Copyright G E Baddeley

Portsmouth Corporation
1932
TSM (Tilling-Stevens) E60A6
English Electric H26/24R

CPPTD lent seven TSM’s and three Leyland TD1’s to supplement the shortage of LPTB’s vehicles. Parked at the Red Deer pub, Croydon, alongside two Ford Y’s and an Austin 14, Portsmouth Corporation’s TSM (Tilling-Stevens) E60A6 is very much on foreign territory, in Surrey. At the very end of its sojourn in London, between October 1940 and March 1941, it’s part of a restful scene in an otherwise turbulent time, with the Blitz in full spate. The low-angled sunlight shows up the lining-out and city crest a treat! Also showing up is the garage/running number plate just below the front downstairs window, the empty holders of which identified many London helpers to the day they were scrapped! Note the absence of anti-blast netting on the windows. It’s on route 12 which, at the other end, reached Oxford Circus. It was probably based at Croydon Garage, a mere 100 yards from the Red Deer, both still existing, although the garage has been re-built.
She got about in London, for I’ve seen a photo of her at Golders Green, too!
CPPTD bought ten of these petrol-engine’d vehicles, with vee-front English Electric bodies, in 1932, numbered 78-87. Two were destroyed in 1941, in Portsmouth, the rest being withdrawn in 1944 (4) , 1946 (1) , 1947 (2) and 1948 (1). Maybe the delivery of nine Daimler CWA6’s enabled them to withdraw the first four, but, with the pressures on buses in this year on other local operators, this is surprising and mysterious. We shall never know now.
All ten buses were lucky, for they were returned to Pompey on 13/14 March 1942, just after Eastney Depot was bombed on the 10th, destroying ten buses!

Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron Photo copyright G E Baddeley

———

19/11/12 – 08:14

It seems that these buses were lucky twice over, Chris. If they left Croydon Garage (TC) in March 1941, they escaped the devastating damage caused in May 1941 when the depot was hit during the Blitz and caught fire, causing a number of casualties. See:- www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk These TSM double deckers carried the Leyland clone style of radiator adopted in 1931 to replace the antiquated shape worn by the B10 Express. The wheelbase was 13ft. 4½ ins., and the six cylinder 6.972 litre petrol engine (apparently designed in part by Harry Ricardo) developed 109 bhp at 2500 rpm, driving through a four speed crash gearbox. Among the antiquated features carried over from earlier models was the central accelerator pedal, which some manufacturers, Crossley and Dennis being others, seemed curiously reluctant to abandon. The TSM double decker was not a success, with Walsall, Birmingham and Benfleet & District (which soon became part of Westcliff-on-Sea) among the few purchasers in addition to Portsmouth.

Roger Cox

———

19/11/12 – 10:30

13ft 4½ins seems very short for the wb. though, considering 16ft for contemporary Regents et al (or around that figure anyway).
What I find truly fascinating about this photo is the English Electric body! This style must beat all records when it comes to the amount of different chassis upon which it was placed, from its 1932-6 existence! I cannot think of a Thornycroft version, or, of course, a Bristol, but all the rest of the contemporary competition had examples. Please correct me if I have missed anything!

John Whitaker

———

19/11/12 – 12:52

That was a bad bombing, Roger. I found an associated link with a photo of the results – see http://goo.gl/giEwB. Croydon was a Tilling Garage pre-1933 and hosted many Tilling STL’s, one of which can be seen as a casualty! Thx for the additional information. I wish I knew what the TSM model codes meant; sadly, your information sheds no light on the codes.
Your observation is correct, John W, about the versatile EE body. although it always seemed to grace more Leyland chassis than most others, but that may be a faulty observation!

Chris Hebbron

———

20/11/12 – 05:19

I think that you are correct, John. The wheelbase figure I gave came from a piece written by Geoff Hilditch many years ago, but I think that it might well be a misprint for 15ft 4½ins. The contemporary original 661 Regent had a wheelbase of 15ft 6½ins.

Chris, I hesitate to be pedantic on this – I have gleaned this info from various sources over the years and am open to correction, but the chassis codes for TSM/Tilling Stevens seem to be based on the following formula:-

First letter = Model type number, this case E

Second group = Engine power (petrol) or manufacturer/no. of cylinders (diesel), which here should probably be the figure 60.
Possibly this reflected the old RAC rating, which was really a measure of engine capacity rather than power.

Third letter = Vehicle purpose. A was the letter for a passenger chassis

Fourth number = wheelbase, 6 being the double deck wheelbase figure of around 15½ feet

Other TSM/Tilling Stevens chassis codes were the H type, as in Dave Gladwin’s posting of the Preston’s of Ferryhill coach, and the familiar ex Altonian K type, K6LA7, in which the ’6L’stood for 6LW and the final 7 for a wheelbase of around 17½ feet. The later, 30 ft long, full fronted lightweight Express models with four cylinder Meadows engines were coded L4MA8, the last figure denoting a 18ft 7½ins wheelbase. There was also a shorter version of the Express II, with a Perkins P6 engine, the L6PA7. The 5LW powered short wheelbase 30 seater buses ordered by the China General Omnibus Co. which were diverted in wartime to the home market, and the very similar machines bought by the China Motor Bus Co. from 1948 were coded H5LA4 and K5LA4 respectively. The wheelbase on these appears to have been about 13½ feet.

Roger Cox

———

20/11/12 – 15:19

Thanks for that information Roger, I’ve often wondered too because Notts & Derby had a batch of five double deckers in 1932, coded D60A6, so I imagine they would have been quite similar to the ones above, presumably petrol engines were standard at that time. Was a diesel version offered, if so, what form was it? In spite of them being regarded as not successful, some of them seem to have achieved good service lives, the Notts & Derby ones ran for thirteen years, although perhaps war was a factor in that.
I have a photo of an L4MA8 coach with a Duple body which looks very similar to a Bedford SB of the time (1952). What a shame production ended just as TSM were about to enter the ‘modern’ era!

Chris Barker

———

20/11/12 – 16:55

Your pedantry is very welcome, Roger, and sheds some light on the somewhat arcane coding system TSM used at that time. Incidentally, I believe that TSM reverted to the Tilling-Stevens name just before the war. Even in the post-war era of distress purchasing, they did not do well, their largest orders coming from Hong Kong; 108 to China Motor Bus and 50 to Kowloon Motor Bus (K5LA7), all delivered in 1947/8. This would make the latter like the Altonian vehicle, but with a Gardner 5LW engine. One of them is preserved.

Chris Hebbron

———

21/11/12 – 06:47

I believe the Notts and Derby batch were a serious bid by TSM to gain access to the Balfour Beatty Group, where tram abandonments were mooted. The composite Weymann bodies were virtually identical to the Mansfield "Regents" of 1932, which replaced the BB tram system there.
TSM never really recovered from the loss of business with the Tilling companies, with whom they shared some common ancestry, with Bristol becoming the standard "marque" after 1934. Several demonstrators had visited the Group in 1932/3, with no success.

John Whitaker

———

21/11/12 – 06:48

Roger, I understand that the third letter in Tilling Stevens/TSM vehicle designations stood for the location of the driving position: A denoting forward control and B denoting normal control. Hence the B9B and the B10B were normal control versions of the ‘Express’ B9A and B10A.

Michael Elliott

———

21/11/12 – 10:00

Yes, that sounds right, Michael. I have looked through all references to TSM/Tilling Stevens/Vulcan, including goods chassis, that I can find, and the only other letter that appears is the ‘B’ that you mention. If the ‘A’ stood for ‘passenger’, the B10B would not fit the scheme, so it must, as you say, denote the driving position. At last, we seemed to have cracked the code.

Roger Cox

———

21/11/12 – 12:53

Kept wondering what it was that makes this rare and handsome bus look so much newer than it really is, and it’s just occurred to me: the very low radiator and bonnet line!
Thanks to Chris for the posting and to Roger for the very full detail. With a spec like that, and issuing from such a respected stable, the chassis ought to have sold in good numbers, but like the Vulcan Emperor, the Morris-Commercial Dictator, the Thornycroft Daring and the pre-war Guy Arab it just seems to have faded away. Was it cost, or some unsuspected weakness…?

Ian Thompson

———

21/11/12 – 15:26

Ian, one valuable reference source of Tilling Stevens data is the article written by "Gortonian" (Geoffrey Hilditch, of course) in the old Buses magazine in its superior days of 45 years ago, and republished in his book "Looking at Buses". He states that the double decker’s six cylinder engine, though a new design, had only a four bearing crankshaft instead of the usual seven, and the friction surfaces of the clutch were not attached to either the driving or driven plates, a feature intended to ease maintenance but which didn’t actually work out too well in practice. The chassis retained some antiquated design features and, although this TSM was an advance on its forebears, it still compared unfavourably with the Titan and Regent. As we know, the Tilling Group had lost any interest, literally and financially, in the TSM concern by this date, and the firm found it extremely difficult to gain entry to other markets in the depressed ‘thirties. The low bonnet line is certainly commendable. Some contemporary manufacturers, such as Bristol and Dennis, adopted unnecessarily high bonnet levels apparently to give an impression of power. The pre war Dennis Lance with the very high set oval radiator was possibly the most extreme example of all. The Strachans bodied Aldershot and District Lances of 1937 had tiny cab windscreens, which, coupled with the high bonnet, must have severely limited the driver’s view.

Roger Cox

———

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

21/11/12 – 17:28

Others were the Sunbeam Pathan/Sikh (the latter an early posting of mine). I’d forgotten the Vulcan Emperor, of which a few were bought by Southport Corporation, more as support for a local business than for any other reason, I suspect! I’m sure a few were bought elsewhere, but can’t recall, off-hand. You’ve got to feel sorry for folk putting in all that work, to come to naught in the end! Bad period for business, what with the Wall Street crash et al. You’re right about the low radiator/bonnet line giving the TSM a modern look: Leyland TD1/2′s of the same period looked more antiquated, with their radiator shape.

Chris Hebbron

———

22/11/12 – 07:24

The Vulcan Emperor was certainly a rarity. A picture of Vulcan’s advertisement can be seen here:- www.flickr.com/photos/

Roger Cox

———

23/11/12 – 08:16

Chris B and John W mention five Notts & Derby TSM D60A6’s, with Weymann bodies, delivered in 1932 and lasting until 1945. Here is an artist’s impression of one: www.cooperline.com  from which it is noticeable that the radiator shell is subtly different. Nice looking vehicle, though.

Chris Hebbron

———

23/11/12 – 10:06

Nice one Chris!
From photos though, I cannot discern any difference.

John Whitaker

Copyright A M Lambert

Portsmouth Corporation
1937
Leyland Titan TD4
Cravens H26/24R

Having dabbled with Leyland TD1 & 2’s, Crossley Condors, an AEC Regent and some TSM’s, with bodies spread amongst Short, Park Royal, Leyland and English Electric, CPPTD settled on a large order for 30 Leyland TD4’s with Cravens’ bodies, to the same pattern as its trolleybuses, both types being delivered in two tranches during 1936/37.
There were subtle differences between bus/trolleybus bodies, notably the upstairs bus front windows lacking a curve at the bottom corners. Also, the last five (156-60), as can be seen from the photo, had different headlamps, plus fluting on the front nearside wing.
The buses had long lives, with engineering staff rebuilding bodies of some of them around 1950 and the last going in 1960! Both in the photo, with rebuilt bodies, lasted from 1937 to 1958. One was destroyed in 1941 by enemy action.

It’s the side-issues which often intrigue in bus photos and this one’s no exception. To our left of 158, peeps out part of a lorry. This was 105/RV2000, a 1932 Crossley Condor/EE double-decker, which was a CPPTD conversion to a waste disposal lorry after revenue-service withdrawal in 1948.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

———

03/06/12 – 19:41

Thanks Chris for another fine picture of Portsmouth Corporation pre-war Leyland TD4s. These were the days when one could be proud of your locally owned bus services which met the needs of community. The Transport Acts from 1968 onwards towards privatisation in the eighties have all produced changes, many for the worse. Happily this website draws the line at 1970 but my favourites are buses and trolleybuses of the 1930 to 1950 period.

Richard Fieldhouse

———

04/06/12 – 11:35

Oh how I agree with Richard about this superb posting from Chris!
Each municipality was so different, and they each exuded their own character and "flavour", as there was no central control from outside the town or city.
There was, in the municipal fleet, the opportunity to express some civic pride, with individual liveries, crests, coats of arms, and well (generally) maintained fleets.
Sadly, those days of pride , with some social discipline connected to it, have largely disappeared.
These 2 Titans could not be anywhere but Portsmouth, a fleet which took pride in its appearance. There were many others, but it is this individuality which is at the root of my enthusiasm, and hence, like Richard, it declines rapidly after 1950.
Not to say that other transport groupings were of no interest, as company and independent fleets also had character, but this was displayed in a different way.
Nostalgic and foolish old person that I am!

John Whitaker

———

04/06/12 – 17:11

You’re not wrong, Richard, about Transport acts. Before deregulation buses were classified as Public Service Vehicles, where as now they are Passenger Carrying Vehicles, no mention of ‘Passengers or Service’ I think that just about sums it up

Ronnie Hoye

———

05/06/12 – 08:28

The point John Whitaker makes about the old municipalities and their civic pride is all too true as control originated with in a short distance of where operations took place, by the same token criticisms and complaints could also be dealt with equally rapidly.
I worked both as conductor and driver for Eastbourne Corporation from 1961 to 1969 which at that time had a fleet of about 50 buses, a small fleet but beautifully maintained and turned out at all times. The coach painting was carried out solely by brush when repaints were due, no spray equipment was owned at that time, all this was done by two very skilled men namely Bill Hollobone and Reg Metcalfe. Reg even painted every advert panel by hand truly a work of art and a source of great pride, and a joy to watch in action.
Things definitely ain’t what they used to be, nostalgia rules OK.

Diesel Dave

———

06/06/12 – 09:50

You’re both so right, folks, about the special aspects of municipal fleets. CPPTD also had some hand-painted adverts, usually for local concerns. And the management had a fair degree of autonomy as well: it tends to be forgotten that these were publicly-owned ‘proper’ businesses and other employees of the councils, including councillors, tended to leave them alone, as long as they were, at least, self-supporting.
When I worked for GPO Telephones, we were always conscious that we were the only government-run business, but here, we were always constrained by government tight-fistedness, never giving us enough money to get rid of waiting lists/have the latest technology for a world-beating telephone service (until privatisation, that is). But that’s another story!

Chris Hebbron

Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Portsmouth Corporation
1931
AEC Regent I
Short Bros. H26/24R

This vehicle was one of two early diesel-engined buses bought by Portsmouth Corporation in 1931, the other being a Crossley Condor. They were both bought as an experiment and compared with four Leyland Titan TD1, bizarrely, petrol-engined versions, because Leyland didn’t offer a diesel engine then!
This ‘snouty’ AEC Regent, the Condor and two of the four TD1′s, were bodied by Short Bros. The body exudes a light, airy feel about the inside. Note the grills above the front downstairs window and the destination blind in the rear-most downstairs side window. Sadly, this unique vehicle in the fleet was destroyed by enemy action in 1941. The corporation, shortly after purchasing it, standardised on diesel-engined Leyland Titans and no more AEC buses were ever purchased. There are some intriguing aspects to this photo – firstly, there are two plates affixed to the radiator. One may well say Regent, would the other one say ‘diesel’? Secondly, it has a starting handle (for a diesel?), and, thirdly, the upper structure still appears to be in undercoat, yet the lower deck is gloss painted and lined out!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

———

25/05/12 – 07:48

I’ve seen a few pictures of pre-war (and wartime) diesels with starting handles. I seem to remember Roly Wason, in his entertaining book "Busman’s View" mentions that in West Hartlepool they would put a rope on the handle so that relays of men could "flick over" a recalcitrant bus.

Stephen Ford

———

25/05/12 – 07:49

A lovely photo of the classical era when buses were evolving. I believe the second plate on the AEC “Regent" radiator is “Oil Engine”. This plate was fitted to many AEC “Regents" with diesel engines in the period up to about 1935. Bradford Corporation “Regents” 396 to 419 of 1935 with 8.8 litre diesel engines had their radiators fitted with a second plate with “Oil Engine” inscribed.

Richard Fieldhouse

———

25/05/12 – 15:06

This attractive bus raises many questions, probably unanswerable, but here goes….. Portsmouth buses traditionally had the lining-out on the upper deck panels also. Was this only on later models, or could this have been a "rushed" official photo? In warm weather, it must have been quite hot on both decks with such limited ventilation. Were they modified later? Never having ridden in one, was there extra leg room on the front upper-deck seats under the "piano front" or was it panelled off purely for the destination box? Finally, the upper deck seats seem very high in relation to the height of the roof. It almost has the proportions of a lowbridge bus. Were they high-back seats or was it just a very high upper deck floor?

Paul Haywood

———

25/05/12 – 15:07

…..and, of course, the legend "Leyland Diesel" adorned the bonnet side of PD2s and PD3s right up to the end – despite "Leyland Petrol" being a thing of deepest history!

David Oldfield

———

26/05/12 – 06:38

With regard to Portsmouth Corporation not buying any further AEC buses after the Regent 1 they did in fact buy a batch of Swifts in 1969 with Marshall B42D bodywork I believe they were numbered 175-188 but I am not certain of those numbers.
Some Regent Vs also had a badge on the bonnet side which said AEC Diesel.

Diesel Dave

———

26/05/12 – 06:39

Paul, although no more experienced in this era than you, two points. (1) In order to avoid patent problems with Leyland and their low-bridge design, AEC came up with the camel back – a hump all the way down the middle. (If this is one, the photo is washed out at the roof and wouldn’t show it.) (2) There was a period of full-drop windows. If this is one of those, it would not be self evident with the windows fully closed.

David Oldfield

———

26/05/12 – 06:40

Thx for confirming my ‘oil engine’ thoughts, Richard.
To answer your thoughts as best I can, Paul, all buses were lined out, top and bottom, and this never changed, although it was simplified post-war. I’m inclined to think this is a ‘rushed’ official photo, although CPPTD often had their ‘tween decks adverts painted on for a long-term contract and might have been prepared to receive the bus like this for such an advert.
The ventilation might have been better than appears, for many buses, of the time, had one-piece sliding windows which came down about two-thirds of the way, worked by a car-type handle. I didn’t recall this type of seat back being any higher than was normal for slightly newer buses, so low window bottoms or a high floor must have been responsible. There was no need for lowbridge buses within its territory.

Chris Hebbron

———

26/05/12 – 06:42

The nameplates on the radiator say "Regent" and below "Oil Engine". This Portsmouth bus must have been an early recipient of the then very new 8.85 litre version of the AEC oil engine with the Ricardo Comet indirect injection system. This motor, which became successful and well known as the "8.8", appeared from mid 1931 in replacement of the indifferently reliable Acro head A155 engine, which had a capacity of 8.097 litres. The retention of a starting handle was quite common on early oil engined Regents.
It is noteworthy that, at about the same time as it bought this solitary AEC, Portsmouth purchased an example of the Crossley Condor with the 9.12 litre direct injection engine, and this must have impressed the Corporation rather more than the Regent, since another 20 buses of this type were bought in 1932. The continued specification by Portsmouth of the Crossley direct injection engine was another interesting feature, as by then, the indirect injection VR6 version was much more widely favoured. In any event, contrary to the experience of operators elsewhere in the country, the Crossleys earned their keep, turning in an average fuel consumption of 9.5 mpg until they were withdrawn in 1947. Probably on the strength of this earlier experience, notwithstanding a subsequent very successful allegiance to the Leyland Titan, Portsmouth bought more Crossleys in 1948, but the DD42/5T type proved to be another creature entirely in the reliability stakes. I must acknowledge that the sources of my information above are the books "Blue Triangle" by Alan Townsin, and "Crossley" by Messrs Eyre, Heaps and Townsin.

Roger Cox

———

26/05/12 – 06:43

I should have mentioned in my first ‘blurb’ that the bus was blinded route ‘D’ and ‘Stubbington Avenue’.

Chris Hebbron

———

26/05/12 – 16:52

Thanks, David and Chris for your replies. Yes, Chris, if I tilt my screen I think I can just about make out a domed roof which would explain the upper-deck proportions. However, I’m still not convinced about it being highbridge. In 1931, Belfast Omnibus Co. bought a batch of Short Bros Regents which, to my untrained eye, look almost identical, but these were classed as lowbridge. There is a photo of one on page 9 of "The British Bus Scene in the 1930′s" by David Kaye. Could the confusion (on my part) be to do with them being "low height" as opposed to having a lowbridge sunken-gangway seating layout?

Paul Haywood

———

26/05/12 – 16:53

Thx, Roger, for that interesting info. I never realised that pre-war Crossley engines were direct injection and produced such good mpg figures. They should have updated it, rather than introduced the HOE one, which had such a poor reputation, after they stopped infringing Saurer’s patent. Incidentally, whilst most of them were withdrawn in 1948, the rest were withdrawn in ones and two’s, the last in 1951, at 20 years old. And CPPTD also bought some DD42/7′s after the 5′s above: what gluttons for punishment! Probably a distress purchase, such was post-war bus/coach demand.

Chris Hebbron

———

28/05/12 – 07:51

Many thanks Chris, for this superb posting!
This was a fascinating and speedy era in bus development, and Portsmouth Corporation was a standard bearer in that department. They had batches of TD2s TSMs, and Crossley Condors, all with the same composite EEC bodies, so, from the rear, they would all look alike, and even the first TD4s had a similar 5 bay metal framed version.
It was a truly fascinating fleet, to say nothing about the 6 wheeled Karriers of a mere year or two earlier.
I think this Short bodied Regent is one of the first of the style which replaced the camel roof type, and was very common, mainly on AEC and Leyland chassis, all over the country.
Obviously, PCT were not particularly impressed with the AEC "oil engine", or Regents in general, as future orders, post 1933, were Leyland dominated, and one wonders why the trolleybus fleet became AEC based. Perhaps something to do with a liking for EEC equipment offered by the AEC/EE partnership?
Just imagine what it would have been like to be an enthusiast in Pompey in the 1930s, with such a fascinating bus fleet, and so many experimental trolleybuses too! Its the stuff that dreams are made of!

John Whitaker

———

28/05/12 – 07:52

I feel this must be an official view, taken I suspect by the bodybuilder, but why the upper deck painting was not complete is beyond me. This bus and all the other Short bodies bought by Portsmouth were highbridge, photos of all the others had the seat backs visible through the windows, they must therefore have had a high floor. This same characteristic is shown on Short bodied TD1 and TD2′s with Southdown.
A summer photo of one of Portsmouth’s Short bodied TD1′s shows 3 upstairs windows each side open a good half way, so ventilation would have been fine.
Finally Service C/D didn’t run to Stubbington Avenue, so I suspect the screen were set randomly for the official photo.

Pat Jennings

———

29/05/12 – 06:49

Just to confirm Diesel Dave’s comment about post-war Portsmouth AEC’s. There were 12 saloons, all of them Swift 2MP2R chassis, and had Marshall B42D bodies. They were numbered 176-187 (NTP176-187H), entering service in Aug/Sep 1969. They followed two batches of Leyland Panther Cubs, 12 with Marshall bodies, and 14 with Metro-Cammell bodies (all B42D, new March to Oct 1967, Nos 150-175). I recall reading that the AEC Swift and Leyland Panther shared the same chassis frame design, as AEC was part of the Leyland group from 1962. But I don’t know what similarities there were between the smaller Panther Cub and the Swifts delivered to Portsmouth, apart from overall length – Portsmouth did not want maximum size 36-footers for it’s city routes. It’s generally acknowledged that the Panther Cub was not a great success, and Portsmouth began withdrawal in 1977 – a mere 10 years – the final ones going in 1981. The AEC Swifts went swiftly however (oops! – sorry!) – The MAP project in 1981 saw the fleet significantly reduced, and the remaining Panther Cubs plus the 12 Swifts, (and 14 Leyland Nationals, only 5 years old) were all withdrawn and sold.
On a different note, the Portsmouth Regent No 35 with it’s Short Bros body could be theoretically compared with it’s Southdown equivalent. But Southdown’s version (also with Short Bros highbridge body of similar design) was petrol engined, and hired, not owned. It was their No 10, and was lettered on the sides for a route in Horsham. Thus it is very unlikely that the two were ever side by side at South Parade Pier!
It is one of those fascinating details that Portsmouth had two AEC double-deckers pre-war, both were numbered 35, and both had comparatively short lives. Our featured Regent was destroyed in the air-raid of 10 March 1941, and only the engine was salvaged and sold to Nottingham Corporation. The previous 35 was an AEC "B"-type purchased in 1926 from LGOC via a dealer(new c.1913) with a Dodson body, along with ten other Dodson bodies, which were used on the original 10 Thornycroft Js. It didn’t last long, but in it’s short career it was re-registered from LF 9344 to BK 2342 (transferred from a service vehicle), and had it’s body replaced by one of the Wadham bodies from the original Thornycrofts, albeit cut down to a single-decker! It was withdrawn from PSV use in 1927, and was used as a petrol tender until 1930 – probably to keep the thirsty Karrier 6-wheelers going in service.

Michael Hampton

———

30/05/12 – 07:21

Thank you, Michael, for the additional information, especially that of the first 35 and its interesting life.
You mention the air raid of 10th March 1941 (with the loss of quite a few vehicles, including two Crossley Condors) but I’ve never seen mention of which depot it was. I assume from the loss of buses, not trolleybuses, that it was North End and not Eastney.

Chris Hebbron

———

30/05/12 – 13:30

Thanks Chris for your kind comments. All the books and notes I have state that it was Eastney depot which was badly damaged on 10th March 1941, destroying ten buses, and damaging others. Both trolleybuses and motorbuses were kept at North End and Eastney depots. My source says that the incendiary bombs hit the bus garage and workshops. There was also damage across the city, and several major trolleybus routes had to be curtailed until wiring and road repairs were completed. There was bomb damage at North End depot, too (date not given), but this was restricted to store rooms, no vehicles apparently involved. But no trolleybuses received major war damage at either Eastney, North End, or on the streets.

Michael Hampton

———

30/05/12 – 17:37

Last year I visited the Transport Museum in Johannesburg a took a photo of an AEC Regent radiator mounted on a sub-frame with a 8.8 litre engine circa 1935.
The stored exhibit had lost its the AEC triangle badge but does have "Regent" and "Oil Engine" plates on the radiator wire mesh as well as the spline for a starter handle. I would have posted this photo sooner but made the previous entry when on holiday. Chris, please keep posting these lovely pre-war photos of Portsmouth Corporation.

Richard Fieldhouse

———

31/05/12 – 10:50

Well, Richard, what an unusual find and way to prove a point! As for other ‘Pompey’ photos, I’ve a couple more up my sleeve. The quick and sad end of CPPTD, I try to keep at the back of my mind!

Chris Hebbron