British Rail EMD/NOHAB locomotive

[Class450/4DES]

I found this Flickr photoshop of a DSB MY/MX locomotive in LNER colours and it says in the description of the photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alternativerailways/4975342422

British Railways was offered a design similar to the European NOHAB locomotives by GM EMD, to be constructed in the UK under license, but turned it down.

Is this true? As I am rather confused if it is or not. Any help with be great, thank you!

 

[Gloster]

It is a complete fantasy, as is made clear in the text to the right. No NOHABs came to Britain and the offer by GM to supply motors to BR was never a serious possibility. Even if they had the loco would have been British built.

 

[Class450/4DES]

It is a complete fantasy, as is made clear in the text to the right. No NOHABs came to Britain and the offer by GM to supply motors to BR was never a serious possibility. Even if they had the loco would have been British built.

I am aware of the first half. But who would of built them?

 

[Ashley Hill]

I’d love to see a NoHab at a British diesel festival!!

 

[Gloster]

I am aware of the first half. But who would of built them?

I am working from memory of something that I read in a Danish magazine many years back, but around 1950 a GM rep was visiting Europe to discuss sales of their motors to Europe. He seems to have briefly stopped off in London, but it was quickly clear to him that BR would not be buying so there was no point in taking the matter further. (This was only the briefest mention in the magazine.)

I doubt anyone could say where any LNER locos would been built, if they were even allowed to buy GM-motors. I would think that it would most likely have been one of its own works.

Bear in mind that the NOHABs were designed for a larger loading gauge, so would have to be trimmed a bit to fit the British one. And we know what happened to the Warships and the Hastings-line Class 33s.

 

[D7666]

With respect, while the image is fantasy, and a GB-Nohab equally fantasy, and NoHab I myself have never heard of in any offer to BR or BTC or anyone else in GB, the rest of it has some basis.

GM/EMD did attempt c.1950 to set up a locomotive manufacturing plant in GB for supply of diesel lcoos- both for GB domestic and export. The plant was to have been located near Southampton (AIUI on the site of what became the Ford works) and inconjunction with Crompton Parkinson as the GB EMD licencee. ***

Around the same time, GM did set up licenced loco building arrangements in Belgium (with Anglo-Franco-Belge (AFB) then La Brugeoise et Nivelles (BN)), Germany (with Henschel at Kassel) and Sweden (NOHAB); the Southampton plant would simply have been another one of those.

That is NOT to suggest that Southampton would have turned out anything like a Nohab product, but having said that, all three of the DE SE and BE plants did turn out remarkably similar designs (the nearest Kassel examples being the Egypt AA12), so they might have.

The fantasy upthread images thus are an extrension of one 1950s design into a might-have-been domestic built lookalike, to our loading gauge of course,, and should not be dismissed outright.

The reason this never took off in GB because this was 1950, after the creation of BR but before Modernisation Plan, when BR was fully committed to steam locos and introducing new ('standard') types, and GM saw no market future in it, then, at the time. But it was a serious proposal at the time they started looking into it.

Dismissing possible GM designs due to the GB loading gauge issue and comparing with 'scaling down' matters with D800s and 33/2s is also more fantasy than fact. EMD managed to sucessfully get their GL8 model into the very similar Irish load gauge as CIE 121, and then so on with the JL8/JL12 (141/181). There you have the basis of possible BTC Types 1 & 2 . On the whole, quite a capable manufacturer delivering all sorts of designs to all track and loading gauges all over the world. I am no GM fan at all, I detest the much later 66s, and I don't like EMD engine noise (where EMD stands for Extremely Monotonous Din) even from Roots blown 567s and 645s, and yes I have been hauled by Di3, M61, 52/53/54/55, in different lands, but I do not ever dimsiss their technical capability.

GM did not get as far (AFAIK) as producing loco drawings (well not that I know of). Unless someone knows of some buried in an archive somewhere.

GE (as in GE of USA, not GEC of UK) also submitted plans, although the other way around, locos not factories. In early 1950s they suggested a range of standardised diesels that /more or less but not exactly/ fitted into the original BTC formulated Types A B and C specifications i.e. before this was revised to Types 1 2 3 & 4. But do not appear to have had a factory plan - probably intended working inconjunction with AEI (becasue of historical links with BTH) that bypassed need for commerical licencing.


*** see DIESEL IMPACT ON BRITISH RAIL, R M Tufnell, isbn 0852984383 as one source, and there are other comtemporary references to this

 

[Class450/4DES]

With respect, while the image is fantasy, and a GB-Nohab equally fantasy, and NoHab I myself have never heard of in any offer to BR or BTC or anyone else in GB, the rest of it has some basis.

GM/EMD did attempt c.1950 to set up a locomotive manufacturing plant in GB for supply of diesel lcoos- both for GB domestic and export. The plant was to have been located near Southampton (AIUI on the site of what became the Ford works) and inconjunction with Crompton Parkinson as the GB EMD licencee. ***

Around the same time, GM did set up licenced loco building arrangements in Belgium (with Anglo-Franco-Belge (AFB) then La Brugeoise et Nivelles (BN)), Germany (with Henschel at Kassel) and Sweden (NOHAB); the Southampton plant would simply have been another one of those.

That is NOT to suggest that Southampton would have turned out anything like a Nohab product, but having said that, all three of the DE SE and BE plants did turn out remarkably similar designs (the nearest Kassel examples being the Egypt AA12), so they might have.

The fantasy upthread images thus are an extrension of one 1950s design into a might-have-been domestic built lookalike, to our loading gauge of course,, and should not be dismissed outright.

The reason this never took off in GB because this was 1950, after the creation of BR but before Modernisation Plan, when BR was fully committed to steam locos and introducing new ('standard') types, and GM saw no market future in it, then, at the time. But it was a serious proposal at the time they started looking into it.

Dismissing possible GM designs due to the GB loading gauge issue and comparing with 'scaling down' matters with D800s and 33/2s is also more fantasy than fact. EMD managed to sucessfully get their GL8 model into the very similar Irish load gauge as CIE 121, and then so on with the JL8/JL12 (141/181). There you have the basis of possible BTC Types 1 & 2 . On the whole, quite a capable manufacturer delivering all sorts of designs to all track and loading gauges all over the world. I am no GM fan at all, I detest the much later 66s, and I don't like EMD engine noise (where EMD stands for Extremely Monotonous Din) even from Roots blown 567s and 645s, and yes I have been hauled by Di3, M61, 52/53/54/55, in different lands, but I do not ever dimsiss their technical capability.

GM did not get as far (AFAIK) as producing loco drawings (well not that I know of). Unless someone knows of some buried in an archive somewhere.

GE (as in GE of USA, not GEC of UK) also submitted plans, although the other way around, locos not factories. In early 1950s they suggested a range of standardised diesels that /more or less but not exactly/ fitted into the original BTC formulated Types A B and C specifications i.e. before this was revised to Types 1 2 3 & 4. But do not appear to have had a factory plan - probably intended working inconjunction with AEI (becasue of historical links with BTH) that bypassed need for commerical licencing.


*** see DIESEL IMPACT ON BRITISH RAIL, R M Tufnell, isbn 0852984383 as one source, and there are other comtemporary references to this

Only if that factory opened, I think we would of gotten a lot of EMDs in the Southern region. Maybe even stuff like EMD G12s and domestic built Sheds. Thanks for the information mate, that really helped a lot.

Edit: For the GE part I did come up with a concept for the GE U6B/U10B for branchlines. I think that could of been the most likely concept from them, a British version of that or a Tonner. Not sure if drawings exist of them or not.

 

[Western Lord]

You have to remember how nationalistic the UK was in the first decade or so after WW2. We believed ourself to be a leading world power and the idea of buying anything not built or designed here was anathema, be it railway equipment, cars. trucks, ships or aircraft (both civil and miitary). We thought everybody should be buying stuff from us. Thanks to tariffs, imported cars were a rarity until the late sixties. Citroen and Renault got around this to some extent by having assembly plants in Slough and Acton respectively with some UK content added to the cars mainly built from imported components. It is somewhat surprising to realise that British European Airways, right up to its merger with BOAC in 1974 to form British Airways, never operated an American airliner other than the war surplus Douglas Dakotas it inherited at its formation. From the mid to late fifties we started using foreign designed locomotive engines (Sulzer, Maybach, MAN) and in the case of the WR hydraulics, transmisions, but these mostly had to be British built by licensees. The Buy British mantra was strong and as late as 1968 the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign gained some support. Somebody transported from the 1950's to today would be shocked to discover that today we hardly make anything.

 

[WesternLancer]

You have to remember how nationalistic the UK was in the first decade or so after WW2. We believed ourself to be a leading world power and the idea of buying anything not built or designed here was anathema, be it railway equipment, cars. trucks, ships or aircraft (both civil and miitary). We thought everybody should be buying stuff from us. Thanks to tariffs, imported cars were a rarity until the late sixties. Citroen and Renault got around this to some extent by having assembly plants in Slough and Acton respectively with some UK content added to the cars mainly built from imported components. It is somewhat surprising to realise that British European Airways, right up to its merger with BOAC in 1974 to form British Airways, never operated an American airliner other than the war surplus Douglas Dakotas it inherited at its formation. From the mid to late fifties we started using foreign designed locomotive engines (Sulzer, Maybach, MAN) and in the case of the WR hydraulics, transmisions, but these mostly had to be British built by licensees. The Buy British mantra was strong and as late as 1968 the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign gained some support. Somebody transported from the 1950's to today would be shocked to discover that today we hardly make anything.

Very much agree with this analysis

 

[35B]

You have to remember how nationalistic the UK was in the first decade or so after WW2. We believed ourself to be a leading world power and the idea of buying anything not built or designed here was anathema, be it railway equipment, cars. trucks, ships or aircraft (both civil and miitary). We thought everybody should be buying stuff from us. Thanks to tariffs, imported cars were a rarity until the late sixties. Citroen and Renault got around this to some extent by having assembly plants in Slough and Acton respectively with some UK content added to the cars mainly built from imported components. It is somewhat surprising to realise that British European Airways, right up to its merger with BOAC in 1974 to form British Airways, never operated an American airliner other than the war surplus Douglas Dakotas it inherited at its formation. From the mid to late fifties we started using foreign designed locomotive engines (Sulzer, Maybach, MAN) and in the case of the WR hydraulics, transmisions, but these mostly had to be British built by licensees. The Buy British mantra was strong and as late as 1968 the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign gained some support. Somebody transported from the 1950's to today would be shocked to discover that today we hardly make anything.

It wasn’t just nationalism. As was shown with the experiments on oil firing, foreign currency was very tightly controlled, and materials rationing was still very strongly in force (read Gourvish for discussion of the amounts of steel that British Railways could be allowed to procure).

If this visit was in 1950, it was during the period of the Attlee government, so there would also have been a strong focus on protecting industrial jobs by protecting British firms from competition.

 

[Helvellyn]

GM/EMD did attempt c.1950 to set up a locomotive manufacturing plant in GB for supply of diesel lcoos- both for GB domestic and export. The plant was to have been located near Southampton (AIUI on the site of what became the Ford works) and inconjunction with Crompton Parkinson as the GB EMD licencee.

A fascinating "what if" given the reputation for reliability of Crompton Parkinson electrical equipment to potentially have locomotives with licence built GM power units - hopefully avoiding some of the issues with licence built hydraulic power units given the US didn't use metric.

 

[6Gman]

You have to remember how nationalistic the UK was in the first decade or so after WW2. We believed ourself to be a leading world power and the idea of buying anything not built or designed here was anathema, be it railway equipment, cars. trucks, ships or aircraft (both civil and miitary). We thought everybody should be buying stuff from us. Thanks to tariffs, imported cars were a rarity until the late sixties. Citroen and Renault got around this to some extent by having assembly plants in Slough and Acton respectively with some UK content added to the cars mainly built from imported components. It is somewhat surprising to realise that British European Airways, right up to its merger with BOAC in 1974 to form British Airways, never operated an American airliner other than the war surplus Douglas Dakotas it inherited at its formation. From the mid to late fifties we started using foreign designed locomotive engines (Sulzer, Maybach, MAN) and in the case of the WR hydraulics, transmisions, but these mostly had to be British built by licensees. The Buy British mantra was strong and as late as 1968 the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign gained some support. Somebody transported from the 1950's to today would be shocked to discover that today we hardly make anything.

There was also a strong political imperative to minimise imports and maximise exports in order to address the balance of trade deficit (a phrase which used to be commonplace on the news, but which we rarely hear these days).

 

[etr221]

I seem to recall reading that, in the c1950 era, when GM-EMD were in discussion with a potential British licensee over diesel loco manufacture in the UK (for - IIRC - the British Commonwealth), this foundered over production of the actual diesel engine: they weren't prepared to include this in the deal, meaning the engines would have to be imported from the USA, for dollars, which was unacceptable from British point of view (whether that was company, BR or government view I've no idea).

 

[D7666]

Very much agree with this analysis

From the mid to late fifties we started using foreign designed locomotive engines (Sulzer, Maybach, MAN) and in the case of the WR hydraulics, transmisions, but these mostly had to be British built by licensees. The Buy British mantra was strong and as late as 1968 the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign gained some support. Somebody transported from the 1950's to today would be shocked to discover that today we hardly make anything.

The WHOLE point of the proposed GM EMD / Crompton relationship and factory WAS to be a licencee and build in GB. It was the argument for it, not against it.

A fascinating "what if" given the reputation for reliability of Crompton Parkinson electrical equipment to potentially have locomotives with licence built GM power units - hopefully avoiding some of the issues with licence built hydraulic power units given the US didn't use metric.

I don't know, but I don't think that was the arrangement.

EMD was reluctant (and always was right up to its spinning off from GM) reluctant to mate EMD engines with other makers traction equipment*** - I suggest the licencing would have been for CP to have licence manufactured EMD electrics, not its own, which would be somewhat different to the domestic CP tractioned locos BR did get.

*** a notable exception being fitted EMD engines into CIE 001 and 201 classes vice Crossleys as built.

I seem to recall reading that, in the c1950 era, when GM-EMD were in discussion with a potential British licensee over diesel loco manufacture in the UK (for - IIRC - the British Commonwealth), this foundered over production of the actual diesel engine: they weren't prepared to include this in the deal, meaning the engines would have to be imported from the USA, for dollars, which was unacceptable from British point of view (whether that was company, BR or government view I've no idea).

Which is precisely the EMD - CP licence arrangement I posted.

Yes, agreed, it was my understanding too the diesel engines would still have been imported. CP would have been the primary contractor to install those engines in whatever factory they had. But I can neither remember every detail of everything I have read in the past nor spend a lot of time typing it all out again, so it got missed.

Nohab construction - that started this thread - were the same, their power units came from the US. So it isn't actually any different to what might have come about in Southampton or had we literally imported fantasy Nohabs.

 

[Pigeon]

From the mid to late fifties we started using foreign designed locomotive engines (Sulzer, Maybach, MAN) and in the case of the WR hydraulics, transmisions, but these mostly had to be British built by licensees.

Aye. Shame they were no good at it.

And the intentions of supporting British industry had a tendency to backfire. The tale of NBL is probably the most egregious example, but there are plenty of others. The Modernisation Plan and the "dash for diesel" didn't help either. Too many outfits getting the idea that it was going to carry on indefinitely like that and then going bust when it didn't.

 

[Class450/4DES]

GE (as in GE of USA, not GEC of UK) also submitted plans, although the other way around, locos not factories. In early 1950s they suggested a range of standardised diesels that /more or less but not exactly/ fitted into the original BTC formulated Types A B and C specifications i.e. before this was revised to Types 1 2 3 & 4. But do not appear to have had a factory plan - probably intended working inconjunction with AEI (becasue of historical links with BTH) that bypassed need for commerical licencing.

Were there any concept art for these by any chance?

 

[D7666]

Were there any concept art for these by any chance?

None that I have ever seen. Again whether there is something buried at Kew or in someones loft I have no idea.

 

[KevinBrum12]

With respect, while the image is fantasy, and a GB-Nohab equally fantasy, and NoHab I myself have never heard of in any offer to BR or BTC or anyone else in GB, the rest of it has some basis.

GM/EMD did attempt c.1950 to set up a locomotive manufacturing plant in GB for supply of diesel lcoos- both for GB domestic and export. The plant was to have been located near Southampton (AIUI on the site of what became the Ford works) and inconjunction with Crompton Parkinson as the GB EMD licencee. ***

Around the same time, GM did set up licenced loco building arrangements in Belgium (with Anglo-Franco-Belge (AFB) then La Brugeoise et Nivelles (BN)), Germany (with Henschel at Kassel) and Sweden (NOHAB); the Southampton plant would simply have been another one of those.

That is NOT to suggest that Southampton would have turned out anything like a Nohab product, but having said that, all three of the DE SE and BE plants did turn out remarkably similar designs (the nearest Kassel examples being the Egypt AA12), so they might have.

The fantasy upthread images thus are an extrension of one 1950s design into a might-have-been domestic built lookalike, to our loading gauge of course,, and should not be dismissed outright.

The reason this never took off in GB because this was 1950, after the creation of BR but before Modernisation Plan, when BR was fully committed to steam locos and introducing new ('standard') types, and GM saw no market future in it, then, at the time. But it was a serious proposal at the time they started looking into it.

I think if EMD had made their approaches in 1954 they would have had a more receptive audience. Attlee's Government had gone, Riddles had retired and the BTC was working on the Modernisation Plan.


Ford had demonstrated that once a foreign manufacturer had got its foot in the door making products in the UK, a Union Jack would go on and protectionism would go out the window.

The end of steam and the whole modernisation plan would have turned out differently. I still think the North of England would have been where steam pulling heavy freight would have been the swansong. However, a Waterloo Sunset would have happened in the early 1960’s, rather than 1967. That may also have meant the Southampton/Bournemouth electrification scheme may never heave happened, EMD/Crompton locos being the motive power used for decades.

 

[Taunton]

There has been a lot of invention written about what GM would do, or not do, over time. Notably Stewart Joy, Beeching's economist, writing about the sheer wasted costs in initial dieselisation, said the best thing BR could have done would have been to send away for the GM catalogue - indeed in Joy's native Australia that was exactly what was done, assembled to US designs by established Australian loco builders. Regarding import tariffs, there was complete free trade in the old Commonwealth area, and US exporters had long had duplicate plants in Canada which allowed them to sell everywhere - GM's huge loco plant in London, Ontario, was for long where most of their worldwide exports were built rather than at La Grange.

If you wanted just the diesel, or just the electric transmission, or wanted licence production in your own country, GM did it, provided of course that the commercial side was right. GM 567 and 645 diesels have gone into vast numbers of ships, ferryboats, etc, and yet GM never owned a shipyard. What they did do well was that stuff where UK manufacturers fell down, on after sales service, spares stocking and distribution, and keeping things going.

 

[ThirteenArches]

The poor Irish had the same problem, and against Bulleid's advice ended up buying the laughably inadequate Metrovicks because they were in the pound zone. Close relations of the embarrassing Co-Bos, their problems were much the same and were only solved when finally they got GM locos (and re- engined some of the Metrovicks with GM).

 

[D7666]

There has been a lot of invention written about what GM would do, or not do, over time.

All of which has been written with hindsight that is always 20:20 vision.

 

[Richard Scott]

The poor Irish had the same problem, and against Bulleid's advice ended up buying the laughably inadequate Metrovicks because they were in the pound zone. Close relations of the embarrassing Co-Bos, their problems were much the same and were only solved when finally they got GM locos (and re- engined some of the Metrovicks with GM).

Only the engine was replaced so safe to assume rest of the locomotive was soundly engineered?

 

[43096]

GE (as in GE of USA, not GEC of UK) also submitted plans, although the other way around, locos not factories. In early 1950s they suggested a range of standardised diesels that /more or less but not exactly/ fitted into the original BTC formulated Types A B and C specifications i.e. before this was revised to Types 1 2 3 & 4. But do not appear to have had a factory plan - probably intended working inconjunction with AEI (becasue of historical links with BTH) that bypassed need for commerical licencing.

That is interesting in its timing (early 50s) as at that point GE was not a builder of complete mainline diesel locomotives - it did supply electrical equipment to Alco but did not have a diesel engine suitable available internally until it acquired the rights to what became the 7FDL from Cooper-Bessemer.

 

[Pigeon]

The poor Irish had the same problem, and against Bulleid's advice ended up buying the laughably inadequate Metrovicks because they were in the pound zone. Close relations of the embarrassing Co-Bos, their problems were much the same and were only solved when finally they got GM locos (and re- engined some of the Metrovicks with GM).

The Australians also bought some Crossley-engined Metrovick/Beyer-Peacock locos. They seem to have been the first to do it, as they apparently sent a resident engineer to Crossley's works at Openshaw in order to supervise the construction of the first batch of engines, which were essentially a new design (although related to existing designs). He reported that the lubrication and bearings were inadequate plus other things besides and the engine was basically NBG, but the bosses back in Australia took no notice, only to end up later on wishing they had. Then the Irish and then BR continued to take no notice, whereupon he changed his name to Cassandrus. In short, the engine was known to be a dud before anyone used it, but nevertheless three railways did and got burnt by it.

 

[etr221]

GE (as in GE of USA, not GEC of UK) also submitted plans, although the other way around, locos not factories. In early 1950s they suggested a range of standardised diesels that /more or less but not exactly/ fitted into the original BTC formulated Types A B and C specifications i.e. before this was revised to Types 1 2 3 & 4. But do not appear to have had a factory plan - probably intended working inconjunction with AEI (becasue of historical links with BTH) that bypassed need for commerical licencing.

At that time (early 1950s), GE were not into 'road/line' diesels on their own account; they did (IIRC) produce some small switchers at that stage, and were in partnership with Alco (as Alco-GE) for larger units. It was only in the very late 50s/early 60s that they started getting into that market as themselves (with their own, GE branded, prime movers). So I do wonder quite what the background to this project was.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The Australians also bought some Crossley-engined Metrovick/Beyer-Peacock locos. They seem to have been the first to do it, as they apparently sent a resident engineer to Crossley's works at Openshaw in order to supervise the construction of the first batch of engines, which were essentially a new design (although related to existing designs). He reported that the lubrication and bearings were inadequate plus other things besides and the engine was basically NBG, but the bosses back in Australia took no notice, only to end up later on wishing they had. Then the Irish and then BR continued to take no notice, whereupon he changed his name to Cassandrus. In short, the engine was known to be a dud before anyone used it, but nevertheless three railways did and got burnt by it.

Crossley's post-war diesel bus engines were not much better - Oldham had a batch and the vehicles had to be confined to the flatter routes around Chadderton as they could not handle the steep town centre routes fully loaded.

The Western Australia 'X' class Metrovicks did last for 30yrs to be fair - the engineers got used to their foibles. And the Irish 'A' class was an excellent loco - apart from the original engine(!) - some lasting 40yrs.
'

 

[Gloster]

The Australians also bought some Crossley-engined Metrovick/Beyer-Peacock locos. They seem to have been the first to do it, as they apparently sent a resident engineer to Crossley's works at Openshaw in order to supervise the construction of the first batch of engines, which were essentially a new design (although related to existing designs). He reported that the lubrication and bearings were inadequate plus other things besides and the engine was basically NBG, but the bosses back in Australia took no notice, only to end up later on wishing they had. Then the Irish and then BR continued to take no notice, whereupon he changed his name to Cassandrus. In short, the engine was known to be a dud before anyone used it, but nevertheless three railways did and got burnt by it.

There was a thread on this a couple of years ago. One problem was that it would have taken a while for the news to work its way back from Australia: Crossley would have kept quiet and the railway press was still deferential. Even if BR and CIE were keeping their ears open, news of how bad things were would probably not reach them until the contracts were too far advanced.

 

[ThirteenArches]

Only the engine was replaced so safe to assume rest of the locomotive was soundly engineered?

A loco without an engine isn't soundly engineered, it's just a collection of bits. Crossley was the problem in all these variations on a theme. Manchester City Council (motto "Concilio et Labore, which I used to think meant "The Council Is Labour") doggedly stuck with them, as a local firm, for many years before switching to Leyland PD3s.

 

[Taunton]

Crossley had been bought out by the AEC company in the late 1940s, and did various peripheral parts of the dieselisation plan, a reduced cylinder version of their engine went in 1955 into ten early 350hp shunters, otherwise indistinguishable from English Electric Class 08, numbers D3117-26, with Crompton Parkinson electric transmission. Having a 2-stroke engine they must have made a different noise to the standards. They worked in Toton yards, and were inevitably very early withdrawal candidates. A little later they built at their works the diesel multiple units commonly called 'Park Royal', another AEC company, this time with AEC engines of course, which were reasonably successful.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

A loco without an engine isn't soundly engineered, it's just a collection of bits. Crossley was the problem in all these variations on a theme. Manchester City Council (motto "Concilio et Labore, which I used to think meant "The Council Is Labour") doggedly stuck with them, as a local firm, for many years before switching to Leyland PD3s.

To be fair, the pre WW2 Crossley's were fine - Manchester promptly dumped them after the post war 'DD4' fiasco. And strange as it may seem, Manchester did have Tory councils at times in the '50s.