Old Bus Photos

Birmingham City Transport – Daimler COG – CVP 207 – 1107

CVP 207

Birmingham City Transport
Daimler COG5
Metro-Cammell H30/24R

Between 1934 and 1939 Birmingham Corporation Transport, which adopted the name Birmingham City Transport from 1937, took some 800 examples of the Daimler COG5 model, which, despite its modest five cylinder Gardner power unit, was a sophisticated performer with an effective flexible engine mounting and a fluid flywheel/epicyclic gearbox transmission. Most of these buses were bodied by Metro-Cammell, though many were fitted with Birmingham Railway Carriage & Wagon (BRCW) bodywork, all to the distinctive Birmingham H30/24R design. Many of these reliable buses survived up to 1954/55, with a solitary example, No.1235 of 1939, being withdrawn in 1960. CVP 207, No.1107, was one of the 1937 batch, but in 1950 it received the Metro-Cammell body from similar bus No.1216 of 1939 vintage, which was then withdrawn. In 1954 1107 became a snowplough, but returned to passenger service in 1957 when the Corporation took over some Midland Red routes. On being finally retired in 1959 it thankfully escaped the scrapper’s torch, and now resides with the Transport Museum at Wythall. 1107 is seen above at Brighton during the 1969 HCVC Rally.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

16/08/18 – 06:09

There were still a couple of these pre-war COG5s tucked away in the back of Moseley Road Depot when I moved to Birmingham in September 1961. Doubtless a few others elsewhere on the system.

John Grigg


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



Birmingham City – Leyland Tiger – JOJ 231 – 2231

JOJ 231

Birmingham City Transport
Leyland Tiger PS2/1
Weymann B34F

JOJ 231 is something of a rarity for the Birmingham fleet – a single decker! It is a Leyland Tiger PS2/1 with Weymann B34F body, new in 1950. We see it in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979 – where the combination of Kodachrome II film and lighting combine to give the appearance of the Royal Blue coach alongside having the same shade of blue. Is it really the same, or does it just look that way?

JOJ 231_2

The second view shows the Municipal Crest, and was captured on film in the Southsea rally a few years later.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

04/10/16 – 05:34

Pete, what a wonderful Municipal Crest. We are used to seeing heraldic shields and the like on municipal buses, but the figures on the Birmingham one make the Crest even more special. The way the artist has painted not just a sheen, but also creases into the clothing on the original design is nothing short of amazing. Thank you for posting.

Brendan Smith

05/10/16 – 07:01

My pleasure!

Pete Davies

28/10/16 – 07:34

The two figures on the crest represent Industry and Art and were posed by Art students of the time.

Tony Martin

28/10/16 – 10:57

What an interesting snippet, Tony! Thanks for that

Pete Davies

09/12/17 – 07:43

I’m sure you buffs already know that the No. 27 ran from West Heath to Kings Heath.The reason for the single decker was to travel beneath the railway bridge in Bournville Lane, just by Cadbury’s works.

David Palmer

09/12/17 – 09:14

Thanks, David. My student days were in the Saltley area of Birmingham, but I did get down to the Bournville area occasionally, and I saw the Tigers there.

Pete Davies


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



Birmingham City – Leyland Titan – HOV 685 – 1685

Birmingham City - Leyland Titan - HOV 685 - 1685

Birmingham City Transport
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Brush H30/24R

HOV 685 is a Leyland Titan PD2/1 with Brush H54R body, to Birmingham’s then standard design. She dates from 1948 and we see her in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979. She began her service at Yardley Wood depot and, Malcolm Keeley reports in his book in the Glory Days series, most of the batch so allocated from new remained there throughout their working lives. The others were at Perry Bar. The saga of the Brush bodies is not so happy, however. There had been some earlier disagreements between the builder and the operator, the former managing to convince itself that the product was entirely the opposite of what the operator wanted. This batch appears to have been the last of the Brush bodies for Birmingham.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/06/16 – 09:22

Brush had a similar "conversations" with Manchester regarding fifty bodies it was building to the Manchester post war Standard design on Daimler chassis at the same time. Manchester was unhappy with Brush’s interpretation and had to keep a watching brief on the progress to ensure what was produced was identical to the drawings. As it turned out the bodies were well finished and lasted well.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/06/16 – 11:43

Can anybody please explain what the dispute between BCT and Brush was about.
Presumably the operator issued a comprehensive specification of their requirements for the builder to follow

Pat Jennings

07/06/16 – 18:48

Pat, according to his ‘Glory Days’ book on Birmingham City Transport, Malcolm Keeley reports that the rot seems to have set in – in more ways than one – when the timber frame bodies on the surviving 1929-31 AEC Regents had to have new Austerity bodies by Brush in 1943/4. There was supposed to be a decrease in price as a result of salvaging parts from the old bodies, but they had been from four different builders and the cost was actually increased.
The next chapter takes place in respect of the Crossleys ordered in 1945. They should have had Brush bodies, but delays in delivering chassis caused Brush to ask to be ‘released’. Not an unreasonable request, perhaps, but Keeley says, "After the wartime disputes over the Regent and CWA bodies, small wonder BCT ceased to employ Brush."

Pete Davies

09/06/16 – 06:45

Pete, that’s all true but the Leylands are 1948 deliveries whereas your comment finishes in 1945. If I were a betting man I’d put good money on Bush having the same approach as it took with Manchester.

Phil Blinkhorn

09/06/16 – 19:08

Phil B, I’ve spent most of the day looking in the Keeley book for his comments about this dispute, so far without success. I’m sure I didn’t dream it. I’ll post further on this in due course!

Pete Davies

10/06/16 – 05:33

Pete, you are quite right in your summary of Malcolm Keeley’s account of the Brush utility bodies for Birmingham, and the consequent decision by BCT not to use Brush any more. The account of the war-time re-bodying of the pre-war AEC Regents (p.26) describes the problems Brush had salvaging material from the old bodies by four makers, and trying to incorporate these into the fifty new bodies. Delivery was delayed because of the interruption to the production system, and additional detail design work was also needed. A major dispute broke out over the cost. (One is illustrated on p.30, and a trainer conversion on p.41). As you say in your original posting, Brush asked to be released from bodying the 10 Crossleys ordered in 1945, because of pressure of other work in their drawing office. They were already committed to 100 bodies on Leyland PD2s. Keeley, on p.48, indicates that BCT ceased to employ Brush, as you quote above.

Michael Hampton

10/06/16 – 10:21

Thank you, Michael . . .

Pete Davies

10/06/16 – 10:21

Thanks Pete and Michael. Perhaps the clue to the similarities to the dispute with Manchester lies in the drawing office.

Phil Blinkhorn


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 5th December 2023