Potteries Motor Traction
1958
AEC Reliance 470
Willowbrook C41F

PMT had five of these coaches plus one similar acquisition on a Leyland Tiger Cub chassis from the takeover of Dawsons, Ash Bank. They suffered as always with AH470 engines with cylinder head gasket and wet liner seal failures. This is why this photo was taken adjacent to Llandrindod Wells Railway Station on a summer evening in June 1971. A similar Reliance had taken a party of Scouts on a weeks expedition to Tenby and inevitably the engine had failed in South Wales. I was summoned at short notice to take a replacement vehicle arriving at South Wales Transport Ravenhill Depot shortly before midnight. I chose the scenic route rather than the M6/M5 as I didn’t fancy becoming another engine failure casualty at the side of the Motorway. During 1971 and 1972 three of these Reliances were modified for one man operation and repainted in bus livery. The conversion included jack knife doors the motor for which would only fit in the space occupied by the nearside front passenger seat hence reducing the capacity to 39. As the vehicles were 13/14 years old by this time one wonders if it was really worth the effort. I recall 762 which was allocated to Biddulph Depot put in some quite respectable mileages as an omo saloon.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

---

16/11/14 - 09:44

An odd design which seems to transition from the early 1950s at the front to the late 1950s at the rear.

Phil Blinkhorn

---

16/11/14 - 11:21

Northern General had a batch of very similar C37F Willowbrook Viking coaches on an AEC Reliance 2MU3RV chassis, so as I understand it, they would have had the larger AH590 engine. Delivered in 1959, they were JCN 445 to 454, numbered 1845 to 1854. About 1967, it was decided to convert them for use as OPO vehicles, but the changes were far more radical. I don’t know if the conversion was carried out ‘in-house’ or whether they went back to Willowbrook to be done, but the whole front end was chopped off, and a new service front grafted on, I believe they were also up-seated to 41. Here is an example of the end result, I believe they remained in service until around 1975

Ronnie Hoye

---

16/11/14 - 18:03

Were the gasket/liner problems eventually cured by AEC?

Chris Hebbron

---

17/11/14 - 06:47

In a word, Chris - No! AEC’s involvement with wet liners began in 1935 with the introduction of the ‘6.6’ A172 engine (actually of 6.75 litres) in the lightweight Regal II. This engine proved to be decidedly troublesome, and the wet liner problems were carried through into its postwar ranges developed from about 1953. In the end, AEC reverted to dry liners in the AV/AH 505/691/760 engines. By contrast, Dennis employed wet liners in its ‘Big 4’ petrol and O4/O6 diesels from the mid 1930s onwards, and all were generally free of the troubles that plagued the AEC efforts.

Roger Cox

---

17/11/14 - 06:47

2MU3RV was still the AH470, Ronnie - 2U3RA was the AH590. Both of these had wet liners and gasket head problems. The AH691 and AH760 were new dry liner engines which did not have the same problems. Sadly the reputation was tarnished and many did not return to AEC. Also, like the later Leyland Panther, others persevered and overcame the problems.

David Oldfield

---

17/11/14 - 09:51

Thx, Roger. It’s amazing, from what you say, that folk continued to buy AEC’s with these engines, if they were so troublesome, although I admit that post-war distress purchasing would retain undeserved loyalty to a large extent. Were LTE’s engines of this type? I’ve never heard of problems with those Incidentally, did AEC/Leyland ever offer ‘outside’ engine options at ordering stage, such as Gardner? I’ve never heard of any, but who knows?
David O, strange that, following on with gasket/wet liner problems, which existed for decades, AEC cured Crossley’s engine breathing problem within months!

Chris Hebbron

---

17/11/14 - 11:37

The AV (vertical) engines never suffered to the same extent as the horizontal AH engines and substantially LTE had no problems with RMs (once the teething problems were ironed out) - including the AV590. Neither did Sheffield with its Regent Vs and Bridgemasters. [In passing, the AV version of the AH691 was actually a wet-liner and really an "out-boring" of the AV590.] It is surprising that they carried on so long before they eventually reverted to dry-liners - and as I said lost friends along the way. Those who stayed were rewarded by the AH691/760. AEC were not alone in having problems with putting an engine on its side. I am a "fan" of the O.600/O.680 - but this was not without its problems either - as Stephen Barber has alluded to in his Wallace Arnold Books. Conversely, there was enough faith in the later AEC engines to offer them, initially, as an option, in Series 2 REs and VRTs. The famous Werner Heubeck at Citybus who force BL to continue the RE for Northern Ireland was known to be very interested in an AH691 RE but BL back out at the last minute and cancelled the option - much to Heubeck’s anger. [Something similar is thought to have happened with the VRT - when someone showed interest, the option was withdrawn.] As for Gardners, there were the famous Rochdale D2RAG Regent Vs and the less famous Glasgow and Aberdeen D2RVG Regent Vs.

David Oldfield

---

17/11/14 - 16:50

Huddersfield JOC took delivery of 16 Regent’s and 37 Regal’s with 6LW engines between 1935 and 1939.

Eric Bawden

---

17/11/14 - 17:19

Forgot those, Eric. Crossley engines were another, and simpler, matter. AEC basically knew the problem - Crossley refused to pay royalties to Saurer and so mangle the design of the piston/cylinder head to make it different. AEC simply came up with a design which solved the problem without infringing the rights of Saurer. [I’m not an engineer, so I cannot elucidate.]

David Oldfield

---

18/11/14 - 06:23

As I have always understood it, the bored out 11.3 litre version of the AEC AV590 wet liner engine was the AV690, which was introduced at the same time in 1958. It was most commonly employed in commercial vehicle models such as the Mammoth Major V and in many export PSV’s, but was optional in the 2D version of the Regent V, and in horizontal AH690 form in the 2U and 4U larger Reliances, though it was not differentiated in the model designation.
The AV/AH691 was the 11.3 litre dry liner engine which was announced in late 1964 at the same time as its smaller equivalent the AV/AH505. The AV691 was then offered as an option in the Regent V and Renown, models, which were then designated Regent 691 (prefixed 3D) and Renown 691 (prefixed 4B) though none of the latter were built.

John Stringer

---

18/11/14 - 06:23

David, the wet liner 11.3 litre was the AV/AH 690. The 691 was a dry liner in vertical and horizontal formats. Even the switch to dry liners did not resolve AEC’s engine reputation. The AV/AH 505 in particular soon revealed weaknesses in service. A cover plate was fitted on the top of the block under the cylinder head, and this plate was held in place by a number of set screws. The inevitable expansion and contraction of this component in service caused the screws to fail, leaving a hole that allowed coolant to escape. This, if not spotted and remedied, could result in a seized engine. The design defects were progressively eliminated, but AEC’s reputation as an engine builder was not enhanced.

Roger Cox

---

18/11/14 - 06:24

Ronnie - that’s a proper bus conversion done by Northern, however as they were done in 1967 they would operate for quite a few years to get the money back. We only started conversions in 1971 and as I said, perhaps a bit late in the day - but don’t forget PMT had the largest fleet of Roadliners in the world and anything had to be tried to mitigate the chronic unreliability.

Ian Wild

---

18/11/14 - 06:25

Chris, for a short period in 1956/7 the AEC Regent V was offered with the option of a Gardner 5LW or 6LW engine. There were only three takers; Glasgow and Dundee Corporations bought examples with vacuum brakes and spring operated preselector gearboxes (model D2RV6G,) and Rochdale Corporation had examples with air brakes and air operated preselector or semi-automatic gearboxes, model D2RA6G. The Rochdale examples were described in my article on this site.

Don McKeown

---

18/11/14 - 10:19

The prototype Crossley HOE7 engine design came about when the firm’s engine designer, W.C. Worrall wwas diagnosed with tuberculosis prior to the outbreak of WW2. He was sent to Switzerland to recuperate, and, whilst there, visited the Saurer factory, where he himself had once worked. Saurer gave him permission to use the company’s advanced four valve head and toroidal piston cavity in his new engine design. Shortly after Worral’s return to Britain, war broke out, limiting Crossley’s commercial options, but three prototype engines were constructed with combustion chamber detailed design being made by Leslie Bennett, a mathematician and combustion specialist. Thus Crossley had done all the right things and succeeded in a designing a powerful and reliable unit. Then, as the new SD/DD42 chassis production began to get under way in 1944, Saurer, entirely reasonably, asked for a royalty or licence payment in recognition of the fact that the Swiss company’s patents were employed in the head design. The exact details of the fees involved have since been buried in the passage of time (probably deliberately). The Crossley MD, Arthur Hubble was having none of this, and refused to comply, instead ordering that the cylinder head of the new engine be redesigned completely to avoid any payment to Saurer. The new head had two valves per cylinder instead of four, and the toroidal piston cavity was reshaped with sharp concentric ridges, the (misplaced) theory being that these would improve the swirl effect. The new head was married up with the original block intended for the Saurer type head, and the result was a motor strangulated by hopelessly contorted airflows. In addition, poor coolant circulation led to overheating and high back pressure in the crankcase. This ill advised redesign ended the involvement of Saurer, but left Crossley with a exceptionally poor engine. When AEC took control of Crossley, it lost patience with Gorton’s refusal to attend to the cylinder head deficiencies and undertook remedial design itself. It is an overstatement to suggest that AEC simply solved the problems with the Crossley engine. The downdraught cylinder head was not a cheap conversion, and, although it did improve the airflow characteristics and reliability issues to a very great extent, the HOE7 could never be turned into a truly good motor. What baffles me somewhat is the fact that Dennis used a four valve head and toroidal piston cavity in its O4 and O6 diesels, yet no payment was ever made to Saurer. Presumably the Dennis design differed sufficiently to escape the Saurer patents.

Roger Cox

---

18/11/14 - 15:50

Aberdeen Corporation did have five Gardner engined AEC Regent V’s with Crossley bodies (205 - 209). In 1959 they purchased five AEC Regent V’s with AEC engines and Alexander bodies (271-275). By 1963, they also had been fitted with Gardner 6LW engines.
I seem to recall that Maidstone and District also converted some coaches in the same manner as that done by Northern General.

Stephen Bloomfield

---

19/11/14 - 05:57

Stephen, I think the Maidstone vehicles you refer to had Harrington bodies but the end result was quite similar.

Ian Wild

---

24/11/14 - 17:03

On the subject of seized AEC Reliance engines I Drove for Stanley Gath Coaches of Dewsbury in the late 1970s. Due to a vehicle shortage one weekend a AEC Reliance/Plaxton was hired from Kirby Coach dealers of Sheffield. Returning from Blackpool on the Saturday night the engine seized up on the M62. Rather then owning up to this, a visit was made to a scrappers at Barnsley and a similar engine was obtained and shoe horned in. I dare say no one was ever the wiser.

Philip Carlton

---

25/11/14 - 06:31

Thx, folks, for the answers to my queries.

Chris Hebbron

Coventry Corporation
1965
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/2
Willowbrook H44/32F

This is one of a batch of 22 very contentious Leyland Atlanteans with Willowbrook H44/32F bodies delivered to Coventry Transport in January 1965, the issue being that they were Leylands delivered to the home city of Daimler who since the war had been almost the only supplier of buses to the company. The order may have been made to apply some pressure to Daimler for some reason which appears to have been successful as a similar batch of Fleetlines with near identical bodies were delivered within six months these were followed by more Fleetlines with ECW and then East Lancs bodies until the mid seventies, I think one of the Atlanteans appeared at the 1964 Earls Court show.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

---

20/07/14 - 17:32

In Commercial Motor magazine dated 11th September 1964 the following report was published.

"Leyland Motors Ltd. has introduced a new version of the Atlantean rear-engined chassis which is fitted with a drop-centre rear axle, permitting a straight-through, stepless gangway in the lower saloon.
Delivery is now being made to Coventry Corporation of 22 buses of this type, fitted with 76-seat bodies by Willowbrook Ltd. Overall height of the new vehicles is 14 ft. 0 in. unladen, 4 in, less than the normal ‘highbridge’ Atlantean, yet ample headroom is still provided in each saloon.
One of Coventry’s new Atlanteans will be shown on the Willowbrook stand at the Commercial Motor Show, and several other examples employing the new chassis will also be seen. Side and front elevations of the new Willowbrook bodied Atlantean are shown in the accompanying drawing. Ample luggage space is a feature of this body."

Stephen Howarth

---

21/07/14 - 07:26

Dave, if your theory is correct then the issue with Daimler may well have been price. I have heard that Salford’s change of allegiance from Daimler to Leyland in 1963 was for that reason, although they of course never went back.

Peter Williamson

---

21/07/14 - 07:27

Could the idea be sold in Coventry, then, Stephen, because the Atlanteans had Daimler running gear and the great BL meltdown had begun? Or am I wrong?
These do look like uglibus candidates- I haven’t seen one, but Yorkshire Traction had some…. www.flickr.com/photos/  
The glass fibre fronts & domes look like add on body kits. Interestingly the Coventry examples look distinctly under ventilated, whilst Tracky go to the other extreme.

Joe

---

21/07/14 - 07:29

These Atlanteans were of the newly introduced PDR1/2 model which was fitted with a Daimler dropped centre rear axle and gearbox, which was intended to facilitate lowheight bodywork without the need for a sunken side gangway at the rear, which was a feature of early lowbridge Atlanteans based on the PDR1/1 model. I don’t think Coventry had any need of lowbridge vehicles, but the inclusion of Daimler components would have standardisation benefits when the fleet later included Fleetlines. Presumably this was always the intention. Manchester Corporation also bought the PDR1/2 model (132 of them) alongside their 130 Fleetlines with MCW "Orion" bodies. I always thought these had a rather odd mixture of sound effects.
Many years later, I would drive Daimler Fleetlines with Leyland Engines (bought by Crosville from Southdown) which felt more like Atlanteans than Fleetlines, the engine sound on these tended to dominate the gearbox sound. These buses also had direct air gearchange and a step from the platform to the lower deck - both "Atlanteanish" features.
I thought these Willowbrook bodies were a very attractive design, enhanced by the Coventry livery. They introduced a more conventionally shaped service number blind, after years of the rather odd arrangement with equally sized and shaped destination and service number screens.

Don McKeown

---

21/07/14 - 15:21

At the time of the order Daimler was an independent company that was part of the Jaguar group along with Guy. At the time Leyland Motors was a very profitable concern it all went pear shaped after the shot gun marriage between them and BMC in the late sixties. Although Leyland were already being starting to give the industry what they wanted and not the other way round.

Chris Hough

---

21/07/14 - 15:28

When Coventry issued the tender for this order, they specified a low floor design, presumably thinking that only Daimler could deliver such a vehicle. However Leyland, no doubt spotting the opportunity to sell to Daimler’s home city hastily put together their own low floor design. They won the order on price but delivery was delayed by development problems. This is not the livery that these buses carried at delivery. The maroon was originally only applied to the lower skirt, a band above the lower windows, another below the upper windows and the roof. The destination blinds also differed, as shown on the blueprint image.

John McSparron

---

22/07/14 - 06:53

The Yorkshire Traction vehicle shown in the link above was one of four that were diverted from a Devon General order, indeed they entered service in Devon General livery and ran in that form for some time.
Before eventually finishing up in the nondescript NBC colours shown in the photo they did run in traditional YTC Livery of BET crimson and light cream, a combination that really suited this bodywork.

Andrew Charles

---

22/07/14 - 06:54

Most sources say that although the PDR1/2 did have a Daimler gearbox, the drop-centre rear axle was the Albion Lowlander unit rather than the one from the Fleetline.
With regard to the odd sound effects in Manchester, the only engine officially offered in the PDR1/2 was the O600, since the Daimler gearbox, at that early stage in its history, couldn’t take the extra torque of the O680 in Atlantean fettle. However, Manchester wanted O680 engines for durability rather than extra power, and specified a specially derated version at 130bhp. This may account for their subdued and breathy engine note, which allowed the gearbox to sing more prominently than in some other applications.

Peter Williamson

---

I am sure that Peter W is correct that the PDR1/2 was fitted with a Daimler (‘Daimatic’) gearbox, but not axle.
Further to Don McK, I don’t recall that the inclusion of a Daimler gearbox in the PDR1/2 was a consideration in the decision to buy it - the decision was based solely upon a significantly lower tender price from Leyland, and, even then, the order was placed only after furious council debate.
I’ve always presumed that Leyland deliberately tendered low in order to capitalise on the potential publicity, and this it certainly did - for several months, for instance, there was a standing advertisement on the rear cover of ‘Buses Illustrated’, the message of which was ‘Coventry, home to the British motor industry, chooses Leyland..’, or words to that effect. Leyland did, at least, acknowledge that Coventry, and not Leyland, was home to the British motor industry, and its advertising strategy seems to have failed to impress, since I think the Fleetline comfortably outsold the PDR1/2, the latter proving problematic.

David Call

---

25/07/14 - 12:19

This style of body by Willowbrook had a very long life it was used as late as 1976 to re-body a bus damaged in the Derby depot fire.

Chris Hough

---

26/07/14 - 06:42

I would challenge the theory that the Daimler gearbox in the Atlantean PDR1/2 could not cope with the torque of the O.680 engine. At that time, the standard Atlantean setting for the O.680 was 150 bhp at 2000 rpm, with a maximum torque of 485 lb ft at 1000 rpm. The corresponding figures for the contemporary 6LX were 150 bhp at 1700 rpm, and 485 lb ft torque at 1050 rpm. Thus the Gardner delivered identical output at rather lower rpm. Any derating of the O.680 in the Atlantean PDR1/2 must have been undertaken for economy reasons, bearing in mind that the Leyland engine required an extra 300 rpm to produce the same power as the Gardner. Reducing the governed speed of the O.680 to 1700 rpm would have reduced the output to 130 bhp.

Roger Cox

---

27/07/14 - 06:41

I don’t think any early Fleetlines had 6LXs rated at 150bhp. Manchester’s were rated at 132bhp, presumably with a corresponding reduction in torque, and I thought at the time that that was the standard Fleetline rating. But if the reduction in the O.680’s power was taken care of by simply lowering the governed speed, then I agree that there would be no reduction in torque there.
The idea that the PDR1/2 wasn’t offered with the O.680 option must have come from somewhere, and the Daimler gearbox certainly was strengthened before the CRL6 Fleetline came on the market. Perhaps someone just put two and two together and created a bit of folklore.

Peter Williamson

---

08/10/15 - 07:13

Talk about being late to the party!
According to "The Leyland Bus Mk2" (D. Jack) page 325, the O.680 engine was "not available in the PDR1/2, owing to torque limitations on the rear axle". The same page confirms it carried the Lowlander rear axle.

Allan White

---

09/10/15 - 07:18

Better late than never, Allan. All is resolved, I think.

Peter Williamson

---

20/10/15 - 09:07

The attached photo shows another of the batch 354, CDU 354B in an unusual location at the rear of PMT Clough Street depot in Hanley (note the broken down PMT lowbridge Atlantean in the background.)
The reason was that PMT had recently installed a Dawson ‘Cyclone’ bus interior cleaner at Hanley Depot in an attempt to improve and speed up nightly interior cleaning. The unit was a massive vacuum cleaner with a bellows which was pushed out to the bus entrance by pneumatic rams, it was switched on and hey presto all the loose rubbish within the bus was sucked into the cleaner. A man with an air lance entered by the emergency door and agitated the less willing items of rubbish into the air stream. Coventry were interested in the concept and on 25th March 1971 sent up 354 (maybe with the previous days rubbish still on the bus??) to see how it performed. As the vacuum plant was situated immediately before the bus wash, a trip through the wash was necessary hence the photo.

Ian Wild

---

21/10/15 - 06:37

Brilliant, Ian!

Pete Davies

---

23/10/15 - 06:28

It was a long time ago Pete and I can’t remember how reliable the machine was. It can’t have been exclusive to PMT, does anyone know of other Operators who had one? I do recall that we had to cut apertures at odd places inside the buses eg at floor level in the offside partition at the top of the staircase. It can’t have been much fun inside the bus in a force 8 gale!! I don’t recall losing any seat cushions…..

Ian Wild

---

23/10/15 - 16:37

Trent Motor Traction at Meadow Road Derby, and United Automobile Services had them. Whether this was at all Depots I do not know.
Malcolm Hitchin MBE in his book ‘Keep the Wheels Turning’, recounting his 50 years in Trent engineering, mentions, that very early on after having the system installed, that, if they did not open the emergency door, before starting the vacuum, then it was possible that the pressure from the vacuum could suck in the bus windows.

Stephen Howarth

---

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

---

12/11/15 - 14:23

Think these units actually had a self changing gear semi automatic box not a Daimatic.
Reason for the purchase of Leylands was that Daimler thinking they had a monopoly put in a price and refused to negotiate even when Leyland put the lower price in. There was much heated debate in the Council Transport Committee meetings and when the order was placed with Leyland there was a lot of aggressive words from Daimler Trade Unions. The follow-on order for Daimlers was placed before the Leylands were delivered.
I made it a task to ride on all the vehicles from both batches and upstairs they had for Coventry 3 single seats behind each other on the nearside.
Willowbrook did not make a good job of the body with lots of water ingress from very early on manifesting itself in brown streaks across the upside dome.
Body vibration was much more pronounced on the Leylands and from both batches I remember being stranded with linkage failures to the engine from the semi gearbox which I presume was pneumatic pipes working loose.
Full buses in rush hour running every 6 minutes dumping a full load in between stops was not a great experience for getting to school on time.
I ended up switching routes to one which had rear loaders just for reliability and avoiding of school detentions

Roger Burdett

WMPTE/ex-Walsall Corporation
1960
Dennis Loline II YF10
Willowbrook H44/30F

On 1st October 1969 the Corporation bus fleets of Birmingham, West Bromwich, Walsall and Wolverhampton were absorbed into the newly formed West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive.
Due largely to the famously eclectic tastes of its innovative and renowned former General Manager, Mr. R. Edgley Cox, members of the Walsall fleet were varied and interesting, if not (in my opinion) always very attractive.
This photo of a former Walsall bus was taken in late 1970 on an enthusiasts’ visit. It shows a Dennis Loline II with Willowbrook H44/30F body, new in 1960.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

---

09/03/14 - 16:27

Walsall buses are intriguing. Always seems to be great attention to detail. I remember being struck by them when visiting for a job in the 60s. I assume that the 3 indentations on the front upper corner are accidental, but what is the cowl or cover above the bonnet/radiator on the nearside front and the access flap around the corner on the nearside? Did Mr Cave Brown Cave have a competitor?

Joe

---

17/03/14 - 07:42

Dennis used completely different chassis designations for the Loline I and II in comparison with the later Loline III. Although the sales literature originally included the Dennis 8 litre 120 bhp engine as an option, in practice no Lolines were built with this power plant. Corrections and additions to the notes below would be welcome.
Y1 This was used for all Loline I models, 30ft long with rear entrances and conventionally sprung rear axles. The two for Leigh were powered by Gardner 6LX engines, but all others had the 6LW engine. The biggest batch went to Aldershot and District who specified the five speed gearbox, which was the standard fitment. Those for Leigh, Lancashire United and Middlesborough had four speed gearboxes.
YF1 All Loline IIs were 30ft long except where shown otherwise. The ‘F’ indicated front entrance. Designation YF1 was applied to the Walsall example 600 DDH that was effectively the Loline II prototype. It had a Gardner 6LW engine, a Dennis (five speed?) constant mesh gearbox and a conventionally sprung rear axle.
YF2 The production Walsall model, similar in specification to the prototype, but this, and all subsequent Loline IIs, had air suspension for the rear axle.
YF3 North Western batch with Leyland O600 engine and Dennis (five speed?) gearbox.
YF4 As YF3, but with de-rated Gardner 6LX engine (some sources suggest that the engine was the 6LW, but Dennis expert Robin Hannay confirms the 6LX).
YF5 Version for Luton, 27ft 8ins long with Leyland O600 engine and Dennis four speed gearbox.
YF6 The Middlesborough batch, Gardner 6LW engine and four speed gearbox.
YF7 These City of Oxford buses were 27ft 8ins long and were powered by AEC AV 470 engines through five speed gearboxes.
YF8 Not used. Was it a cancelled order, perhaps?
YF9 This emerged as the Loline III demonstrator, EPG 179B, with the new chassis designation L3AF1E1. Powered by a Gardner 6LX engine through a four speed semi automatic SCG gearbox, it was originally intended for the China Motor Bus Company, but it has been said that it never got there for reasons that are still obscure.
YF10 The final Walsall machine, shown in John’s picture above, was given this designation, though the differences from the earlier batch are unclear.
YF11 This is the very well known, unique, lowbridge Barton machine, equipped with a Leyland O600 engine and a five speed gearbox. In later life it suffered the supreme indignity of being fitted with an AEC radiator grille of the Regent Mk V variety. I believe (and fervently hope) that this injustice has since been righted in preservation.
The first two production Loline III buses went to Leigh Corporation, and, because these were of rear entrance layout, Dennis rather surprisingly gave them the chassis designation Y2 consistent with the early Y1 Mark I series. All other Loline IIIs had front entrances and were given L3 type chassis codes.

Roger Cox