Old Bus Photos

Wakefields Motors – AEC Reliance – FT 9002 – 202

Wakefields Motors - AEC Reliance - FT 9002 - 202

Wakefields Motors
AEC Reliance MU3RV
Weymann C41F

Am I in a minority, or was the Weymann Fanfare one of the most handsome coach bodies ever built? Whatever chassis they were on they looked exactly what they were, well designed, well built and comfortable. To me they fell into the same category as the first Burlingham Seagulls, nothing flash, brash or arrogant, just a quiet understated elegance, and any subsequent ‘improvements’ usually took the edge off something that was right in the first place. The Northern General Transport group had 16 in total, all delivered in 1955: 197 to 202 are from the Wakefields fleet; Outwardly they all looked pretty much the same, but the six Wakefields versions, FT 8997/9002, 197/202, were C41F on an AEC MU3RV chassis, they were mainly used for private hires, day tours and excursions. By contrast, the 10 Northern ECN 680/9, 1680/9; were C37F on a Guy Arab UF chassis with Gardner 6HLW engines, initially they were used primarily for extended tours and continental work, hence the smaller seating capacity. Both types were reliable workhorses and lasted well, I think the last ones were withdrawn in 1971. When not being used for tours the Guy’s were frequently to be found earning their keep on the express services from Newcastle to Liverpool or Blackpool. This was the pre motorway era, and the route to Liverpool in particular involved a long hard slog over the Pennine’s, so they didn’t exactly have an easy life. Percy Main did not have any express routes, but at busy times Wakefields coaches with P/M crews, could often be found displaying ‘on hire to Northern’ stickers, and working Northern express routes as duplicates. The AEC’s were certainly not underpowered, and if anything they were a bit livelier than the Guy’s on the flat, but once you hit the hills, it wasn’t long before the Guy would show you a clean pair of heels.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

23/06/13 – 08:39

Yes, Ronnie, you may very well be in a minority, but you are most certainly not alone. The only question to me is which of the four designs was the most elegant: this one, the Harrington Cavalier, the early Seagull, or the one Leyland produced for the Royal Tiger. One model railway forum of which I am a member has regular polls on different topics: I wonder!!!!!!!

Pete Davies

23/06/13 – 09:31

Well, as you know, Ronnie, I’m a Seagull, Fanfare AND Dalesman fan.

i) Seagull
ii) Cavalier/Grenadier
iii) Fanfare
iv) Dalesman

David Oldfield

23/06/13 – 14:51

North Western took the prototype which had been exhibited at the 1954 Commercial Motor Show with a long rectangular destination panel next to a three track number indicator in the same panel as the vehicle above. Later vehicles had the indicators removed to the roof line.
I agree that from most aspects the body was was a handsome. well designed and well built. My only gripe would be the heavy rear corner pillars which, combined with the curve to the roof line, from the rear made the vehicle look very round shouldered.

Phil Blinkhorn

23/06/13 – 17:21

I’m another Fanfare fan, and especially of the Northern General Guys, which were my absolute favourite coaches on the Liverpool service.

Peter Williamson

25/06/13 – 07:42

Ronnie, I must also add my name to the list of ‘Fanfare Fans’. Your comments about their appearance are spot on, and as a youngster I always felt privileged on seeing one glide through Harrogate on express work. They always looked very smart in Northern’s fine cream and rich red livery, and I can see one now in my mind’s eye, circumnavigating the floral roundabout from Station Parade onto tree-lined Victoria Avenue, and then off into in the summer sun. Wonderful. In those far off days, to my young eyes the Fanfare was one of those coaches that was not only beautiful to look at, but exuded a sort of ‘cuddliness’ with its curves. Another one in that class was the Burlingham Seagull, closely followed by the Bristol LS coach, with its bewhiskered Bristol-ECW badge on the front. Some modern bus and coach designs do try to look friendly with their ‘smiley’ frontal styling, but this just looks like an ‘add-on’ somehow. The Fanfare looked the part and did it without even trying.

Brendan Smith

25/06/13 – 11:51

I liked the Fanfare too, but the rear end was dreadfully old fashioned for a design introduced in 1954 – and compare it to the contemporary Duple Elizabethan which would have won hands down on looks. Duple, of course, only made the Elizabethan for two years before replacing it with the first version of the Britannia (and its centre-entrance sister the Brittanic), which to my eyes were simply dreadful. I much preferred the later versions of the Britannia built from 1959-62. Plaxton designs in the early years of Fanfare production were also fairly abysmal, especially the front entrance version of the Consort, and Harrington’s Wayfarer III/IV were an acquired taste – the front dome just looked wrong compared to the rest of it. And as for Yeates’ Europa and the later Burlingham Seagulls, the word "abominations" seems appropriate!
I may be eccentric (is there any doubt?) but my own favourites in coach design between 1951 and 1958 are:-
1) The original centre entrance Burlingham Seagull
2) The Whitson Grand Prix
3) The Bellhouse Hartwell Landmaster (especially the ones with the breast shaped headlight fairings!)
4) The Windover Kingsway
5) The ACB Coronation Land Cruiser
I’d also give an honourable mention to the Trans-United Brabazon (as supplied to Yelloway on Regal IV and Royal Tiger chassis)
As for the Harrington Cavalier, although an attractive design in 1960, it was rapidly overtaken by the stunning good looks of the (30ft long versions) of the Panorama model produced from 1961-64. Longer versions of this design had a distinct droop at the rear end which spoiled the effect.
When we’ve finished talking about underfloor engined coach designs, who would agree with me that Gurney Nutting’s fully-fronted Mertonian design on half-cab style chassis was impressive? I’ve also seen it described as monstrous!

Also, just a quick comment to Phil – the Fanfare prototype supplied to North Western (FDB 570) was actually delivered to NWRCC with the standard Fanfare blind display (as above) and was modified to show a separate route number at a later stage. North Western also modified the blind apertures on their 1958 Harrington Wayfarer IVs to suit standard blinds.

Neville Mercer

25/06/13 – 17:00

Very rare I disagree with Neville but I don’t think the Windovers gelled and the Bellhouse Hartwell was spoiled by the protuberances. Couldn’t agree more about Plaxton. The half-cab/full-front design was classic followed by years of "Oh gawd, what have they done now!?" Along with SUT (of blessed and bitter memory) I was a huge Plaxton fan in the period 1960 – 1982. [They then lost the plot in the Paramount years and the quality dropped to that of Duple just before their demise in 1989. They say the new ones have regained the quality: time will tell.] Question for our esteemed expert (Neville). Don’t you think the Trans United Brabazon was a rip off of the Landmaster?

David Oldfield

25/06/13 – 17:01

Another Fanfare fan here too Ronnie! I loved the Sheffield ones and for me the addition of a route indicator was not detrimental. These were used on the routes into the Derbyshire Peak District and one’s destination arrived all too soon if you were on one of these! However – my twelve points go to the Seagull, of which I rode the SUT classics, Ten points to the Fanfare, My eight points to the Grenadier / Crusader with Grey Cars being prime examples for me, and, like David O, the Dalesman would be next. Of the Duple designs, top contender is the "butterfly" front.

Les Dickinson

26/06/13 – 06:00

I can understand your dislike of the Kingsway, David. It had a certain "Marmite" quality to it. To me the design brings back memories of my first visit to Scarborough in the early 1960s where I marvelled at the rear-entrance examples operated by EYMS and YTC. I was heavily into sci-fi at the time, and something about the Kingsway shouted "the future was here….and now it’s gone", a bit like TSR2 if you remember that aircraft! The Landmaster, on the other hand, I’ll defend to the death. Mixed martial arts?
On the front-engined front, I think that most of us would agree with Les about the butterfly front Super Vega of the 1956-58 variety. A genuine classic and much better than the final two versions which (to me) always looked as if they’d been eating too many pies.

Neville Mercer

26/06/13 – 06:00

Some things just seem to look right regardless, the Fanfare being a classic example, but obviously some liveries look better than others, and what looks good to some is hideous to others. Keep it plain and simple seems to be the secret. Just for fun and in no particular order, here is my selection for 50’s mid 60’s classics. The following are all on an under floor chassis,
The original centre entrance Burlingham Seagull
ECW as per Bristol LS or Leyland LUT ‘United coach livery for preference’
Weymann Fanfare
Harrington Cavalier
Roe Dalesman
All Leyland Royal Tiger
Duple Roadmaster
and the pre ‘Y’ type Alexander used by many of the Scottish operators, I believe North Western also had a few of them. As for front engine chassis?
Duple Butterfly front, and a strange one perhaps, the beadle rebodies used by many BET group companies

Ronnie Hoye

26/06/13 – 06:00

Neville, if your taste in coach body-work is mirrored by your taste in ladies then you must have dated some real rough specimens in your time! But, can we take it that Mrs Mercer had/has "Bellhouse Hartwell Landmaster" attributes? My favourites?
1) Harrington Cavalier;
2) Harrington Grenadier with Cavalier front panels;
3) Harrington Grenadier;
4) any other possible combination of Grenadier/Cavalier bits I may not currently recall/know about;
5) the last real ECW coach body of the early 1970s;
6) the B51(?) ECW DP body of the late 1980s – can this sneak in as a coach? (didn’t some of them have single piece doors anyway? which would class them as a coach in my opinion);
7) that Willowbrook "cut-price Plaxton/Duple" DP effort of the same period – the one that no NBC subsidiary seemed to want, but which to me seemed to have an elegant simplicity and authenticity about it! Mrs Rushworth? alas in the last ten years gone from Cavalier to Yeates Riviera – but don’t tell her I said that!

Philip Rushworth

26/06/13 – 11:46

Gentlemen, I know that even the mention of Midland Red has many of you running to the barricades, but I would like to nominate their C5 motorway coach. Considering the prototype came out in 1958, it was a mould-breaker which set the standard for high-speed coaching. No doubt many will consider them to be little more than dual-purpose buses but, for me, so were the all-Leylands and Duple Roadmasters.

Paul Haywood

26/06/13 – 11:47

Phillip, I suspect that you were bottle-fed as a baby! And are you really saying that all of your favourite coaches pre-1970 were Cavalier/Grenadier variants? I notice that you don’t list any Crusader or Legionaire models although these had many similarities to the blessed Cavalier. Speaking of which, why has nobody produced a decent 1/50 or 1/76 scale Cavalier? EFE’s version was done on the cheap and it shows – it’s inaccurate for almost every operator except Yelloway because of the lack of front-dome roof-lights. And on the Yelloway version they screwed things up by the completely inaccurate destination and "via" blinds. It’s still hard to believe that somebody at EFE thought that "Rhyl" was spelled that way! If EFE weren’t so reluctant to admit their many glaring errors (and to get better "experts" to check their final artwork), they might have made amends by re-releasing their 119xx casting in Yelloway livery but showing accurate blinds for the Torquay or London routes. And as for their "Grenadier" model so much is wrong with it that it’s little better than a toy.

Neville Mercer

26/06/13 – 11:47

The Fanfare was as many have said an attractive understated coach The basic design was spoilt when Weymann added a barrel windscreen and dubbed it the Castilian

Chris Hough

27/06/13 – 07:06

Neville, perhaps I’m more forgiving, but – looking at the display cases above my desk – I’m just glad that in the last 25(?) years I’ve been able to build up a collection of ready-built models from LAD-cabbed Albion trucks to safari-wrapped EYMS Wrights . . . although I do agree that some of the errors have been unforgiveable – "West Yorkshire" on the back of OOCs/EFEs(?) OB and the wrong colour red on OOCs Huddersfield CVG (and on . . . and on . . . until we get to the white tween-decks band on EFE’s Bradford RT!). Pre-70 coach-wise I’ve done some thinking: Alexander produced a nice design, of which Barton took some; Y-type with a single door (Premier Travel, Venture, Eastern Scottish,); ECW produced functional products – but not that MW body with the stepped waist-rail, and the first RE body was behind its time (Lodekka grille on a coach?) when first released. Perhaps I was a bit tight Neville, but I’m not going to budge any further. And yes, bottle feeding was the rage in the 1960s.

Philip Rushworth

28/06/13 – 06:20

I must agree, it certainly is a handsome coach. We had at least 1 in Sheffield,(reg ???? WB) although it may have been a Leyland. Again used on the 8&9 routes I used at the time. I am not familiar with some of the other styles mentioned, but imagine it stood alongside what other buses would look like, in the mid 50s,in Sheffield, it must have been the best looking by far.

Andy Fisher

28/06/13 – 06:22

I worked for Boddys Bridlington from 1967 who had a fleet of older coaches for seasonal use as well as the modern fleet we had some Fanfares FDB 570, AHD 820, NCY 624,PWN 64,PWN 65,

Ken Wragg

28/06/13 – 14:18

Philip, I quite agree with all the model errors you list, and – like you – I’m pleased to live in a world where there’s a wider variety of model buses on offer than a Routemaster and an Atlantean with imaginary bodywork! But that can’t let EFE off the hook when they make really basic errors that any die-cast equivalent of a proof-reader should have spotted a mile away. They do, after all, boast about the accuracy of their models, which entitles us to whinge when they get it seriously wrong. Especially given that they’re the ones making money and we’re the ones spending it!
Incidentally has everyone noticed that Oxford Die-cast are planning to release a Fanfare in 1/76? I’m still waiting to see how accurate the colours are on their Ribble all-Leyland Royal Tiger coach given the seriously wrong shades shown in their current image on line. The second release of the Royal Tiger (Southdown) seems to have the same front dome as the Ribble one, whereas in reality the two versions were totally different. But I live in hope of some decent coach models. Can somebody prod OOC into releasing more of their excellent Mk 1 Seagull?
Speaking of the Seagull, a slightly late reply to David because I missed the original comment on first reading (senile?). I can see what you mean about the TU Brabazon being derivative, but it seems to me like a handsome mix of BH (the front end, minus appendages) and Burlingham (the side view aft of the cab). I imagine that all of these Lancashire coachbuilders kept a close eye on each other’s designs.

Neville Mercer

01/07/13 – 07:33

HDK 804

Just so that people know what David O and I are referring to, here is a Yelloway example of the Trans-United Brabazon. (photographer unknown – print via GMTS Archive)

Neville Mercer

01/11/13 – 07:54

One AEC Reliance 470 that ! have fond memories of is 1632 NO. It was new to Frank Harris of Grays with a Duple body. Following an RTA, it was rebodied in 1962 with a Harrington Cavalier C43F body. The Coach firm from Bugbrooke Northamptonshire who provided the Coaches I went to school on acquired it in (I think) late 1974. The Harrington standard seats are the most comfortable that I have EVER sat on. It was a smashing vehicle to ride on. It is a crying shame that this lovely Coach is now in that great coach park in the sky.



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



Sheffield Corporation – Crossley – JWJ 737 – 237 & KWA 776 – 576

Sheffield Corporation - Crossley - JWJ 737 - 237 & KWA 776 - 576

Sheffield Corporation - Crossley - JWJ 737 - 237 & KWA 776 - 576

Sheffield Corporation
Crossley SD42 & DD42
Crossley B32R & H56R

Following the end of the war, Sheffield Corporation A fleet took a small number of Crossleys (28 in all) over three years. First to arrive were six single-deckers 237-242 (JWJ 737 – 742) in 1947. In the same year eight double-deck vehicles were added, they were 573 – 580 (KWA 773 – 780). They were followed in 1948 by another ten and in 1949 by four more. The two pictures show examples of the earliest deliveries, but look at the different styling around the front ends. The doubledeck version is probably more typically Crossley with the window line dipping to meet the line of the windscreen. The singledeck version has a straight window line at the front but still meeting the line of the windscreen. Most Sheffield doubledeckers would have two route blinds, these one-liners were in a minority but taken at a time when getting new buses was a higher priority than "calling the shots".

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

20/06/13 – 16:44

I think all Crossleys were distress purchases, in time of great need, and that they were diverted orders. That explains the non-standard features. Certainly the four 1949 Crossleys were diverted from a Liverpool order, albeit they seemed to have Sheffield specification – down to destination blinds.

David Oldfield

PS: The 1948 ten were interesting in that they had NCB bodywork. Were they unique?

21/06/13 – 08:10

I believe the single deckers were a diverted order from Chesterfield Corporation and the batch of eight double deckers 573-580 diverted from a Lancaster order.
Numbers 573-580 seemed to spend most of their lives on the Inner Circle routes 8 and 9.

John Darwent

21/06/13 – 08:11

A picture of a former Lancaster City Transport SD42 showing the straight windscreen is on this site at the People’s League for the Defence of Freedom page.The straight lower line of the windscreen was standard on the single deck Crossley bus body (the Dutch Crossleys are a completely different species). This feature was maintained right up to the very last single deck SD42/7 Crossley bodies, two of which were delivered to Southport Corporation in 1951, though these lacked the stepped waistrail. Southport had earlier also specified the straight windscreen line on its pair of DD42/7s with downdraught engines supplied in 1950.

Roger Cox

21/06/13 – 08:11

Here’s one of the DD42/3’s with NCB bodywork you mentioned, David O. Certainly nothing I’ve ever seen before. www.sct61.org.uk/sh595

Chris Hebbron

21/06/13 – 16:45


Above is an advertisement put out by Crossley that is quite appropriate.

I was always intrigued how neighbouring Rotherham more or less kept their Crossleys hard at work on the flat terrain as much as possible, mainly on the joint service 69 to Sheffield, whereas STD seemed to deliberately seek out some of the fiercest hills, such as several encountered on the Inner Circle, on which to run theirs!
Division Street obviously had more faith in the Crossley’s climbing abilities than Frederick Street!

Dave Careless

22/06/13 – 07:55

The mention of the double deckers being diverted from a Lancaster order goes a long way to explaining the style of indicator display.

Pete Davies

22/06/13 – 07:56

I don’t think it is true to say that all Crossleys were distress purchases. AFAIK there were only two problems, the engine and the steering, neither of which were known about when the first ones were ordered. The engine problem only became serious under stress: I have never heard any complaints about it in single deckers, even in double deckers it was worse in hilly terrain than on the flat, and it was eventually fixed by AEC engineers. As for the steering, it too could be fixed (I don’t know if Manchester were alone in doing this) and although it sounds brutal, it was something that only affected drivers and not the balance sheet. So unless an operator actually cared about its staff, or had a strong trade union presence, the problem could be ignored.
Those two things apart, I seem to remember Geoffrey Hilditch being quite complimentary about Crossleys.

Peter Williamson

22/06/13 – 09:43

Depends what you mean by distress, Peter. Given a clear field, untrammelled by Government intervention, Sheffield would have continued to buy only Leyland and AEC – presumably continuing the pre-war body orders to Leyland, Weymann, Craven and Roberts. Like everyone else, they couldn’t get enough from their preferred suppliers and in times of "distress" went where they could to find sufficient vehicles. This included the said diverted orders of Crossleys but also included deliveries of Daimler CVD6s as well as going to unusual suppliers of bodywork – NCB; Cawood; Wilks and Meade. When things settled down in the ’50s, a simple dual sourcing policy returned – Leyland/AEC and Weymann/Roe.

David Oldfield

23/06/13 – 08:16

A further point of interest is that on receipt, the six SD42’s diverted to Sheffield had only a single destination aperture at the front (as found on similar Chesterfield vehicles) and this was not wide enough to incorporate a route number as well as a place name. Sheffield therefore effected their own modification and cut out a separate aperture alongside for the route number but presumably the restricted space for this exercise was only sufficient for a two digit display. I doubt this would have been a problem since, as far as I can remember, they spent the majority of their lives on such routes as 37 and 40 to Bakewell via Baslow and via Carver Sough.

John Darwent

23/06/13 – 08:17

Leeds had dual sourced AEC & Leyland pre war and were allocated utility Daimlers during hostilities. Such an impression did these make that Daimler continued to supply chassis for the next thirty years. They bought one Crossley which impressed enough to be followed by 20 odd others all of which lasted until the early sixties. Indeed they outlasted some of the postwar Daimlers which were far more standard than they were. Perhaps as Leeds was a major AEC customer they got help with the Crossleys from that quarter.

Chris Hough

23/06/13 – 08:17

As a small boy in Sheffield I remember being taken by my uncle on more than one occasion for a ride all the way round on the "Outer Circular" service. From memory and it is a long time ago, the bus was invariably a Crossley. Again, from memory, it was never very full so maybe "Division Street" did keep these buses to the lighter used routes?

Stan Zapiec

23/06/13 – 17:23

Like Stan, I also used Crossleys on the 2 / 3 Outer Circle. My trips were shorter, being from Gleadless Town End to Graves Park, or Abbeydale Road where we would get the tram to Millhouses Park. The Crossleys never seemed very happy on this run, especially on the uphill return journey, to my young mind.

Les Dickinson

25/06/13 – 17:04

I used the 8/9 regularly from Broadfield Road to Newbould Lane to get to school from 1964 – 1971. The Crossleys had gone by then. I only had cause to use the Outer Circle after some nit had changed it (and the route) to 2/59! [They were PDR2/1 Atlanteans. Actually quite good, but outside our purview.]

David Oldfield

03/07/13 – 15:13

The double-decker`s were used on the 8&9 routes, along with the 69 Rotherham. They would only have needed single destination blinds for these routes. Later PD2s on the 69 route also had 1 destination blind that had the route & number in one box, as you lads have explained to me before.

Andy Fisher


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



West Bromwich – Daimler CVG5 – FEA 156 – 156

West Bromwich - Daimler CVG5 - FEA 156 - 156

West Bromwich (County Borough of) Transport Dept
Daimler CVG5
Metro-Cammell B38R

To return to West Bromwich, near contemporaries of the GEA registered Daimler double deckers, a pair of which were posted on site a week or so ago, were a batch of single deckers. The chassis were built in 1948, but due to pressure of work at Metro-Cammell the bodies were not ready until 1952. By then, of course, under floor engined saloons were almost ubiquitous, so they seemed old even when new.
One of them, FEA 156, has been preserved and is seen here in 2012, in West Brom’s superb livery.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin

17/06/13 – 06:55

Thanks for posting, Tony. I agree with your comment about their ‘old’ appearance, even from new. If the entry at the rear had been fitted with a door, or if the door had been just behind the front wheels (as with Birmingham’s Tigers, for example) it might have helped.

Pete Davies

17/06/13 – 06:56

Looks a bit old, even for 1948…. it is not helped by the slopey windscreen and rear entrance. I have never seen a Daimler radiator finished in what looks like silver paint.. is this authentic? It makes the radiator seem to project even more in front of the bodywork, which cannot be the engine length as it is a G5: contemporary Daimlers weren’t always so, I suggest. Nice looking preservation, though.


17/06/13 – 15:04

Interesting bonnet opening arrangement as well, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. Was this normal Daimler practice at the time?

Eric Bawden

17/06/13 – 17:30

Wonderful livery! One of the all time classics. It seems strange that it took four years to build bodies for this small batch of vehicles despite the post-war high demand for new vehicles.

Philip Halstead

18/06/13 – 07:17

I was also thinking that the four year delay was excessive and must have had some other factor. One other thing I’m not sure of is the length of this bus. I am inclined to think that it’s a thirty-foot long vehicle as 38 is a lot of seats to fit into one twenty-seven and a half feet long when you take into account the platform style which didn’t sit well with maximising seating capacity.
The thing is, I’m sure the increased length didn’t become legal until at least 1949, so why build an illegal chassis in 1948?
Having looked around the web a bit and been rather distracted by some shots of this bus’s superbly-restored double-deck sister 174 I find references to the chassis being built in 1950. Everything then makes sense.
So what is the correct year for the chassis – I have no primary sources to refer to?

David Beilby

18/06/13 – 07:19

Edinburgh bought several batches of saloons with this kind of MCW body including Guys and some similar Daimlers. The body was basically a pre war design.

Chris Hough

18/06/13 – 18:15

Yes, FEA 156 is 30′ long. The chassis was lengthened when the body was fitted, as this was legal by then.

Tony Martin

26/09/13 – 06:33

With regards to the radiator finish, the bus was restored as original as can be, as part of the 156 group we have photos in colour that show 156 had a painted radiator compared to the more ‘standard’ finish that was used with Daimler, I believe they were painted depending on the engine, but when I have found out the correct reason why I will let you all know.


28/09/13 – 17:46

It’s lovely to see one of these W. Bromwich buses looking impeccable. In my RAF service days in the late 1950’s we’d go into Brum from time to time and see a W. Bromwich bus whizzing across a junction or lurking in a side road. I honestly never saw one other than faded and tatty. It didn’t help that B’ham Corp’n vehicles were always impeccable, greatly helped by a policy of no adverts.

Chris Hebbron

11/11/13 – 09:49

GEA 174

Seen here together are 156 and the recently restored 174 at an event at AMRTM, Aldridge.

Tony Martin

11/11/13 – 15:18

They make a fine pair, tony. Thx for posting.

Chris Hebbron

23/02/14 – 15:17

Re: FEA 156. What a stunning body style this was. I probably saw all these when I worked in West Brom and I always considered them to be unique especially with the rear cut-away entrance and no door. The driver also appeared to sit up very high.
Re: GEA 174. Yet another stunning body style. The flared skirt just makes for a truly handsome vehicle. I rode these as often as I could on the 74 & 75 routes in preference to the Birmingham buses. They had the front row of seats in the lower deck turned at right angles to face each other.
Pity the Beclawat top hinged window vents to the front upper deck are missing. Most likely unable to find any replacements.

Jerry Morgan


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 Sunday 26th March 2017