Copyright John Stringer

Bradford Corporation
1952
AEC Regent III 9613E
East Lancs. H35/26R

The trend for concealing the front ends of halfcab buses underneath what was to often later referred to as a ‘tin front’ was initiated in the immediate postwar period by BMMO with its homemade D5 model. Shortly afterwards, neighbouring Birmingham City Transport decided to follow suit and a different design of their own was hatched which was first fitted to a batch of Crossley DD42′s, but then also to subsequent Daimler CVG6′s and Guy Arab IV’s, giving the three different makes a totally uniform appearance.
It seems likely that Crossley produced this particular design, which became known as the ‘New Look’ – a term then currently in use for the latest Christian Dior womens’ fashion styles. Daimler and Guy then adopted the design as the standard option on their models generally, but no more Crossleys were so fitted. However, Crossley had passed into the hands of the ACV Group, which owned AEC, and around 1952/53 a number of Regent III’s were fitted with the ‘New Look’ front – the customers being Devon General, Rhondda Transport South Wales, Hull and Bradford. However, clearly not wishing their products to resemble Daimlers and Guys, AEC soon got to work on producing a unique design of their own, which first appeared on the Regent V, then later graced Bridgemasters and Renowns, and even a few Regent III’s for Sheffield.
Bradford City Transport 82 was one of a batch of 40 (66-105, HKW 66-105) delivered in 1952/53. Originally H33/26R, they had a couple more seats inserted upstairs in 1957. It is seen here under the trolleybus overhead in Glydegate (which no longer exists) – an extremely short street linking Little Horton Lane with Morley Street opposite the Alhambra Theatre. Just behind on the extreme right is the newly opened Museum of Photography, Film and Television.
82 was withdrawn in 1971, and after a long period in storage was acquired for preservation and magnificently restored by Darren Hunt and Jim Speed. Nowadays it is part of the Aire Valley Transport Collection.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

31/03/13 – 08:58

Just a historical puzzler… when was the the National Museum of Photography etc actually opened? After 1971, possibly. It stood empty for a long time, intended I think for use as a theatre. It became known as "Wardley’s Folly" after the City Engineer who planned it. Then the Museum came along, looking for premises, and the rest is history!
In the early 50′s bus bodies got very smart, part possibly of a move to better design inspired by the Festival of Britain. The period piece on this one is the slopey windscreen- a Birmingham hangover?

Joe

31/03/13 – 09:23

It’s my recollection that it was South Wales, rather than Rhondda, which had ‘tin-front’ Regent IIIs. I’ll stand corrected, of course.
An interesting thing about the twelve Devon General examples is that after sale three turned up in West Yorkshire (2 Ledgard, 1 Longstaff) and I believe the Ledgard ones (in their short time with Ledgard, of course) regularly worked into Bradford from Leeds via Pudsey. A further three worked into what was at the time West Yorkshire, from what was Nottinghamshire (with Leon).

David Call

31/03/13 – 12:39

The Museum, now the National Media Museum, opened on June 16 1983. I think John is correct that the tin front came out of Errwood Rd as a result of the collaboration with Birmingham. There are a very few minor changes, just as Leyland tinkered with the BMMO design for its tin front.

Phil Blinkhorn

31/03/13 – 12:40

You’re right David of course, it was South Wales and not Rhondda – I don’t know where that came from !
I remember both the Ledgard and Longstaff’s ex-Devon General AEC’s, I rode on all three and they were most wonderful buses – especially in the sound effects department as I recall. The Longstaff one’s aural delights were a little stifled though, as following a brief blast up Webster Hill out of Dewsbury it was never really able to proceed beyond a steady amble around the back lanes of Ravensthorpe and Northorpe.

John Stringer

31/03/13 – 17:45

David – sorry to be pedantic – it was not West Yorkshire (a 1974 invention) but the good old West Riding of Yorkshire – later to become (in that area) another 1974 invention – South Yorkshire.
The old West Riding was vast, stretching from Goole in the East to Bentham and the outskirts of Lancaster in the West and from the area you describe in the South to Dent and Sedbergh in the North

Gordon Green

31/03/13 – 17:46

As an eleven year old schoolboy, I remember with great excitement when some of these first "new look" AEC Regent IIIs entered service on the 1 November 1952. These were the first true "Humpidge" buses after prior taste of C T Humpidge influence with the Crossley re-bodied trolleybuses that had appeared in the previous March. I can confirm that the "tin fronts" were made and fitted at Crossley Motors at Errwood Park. I do recall seeing the final 15 chassis (91 -105) with "tin fronts" stored in the Tin Sheds at Thornbury as these buses entered service later in 1953.
These final 15 buses did differ in appearance to the previous 25 (66 -90) buses as these were the first to have a blue roof in place of the mid grey which was the style used by the previous General Manager C R Tattam.

Richard Fieldhouse

01/04/13 – 07:50

The ‘new look’ or tin front certainly made buses so adorned look much more modern in comparison to those fitted with traditional radiators. Rochdale had a batch of Regent III’s fitted with virtually identical East Lancs bodies dating from 1951 but they had the traditional AEC exposed radiator and looked to be from a different generation than the Bradford vehicles despite being only two years older.
I always found it interesting how the two adjacent Yorkshire cities of Bradford and Leeds had markedly differing vehicle policies. Bradford went early on for tin fronts and then froward entrances on the large fleet of Regent V’s while Leeds ploughed the traditional furrow with 7’6" wide buses until the 30 footers came, exposed radiators and rear open platforms for many years. The small batch of forward entrance Daimler CVG6′s bought by Leeds was I understand due to persuasion from Bradford to run forward entrance buses on the joint Leeds-Bradford route.

Philip Halstead

01/04/13 – 07:51

If my memory serves me correctly, Glydegate was the last road in the UK to be newly wired for trolleybuses coming after the final Teesside extension. It served to allow inbound trolleybuses from Wibsey and Buttershaw to cope with road works and lasted until later in 1971 when the services were withdrawn.

Ken Aveyard

01/04/13 – 07:53

Richard – I well remember these vehicles as from new they were the mainstay of services 79 & 80 (Heaton & Little Horton via Heaton) and I used them daily to School. (One old penny half fare from Heaton to Lister Park Gates !)
I always suspected that these new vehicles were so allocated for two reasons – one being that Heaton in those days was ‘posh’ (I wasn’t) and secondly Chaceley Humpidge lived in Heaton where he was a lay preacher at my local Church.
A couple of years ago I renewed my acquaintance with 82 (which each year provides a shuttle bus service in Haworth for the annual ‘Forties’ war re-enactment weekend) by taking ride. Nostalgia indeed.

Gordon Green

01/04/13 – 07:54

Liverpool had some Regent IIIs with Crossley bodies with this radiator fitted.

Jim Hepburn

01/04/13 – 07:58

An interesting sidelight arises from Richard’s post and my earlier one on this thread. He refers to Errwood Park, I refer to Errwood Rd.
When Crossley originally bought the site it was referred to as Errwood Park, though its location on the Stockport side of the boundary is across what is now Crossley Rd from Errwood Park which still exists and is in Manchester. In those days Crossley Rd was an un-named thoroughfare dividing Cringle Fields from Errwood Park and crossed the boundary between Stockport and Manchester, leading from Stockport Rd at Lloyd Rd to Errwood Rd itself.
The Crossley site, bounded by the railway line and Cringle Fields, which eventually became a large number of football pitches on which I played many a match on a cold Sunday morning, was originally part of Cringle Fields a piece of open grazing land between Errwood Rd and the railway, so it may be assumed that Crossley wanted to give some elegance to their address after leaving the very industrial sounding Pottery Lane, Gorton and Cringle Fields sounded too agricultural whereas Errwood Park was more reminiscent of a country park!
Most people I was brought up with in the adjacent area of Heaton Moor referred to Crossley’s Errwood Rd, though there was no entrance from that thoroughfare without traversing Crossley Rd! Fairey Aviation and later Fairey Engineering which occupied the site at various times always referred to it as Heaton Chapel Works, as did Stevenson’s Box Works who moved in after Crossley closed, Heaton Chapel being the suburb of Stockport in which the works was located.
I wonder if the Errwood Rd usage was actually put about by Crossley whose very existence in the bus world was so dependant on Manchester’s patronage in the 1930s as Errwood Rd was in Manchester whereas the boundary between Manchester and Stockport ran along their wall built to divide the factory from the rump of Cringle Fields, Manchester.
A 1970 copy of the Manchester A-Z interestingly shows the site all within Stockport with Errwood Park Works shown as the major part of the site yet the site where most buses were built is shown still as "Motor Car Works"!
Dig the bones out of that.

Phil Blinkhorn

02/04/13 – 08:17

Philip H makes a good point about the divergent vehicle policies of Bradford and Leeds.
I think I’m right in saying that Leeds had Regent Vs, but with exposed radiators. Why on earth would an operator wish to remove such a graceful and well proportioned front end to revert to the ‘old fashioned’ look of an exposed AEC radiator. Nothing wrong with the exposed AEC rad, but surely it had had its day by the time the Regent Vs came along.

Petras409

02/04/13 – 08:17

The Liverpool Regent IIIs that Jim H refers to certainly had concealed radiators, but while the grille was identical, the front end design was completely different, using a full-width flat front, as seen in this view of A40. www.old-bus-photos.co.uk

Alan Murray-Rust

02/04/13 – 08:18

The Liverpool Regent III’s had a different tin front unique to Liverpool. It was virtually a full width bonnet and incorporated the front mudguards more on the lines of the Leyland BMMO front than the Birmingham design. There’s a picture of one of the Saunders-Roe bodied buses with this front under the Liverpool link on this website.

Philip Halstead

02/04/13 – 08:19

Ken, Somewhere in my mind is the idea that Glydegate was the last public highway in the UK to be wired for trolleybus operation. The road layout at this point was a gyratory: Little Horton Lane between Princess Way and Glydegate was one way from Princess Way, and Morley Street was one way from Glydegate to Princess Way. Glydegate acted as the road connecting the top of the one-way sections of Little Horton Lane and Morley Street.
According to Stanley King’s book ‘Bradford Corporation Trolleybuses’ Glydegate came into use on 18 May, 1969. The shot of number 82 on service 11 to Queensbury must have been before 1 March 1971 when the services were recast and the joint services to Halifax came into operation.

Kevin Hey

02/04/13 – 12:08

Leeds stuck with exposed radiators until the manger changed in 1961 this was due in some part to ease of maintenance. After that all buses were tin fronted or rear engined Philip mentions the front entrance Daimlers these 5 buses were considered so non standard they were offered for sale in the late sixties In the event they hung on to be the only Leeds buses to be allocated to all four divisions of the PTE and the only front engined Leeds buses to wear PTE livery 574 has been restored and often appears at rallies.

Chris Hough

02/04/13 – 13:03

There is a picture on this site of a Doncaster Regent 5 looking like a 3 with exposed radiator. They stuck with them, too the last front engined Titans in the mid 60′s had exposed radiators like the recent Stockport posting. I think it was also a sort of macho thing like Atkinson lorries.

Joe

02/04/13 – 14:50

The use of exposed radiators was by no means a "macho thing". Proponents of the exposed radiator point to easier maintenance access, better driver visibility and better cooling, so much so that when Daimler insisted it would not provide exposed radiators and Manchester was not impressed with the tin front offered, it eventually designed its own concealed radiator for its Daimlers which was all but a reversion to the dimensions of the exposed radiator and was such a success that it was adopted by the manufacturer as its standard.

Phil Blinkhorn

02/04/13 – 14:50

I stand corrected over the Liverpool Regent IIIs. Well it is over 50 years since I’ve seen one!

Jim Hepburn

02/04/13 – 16:34

I still reckon an exposed radiator was seen as a proper "man’s bus" (I’m talking in the unliberated past!) like an Atkinson or a Mack and pretty fronts went with heaters, power steering, trafficators and no climbing into the cab. (Remove tongue from cheek)

Joe

02/04/13 – 17:58

I agree with Joe – tin fronts = mutton dressed up as lamb if you ask me!

Stephen Ford

03/04/13 – 07:50

There doesn’t seem to be that much (anything?) on Glydegate at the time the photograph was taken! For the past few years I’ve driven past a similar street in Bradford, which amounted to no more than a left-turn slip road at a set of traffic lights – no buildings on either side – but retained its street name. I think Chester Street (of WYRCC bus station fame) may still exist in this sort of vestigial format – though I’m not certain that the name remains.
From the first time I saw one I always thought that there was "something" about the Manchester-fronted CVGs of Bradford and Huddersfield (Leeds was unexplored territory in those days!): as much as I tried to stay loyal to AEC/Hebble I still have to admit that – much like Clodagh Rogers – those Manchester-fronted CVGs looked classy.
Halifax? Sorry, your exposed-radiator PD2/3s didn’t even get a look in . . . you should have stuck with Regent Vs – attractive enough in the Susan George mold, but not a patch on Clodagh! And I still can’t work out whether the
St Helens front on Bradford’s PD3s was "industrial" or just plain ugly – like, like . . .
Anyway, for Glydegate to be able to claim that it was last road to be wired for trolleybus operation seems to be stretching things for was by then just part of a gyratory system.

Philip Rushworth

I have very fond memories of conducting 82 even though I never had the pleasure of working for BCT. "Well then what’s he talking about" you may understandably ask !!
This superb vehicle played a welcome and major part in the 40th anniversary commemoration running day on 14th October 2007 marking the sad end of the Samuel Ledgard era. The fifteen hour running extravaganza culminated in a simulation of the 23:00 hours departure from Leeds to Ilkley via Guiseley – a journey performed very appropriately by the preserved Bradford RT – the real thing forty years earlier featured HLX 157, a Ledgard RT, which ran out of fuel a mile short of the Ilkley terminus. That circumstance, unheard of normally in Ledgard days, remains a mystery to this day. The Bradford RT was made to simulate a similar failure at the same spot. In 1967 the RT was replaced by Ledgard’s own 1953 U, a Mark V Regent, but in 2007 Bradford 82 played the part having "been summoned from Otley depot." So there we have it, 82 completed the journey to Ilkley and then operated the late running 2355 from Ilkley to Otley. I had been conducting all day from 09:00, mainly on the superbly restored MXX 232 (RLH 32) so very kindly provided in perfect Samuel Ledgard livery by Timebus of St. Alban’s. The feeling of "deja vu" in that last couple of hours was almost unbearable, but nevertheless I felt very honoured to be asked to do it, wearing my genuine Ledgard uniform and using an actual Otley depot Setright which I own.

Chris Youhill

03/04/13 – 11:43

I always considered Hull’s "tin-fronted" Weymann bodied AEC Regent IIIs (336-341) to be the city’s best looking buses until the dual door Atlanteans came along in 1969. The overall body profile combined with the typical upswept bottom panels and the front end resulted in a very handsome bus one of which can be seen here.

Malcolm Wells

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

05/04/13 – 05:48

This discussion makes me wonder if there would ever have been such a thing as a tin front if it hadn’t been for Midland Red uniquely combining the roles of chassis designer, body designer and operator. Being in the vanguard of underfloor-engined development, which revolutionised the appearance of single deckers, it was probably inevitable that they would do something with their double deckers as well. Then I suppose BCT, seeing all these modern apparitions coming in and out of their city, felt obliged to keep their end up by doing something similar, and it all took off from there.
I remember being very impressed as a youngster with the tin-fronted PD2s of Oldham and Southport. But ultimately, as so often happens, something which was designed specifically to create an appearance of modernity in its own time ends up rapidly becoming very dated.

Peter Williamson

Copyright Alan Murray-Rust

Liverpool City Transport
1954
AEC Regent III 9613S
Saunders-Roe H32/26R

Liverpool City Transport’s A40 can reasonably be stated to be a unique bus. As far as I can make out, it was one of just two double-deck buses for the UK market with bodies built as a Saunders-Roe product (the other being its twin, A39), and to make it unique it carries one of the small number of unpainted bodies ordered by Liverpool with the intention of using them on limited stop services. 40 were originally envisaged, but the idea was dropped and in the end only 18 appeared as such. These bodies are not painted silver, but the panels have a textured natural aluminium finish. It’s not clear whether this in practice reduced maintenance or repaint costs, but all of them retained the unpainted finish to the end of LCT days at least. Because of the texture to the finish, it would not have been possible simply to paint over the original panels, so to change livery would have required a complete repanelling. Despite the tin front, this is indeed a Regent III, one of the large batch of 100 delivered between 1953 and 1955 during the tram replacement programme. Apart from the two from Saunders-Roe, the remainder were either built by Crossley or finished by Liverpool on Crossley frames.
Horne and Maund’s epic treatise on Liverpool’s Transport doesn’t give any reason for the two bodies being ordered from Saunders Roe. Doing some investigation into Saunders-Roe, I did discover that following the takeover of Crossley by AEC, a number of design staff transferred to Saro. In view of Liverpool’s close relationship with Crossley, I wonder whether there was some sort of insider dealing going on. Interestingly, the Saro bodies, being of all-aluminium construction were about one ton lighter than the Crossley ones, and additionally had 2 extra top deck seats, both of which might have been considered significant advantages. The reduced weight should have led to fuel economies, but the main factor could have been first cost of the aluminium structure.
In the course of my investigations I also put to rest a misapprehension about Saunders (of RT fame) and Saro (of the Tiger Cubs). I had always been led to understand that the two were separate organisations. In practice Saunders, Saunders Engineering and Shipbuilding (SEAS) and Saunders-Roe (Saro) were simply successive marketing names for the bus building operations of the Saunders-Roe group at Beaumaris.
What was A40 doing in Manchester’s Hyde Road Garage? The answer is that the Liverpool University Public Transport Society (LUPTS) had organised a trolleybus tour of the Manchester and Ashton system on 12 June 1966, and this was the vehicle selected to ferry the Liverpool contingent to and from Manchester. The bus was certainly made to show what it could do along the open spaces of the East Lancs Road.

Copyright Alan Murray-Rust

This second view is a fuller shot of the bus showing better detail of the Saro body, waiting to start from the University Students’ Union in Liverpool. As can been seen, it was normal British summer weather, but remarkably the rain had ceased by the time we arrived in Manchester (!) for the main tour, and at one point the sun even tried to come out.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Alan Murray-Rust

———

30/12/12 – 08:54

Well, A40 certainly stands out against the red and cream residents!
I, too, have often wondered where Saunders, Saunders Roe and Saro fitted together. I presume there is no connection with the rather more popular Roe of Crossgates, Leeds!

Pete Davies

———

30/12/12 – 08:55

Alan. Even allowing for your self-correction in paragraph two, there were many deckers from Beaumaris. The 250 RTs were preceded by OKM 317 which was operated by Dodd’s of Troon and used as a test bed for the said RTs. Devon General, like many others, had a programme of rebuilding after the war. DR705 (ETT 995) used the chassis of a 1937 AEC Regent with parts from a 1938 Regal with a new (1953) Saunders-Roe body. Don’t know how many, if any, more Saunders-Roe bodies emerged in this programme. It was certainly a extensive one but most of the new bodies were by Weymann and extended to 1954. They were known locally as "Light sixes". Were there any more? Over to you out there…..

David Oldfield

———

South Wales Transport had a number of Regent Vs which were unpainted. I well remember them in their first year in service when on a visit to South Wales though my main memory from that trip is a ride on the Swansea and Mumbles Railway or Tramway – both terms were used – with two double decker trams coupled together, something I hadn’t seen in Blackpool.
I seem to remember the Regents were repainted so presumably their panels were to a different finish.
I was never a fan of the Liverpool Crossley or Saro bodies to this design, I thought, and still do, that they are visually utilitarian.
Regarding the South Wales Regents, the following is reproduced from Commercial Motor:
"Since 1958 our company has been experimenting with non-painted buses to ascertain whether there was any advantage in operating buses of this type.
Altogether, we had 13 such vehicles, six were acquired in 1958 and a further seven in 1959. It would seem, however, from the records that while the unpainted vehicles offered certain advantages there were disadvantages which in relation to costs of maintenance, showed that over the experimental period there was very little to choose between the painted and unpainted vehicles.
For instance, the unpainted vehicles have received considerably more than normal cleaning to maintain an acceptable appearance. The cost of which almost cancelled out the saving made in the non-painting of the exterior.
The unpainted vehicles, when requiring body repairs after accidents, did offer certain advantages, severe damage, which necessitated the complete replacement of a panel was facilitated when no painting was required. However, there were disadvantages in this respect too, minor dents and scratches which could be filled and painted on an orthodox finish, invariably necessitated the changing of the panel, as the effect of even the most highly skilled panel beating was still visible.
There being little to choose on actual cost, the final decision evolved over the appearance of the vehicles and it was felt that the painted bus was considerably more attractive, so it’s back to the redskins for us."

Phil Blinkhorn

———

30/12/12 – 09:49

No, Pete. They had no connection with Charles H Roe of Leeds. They were, however, connected with Avro (however it was spelt – I’m sure Phil Blinkhorn will correct me) who were aircraft builders, hence the aluminium construction. [Slightly off piste: London Transport and Park Royal were involved in war time aircraft production. This led to their aluminium expertise when designing and building the Routemaster.]

David Oldfield

———

30/12/12 – 12:07

Avro (AV Roe & Co), the Manchester- based aircraft manufacturer, was founded by Alliot Verdon Roe. Later ejected from his own company by bankers, he took an interest in Saunders of Cowes in the Isle of Wight – a flying boat builder – which then became Saunders-Roe.
On the subject of double-decker buses, have we all forgotten the Leyland PDR Lowloader? One of the two prototypes had Saunders-Roe bodywork. Then there were the vehicles built under contract from MCW in the 1960s.

Neville Mercer

———

30/12/12 – 13:42

Well yes, to my shame, Neville, I had forgotten the Atlantean/Lowloader but tell me, I’m intrigued, about the MCW sub-contracts.

David Oldfield

———

While Charles Roe s had no connection with A V Roe.
Leeds was home to a shadow factory in world war 2 that produced over 700 examples of the world famous Lancaster bomber. The factory was next to what is now Leeds-Bradford Airport and was heavily camouflaged to the extent it had the roof grassed over and live sheep on top!
One other operator who tried unpainted aluminium for the fleet was Edinburgh who had a small batch of MCW bodied Leyland Titans these were soon painted and no more were purchased in this format

Chris Hough

———

30/12/12 – 13:45

Thank you, David O. I didn’t think there was a connection, but one never knows!

Pete Davies

———

30/12/12 – 17:29

Been travelling all day so missed much of the above until now. I’ve never got to the bottom of just why Leyland went to Saunders Roe for the body for the Lowloader. In 1953 they were still building bodies though the thought may have been that they wanted continuity and the writing was on the wall for their own plant.
Given that, why didn’t they go to MCW or, closer to home, Northern Counties?
Perhaps they wanted to keep things as quiet as possible for a while and chose SARO for its remote location, relatively few customer visitors and in the knowledge that the order would receive detailed and deep attention from a company at the time looking to increase its business.

Phil Blinkhorn

———

31/12/12 – 07:14

Can’t help noticing the body on A40 has a very strong resemblance to the Northern Counties 4-bay bodies on tin-front PD2′s operated by Lytham St Annes and Oldham.

Philip Halstead

———

31/12/12 – 07:16

Some musings on Phil’s comment on the Crossley bodies of the same batch of Regents. Personally, I always felt that the 8ft wide bodies on the first batch of Regents (A757-806) were not unattractive. The body was not enhanced by the addition of the first Liverpool-style tin front. The final version of the Crossley body, and particularly the final version of the tin front, were distinctly retrograde.
What is undeniable is that the final livery of overall green with just the central window surrounds in cream was a recipe for making any manufacturer’s body look utilitarian. Even the early two-band livery didn’t do a great deal, so that even the Leyland bodies – one of my favourites – was made to look pedestrian in comparison with some other operators (e.g. the one across the water). My view on this earlier livery may well be influenced by the fact that the relatively few vehicles still carrying it when I became familiar with the fleet would already be some years out of paint shop, and that version of the green was notorious in not meeting old age gracefully. The very last vehicle to retain that style, the evaluation Atlantean E2, was reckoned to have no two panels of exactly the same shade of green towards the end. It was a real patchwork.

Alan Murray-Rust

———

31/12/12 – 11:29

Now the A. V. Roe part of the equation has been settled, what about the Saunders part? There was a Saunders Eng & Shipbuilding at Cowes Isle of Wight which merged in 1948, with Avro, but Cowes is a long way from Beaumaris. The 300 Saunders RTs were delivered from 11/48 until 2/51. M&D had a batch of Saunders-bodied K6As (DH204-243, JKM 901-940 delivered in 1948 which had a Weymann-look about them. Where were these built?
Then there was a 1942 K5G (DH445 GKR 741) which had a Saunders body built in June 1950. This was definitely based on the RT body behind the bulkhead, even to the interior trim and top rear emergency exit. Was this body tucked into the RT production run or an experimental body using Rivaloy construction?
Also, the AA AEC Regent III (OKM 317) built in 1951 as a prototype for future production, though apparently registered to M&D in 1951 but not used by them but as a demonstrator, but was it for AEC or Saro?
Further, M&D also had a Saro semi-chassiless bus in 1953 (SO68 RKE 540) with Gardner engine, but I don’t know who supplied the gearbox and other running units. It appears to have been still-born because I can’t find any similar vehicles ever being built. All the vehicles mentioned (and all the Tiger Cubs for Ribble, etc) seemed to have full service lives, so it seems odd that this manufacturer had a relatively short flirtation with buses.
Over to you gentlemen to explain this lot!!

Ray Stringer (no relation to John)

———

31/12/12 – 12:51

There is a book in existence "Saunders Roe Ltd, Builders of the World’s Lightest Buses" by Gerald Truran published by Bryngold Books (Wales). Not sure if it is still in print as it isn’t listed on their current web page. This was written by a former employee.
All Saunders Roe buses were, as far as I’m aware, built on Anglesey.
The company itself started as S E Saunders boat builders. The Wikipedia page is reasonably accurate and worth a read as a starter – http://en.wikipedia.org/ 

Phil Blinkhorn

———

31/12/12 – 12:52

We all ought to go away and look at Wikepedia about Avro and Saunders Roe. It otherwise needs a complete article. These companies- and others- seemed to survive by doing a bit of this and a bit of that- often innovative- and occasionally a Helicopter or a bus would come good. They merged and unmerged and reorganised like primitive life forms. AV Roe himself seems to be a consistent element. The thing that doesn’t seem to have appeared here and put me right if I’m wrong is that one factory was built next door to Crossleys and when AEC took over Crossley, a number jumped ship and so bus expertise was acquired: so was the Lowloader related to the Crossley chassisless bus? And then the riveted aluminium buses for export…. you can get an idea of our manufacturing problems-these were flexible companies with eggs in many baskets…. like Tatra?

Joe

———

31/12/12 – 17:22

Joe, Crossley’s factory was at Errwood Rd Stockport, Cheshire. SARO’s was at Beaumaris on Anglesey so those who moved to SARO had to move house.
I’m not aware of any linkage between the chassis/engine/drive train used by the Lowloader and anything Crossley. As far as I know, only the body was SARO and the assumed linkage on the Wikipedia page could well be speculative.
I’m not aware that anything other than bodies were produced by SARO

Phil Blinkhorn

———

31/12/12 – 17:23

There is a connection between Crossley Motors and AVRO. From 1920 to 1928 A V Roe and Company Limited was owned by Crossley Motors and it was at the end of this period that A V Roe left the firm he had founded. He sold his minority share holding in AVRO to J D Siddeley, of Armstrong – Siddeley, the company Crossley had sold its majority share holding to. Armstrong – Siddeley’s aircraft interests became Hawker-Siddeley (of Hurricane fame) and AVRO was a separate subsidiary of this organisation. A V Roe used the proceeds from the sale of his AVRO shares to buy a controlling interest in Saunders Aircraft of Cowes, which was renamed Saunders-Roe. Saunders-Roe had a factory at Beaumaris, which became the base for their bus body building activities using at various times Saunders Engineering and Shipyard (SEAS) and SARO.

Michael Elliott

———

31/12/12 – 17:28

Copyright Saunders

Here’s a photo of Saunders Ship. & Eng. yard at Beaumaris, in 1949, with bus bodying in full swing!. The chassis without platform extension are those of RT’s. The four chassis with extensions, in the centre of photo, are those AEC Regal III’s."

Chris Hebbron

———

01/01/13 – 07:19

Yes I misspoke Phil… I was confusing Crossley taking over the Avro works in 1920. But Wikipedia does say that after AEC the design staff from Crossley went to Saro, hence the Lowloader had Crossley connections! That could make sense?

Joe

———

01/01/13 – 07:20

Phil: I’ve looked at the Bryngold website and the Saro book is listed about two thirds of the way down the list of titles on the right of the page; this opens a separate page relating to the book, and there is no suggestion that it is unavailable. Knowing Gerald Truran’s voluminous knowledge of all things Welsh in the bus world, he may well clarify the reason for Saro working on the Lowloader project. My own guess would be that Leyland were looking to build on the experience Saro had with chassisless aluminium construction with the Tiger Cubs, which were definitely not failures.
Incidentally, the Bryngold page has a picture of the bodyshop with an undeniable Bristol half-cab (without much body structure) which set me wondering until I saw Ray Stringer’s comment above referring to the M&D batch, which I had been unaware of.

Alan Murray-Rust

———

01/01/13 – 09:53

Joe, That could be but it’s a bit tenuous as Crossley’s staff who moved and worked on the Lowloader would have had little, if anything, to do with the Bridgemaster development as work on the Lowloader design at SARO commenced in 1951 and Crossley’s involvement with the Bridgemaster was from 1953/4.
Alan, Thanks for the info. When I went into their site yesterday the page obviously didn’t load properly as the sidebar was missing. Could you expand on your comment re chassisless construction and Tiger Cubs as the Cub had a chassis?

Phil Blinkhorn

———

01/01/13 – 11:21

Phil: My comment on the Saro Tiger Cubs was something that was sitting in the back of my mind rather than based on something definitive. I’ve done some checking up in my limited library, and two things have become clear. Firstly, the Saro Tiger Cubs were clearly conventional chassis, and secondly that the chronology does not support my guess, as the development work on the Lowloader (source: The Leyland Bus) predated the Cubs. Moral: engage brain before opening mouth! It’s interesting to see that one of the demonstrator Cubs – part of the Ribble order – had a Saro body. The Leyland Bus doesn’t comment on the choice of Saro, but both Tiger Cub and Lowloader were small engine vehicles, so the weight saving of an aluminium body would be a key factor. One wonders why they were not more widespread – was it higher first cost, operator conservatism or capacity at the Anglesey plant?

Alan Murray-Rust

———

01/01/13 – 11:43

Returning to Liverpool’s A40, it’s interesting that Liverpool specified a textured unpainted aluminium. This seems to have, whatever it looked like, a durability the South Wales Regents never attained.
In Gavin Booth’s Buses By Design there’s a picture of an ex-works South Wales Regent taken at Addlestone and the panels are very obviously smooth. He comments that the finish swiftly tarnished and the buses were all painted.

Phil Blinkhorn

———

02/01/13 – 07:23

Like Alan, I have always assumed that the reason for the choice of Saunders-Roe to body the first Lowloader prototype was weight-saving, given that the bus was to be used for demonstration and needed to impress with its performance. By the time the second Lowloader was built, MCW’s lightweight construction had been developed. Guy also used Saro for its Gardner 5HLW-powered Arab LUF demonstrator, perhaps for the same reason.
I have read that Saunders-Roe’s early departure from the bus body market was due to a policy decision by the company rather than any lack of customer interest.

Peter Williamson

———

02/01/13 – 09:00

I have always been given to believe that all operators of Saro buses spoke highly of their quality. They were an "off-shoot" of an existing business and presumably not core to it.

David Oldfield

———

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

03/01/13 – 06:38

Being involved with Liverpool A40 in the early part of its restoration, it certainly had (as was stated earlier) a good power to weight ratio being over a ton lighter than similar Crossley bodied Regents. Bodywork wise too it was much more solid than its Crossley steel framed counterparts. The only body restoration that has taken place in preservation on A40 has been a platform bearer! Notable when its parked next to a London RT is the RT style emergency window!

Rob

Copyright Robert Mack

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport
1949
AEC Regent III 9612E
Weymann H30/26R

As part of the replacement programme for the post-war AEC Regents, by Leyland Atlanteans, a number of second-hand vehicles were purchased by Hull Corporation. As mentioned in a previous Hull Corporation posting one of these batches were twelve AEC Regents from Leicester Corporation, which were purchased in 1966. They were allocated fleet numbers 201 to 212, but this was amended in October, 1966 to 101 to 112. Nine of the vehicles which were then in service had their fleet numbers altered, but 109, 110 and 112, entered service carrying the new numbers. Registration marks were FBC 282 to 288, 291 to 295. They were withdrawn between November 1968 and December 1969. The photo shows 103 (FBC 284) leaving the Coach Station on service 30 to Stoneferry.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Keith Easton

A full list of Regent III codes can be seen here.

———

29/04/12 – 17:06

The streamlined livery on this strangely old-fashioned body style gives this bus a very 1930s feel.

Paul Haywood

———

30/04/12 – 07:42

The bodies were actually MCW, not Weymann, based on a design going back to 1933! Obviously upgraded and updated, but nevertheless to the old basic shape. Very attractive too, but I think they looked even more wonderful in Leicester’s glorious maroon and cream. LCT had another batch of Mark IIIs, with Brush metal bodies, and these too were very attractive vehicles, the post war Brush metal framed bodies being most unlike the composite style.
Leicester was a most interesting fleet, right from the early days, and one which I plan to study in a bit more detail as I have lived near Leicester now for over 40 years.
Anyone fancy joining in?

John Whitaker

———

30/04/12 – 09:07

Talk about unobservant, I’d not even looked at the "title" paragraph. Just to be really awkward, John, they are MCCW (Metropolitan Cammell Coach Works). MCW (Metropolitan Cammell – Weymann) was a marketing company until the two firms merged in 1965/6 to form a new MCW manufacturing company.

David Oldfield

———

01/05/12 – 07:03

I thought MCCW stood for Metropolitan Cammell Carriage and Wagon (Co Ltd). That’s what it said on Manchester Corp’s body plates.
I think that more than anything else it’s the sharply raked-back of the front, and consequent small first upper deck window, that makes this design look so archaic.

Peter Williamson

———

01/05/12 – 07:04

Hi David – Sorry MCCW stood for Metropolitan Cammell Carriage and Wagon, a builder solely of railway rolling stock until a diversification into steel framed bus bodies circa 1930. Bodies of the same basic design as FBC 284 were also supplied to Nottingham, Salford, Wallasey and Glasgow (Glasgow’s were built by both MCCW and Weymann’s).

Michael Elliott

———

01/05/12 – 19:38

Peter and Michael, I knew that and was just waiting for someone to correct me. It was a moment of unforgivable senior madness. Forgive my lapse of standards. [see other post!!!]

David Oldfield

———

16/07/12 – 06:23

I remember both these and the Brush bodied ones in service in Leicester. Powerful engines and pre-select gearboxes gave a very smooth ride – far more refined than the All-Leyland PD2s, in my opinion.

Adrian Griffiths