Old Bus Photos

Bury Corporation – Guy Wulfrunian – LEN 101 – 101

Bury Corporation - Guy Wulfrunian - LEN 101 - 101

Bury Corporation
1961
Guy Wulfrunian
Roe H43/30F

LEN 101 was the solitary Guy Wulfrunian purchased by Bury Corporation in 1961.(Fleet number 101.) It had Roe H43/30F bodywork, but carried a Park Royal manufacturers’ plate. This was to allow it to be exhibited at the 1960 Commercial Motor Show; as the Roe stand already had enough exhibits, there being strict limits on the number of vehicles each manufacturer was allowed to display. It had another unique feature, three part platform doors. Bury Corporation ran the Wulfrunian for only three years, and for much of this time it was relegated to peak hour use. It was sold to an independent operator in South Wales, Howell and Withers, who painted it grey and white, but only operated it for a short time before selling the bus to Wrights, Penycae in August 1964. Wrights operated it on their stage service into Wrecsam for five years.. Wrights painted the bus into this attractive two tone blue livery. It was with Wrights that I had my only ride on this bus. Eventually LEN 101 was sold again, this time to Berresfords of Cheddleton, who operated the bus for only a few days. Apparently drivers complained about the heavy steering; so proprietor Jim Berresford took it for a test drive, after which he dumped it in the field behind the Depot, where this photo was taken.
The Wulfrunian was eventually rescued by a group of preservationists from the Manchester area, with the intention of restoring it to Bury Corporation’s light green and cream livery. It was parked in the yard at the rear of Manchester’s Hyde Road depot, which was used for initial training by the PTE’s driving school. Sadly, one of the training buses reversed into the Wulfrunian, and it’s body was written off.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown


27/11/14 – 06:21

Apart from the grilles for the Cave-Brown-Cave system, the really fascinating thing about this bus is what on earth prompted Bury, a Leyland/AEC operator to plump for a Guy and without the Leyland engine option Guy offered. Further, how did the purchase slip past the Transport Committee.

Phil Blinkhorn


27/11/14 – 14:15

Looking at its one-off status and commercial motor show exhibit background, followed by Bury’s operational lack of enthusiasm, this may have been an offer that they couldn’t refuse, but then didn’t quite know what to do with it.

Stephen Ford


27/11/14 – 17:23

LEN 101_3

Further to Don McKeown’s post on the Bury Corporation Wulfrunian LEN 101, I attach a picture of it after being damaged in the Training School yard at Manchester’s Hyde Road Depot.
It was apparently a Mancunian which did the damage.
This picture is from my collection and is not my copyright.

Stephen Howarth


28/11/14 – 06:41

I think it is easy to overlook the high level of interest shown in the Wulfrunian at the time of its introduction. Operators were looking for a forward entrance high capacity bus but there was a lot of nervousness about the rear engine concept offered in the Atlantean. The two demonstrators were kept very busy and appeared with many of the large operators.
Bury was just about to start on a major fleet update to replace their fleet of early post-war PD1’s and PD2’s and 101 was probably bought as a test bed for a potential replacement vehicle. They could have saved a lot of money and heartache if they had taken one of the demonstrators for a spell.
I remember 101 with Bury and it seemed to spend most of its life parked by the doorway of the Rochdale Road garage. I was told by one of the fitters that it was disliked by drivers because of the heavy steering and very cramped cab. I did see it in service on the 9 (Jericho – Tottington) and 37 (Walmersley – Whitefield) occasionally.
It is a great pity that it was damaged in the collision at Hyde Road as despite its failings, it was a key part of the transport heritage of the north west. I believe the chassis still exists at Dewsbury Bus Museum. Can anyone confirm?

Philip Halstead


28/11/14 – 06:46

LEN 101_2

The chassis still survives, and is currently parked among undergrowth at a preservation site near Selby, where it is owned by Mr. Ian Hunter of Leeds. The above photo shows the chassis as it was in the summer of 2014.

Don McKeown


28/11/14 – 14:36

I am pleased to see that this rare chassis still survives, I hope it can be restored before it rusts away. I’m sure the steering will not feel so heavy without the bodywork.

Ron Mesure


29/11/14 – 07:16

I’ve got it in my head that Wright’s of Penycae were not the second Welsh independent to operate LEN 101, but the third. I could even suggest a third operator’s name – can anyone confirm?
As to why Bury didn’t insist on the use of one of the demonstrators (are we sure they didn’t have one?), the borrowing of a manufacturer’s demonstrator wasn’t something which was as easy as people probably imagine. A manufacturer needed to be sure there was an order in the offing before a demonstrator became a possibility. I have actually been in an operator’s office when the operator asked the rep if there was any possibility of having a vehicle on demonstration, and the response was an emphatic ‘no’.
As to whether the use of a demo would have helped depends upon how quickly the Wulfrunian’s failings made themselves felt. In view of how quickly operators generally disposed of them the answer would appear to be, very quickly indeed, yet West Riding continued to buy them until 1965.
Were West Riding simply stubbornly reluctant to admit they’d made a mistake, or were they obliged to buy a certain number as part of the original deal?

David Call


30/11/14 – 06:33

I remember in the 60`s Bury did have an Atlantean from Coventry, it was in the colours of Coventry, Blue with a white band. It was a surprise as I was going home from my then girlfriend from Bolton to Bury, I remember the driver telling me it was on loan from Coventry. I remember LEN 101, it seems a shame lying in the under growth with no body.

David Henighan


30/11/14 – 09:55

I know you can’t always rely on Wiki, but, the Wulfrunian article on there says that it was developed jointly by Guy and West Riding.

John Lomas


01/12/14 – 07:12

If that was the training bus that did the damage, then I’m hardly surprised that the poor trainee didn’t have full control of the Macunian. From the photo, it doesn’t look as though it’s got an engine !

Petras409


01/12/14 – 07:13

Referring to Philip Halstead’s post, scroll down here for several views of LEN 101 including one in colour of the bus on the 37 Whitefield. http://jsh1949.co.uk/GUY%20WULFRUNIAN.htm

John Darwent


01/12/14 – 07:14

In the book ‘Forgotten Double Deckers’ by David Harvey there is a section on the Guy Wulfrunian and a piece that reads:
Quote
The Development of the "Wulfrunian"
Guy Motors were going to be left behind in the race to develop an up-to-date low height 30′ long chassis, until West Riding Motors of Wakefield, at the instigation of their chief engineer, Ron Brooke, approached Guys with an advanced specification for such a chassis.
Unquote

David Slater


01/12/14 – 07:15

In the mid 1950s, following the lead of General Motors in the USA, whose GMC type 4104 air suspended Scenicruiser had been adopted by Greyhound from 1953, Guy Motors became convinced that the future for successful passenger chassis sales lay in air suspension. This initial interest led to the underfloor engined Victory, which had air suspension all round, independent at the front, and air hydraulic disc brakes. The first Victory appeared in 1958, and during the model’s development, Ron Brooke, the Chief Engineer of West Riding, approached Guy with the idea of a low frame double deck chassis incorporating the air suspension features of the Victory, but employing a simple, straight drive line from a front mounted engine. This, it was thought, would give a reliable drive line and permit the entire interior of the lower deck to be used for passenger accommodation. At this time the early Atlanteans were suffering extreme problems with their rear engines/gearboxes and angled drive lines. It would seem that he had hawked his ideas round other manufacturers to no avail (I bet that all those sceptical makers breathed huge sighs of relief when the Wulfrunian’s troubles came home to roost). West Riding was a confirmed user of Gardner engines in its Arab fleet, and the 6LX was chosen as the power unit of the new Wulfrunian. Though not a heavy engine in comparison with its contemporaries from other UK manufacturers, the 6LX was physically large, and positioning it as far to the offside as possible to allow a respectable platform area resulted in a very narrow cab and footwell. To add to the driver’s woes, his/her left leg was unavoidably positioned hard against the engine cover panel, on the far side of which was the Gardner’s offside exhaust assembly. Because of the substantial weight at the extreme front of the overhang, the front wheels had a remarkable negative camber that contributed to the very heavy steering characteristics. The shrouding by the bodywork of the disc braking system sometimes caused the hydraulic fluid to boil, leading to a frightening loss of response. The subsequent history of the Wulfrunian’s operational career is well known, but it is surprising that the deficiencies of the design were not recognised and acted upon in the prototype stages. Looking at the chassis diagrams, it would seem that an answer might have been found by following the AEC ‘Q’ concept, and repositioning the engine to the offside close behind the front wheels. The transmission line would have had to be moved a bit, but the rest of the chassis could have stayed the same. The use of full air rather than air hydraulic for the brakes would have sorted out the braking problem at a stroke. Several modifications were made during the production run to try to fix the problems that arose, but the firm just ran out of money. We now know that Guy was already in severe financial difficulties at this time, following its agency debacle in South Africa, so it just stuck with a flawed design that had gained definite orders from West Riding, and turned a blind eye to the inevitable outcome.

Roger Cox


01/12/14 – 09:55

Petras409, either the photo or Stephen’s comment is misleading. The Training School used a variety of vehicles. Those on the public roads were normally dedicated vehicles, permanently marked with L plates. Within the grounds at Hyde Rd, this wasn’t always the case. It very much looks as if the GMT vehicle has done the damage. If so it looks as if it was a withdrawn vehicle being used ad hoc for basic training which has had its engine removed after the event, but it is a SELNEC/GMT Standard, not a Mancunian.

Phil Blinkhorn


01/12/14 – 14:07

A fascinating tale, Roger: the sad bit is that the design could have been developed in the way that you suggest: sitting in a modern megabus makes you itch to make use of the space under the stairs! You can see now the fundamental flaws in the Wulfrunian design caused by the desire to get a bulky engine, a driver, a staircase and a passenger platform in to 8ft. The curiosity is whether the driver was protected by the engine or couldn’t get into the saloon direct to deal with troublemakers: perhaps a good thing! We were in a time when men were men and standing up to turn the steering to full lock not unknown- but plonking all that weight at one end in the overhang was possibly worse than plonking it at the back. All would have been solved with your Q2 with a touch of Lodekka, perhaps.
What a link, John D to pics of so many Wulfrunians. Did Roe body all the "standard" ones? The Accrington version would have been a good test-bed for a lot of the technology without the overhang problems. Did the Victory have the same sort of problems? And what happened to all those West Riding Wulfrunians- straight to scrap with engines, too?

Joe


02/12/14 – 05:26

Joe, from reports I have read, most if not all of West Riding’s Wulfrunian engines (Gardner 6LXs) went into the ‘Wulfie’ replacement Daimler Fleetlines.

Brendan Smith


02/12/14 – 08:48

Brendan: I wondered about that… the subsequent West Riding VR’s used to gurgle like the Wulfrunians: why did West Riding buy up all those Wulfrunians? To get a load of cheap engines!

Joe


02/12/14 – 14:06

One of the perceived advantages of the Wulfrunian layout was the availability of the entire lower saloon for passenger accommodation. It was rather ironic that, when the excessive front end loading difficulties arose, West Riding removed the upper deck seats in front of the staircase, and barred off that area completely, thus totally negating the extra seating downstairs.

Roger Cox


09/12/14 – 06:17

I followed John D’s link above and….
At the risk of offending anyone on here, I think the only comment I’d make is that the Accrington rear entrance Wulfrunians (picture on John’s link Fleet Number 157 / Registration 36 VTF) deserve an honourable mention on the Ugly Bus Page !!

Stuart C


09/12/14 – 11:56

I’m a fan of East Lancs products (having lived in Stockport for many years that’s a given!) but will accept your nomination and would ask our leader to do the necessary!!

Phil Blinkhorn


10/12/14 – 06:21

Stuart C/Phil: I’ve seen worse- looks better as sold on with the "radiator" panel contrasted. See this link.
If you are putting this bus into Room 101, then you may have to add a BMMO D type- but which one? D7?
But then the D10 is the Wulfrunian that might have been…

Joe


11/12/14 – 06:32

Not the D7, Joe, but the D5, which, with its droopy, sad expression always suggested that it was about to burst into tears. I think that it would take quite a leap of the imagination to visualise the Wulfrunian metamorphosing into the D10:- low floor/high floor, front engine /underfloor engine, air suspension/rubber suspension etc.

Roger Cox


07/01/15 – 09:40

LEN 101_4

Here’s LEN 101 operating for Wrights, loading up in Wrexham Bus Station for Penycae just before 5 pm on 12 April 1969.

Tim Jeffcoat


LEN 101_1 Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


14/12/15 – 06:22

I always thought most of the Wulfrunian’s failings could be addressed in the following ways:
1) Air operated drum brakes.
2) Steel suspension: At front: Routemaster, unequal wishbone with spring over shockers set up, with the addition (if room) of torsion bars to stiffen the whole thing up and the ability to adjust ride height. With this arrangement front wheel camber angles could have been normalised. On the rear: The coil spring set up as on the F series Bristol Lodekka.
3) Power steering (the contemporary Routemaster had it).
4) ASAP an 8’2 and a half" body, to give the driver.
Put all that together, although front brake and tyre wear are always going to be heavy with this set up, a it might have been largely OK.

James Fawcett


 

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

 


 

Bury Corporation – Daimler Fleetline – AEN 835C – 135

Bury Corporation - Daimler Fleetline - AEN 835C - 135

Bury Corporation
1965
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
East Lancs H43/31F

In 1965 when this shot was taken there was only two rear engined double deck vehicles the Daimler Fleetline and the Leyland Atlantean. The Fleetline had one big advantage over the early Atlanteans in that it had a flat central gangway downstairs and the step up from the ground to entrance floor level was only 1 foot. The advantage of the easy access and high seating capacity meant that the Fleetline became a very popular vehicle with municipal and company operators alike.
The first Fleetlines had the Daimler CD6 8.6 litre six cylinder engine but has soon as it went into serious production it was supplied with the Gardner 6LX 10.45 litre engine as standard with an option of the Gardner 6LW 8.4 litre both were six cylinder diesels.  The gearbox was of the four speed Daimatic direct selection epicyclic type and the braking system was air pressure. As with all Daimler vehicles the coding is fairly straight forward the ‘R’ stands for rear engine and the ‘G’ stands for the Gardner engine, I wish I knew what the ‘C’ stood for as it precedes most Daimler codes ‘CWG’ and ‘CVG’ for example my guess is ‘Chassis’ but if anybody knows better or has a good idea please please leave a comment.

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.

———

“I think the ‘C’ could stand for ‘Coventry’
It came from the dark recesses of my mind. What happened when the Fleetline moved from Coventry to Leyland? It ceased to be CRG/L and became FE. So unsubstantiated, but a reasonable guess – unless anyone else knows better.”
D Oldfield

———

“I think the ‘C’ could stand for ‘Commercial’
As the company at the time was called Daimler Commercial Vehicles and traded separate to the passenger car business.”

T J Haigh

———

The ‘C’ chassis prefix did stand for Commercial vehicle, as Daimler also made private cars. Sadly this tradition ended when Leyland in its infinite wisdom moved Daimler bus production to Leyland. These chassis were designated ‘FE’, in line with Leyland’s then practice of using the first and last letters of model names as chassis designations (eg: ON OlympiaN; TN TitaN; NL NationaL; LX LynX).

Brendan Smith

———

30/01/12 – 11:11

The debate goes on about how successful the RMF would have been had it gone into full scale production, but at Northern’s Percy Main depot we had both Atlanteans and Fleetlines, and for my money the Fleetline was a far superior vehicle, ‘perhaps that’s why it was killed off when Daimler became part of British Leyland’ All ours had the Gardner 6LW, the earlier ones were MCW bodied but my favourites were the later Alexander bodied vehicles, most of them were transferred to East Yorkshire when NBC came about.

Ronnie Hoye

———

28/09/12 – 07:49

This style of East Lancs body for rear engined double deckers only appeared on this batch for Bury and an almost contemporaneous batch of Fleetlines for Coventry.
They were well proportioned vehicles as can be seen here

Phil Blinkhorn

———

28/09/12 – 14:13

…..and three batches of PDR1/2s for Sheffield with Neepsend bodies…..

David Oldfield

———

28/09/12 – 14:15

Phil, Warrington also had Fleetlines with this style of East Lancs bodywork Atlanteans to the same design but built in Sheffield by Neepsend were bought by the corporation. Both the Fleetlines and Atlanteans dated from 1965-1966. An example of the Warrington Fleetlines appears at this link.

Chris Hough

———

28/09/12 – 18:02

David/Chris,
You are right about the Neepsend bodies for Sheffield and Warrington. I managed to eliminate part of my script after typing in the link to the Coventry photo and didn’t notice until I just read your replies.
If you go back to my original post, it would have continued:
"The photo shows Coventry 22 – but though the design is the same (in all but detail) the body is by Neepsend and is one of a batch where East Lancs produced 9 and Neepsend 13 and Coventry split delivery of chassis in a staggered way between the two plants (see Peter Gould’s list for Coventry 1966). Sheffield received vehicles of this design from Neepsend as well and, strangely, Warrington also received Neepsend produced vehicles. Is this a case of congestion at East Lancs or was this really designed to be built in Sheffield?"

Phil Blinkhorn

———

29/09/12 – 18:06

Can somebody clarify the relationship between East Lancs and Neepsend. Did East Lancs buy Neepsend to gain additional capacity? if so it seems to have been a bit of waste of time as – to my recollection – Neepsend didn’t last all that long as a body builder . . . which raises the question, what became of them? And what were Neepsend doing before they started assembling East Lancs bodies? – would general metalwork fabrication be a good guess?

Philip Rushworth

———

30/09/12 – 07:47

The entire share capital of East Lancashire Coachbuilders Ltd was bought by Cravens Railway Carriage and Wagon Company Ltd of Sheffield in 1964. Cravens itself was a subsidiary of the John Brown group of Clydebank, though the founder, John Brown, was himself born in Sheffield in 1816. Although it had made tentative forays into the bus building business between the wars, Cravens was by then primarily a constructor of railway rolling stock. Because the East Lancs premises in Blackburn were of constricted size, Cravens set up a subsidiary in the Neepsend area of Sheffield to increase the productive capacity of the bus bodybuilding side of the business. Neepsend built bodies to East Lancs designs from 1964 before closing completely in 1968.

Roger Cox

———

30/09/12 – 07:48

There is a deal of confusion on a great number of sites regarding just who were Neepsend and what they did.
It seems that the long established Sheffield firm of Cravens, which over the years produced trams, railway carriages and bus bodies bought East Lancs around 1960.
They set up Neepsend on Penistone Rd, away from their main site, at about the same time initially, as I understand it, as an overflow site (some local forums say that some BRS "Noddy" vans were built there but these were all supposed to have been built by Star Bodies, the BRS in house builder).
There are reports on some local Sheffield forums regarding a building collapse at the property damaging some vans in production.

Phil Blinkhorn

———

30/09/12 – 07:49

At the time both East Lancs and the former Craven plant in Sheffield were owned by John Brown engineering The company decided to use the Sheffield capacity to build bodies to East Lancs design.

Chris Hough

———

30/09/12 – 07:50

In 1964 the John Brown Engineering Group bought out the road vehicle body building part of Cravens – the railway part went to Metro-Cammell – and recommenced bus building in Sheffield at Neepsend as an overflow to their newly acquired East Lancs operation.
I was a regular visitor on business to the Blackburn operation up to and beyond the fire. The whole place was cramped and would have horrified a modern health and safety inspector.
If my memory is right there was an extension completed well before the fire which probably meant the demise of Neepsend, though the clutter remained.

Phil Blinkhorn

———

30/09/12 – 07:51

Further to my last comment Cravens actually bought a stake in East Lancs rather than the other way round in an effort to get back into bus building. This was achieved by a purchase of shares from the bank which was acting as executor of the will of one of the company founders. However the size of the factory and poor quality killed the project off by 1968.

Chris Hough

———

30/09/12 – 10:37

I have a hazy memory that the Neepsend factory was purpose built, because it had partly "glazed" doors on to Penistone Road through which the skeletons of buses could be seen. It always seemed a bit of a mystery why this was there, then.

Joe


 

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 Tuesday 28th March 2017