The adoption of the previously used Aurora name for what were basically forward
entrance Orion bodies has been discussed. What is interesting is the use of
the name and how the body differed from the Orion in ways other than the
position of the entrance.
Peter Williamson has mentioned that the extra thick upper deck pillars
surrounding the windows over the door/stairs was to accommodate the width of
the door whilst retaining the standard size of window as shown on this
ex-Salford example: www.flickr.com/photos/One It can be
seen, however that the rearmost window is non-standard compared to the rear
entrance body: www.flickr.com/photos/Two
The brochure shown here is presumably depicting a 30ft long body as
there are no thicker pillars and presumably the windows were all a different
dimension. www.ebay.ie/itm/MCW-Aurora The name
however was retained.
Presumably the 4 bay version used the same windows as the 30ft version:
www.flickr.com/photos/Three Having seen all that,
what is this? A 27ft body on a PD2/27 chassis with the same shortened rearmost
window as the ex Salford vehicle but no thick pillars and, presumably either
the 30ft version's windows for the rest or maybe a special size?
Were the PD2/PD3 chassis changed to accommodate the forward entrance
given the different weight distribution?
Phil Blinkhorn
13/12/13 - 17:37
Back to one of the bees in my bonnet - balanced design. I always hated the
short Devon General Regent Vs - and for that also read the Salford PD2s
as well as Halifax models. The short rear dome windows quite frankly
looked like amateur cut-outs and the windows above the door and
staircase just looked ridiculous. [The Leyland National had mixed length
windows on short models and there is no reason why longer windows could
not have filled this space.] One thing I always disliked was the
reversion to small five bay windows on the Orion after the elegant
(longer) four bay design of the Aurora. The 30' Orion/Aurora had these
longer windows in a five bay design. The minority of 27' vehicles had
the same proportions as the Aurora - as shown by the Southport PD2,
including the long rear dome windows - which were far better looking
than any short five bay variant.
Some people have disputed the use of the Aurora name for the
earlier design. Whilst it bears very little resemblance to the Devon
General show bus, there is very little to suggest that the
"Rochdale Regent V" design isn't called the Aurora. Just
because people didn't use the name, it doesn't mean it wasn't so. Very
few people called the forward entrance version the Aurora either. I
would like to think that information in a book by respected authors like
John Senior and publishers like Venture had more than a modicum of
veracity.
As for thick pillars on the 27' forward entrance Aurora; it has
emerged that all forward entrance half-cabs had an intrinsic weakness in
the door pillars. Is it too fanciful to think that there may be a
connection here?
David Oldfield
14/12/13 - 07:01
As David says, the four bay forward-entrance Aurora did not have the
shortened rearmost window, so there is no mystery about the window size.
These offside views www.sct61.org.uk/a, www.sct61.org.uk/b also show the difference in
the emergency door arrangement.
Were the PD2 and PD3 chassis modified for the changed weight
distribution? If the PD2 was, it wasn't very effective, as I always
found the Salford vehicles very uncomfortable to ride in, and I have
recently read that the Halifax ones were no better, although their PD3s
were.
Why were most Orions five-bay? Well for one thing some operators
would never have bought four-bay bodies. This included Manchester, one
of MCW's biggest customers. Also I don't know if the Brighton and
Salford bodies were lightweights, but if not, then it's possible that
the optional lightweight structure needed the extra framework of the
five-bay body for strength.
Finally the controversy over the Aurora name. Contrary to David's
belief, it WAS widely used for the Rochdale design. I knew of it long
before I heard of the other two Auroras, and recent correspondence in
Classic Bus magazine suggests that it was used by Hull Corporation and
by Maidstone & District. What I question is whether it was ever used by
MCW themselves, given that the beginning of its production run
overlapped with the distribution of publicity material for the first
Aurora, and the end of its run overlapped with the announcement of the
final one. I don't suppose we shall ever know, any more than we shall
ever know how MCW's trumpeted new design came to be usurped by a quiet
evolution of Weymann traditional elegance.
Peter Williamson
14/12/13 - 14:50
Whilst I agree with David regarding balanced design, the four bay design has
its flaws. Even the otherwise totally well proportioned RT has that
extra blank, aft of the last lower deck window, which other builders
filled sometimes on both sides, more often on the nearside only, with a
small window.
Some builders managed to build four bay designs without the blank
or trailing window. The epitome of well balanced four bay rear entrance
design must be that designed by Northern Counties: www.sct61.org.uk/1, www.sct61.org.uk/2, www.sct61.org.uk/3 and www.sct61.org.uk/4
This transferred well when a forward entrance was required on a
27ft vehicle: www.sct61.org.uk/5
Alexander and Crossley also had rear entrance designs where the
four bays seemed to be designed to fit.
The trailing window on the lower deck and over long last upper
deck window spoils many otherwise well proportioned Roe bodies: www.sct61.org.uk/6 and www.sct61.org.uk/7
This upper deck layout was continued on the forward entrance
design though it has to be admitted this beats the five bay forward
entrance Orion hands down.
Regarding (very) bad four bay designs, the Southampton Park Royal
bodied PD2s and Regents have already been rightly pilloried on the Ugly Bus
page.
In terms of 27ft forward entrance designs,
Massey's rare four bay design was well balanced and even the short lower
deck window does not detract from a carefully thought out layout. www.sct61.org.uk/8 Longwell Green had a
creditable effort with this: www.sct61.org.uk/9
Probably the best example of a four bay forward entrance design on
a 27ft chassis was produced by East Lancs, which could have taught
designers elsewhere a thing or two but they, like Massey's design, were
few and far between www.flickr.com/photos/ and www.sct61.org.uk/10
Five bay
forward entrance 27ft designs tend to be rare and, like the Salford and
Halifax Orions, a bit of a mess. East Lancs did better for Warrington
and even the short last upper deck window seems to fit with the rest of
the layout: www.sct61.org.uk/11
A
similar batch to the standard 8ft width was built for Lancaster and,
again, look "right": www.sct61.org.uk/12
Which begs the question why MCW couldn't have done much better
when converting the 27ft five bay Orion to forward entrance. Could it
have been a rigidity problem which the pillars over the door frame
helped overcome. The bulk of rear entrance Orion bodies were five bay.
Was this just because of a preponderance of orders from certain
municipalities which favoured the economic benefits when having to
replace smaller panels and windows, or was it a rigidity issue stemming
from the original light weight design. I favour the latter view which
seems to be backed up by the design of the first 30ft Orion which went
to PMT and had a six bay design using the windows from the 27ft version.
Whichever you favour, four or five bay, there is little to beat
the output from Leyland's bodyshop with its double deck offerings from
1951 onwards in terms of a balanced, looks right design - and they were
five bay.
Phil Blinkhorn
Comments regarding the above are more than welcome please get in touch via the 'Contact Page' or by email at
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 Friday 8th July 2016