Photograph from The late Robert F Mack collection.

Samuel Ledgard
1945
Bristol K6A
ECW L27/26R

As featured in ‘An Arresting Experience’ by Chris Youhill on the ‘articles’ page here we have the vehicle in question. This vehicle was ex-United Automobile Services fleet number BAL 8 new to them in 1945 acquired by Samuel Ledgard in 1959 and served a further six years before being withdrawn from service in 1965.  

The Bristol K series was first produced in 1937 and had the high bonnet line as in the shot above until 1946, when the more familiar lower bonnet line was introduced as in the shot to the right.
The above vehicle was one of 251 built after the recommencement of production in 1944 and were the wartime W1 and W2 series all of which had the AEC 7·7 litre six cylinder diesel engine hence the K6A code. As from 1946 the K series was also available with the Gardner 5LW and Bristols first diesel engine the AVW which was a 8·1 litre six cylinder unit. I am not sure what AVW and its successor the BVW stood for, I could guess that the V stood for vertical, if you know please leave a comment. The K series carried on in production until 1950 with over 3000 being built until the one foot longer KS version was introduced.

A full list of Bristol codes can be seen here.

Photograph contributed by Chris Youhill

———

Am I right in believing that the difference in bonnet height is the post war "invention" of dropped front axles- and who thought of it first?

Joe

———

Sorry Joe but, as far as I can glean from publications on the Bristol "K" series, there is no difference at all in the front axles of the low and high radiator "K"s. Dropped front axles were virtually standard on all buses long before WW2. As you say, the apparent dramatic lowering of the radiators and bonnets would suggest some major structural redesign but seemingly not so – the improved appearance must have been achieved by cleverly reducing the clearance above the engine and by a pleasing new radiator design and mountings.

Chris Youhill

———

As an AEC man, it always struck me that the perfect bonnet line, as aspired to and achieved by London Transport in the RT, was only achieved in the provinces on the post-war Bristols and Guy Arabs.

David Oldfield

———

And Crossleys, surely?

Peter Williamson

———

As I signed off the last comment, a Manchester Crossley popped up on a picture and I thought……..and Crossleys!

David Oldfield

———

There cannot have been any structural difference in the "high" and "low" radiator K chassis, since after the war, many pre-war and wartime utility Bristols were rebodied,and the exercise frequently involved fitting the low radiator to modernize their appearance. Preserved West Yorkshire KDG 26 is a case in point.

David Jones

———

The ‘low’ radiator is a bit of a trick. The bottom of the working bit of the low radiator is no lower than the high version. If you examine one you will find that the bottom 4 or 5 inches of the low radiator is just decorative. I think I’m right in saying the higher top of the ‘high’ radiator is simply a result of the fact that petrol engines were a lot taller than diesels. When diesels replaced petrol from mid-1930′s there was a lot of fresh air under the bonnet. Hence the line of the bonnet was lowered and with it the top of the radiator.

Bristol’s parts code. The last letter refers to what it is – thus ‘W’ is an engine. The first engine would have been an ‘AW’. In the early 1930′s the ‘JW’ and ‘NW’ were respectively 6-cyl and 4-cyl petrol engines. Once they got to ‘ZW’ then they started again with ‘AAW’ an awful lot of the codes must have been either minor variants or omitted or design studies which were never built. I have no idea how they got as far as ‘AVW’ but that is how the code was arrived at.

Peter Cook

Mansfield District Traction Company Limited
1954
Bristol LS6G
ECW C39F

This shot is a touch on the yellow side but I think it is worth posting as this vehicle had quite a history having had six owners in its lifetime that I have been able to find out about.

Thanks to the Bristol SU website for the following information.

06/54 -  Mansfield District Traction fleet no 205

01/68 -  Eastern Counties Omnibus fleet no LS998

02/72 -  Gosport & Fareham Omnibus fleet no 33

02/74 -  North Downs Rural Transport

07/74 -  Ives Weston-on-Trent

02/75 -  Kingfisher Weston-on-Trent

02/76 -  Out of service I presume it went to scrap at this point although I could be wrong, if I am please leave a comment.

Either way just short of 22 years service was a good innings, just goes to show how well built buses were back then “they don’t build them like that anymore I’m afraid”. It would be interesting to know how many miles were on the clock and whether it still had its original engine even if it had been rebuilt a few times.

To view a list of Bristol vehicle abbreviations click here.

———

The longevity of a PSV of this era was of course determined by the willingness and capability of the operator to prepare the vehicle for its’ CoF examination.
Buses didn’t have a conventional MoT as they now do, instead the bus came new with a 7 year CoF at the expiry of which a recertification was required. The length of the next CoF was determined by the work done to the bus in preparation for the inspection.
Most big operators brought the buses into their central works and overhauled them leading to the issue of a long second ticket after which the cycle was repeated with the tickets getting shorter each time.
The introduction of freedom from defect type MoT’s made this system obsolete

Andrew

United Automobile Services
1954
Bristol KSW6B
ECW H32/28R

In this shot you can certainly see the difference in height between this highbridge KS and the height of the Lodekka both of which had the centre isle seating plan. The KS series succeeded the K series in 1950 when body length was increased from 26ft to 27ft, the extra foot was split equally between the bonnet length and the saloon. The reason for the extra 6in on the bonnet length was so the Gardner 6LW 8.4 litre diesel engine could be fitted without any modification being needed which was the case with the K series. Main production did not last very long as in 1953 the Lodekka went into production but I have read that the last KS was actually delivered in 1957. The ‘W’ in the coding stood for wide meaning the body width was 8ft instead of 7ft 6in, there seems to be two schools of thought what the ‘S’ stood for:
(a) ‘Short’ as if Bristol knew that a longer chassis would be allowed a few years later and ‘L’ would be used to differentiate.
(b) ‘Standard’ being that the bonnet was of a standard length to allow installation of all engine variants.
There is also the belief that all of the KS series were bodied by ECW (Eastern Coach Works).

Your comments on any of the above as usual are more than welcome.

———

I had been under the impression, that the "S" stood for "stretched" to 27′ Source: "The Pocket Encyclopaedia of Buses & Trolleybuses since 1945", London, Blandford Press, 1968 p.115

David Cape

———

I was on a KSW at a rally today and overheard an apparently knowledgeable chap saying that the S indicated short, as opposed to KL which was going to be a 30-foot export model until Bristol’s government lords and masters prevented them from building for export at all.
However, the apparently knowledgeable chap thought we were on a KS, not a KSW, so the usual pinch of salt applies.

Peter Williamson

———

The Bristol KS was introduced following an increase in permitted length for double deckers from 26ft to 27ft in mid-1950. Later that year, the maximum permitted width for all buses was increased from 7ft-6ins to 8ft. and Bristol responded with the KSW. (The ‘S’ apparently stood for ‘Standard’ or ‘Short’ length chassis, with the ‘W’ predictably denoting ‘Wide’). At that time the bus industry had hoped for an increase in length to 30ft for all buses, but in the event this was limited to single deckers. Bristol had envisaged extending the K type to 30ft long (KL/KLW) but this did not materialise as a result. When legislation did allow for 30ft double deckers in 1956, the Lodekka was in its ascendancy and so no KL/KLWs were built.
ECW designed a 4-bay body for the KS-series and these could also be identified by the stepped panel below the windscreen. Although ECW bodied most of the KS-series chassis, Rotherham Corporation received six KS6Bs in 1950, fitted with East Lancashire bodies built in Bridlington. Rotherham was the only operator outside the Tilling Group to operate the KS as far as I am aware – these being ordered before the cut-off point following nationalisation of Bristol and ECW.
Bristol/ECW were not allowed to supply vehicles to concerns outside the British Transport Commission, following nationalisation by the Labour government in 1948. The ban was to appease the Conservative opposition and private sector manufacturers, and to prevent what they claimed would be unfair competition. (A clause was included to this effect in the 1947 Transport Act as a result). Restrictions on ECW’s output were also imposed, even within the BTC empire itself. Had this not been the case maybe ECW would have bodied some of London’s RTs.
The last KS (a KS6G) was delivered to Brighton, Hove and District in 1957, and the last KSW (a KSW6G) was delivered to Bristol Omnibus Company the same year.

Brendan Smith

———

Some 7ft 6in KS chassis received 8ft wide KSW bodies. Eastern Counties had quite a few, and a former ECOC driver reckoned in conversation that they needed to be driven rather gently when heavily laden, as they tended to lean alarmingly on bends.

Stephen Ford

———

Fascinating stuff indeed Brendan and I seem to recall that, nearer home, West Yorkshire had a few L and K type chassis with 8ft wide bodies.  In my view this is a very dubious practice especially with lowbridge double deckers which are prone to "nearside leaning" at the best of times.

Chris Youhill

———

I tend to agree with you Chris. Fitting bodies six inches wider than originally intended for the chassis does not sound unreasonable in theory. However, in practice as you say it would lead to increased body roll when cornering. You’re comment about "nearside leaning" with lowbridge buses was interesting, and something I’d not previously given much thought to. To the uninitiated it must have been quite entertaining going around a tight right-hander at times, and things would no doubt liven up even more as the leaf springs became tired with age!

Brendan Smith

——— Top ———