/Southern National. In my own local area the much-lamented Midland General used a letter followed by single digit number, which would in theory have given them up to 234 two-digit route descriptions – though, in fact, they never got beyond letter G! It seems strange that in the deregulated/privatised bus scene route numbers can be dictated by the dead hand of local government, because the public are not credited with enough intelligence to distinguish between a red number 25 and a blue number 25. Of course, it would help if all the buses operated by a particular operator were painted blue, or red, or whatever instead of random daubings of ginger-pink with yellow stripes (which is where I came in!…)

Stephen Ford


27/08/15 – 17:07

With the creation of T&W PTE, control of all services wholly, or where the majority of the route was within the boundaries of Tyne and Wear passed to the PTE. These services were operated by the former Corporation fleets of Newcastle, South Shields and Sunderland, as well as NGT group companies and United, and several independents who ran unnumbered routes. Having gained control, the PTE in their wisdom or otherwise decided that no two routes within their area would have the same number, and regrdless of company, all vehicles on those routes would share a common livery. Former Newcastle routes remained more or less unaltered, numbers where then anything from 100 to 800 groupings, depending on the area. I suppose it made sense to someone, but the public didn’t like it at all, especially in areas which had previously been served by several different companies, all of whom had a different livery.

Ronnie Hoye


27/08/15 – 17:08

Just a small point. The route pairings on Portsmouth Corporation were different. 18/19 was not a route pair although 17/18 and 19/20 were. (Personally I always found this system more convenient than the the usual bi-directional system.)
Incidentally, route numbers such as 143 covered journeys outside the city boundary and were from the Southdown series. Thankfully, there are now many books available covering the Portsmouth Corporation system for those looking for further information.

Andy Hemming


28/08/15 – 06:52

I should have known better than to mix up two trolleybus routes on which travelled frequently, Andy. Thanks for correcting me.
I should also have mentioned, originally, that the corporation’s ‘local’ bus routes were lettered, too. The 1xx series, logically, covered areas some miles outside Portsmouth (Leigh Park, for example) and into Soouthdown territory, to which their buses could go, as they were building developments created especially for ex-Portsmouth residents displaced by wartime bombing.

Chris Hebbron


28/08/15 – 06:54

Philip, I have just been to Blackpool and I noticed some slightly smarter newer buses which are Grey with Lemon though of course their dark tinted windows tend to look blackish, much nicer than the Black and Yellow, but horror of horrors they have some of the heritage trams in that Purple, I hadn’t noticed them on previous visits. Bolton 66 was out and running on the limited stop heritage rides today.

John Lomas


28/08/15 – 06:54

The difference between a red 25 and a blue 25? Well, In the 1950’s/60’s, Southdown managed to run two routes designated 38! Fortunately they were about 50 miles apart, as one was in Brighton, the other in Portsmouth, so never the twain met. I haven’t checked this, but I think the Brighton one was eventually run by BH&D after the BATS scheme came into operation. Did any other of the larger companies have a pair of routes within their territory with the same number, but separated by a fair distance?

Michael Hampton


29/08/15 – 06:51

Manchester, up until the end of the trams, had trams, trolleybuses and buses, all with the same route number running through the city centre, all serving different destinations.

Phil Blinkhorn


01/09/15 – 07:37

You also had the phenomenon of a joint service on which each operator used a different number, e.g. Huddersfield – Bradford, where for a number of years Hebble used 12, Huddersfield JOC 38 and Bradford 64, or Gloucester – Hereford, where Bristol used 55 and Red & White 38.

Geoff Kerr


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

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 Saturday 6th February 2016