Old Bus Photos

London Transport – Leyland Tiger – JXC 288 – TD 95

London Transport - Leyland Tiger - JXC 288 - TD 95

London Transport
Leyland Tiger PS1
Mann Egerton B30F

Following the cessation of hostilities in 1945, the London Passenger Transport Board found itself seriously short of serviceable vehicles, partly through enemy action but equally because of the time expired nature of much of the fleet. To compound the problem, 55 T type AEC Regals and 20 Leyland Cubs were sent to assist in war ravaged Belgium and Germany. To meet the needs of the capital city, the Ministry of Supply (that still oversaw the allocation of resources in the immediate post war period) sanctioned the delivery of a number of standard provincial types of buses to London, which was still taking the tail end deliveries of utility double deckers, mainly Daimler CWA6 plus a few Guy Arabs. Thus between 1946 and 1948 the AEC Regent O661 (STL) and Regal O662/O962 (T), Leyland PD1 (STD) and PS1(TD) appeared on the London scene. From 1st January 1948 the LPTB became the nationalised London Transport Executive, and help began arriving in the form of vehicles on loan from provincial operators, notably Bristols from Tilling group companies, though Tilling itself did not sell out to the government until September 1948. In 1946 LT was allocated fifty AEC Regal O662 buses (7.7 litre engine/crash gearbox – basically the pre-war design) but also thirty one examples of Leyland’s very new Tiger PS1. These eighty one vehicles were fitted with Weymann B33F bodies of unprepossessing appearance, characterised particularly by a front destination indicator box that “frowned” over the top of the driver’s windscreen. In 1948 a further thirty Regals were acquired, but these were of the O962 variety with 9.6 litre engines and epicyclic gearboxes, consistent in specification with the new RT double deck fleet. At the same time another one hundred PS1s came into LT ownership, though these still had the standard 7.4 litre engine and crash gearbox. The 1948/9 Regal and Tiger deliveries were fitted with Mann Egerton B31F bodywork (later reduced to B30F) displaying much cleaner lines than the earlier Weymann bodies. One would have expected the preselector gearbox Regals to have been allocated to the Central (red) fleet, but they all went to Country area garages, while all the crash gearbox Regals and PS1s operated in red livery. Given London Transport’s unenthusiastic attitude to “non standardisation”, these provincial type single deckers clearly earned some measure of respect, for they lasted between ten and fourteen years in LT ownership. Seen above on the A23 Brighton Road during the 1971 HCVC Run is Mann Egerton bodied TD 95, JXC 288, which entered service in May 1949 and was sold in August 1963. In 1965, now in private hands, it undertook a series of extraordinary Continental journeys to Rumania, Hungary, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Hamburg, Helsinki, Lenningrad, Moscow, Warsaw and Berlin, followed, in 1965, by a trip to France and Spain. Then again in 1966 TD95 went off to France, Belgium, Prague, Offenbach, Budapest and Belgrade. Throughout the performance of this amazing machine was exemplary. It then passed into preservation in May 1967 to be restored into its previous LT guise. In that form, as with all Central Area single deckers of its time, the front entrance has no door at the insistence of the Metropolitan Police, who clearly took the Spartan view that the possibilities of a passenger falling out or incurring influenza from draught were rendered insignificant against boarding and alighting delays.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

08/08/17 – 06:07

The seating capacity of 30 seems rather low for a full sized post war halfcab saloon, most provincial versions averaged around 35 seats. Did these TDs have a standing area at the front with inward facing seats or was it a luggage pen which took up some of the space?

Chris Barker

08/08/17 – 08:36

I rather think that, in view of Roger’s views on the attitude of the Metropolitan Police, the reason for the low seating capacity lies in that direction, rather than standing area or luggage pen!

Pete Davies

09/08/17 – 06:42

The full service life of these buses shows that LT could successfully operate standard provincial designs when they put their minds to it. This opens up the oft-debated cherry – was the Routemaster really necessary? Would PD2’s, Regent V’s or CVG’s have done the job of replacing trolleybuses and later on the RT family just as well? All were available in semi-auto form which would probably have been a minimum requirement for LT. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow for example seemed to manage and Birmingham even got large numbers of Crossleys to work. Food for thought!

Philip Halstead

09/08/17 – 06:43

I know the Green Line and Country area RF’s had doors, whereas the central area red versions didn’t, was it the same story with these?

Ronnie Hoye

09/08/17 – 06:44

Pete’s comment is true, but it is also relevant to remember that the T&GWU of the time had considerable influence upon the vehicle configuration and seating layout of the LT fleet. These Tigers were used on intensive urban routes where low bridges and other obstructions prevented the operation of double deckers. Free movement of the conductor and easy access/egress for passengers would have been important issues.

Roger Cox

11/08/17 – 06:27

Philip raises an interesting point. Could London Transport have managed without the Routemaster? I think that, yes, it probably could, but some curious features of the London Transport engineering situation have to be taken into account. The RT/RTL/RTW/RM families were designed to be taken to pieces like Meccano for processing through the Aldenham overhaul system. Firstly, however, did LT need a fleet of some 2760 Routemasters in the first place? When the initial deliveries went into service in 1959, LT already possessed a surplus of RT and RTL buses. The last RT deliveries came in November 1954, and 81 went immediately into store until 1958/59 when the RM production scheme was already in progress. Similarly, 63 of the last RTL deliveries were stored until 1958. On the grounds of ‘non standardisation’, the 120 entirely sound Cravens bodied RTs had already been sold off in 1956 when they were only between eight and six years old, and, by 1961, over 200 of the earliest RTs (discounting the so called ‘pre war’ machines that were withdrawn in 1955 when they were 13 to 15 years old) had gone when they were only some 10 years or so of age. Nonetheless, ever besotted with its inward thinking, LT brought out the costly Routemaster, claiming that the capacity increase of 8 seats over the RT family was essential for trolleybus replacement. (It seems astonishing now that London Transport seemed utterly exempt from any kind of cost constraint, but the profligate attitude was to continue in later years with the catastrophic Merlin/Swift/MetroScania charade and then the Daimler Fleetline debacle.) Undoubtedly, standard offerings from the manufacturers catalogues could have provided entirely satisfactory fleets for the Capital’s public transport needs, but for the rigid LT engineering system. London Transport did not employ, at its garages, engineers as they were understood by municipal or company bus operators. London Transport had ‘fitters’. If anything went wrong, that part was simply removed and sent to Chiswick in return for a replacement item. Mechanical analysis was not part of the scheme of things. That was Chiswick’s job. Likewise, body/chassis overhauls were totally centralised at Aldenham, where the chassis and body were separated and sent down different overhaul tracks, the chassis being dealt with more quickly than the bodies. At the output end, the next completely rebuilt emerging body and chassis were put together and given the fleet number of a bus that had just gone into the works. Thus, identifying a London bus by its fleet number was essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, the Aldenham system could have worked equally well with jig built bodywork mounted on a standard provincial chassis type. Indeed, the early Routemasters were exceedingly troublesome, and it took some years of development to make them truly reliable.

Roger Cox

12/08/17 – 07:37

I only travelled on one of these once, on the 240A. I have wondered whether that was part of the original 240 route left for single deck operation after the rest of the route was converted to double deck buses during WWII. I do not recall seeing a standing area or a luggage pen.
I doubt if the standard double deck buses of the mid-1950s would have done the job as London Transport specified automatic gearboxes for the red Routemasters and semi-automatic for the green country area and Greenline Routemasters, probably to provide a mechanically common set of buses for the country area depots. In any case, Greenline drivers sometimes worked a country route when necessary (they were paid the same as the central area crews, which was slightly more than that paid to the country area crews).
That said, I never warmed to the Routemaster. My favourites in the late 1950s and 1960s were the Southdown Guy Arab 4s wit Park Royal Bodywork and Weymann-bodied Dennis Loline IIIs.

David Wragg

14/08/17 – 07:31

The offside seat behind the driver was a single seat on the central area TDs as illustrated here – www.flickr.com/photos/ (taken at a route 227 running day) – think the idea was to give the conductor somewhere to stand without being in the way as passengers got on/off.


15/08/17 – 07:56

Referring to Philip Halstead’s comment about standard types, the Guy Arab (which, like the others, was available in semi-automatic form) should not be forgotten, particularly in view of the large number operated in Hong Kong. It’s been suggested that if something will work in Hong Kong, it will work anywhere!
As for Birmingham’s Crossleys, they were of the later type with engine design modified by AEC. Apparently they were more successful than the CVD6s that BCT were obliged to take because of a shortage of Gardner engines.

Peter Williamson

16/08/17 – 06:50

Peter, only the second half of the Birmingham Crossley DD42/6 1949/50 order for 260 buses, numbers 2396-2525, had the HOE7/5B downdraught engine. The first 130, numbers 2266-2395, plus the earlier 10 buses delivered in 1946, numbers 1646-1655, were delivered with standard HOE7 engines that were retained to the end. Even so, as you point out, Birmingham regarded the Crossley engine more highly than the contemporary Daimler CD6, individual examples of which proved to be extremely variable in quality.

Roger Cox

16/08/17 – 06:52

I apologise Peter for omitting the Guy Arab. I well remember the Hong Kong Arabs while living out there in the mid-1980’s. They would storm up Stubbs Road on the route on the Island over the mountain to Aberdeen. At the summit they would be boiling profusely but by the time they had thundered down the other side and had chance to cool down a bit they were ready to return. The same can be said about the DMS’s. London offloaded them over there in large numbers saying the were unreliable or some such excuse. They operated quite happily for CMB in far more taxing conditions than London. 30deg of heat, mountainous terrain, severe traffic congestion and some ‘enthusiastic’ handling by the Chinese drivers.

Philip Halstead

17/08/17 – 07:19

I think I might have got on well with the bus drivers in Hong Kong, as my colleagues used to say my style of driving was ‘enthusiastic’! I suppose they were right. Southampton to North Lancashire or the Southern end of the Lake District as a day trip . . . Yes, some of them used a different word!

Pete Davies

17/08/17 – 07:20

Interesting to see mention of Guy Arabs in a thread on Leyland Tigers. Have no personal memories of either as too young but I have pictures of my grandfather stood in front of both a Guy Arab and a Leyland Tiger TS8 while he worked for Thames Valley. Pictures of Thames Valley liveried Guy Arab’s I can find but a Tiger TS8 with ECW B35R coachwork in Thames Valley livery seems to be more of a challenge.

Andrew Stevens

18/08/17 – 06:32

Andrew: that was Thames Valley’s golden age—at least for enthusiasts! There are also some pictures of TV TS8s in the later pages of Thames Valley 1931-1945 and near the beginning of Thames Valley 1946-1960, both written and published by Paul Lacey. The last of the TS8s were withdrawn in October 1954. As a young passenger I loved the "woody" sound of the engine, the groaning in second gear, the gentle whine in third and the big Clayton heater on the front bulkhead.

Ian Thompson

17/05/19 – 07:13

When the TD 32-131 Mann Egerton bodies were built they had 31 seats, but one was removed to give the conductor more room, I think in the mid 1950s. London roads were narrow, and the 26ft x 7ft 6 in size was standard at the time. Luggage pens are a recent idea!
The comment about route 240A – originally Edgware to Hale Lane Mill Hill later extended to Mill Hill East Station, the low bridge at Mill Hill station preventing double decks from Mill Hill to Edgware. TDs originally alloc to EW as 240/240A. If LT had completed the 1935-40 works programme that they should have done the link from East Finchley via Mill Hill East, Mill Hill Hale Lane to Edgware of the Northern line would have replaced the LMS steam line for the Northern line to link up with the route to Golders Green. When the Mill Hill bridge was rebuilt when M1 opened at the southern end, a new bus station was built under the main line at Mill Hill, and route 240A which had had TDs from 1949 to 1962, then RF’s was withdrawn and covered by an extension of route 221 from North Finchley to Edgware with Routemasters.

Mark Jameson

18/05/19 – 06:13

26ft x 7ft 6in was standard for double deckers, but the standard size of a PS1 was 27ft 6in x 7ft 6in. If London Transport’s were really only 26ft long, that would go some way to explaining why they only had 31 seats, but it seems most unlikely.

Peter Williamson

19/05/19 – 07:25

Peter is right. The LT TD class were entirely standard PS1 buses having an overall length of 27ft 6ins on a wheelbase of 17ft 6ins. The usual wheelbase for a contemporary 26ft double decker was 16ft 4ins. The erroneous 27ft length figure for the LT TD class comes from the usually accurate Ian’s Bus Stop site. A few examples of 17ft 6ins wheelbase PS1/4 chassis for the then new permitted length of 27ft for double deck bodywork were taken by Birch Bros in 1951.

Roger Cox


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



Karefree Travel – Austin CXB – NPF 140

Karefree Travel - Austin CXB - NPF 140

Karefree Travel
Austin CXB
Mann Egerton C31F

There appears to be some confusion about the exact model definition of the immediate post war Austin passenger model range. The Austin “near clone” of the Bedford O haulage vehicle was the K type, and the equivalent passenger model (and OB lookalike) was the CX. Some sources suggest that the bonneted model was simply classified CX, and this became the CXB in forward control form. Others state that the bonneted type was the CXB and the forward control version the CXD. When a Perkins P6 diesel option was offered from around 1950 the type became CXD Series II, which appeared in 1956 in Series III form, essentially for export, with the BMC 5.1 litre diesel. However, pictures of the bonneted model and the forward control version are both frequently described it being the CXB, so what is the true position? The Commercial Motor for 1st October 1948 states that the first forward control CXB example which appeared at the Commercial Motor Show in that year was converted from normal control by the Norwich based coach builder and Austin dealer Mann Egerton. A picture of this exhibit may be found here carrying the fictitious registration number M(ann) E(gerton) 1949:-
www.stilltimecollection.co.uk/ I remain sceptical that the 1948 forward control conversion was entirely carried out by Mann Egerton as production examples from Austin began appearing shortly after the Earls Court Show, though it may well be that the Norwich based coach builder put pressure on, and collaborated with, Austin in bringing the model to the market. The standard coach bodywork by Mann Egerton for the forward control CXB was given the name “Norfolk” and was distinguished by its curiously sculpted front end to which the standard Austin radiator grille (an upsized version of the shape employed on the cars) was rather incongruously attached. The result certainly lacked the businesslike appearance of the Bedford SB that appeared in 1950. Somewhere around 1953 the Norfolk body became rather more stylish, but the Austin coach was then in its twilight days on the home market, though exports continued into the 1960s. The 1947 bonneted Austin CX series originally had a 67 bhp 3½ litre petrol engine, but from 1948 this was upgraded with a 68 bhp 4 litre unit. The gearbox was a four speed synchromesh, which compared favourably with the crash box of the Bedford OB, but, unlike the Austin, the Bedford had servo assisted brakes and remained the more popular type by far.
NPF 140 shown above was photographed in the large Croydon council estate of New Addington in 1960, and bore the trading name Karefree Travel about whom I know nothing. The livery bears a close resemblance to the 1948 Show exhibit – could it be the same vehicle, I wonder?
It can also be seen in this 1950 shot taken in Parliament Square.

NPF 140_2
Copyright NA3T Arthur Hustwitt (Memorial)Collection)

Some interesting comments concerning the relative merits of the Bedford OB and the Austin CX range may be found here (scroll halfway down):-

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

19/07/17 – 11:07

In John Carman’s excellent book, AUSTIN K SERIES BUSES & COACHES, the following information is shown.
NPF 140, FC31F, K4/CXB, Mann Egerton, 139990, 9/49. L.G Lambird (Carshalton & Wallington Coaches) Wallington Surrey

John Rentell

20/07/17 – 07:20

John Carman’s book has an appendix of all the known Austin K series (including the 3 way van based K8) It also explains in detail the different designations.
Well worth £12 including p&p direct from John at Mont du Herissaon Grande Maison Road St Sampson Guernsey GY2 4JH

John Wakefield

21/07/17 – 07:07

Amazing that a postwar 31-seat coach should have no servo braking. As with the Bedford OB, the appearance of this Austin coach suffers from the narrowness of the front track, which shows up to particular disadvantage in the lower photograph, but even with a full-width front axle the top-heavy, ungainly body design would still spoil the whole effect. Why were just-postwar builders and their customers not content with simple, unpretentious, straight-waisted bodywork that sat easily on the chassis instead of appearing to crush it? The CXB chassis deserved better! Thanks too, Roger, for the fascinating link.

Ian Thompson

29/07/17 – 07:10

I have one of the forward control model of these and I see that, whilst the log book doesn’t specify the chassis type, the chassis number itself is prefixed CXB. Don’t know if that helps.

Peter Cook

30/07/17 – 06:44

That’s useful, Peter. Could we see a photo and some history of your rare vehicle and how you came to acquire it?

Chris Hebbron

01/08/17 – 07:25

MAF 544

Chris. I regret to say that my knowledge of the history of the vehicle is limited. The reg. no. is MAF 544 so presumably it came from a Cornish operator. Chassis is CXB139946. As much as I know of the histroy is that it was acquired by Colin Shears at some stage and subsequently sold to someone who I think came from Plymouth. After it had spent a number of years outside, the would be preservationist decided that it was too far gone and returned it to Colin. I then acquired it from Colin. The bodywork was beyond salvation and went to Barnsley packed inside a Leyland National. I did keep some of the more iconic panels in case anyone wanted them. The chassis is being renovated.

Peter Cook

02/08/17 – 07:00

Peter; check out //www.sct61.org.uk/zzmaf544

John Lomas

02/08/17 – 07:02

Thx, Peter, for taking the trouble to post the photo and what history you’re aware of.It’s always sad to see old vehicles reach this stage, but doubly so when they are rare to start with. Saving the chassis is, nevertheless, a fruitful enterprise. Good luck with that.

Chris Hebbron


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



Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – NWE 561 – 361

Sheffield Corporation - Leyland Titan PD2 - NWE 561 - 361
From the Tom Robinson Collection

Sheffield Corporation
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Mann Egerton H30/26R

There have been many previous references to Sheffield PD2s including those bodied by Leyland, Weymann/MCW, Roe and ECW but as far as I know, the small but rare order for two buses from Mann Egerton hasn’t been mentioned. These buses enjoyed the usual thirteen year life with Sheffield prior to selling on. Tom Robinson of the Sheffield Transport Study Group comments and I quote "362 went via a Barnsley scrapman to Paton’s of Renfrew. Paton was so pleased with the bus he immediately tried to buy 361 which was at the same scrapyard. Alas it was in the course of being scrapped. In time ex 362 was cut down to single deck. The result of a fire, I think, and used as a tow wagon. They really were impressive and heavy vehicles. The saloon woodwork was especially opulent."
Keith Beeden advises that although the original contract called for H30/26R, steps were taken shortly after delivery to change this to H32/26R possibly because Roe were seating H33/25R on their deliveries at the time

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Darwent

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

The Roe PD2s were the first of many bodies from the Crossgate works. They were NWE 586-594 but were delivered earlier, in 1951. I suspect the reason for both bodies being higher seating capacity was that they were (Sheffield’s) earliest vehicles to 27′ rather 26′ length.
Despite many comments to the contrary, even by eminent experts, there was a standard – but not standardised – Sheffield bus. [During most of the ‘fifties it was either a Regent or Titan with either a Weymann or Roe body.] It changed with time and the demise of certain companies but a lot of the post war interest was with the "distress purchases" when, especially Weymann, could not meet demand. Occasionally the distress purchases turned out to be gems – true of these two Mann Egertons. There are two magnificent green London Transport Ts on the Rally Circuit (9.6 powered Regal III – a single deck RT) which attest to the beauty and quality of Mann Egerton’s work.
Mann Egerton were better known as the Norwich Austin dealer and they bodied many early post war Austins as small coaches, but the London Transport work did no harm to their reputation and their balance sheet.

David Oldfield

13/09/12 – 07:05

Here is a picture of 362 with Patons: www.flickr.com

Stephen Bloomfield

13/09/12 – 08:33

Very handsome vehicle, especially in that fine livery. Had no idea that Mann Egerton had ever built d/deckers. Sad that 361 was broken up after such a short life: if they were heavy then they must have been pretty robust too.

Ian Thompson

14/09/12 – 06:29

Ian, they are supposed to be the only deckers they ever built. They did get as far as building underfloor coaches as well – including a pair of AEC Regal IVs for Creamline of Bordon Hants.

Stephen. Can’t find 362 on flickr.

David Oldfield

14/09/12 – 06:32

They were certainly unusual looking, and stood out, especially with that slightly recessed panel at the front where the destination boxes were, which was unique in the fleet. But to my mind, they weren’t nearly as handsome as the OWB-registered PD2/10’s (656-667) alongside which they ran regularly on the 69 service joint with Rotherham Corporation. I seem to recall the two Mann Egerton’s sat down at the back end quite noticeably, especially when they had a good load on, but perhaps that was just a perception.
Ironically, one of the PD2/10’s, 666, was cut down to a gritter/towing vehicle by STD, just like Paton’s ended up doing with the former 362, and in its sheared off form, G56, as it became, was kept busy for many years, considerably longer than the fourteen years it served as a bus, towing all kinds of disgraced rear-engined machines back to Central Works from wherever they’d decided to expire. And it always looked quite happy doing it!

Dave Careless

14/09/12 – 06:34

A smart bus, indeed – but does anyone know why these had the sunken destination screen box? I know some pre-war and early post-war Sheffield buses had this feature, but it was by no means universal. It would be interesting to speculate that, had Mann Egerton ever tried to sell d/d’s to LT following on from their successful PS1s, then this large screen box area would be almost the same proportions as that used for the roof-box RT!

Paul Haywood

14/09/12 – 06:35

A quicker link to the ex- 362 picture Stephen.
Debateable whether the Patons livery does the bus any favours though. www.flickr.com/

John Darwent

14/09/12 – 06:37

Is it just me, or can anyone else see a distinct resemblance to Roberts bodywork (also very heavy!) sct61.org.uk/da86  ?

Peter Williamson

14/09/12 – 06:14

Apparently Glasgow Corporation FYS 494 fleet number D66 was a Daimler CVD6 with a Mann Egerton H30/26R body, new in 1951, scrapped 1960 and rebodied with an Alexander body from FYS 488 fleet number D60 which was a Daimler CD650, (10.6 litre with power steering) but chassis scrapped, not a very popular bus that one.


14/09/12 – 06:39

Glasgow Corporation received a Mann Egerton bodied Daimler CVD6 double-decker in 1951 – D66 (FYS 494).

David Call

15/09/12 – 07:08

You’ll be hard pressed to find many of today’s featherweight Eurobuses fit to be preserved in future years and yet in the fifties the professionals were complaining about buses being too heavy. [Please compare fuel mpg of a fifties half-cab with a Euro 5 diesel.]
Why do people eulogise the Mann Egertons and their contemporary Roberts Regent IIIs – let alone their mainstream Weymann and Roe cousins? They were beautifully made, well made and looked good. The lightweight Orion and similar PRV/Roe offerings were the reaction to these heavy bodies. I ask you, what would you prefer?

The recessed destination display was, indeed, a pre-war Sheffield feature. There are echoes in the 1949/50 Cravens/Regent IIIs – featured on this site earlier this year. The most interesting manifestation was on the immediate pre-war all Leyland TD5cs, which had to have non-standard small upper deck screens to accommodate it. It was also a feature of the 1936 Cravens/TD4cs and "broke" the blue line under the upper deck windows. Weymanns managed to get the display in without either recessing the display or breaking the line.
Some post-war bodies managed to "avoid the line" in the Weymann manner but most encroached into the line surrounding the number display without breaking it. Significantly, the 1953/4 PD2/Weymanns avoided the line, like their predecessors, but the subsequent 1954 Regent III/Weymanns "encroached" in the normal post war fashion. Hours of scrutinising photographs has not yielded a satisfactory answer to the question, Why?

Dave. Couldn’t agree more. 656-667 were my favourite PD2s.

David Oldfield

15/09/12 – 07:09

In Classic Bus 110 I asked if Sheffield was the only order for M.E doubledeckers. The reply, and a follow-up in Classic Bus 112 will probably interest those who have responded above.

Les Dickinson

15/09/12 – 07:11

The reason that Sheffield ordered the two Mann Egerton bodies is quite interesting.
In November 1949 a tender was advertised for 30 double deck buses, complete chassis and bodies or chassis only or bodies only.
At the time, all the STD PD2/1’s delivered since 1947, carried Leyland bodywork. The Leyland management advised the transport committee to "look elsewhere for bodywork"
In consequence, an intended order for 30 buses to the forthcoming new regulations of 27′ x 7’6" was varied. The result was that an order for 10 NCB, 2 Roe and 2 Mann Egerton bodies were contracted.
Surprisingly, Leyland offered to supply 16 complete vehicles to the existing 26’x 7’6" PD2/1 standard. Unfortunately, NCB ceased trading, and Roe were awarded another seven bodies. The balance of the outstanding 11 (9 Roe 2 Mann Egerton) were built on the PD2/12 27’x 8′ chassis, authorised in 1950. This batch of 11 replaced 13 trams for the City to Fulwood tramway abandonment. Therefore the original 30 require was reduced to 27. Quite a complicated situation!

Keith Beeden

15/09/12 – 07:13

I understood that Newcastle Corporation also had some Daimler CW’s rebodied by Mann Egerton

Stephen Bloomfield

16/09/12 – 06:50

So, Keith, Leyland were anticipating pulling out of coach-building that early and at the same time were already showing signs of their later take it or leave it attitude. Thanks for the insight.

David Oldfield

16/09/12 – 06:52

You may or may not remember me from our time together at BCT, but that’s another story.

Newcastle Corporation had a batch of 5 Daimler CWA6 vehicles delivered between 1945-47 that received new Mann Egerton bodies in October 1950. They had been delivered new with second-hand bodies transferred from 1931 vehicles.

Kevin Hey

14/12/12 – 16:17

It is true that Newcastle had Mann Egerton Deckers , there were I believe three on Daimler chassis, possibly rebodies of chassis that had originally been fitted with pre war Metro Cammel bodies taken from scrapped earlier chassis, and also Glasgow had one Mann Egerton bodied Daimler, D66 I believe

Mr Anon

05/07/14 – 17:34

Mr Anon, Newcastle had 5 Mann Egerton bodied Daimlers, they were fleet numbers 1 to 5, JVK 421 to 425.

Peter Stobart


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 Monday 15th April 2024