West Riding Automobile 1954 Leyland Titan PD2/22 Roe L24/26R
During the mid 1950s West Riding favoured the Leyland PD2 for its double deck requirements, taking 12 in 1953 with Roe L27/26R bodywork, and a further 10 in 1954, also with Roe lowbridge bodies, but in these the upper deck capacity was reduced to 24. The tin fronted PD2/22 was 7ft 6ins wide and had vacuum brakes. From 1955 West Riding turned to the Guy Arab with Roe bodywork and maintained its allegiance with Guy into the ill fated Wulfrunian saga. GHL 302 was delivered in November 1954 with fleet number 753, but that does not appear to be the number being carried when it was photographed in Leeds in April 1970, which looks something like 833 or 853, originally Guy Arab numbers, though the first digit is partially missing. Can anyone explain, please?
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
20/01/22 – 06:48
A couple of points I’m unsure of: 1) Didn’t West Riding co-operate with Guy in the Wulfrunian project? 2) I seem to recall seeing pictures of West Riding buses in red, or was this my wild imaginings?
Chris Hebbron
21/01/22 – 06:15
West Riding had its origins in the Wakefield and District Light Railway Company formed in 1903 to build tramways centred on that town. Two years later this company was taken over by the Yorkshire (West Riding) Electric Tramways Company, itself a subsidiary of the Yorkshire Electric Tramways Construction Syndicate Ltd, which had ambitious plans, authorised in the West Riding Tramways Act of 1904, to construct an additional fifty miles of tramways. In practice most was not built and the initial Wakefield and District network formed the core of the tramway operations authorised by statute. In became apparent by the 1920s that the future of road public transport lay in the increasingly sophisticated motor bus rather than the tram, and the Yorkshire (West Riding) Electric Tramways Company formed a subsidiary, the West Riding Automobile Company to operate its bus fleet. The tram network was finally abandoned in 1932, to be taken over by buses, and accordingly the Yorkshire (West Riding) Electric Tramways Company was renamed the West Riding Automobile Company in 1935, with the subsidiary company of that name being wound up. All this forms the basis of the West Riding company’s colour schemes. The former statutory tramway services were operated by buses in the red livery, whilst the rest of the network, including the former Bullock operations purchased in 1950, ran buses in the green colour scheme. This continued up to the sale of the business to the Transport Holding Company in 1967 which then passed to the National Bus Company in 1969 and on into the aesthetically uninspiring era of Freddie Wood’s poppy red. The full history of the West Riding company’s tramway forebears may be found on the Local Transport History Library website.
Roger Cox
14/06/22 – 06:29
One of this batch of PD2/22s spent some time with Bannister T/A Isle Coaches of Owston Ferry, I believe they may have bought it via Dennis Higgs (Dealer). Can anybody tell me when it retired from West Riding and if it actually was bought by Dennis Higgs
Chris Proctor
17/06/22 – 06:10
(i) In answer to Roger’s query about the fleet number, I think the problem is simply that the camera does not take kindly to the flowery script. I have looked at a number of photos of this batch. In no case is there any mention in the text of any fleet number other than the original, and in no case can I read the fleet number on the bus unless I know what it’s supposed to be – and often not even then. This 1969 photo of GHL302 in the Transport Library (with typically wayward caption) shows it more clearly: https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/ (ii) The same photo also shows an interesting feature of the bodywork. Normally Roe lowbridge bodies were built with equal depth windows all round on both decks. But here, and on the subsequent Guy Arabs, the lower-deck windows were deeper on the nearside than on the offside. This is quite a logical thing to do with the lowbridge layout, because of the intrusion of the sunken offside gangway into the lower saloon. But as far as I’m aware, Roe only did it for West Riding. (iii) Chris asked about the Wulfrunian. The answer is that West Riding not only collaborated on the project, they inspired it. The Wulfrunian was developed at West Riding’s request.
This shot is from the Ray Soper gallery contribution titled “Smith’s Luxury Coaches of Reading” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
When I started at Smiths Coaches, Reading, in May 1964 we had 4 batches of double-deckers and a solitary unroofed tree-lopper. More on the others later, but JUG 623 was one of half a dozen ex-Leeds Corporation Leyland PD1s dating from 1946 but with 1945 chassis numbers—so only just postwar. They were used on contracts carrying school kids, AWRE Aldermaston employees and the 95% Irish workforce building the Road Research Laboratory at Crowthorne. Although the Guv’nor, Alf Smith, once told me he thought the JUGs had been a “bad buy”, I couldn’t have agreed less. The perfectly-proportioned Roe bodies were getting a bit rattily round the window frames but were thoroughly sound and the safety staircase was ideal for youngsters; the steering was relatively light with no hint of stiffness, and it self-centred nicely, never needing correction on uneven country roads; the vacuum brakes were gentle but well up to the job; the clutches were pretty judder-free and the driving position was very comfortable. Most of the other younger drivers disliked them: the smallish 7.4-litre engine had to be worked hard, the noise in the cab was deafening, and the heavy flywheel, unforgiving constant-mesh gearbox and hard-to-use clutch stop made gear changing a little challenging for the novice. They were geared to do about 37mph in top at 1,800rpm, so if you were in a contract convoy on a narrow road you frustrated the Reliance driver behind you. The JUGs had illuminated “Limited Stop” boxes at the front, which helped you to fool yourself into thinking you were doing 60. “My” bus for a long time was JUG 630, of which a photo by and by. How I wish I’d made some effort to save it from scrap.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Thompson
I agree fully Ian that the honourable Mr. Smith was way off the mark altogether. As for your complimentary remarks about the PD1s, well, they could easily have been written by me to the last letter. The PD1 was a totally predictable and wholly reliable vehicle which was a tribute to the manufacturer – in my fairly wide experience it had no vices at all. I recall when they were new – the six Samuel Ledgard ones, JUM 373 – 8, the engines did admittedly have a very heavy “diesel knock” but I think there were two reasons for this. Firstly, I imagine that poor quality fuel may well have been a factor, but more importantly the vast difference in sound effects from the silky smooth pre-war 8.6 litre engine was bound to arouse surprise. This said, however, I found that as the engines became better tuned most of the PD1s (and PS1s) began to run very smoothly and acceptably quietly. Certainly all the PD/PS1s we had at Ledgard’s ran splendidly and, despite the slightly small engines, put up a very creditable performance on our extremely busy routes. When the Firm sold to THC (West Yorkshire) in 1967 many were twenty years old and without a squeak or rattle in their bodywork, whether by Leyland (and Alexander or Salmesbury under contract) ECW or BBW. One Saturday afternoon, at the start of a late turn, I suffered a rear puncture with one of the Mark V Regents. The fitter arrived at White Cross (Harry Ramsden’s famous fish shop) very apologetic with JUM 376 and promised to return the Regent suitably re-shod within the hour – dear old Bert knew well of my enthusiasm and was not surprised when I said “leave this one on please until the end of the night – I love it.” So I enjoyed a whole late turn listening to the glorious melodious tones of the pre-war designed gearbox and particularly quiet and powerful engine – I remain surprised though to this day that the keen management didn’t demand to know, on Monday, why I had roamed happily around all evening on a busy Saturday, or any other day, with 58 seats instead of the prescribed 65 !! Very happy days – if only I could do it all again. By the way – this is in no way any reflection on the worthy AEC Mk V which received an unexpected Saturday evening in “watching the telly !!
Chris Youhill
I’m glad that you liked the PD1s, Chris! On the topic of combustion noise I’d like to add that–probably because of their numerous visits to the workshop over their 24-year life–no two Smith’s JUG-registered PD1s sounded the same, though when you took your foot off the throttle and the pneumatic governor butterfly closed you had blissful combustion silence and a lovely high-pitched whistle. Nor was there any engine vibration at all. I still wish that Leyland had given them a five-speed box…
Ian Thompson
What a fine idea Ian – a five speed gearbox would have been quite an asset. Two things spring to mind though – five speed (or four speed plus overdrive) were fairly uncommon in PD1 days, and although I’m not an engineer it is possible that there may have been torque difficulties ?? By the way, I’m just wiping the egg off my face after enthusing about the beautiful tones of the PREWAR designed gearbox – the identical symphony led me to believe that this was the case. I’ve just consulted “The Leyland Bus” by Doug Jack and find that the box was actually developed for the new model. The high pitched whistle which you remember was magical wasn’t it ?? In the few weeks while I was waiting to upgrade my single deck licence a really splendid mature driver at our depot gave me constant instruction on his theory that the whistle was a completely reliable aid to immaculate gear changing – I was taught to recognise from the downward change of note as the engine slowed so as to be able to quietly engage the next gear “like putting a knife into butter.” Despite this one to one tuition I kept telling him that I was still terrified of making a hash of it. The Ministry examiner at the time was a most frightening man to the extent that if “her indoors” had not boiled his eggs to perfection that morning, then failure for even tinkling a gear was a certainty. I can still remember dear Norman’s constant reassurances – “Oh I’m sure you’re worrying unduly.” – He was right, bless him, and I’ll never forget the kindness of such genuine guys – the World is short of them !!
Chris Youhill
This reminds me of very youthful travel on Yorkshire Traction. Unlike the Doncaster Daimler CVD6’s which had a certain style (changing down for deceleration on a bend with a pre-selector was interesting: it sometimes felt as if the engine was trying to get upstairs) the Tracky Leylands struggled: they were driven with short bursts of “acceleration” and would then see how far they could get before the next one. On the only hills- railway bridges- it was an early lesson in how far you could labour a diesel engine without stalling or changing down. I only remember that they had early HE registrations and one may have been no 722. Were they PD1’s? The idea of five speeds is amazing: one seemed too much.
Joe
My word Joe, what a commendable memory you have !! The first postwar Leylands for “Tracky” were five handsome PD1s with Roe bodies. They were numbers 722 – 726, AHE 159 – 163.
Chris Youhill
One of Tracky’s PD1/Roe still exists AHE163 The bus is privately owned and lives in the Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Museum. There are several shots of it on the Society web sitehere.
Chris Hough
The Smiths buses would come to our school and take the kids doing their swimming lessons for the test- whatever it was called -probably “Swimming Proficiency”- from memory they were all a sort of battleship grey- extremely drab looking. I think by my time they were AEC Regent IIIs from Oxford (COMS) plus a solitary RT- RT45 as the AWRE bought their own fleet of Regent Vs so the Smith’s fleet was reduced, accordingly. I didn’t go swimming, so I never travelled on these buses. When I was younger I can remember that on our bus route- Emmer Green-Chalgrove Way- which usually had the RCT PRV Regent IIIs- I was always pleased if I saw No 1 or No 100 (kids are sometimes easily pleased!) from time to time a Smith’s utility Bedford OB would arrive with “Relief” showing as its destination. As kids we found these buses definitely infra dig and felt cheated of the upper deck! That was my experience of Smith’s other than the odd trip out on one of their many Bedford coaches.
Nick Ratnieks
Nick: I don’t think Smith’s ever regularly ran buses in battleship grey. I can only ever remember blue and deep orange (their normal livery for both buses and coaches) and from about 1966-7 onwards an uninspiring overall red for the ex-Rhondda Regent IIIs and ex-South Wales Regent Vs. The OFC-registered 1949 Oxford Regent III-Weymanns (of which a photo soon) were always in blue and orange—at least in my day. Despite their poorish visibility and mediocre steering I too had a soft spot for the musical little Bedford OBs, the last of which must have gone by about 1967, but as for the SBs, and in particular the Super Vega-bodied ones—well, I’d better shut up before I lose a lot of friends.
Ian Thompson
I remember those JUG Leylands very well as I took my test on JUG 628 in May 1965 at Smiths Coaches of Reading, I started on a Monday and spent two days driving around the city, then on Weds as I arrived at 8am I was called into the time box at the depot entrance and told that a test was available at 10 30am that morning, in those days the ministry boys came to your depot and Smiths had a man licenced to undertake tests, my instructor felt I was ready so I was told to go and have a cup of tea and read the Highway Code. At 10 20am I reported back to the time box and was told not to mess it up as they were short of drivers and if I passed they had a job needing covering so of I went and at 11 30am I returned with a little bit of paper in my hand saying I had passed, my first job of the day was to Savill Gardens near Egham Surrey I had no idea where it was but off I went and found it first time during the journey the teacher remarked what a smooth journey it was and had I been driving long I replied about two hours to which she burst out laughing, I was not joking, My first coach was ORD 250 a Bedford SB/Duple C41F. And yes those old Leylands of Smiths were ………. to drive and don’t let anyone kid you otherwise, its a pity modern bus operators don’t keep one so that some of their so called drivers can spend a week on one and then they might learn how to drive those tin boxes they call buses properly I think those VOSA boys today will go mad when they read this who cares I’m now retired.
Alan Kinge
21/07/11 – 07:39
Back in 1961 I was employed as a summer hand driver at the Crosville depot Pwllheli. My first trip as a driver, a newly qualified one at that, was to drive the 10:45 summer through service from Pwllheli to Barmouth using a rather tired Leland PD1 decker, possibly one carrying the fleet number DTE 547, usually allocated to the Nefyn outstation. When I climbed into the hot cab a feeling of great trepidation and apprehension descended upon the greenhorn driver, the road from Maentwrog to Barmouth is pretty grim today but it was horrendous back in the late 50’s early 60’s. All bends and sharp turns, narrow with loads of jagged rocks jutting out ready to rip the guts out of nearside panels. It was a heavily loaded service, not with through passengers but with short hop passengers, they were on and off more or less between every stage. Relatively few folk were car owners in those days. The small less than 8 litre power plant was less than adequate on the pull, but down hill progress was good. The ECW body work creaked and groaned and there was a decided fore and aft lurching of the body as well as a gentle sway. Noise levels in the cab were tolerably acceptable, though not as pleasing as what pervaded in the cab of a PD2. The trip went well and I managed to return to base with the decker intact and scratch free. The Traffic Inspector D.S.Davies walked round the vehicle and gave me the thumbs up. Confession did manage a small scrape to a lower nearside panel on the following day.
Evan Herbert
14/02/17 – 05:44
Ian Thompson. You may well be right about the colour of the Smith’s buses. I can see them in my memory as grey but I could be mixing up the colour with some industrial buses that chugged around. The buses pulled up every week to take those doing their swimming lessons off to the Arthur Hill Swimming Pool. Our classroom looked out on to the Hemdean Road- the buses were visible to all in the class- but my memory may be failing me!
Nick Ratnieks
17/02/17 – 06:40
I remember watching Tomorrows World on BBC 1 in the early seventies and seeing one of this batch being `re righted` using the newly developed air bag technique. As a very keen enthusiast of the Lincoln Corporation PD1/Roe examples I was horrified to see it on its side ! I did manage to acquire Yorkshire Traction 726 much later however.
Chris Youhill has mentioned that Samuel Ledgard bought and ran a few of these vehicles in the early 1960’s, which prompted me to rummage around and find this photo, which I took at the Bristol Bus Rally in 1977. I don’t believe that LAE 13 was a Ledgard vehicle, although LAE 12 was. This unusual chassis/body combination arose because of Bristol Tramways Motor Constructional Works’ inability to meet the urgent post-war demands for Bristol chassis. So, fifty Leyland chassis were bought to fill the gap and keep the ECW production line going. Their contemporary high-bridge body was fitted. They did look very high! One other member (C4019) of the 50 has survived, just, and is slowly being restored.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
You couldn’t get any nearer than this to turning the clock back could you ?? Below is another picture of LAE 13 and yours truly, taken on October 14th 2007 on the occasion of the Running Day to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the demise of the Samuel Ledgard undertaking. The very appropriate location is at Otley Bus Station and LAE 12 which Chris H mentions was stationed at Otley depot throughout its Ledgard career. It was also the bus which I had for my very first duty as a driver – a wickedly busy late turn starting in the peak period on a Friday – and although I was naturally suffering from “stage fright” the wonderful vehicle behaved like a dream, “pulled like a trooper”, and kept any of my errors in engine revs and road speed completely quiet and not even a click was heard by the passengers. Here also is a picture of “the real LAE 12” in Leeds. I was already a dedicated Leyland PD1 fan and that Friday was one of the happiest days of my life. The Running Day was also exactly fifty years after I started as a young conductor and so to be able to stand with a vehicle as near as is possible to its memorable twin meant everything to me.
Chris Youhill
Delighted to see the Bristol/Sammy Ledgard PD1, which reminds me of early post war Tilling Group policy. I believe 100 PD1s were purchased, and spread out among several fleets, including some others with highbridge bodies at Eastern Counties (?). Tilling also embarked upon a rebodying exercise, including many quite venerable chassis, which placed further demands on ECW, and I wonder if this was why some of the Bristol examples were bodied by BBW (Brislington Bodybuilding Works!). Perhaps someone will have more explanatory detail, but the whole early post war Tilling programme was absolutely fascinating….stick a new body on it, and fit a recond. 5LW, and you had a standard Tilling bus whatever the chassis origin, although the PD1 was not in this category. I just wish that West Yorkshire had been a bit more involved in these fascinating exercises.
John Whitaker
Glad you liked the picture, John, of what is to me a very special vehicle as you can imagine. We had a total of six former Bristol Leyland PD1s, three each by ECW and BBW. ECW : KHW 631 KHY 395 LAE 12 BBW : KHW 243 KHW 622 LAE 2 The first five were at Otley Depot while LAE 2 served at Armley where it was eventually prohibited from going on the Leeds to Bradford route due to its habit, when bouncing, of clattering the underside of the railway bridge in Whitehall Road !! Just one of those fascinating little oddities – why wasn’t it based at Otley where its anti railway nature would have been contained ?? We shall never know now.
Chris Youhill
The other major participant in the 100 PD1/As order was Crosville. Crosville also had some Regals which were shared with either Bristol or Western National. I believe they had Beadle Bodies to standard post-war ECW design. Another Crosville strand was the PS1s(?) with Weymann body delivered direct but redirected from a Balfour Beatty/Midland General order. [This is also interesting as BF/MG normally had AEC/Weymann combinations – Leylands occasionally, but rarely, appearing on the list.]
David Oldfield
Interesting comments David re. Crosville, which perhaps was the most un-Tilling of the Tilling companies! Probably because they were part of the BET group prior to the 1942 TBAT switch round, with North Western going the other way, and they therefore did not have any pre -war Bristols apart from a few odds. I never drove a bus, so Chris`s comments re the Ledgard PD1s were intriguing too. I always picked up vibes about the PD1 being rough and slow. Certainly my recollections in Lytham and with EYMS are not so, but perhaps the different engine mounting on the PD1A had some effect. Did the PD1s of Ledgard from other sources behave as well as the Bristol ones Chris?
John Whitaker
The Crosville AEC Regals had Strachan bodies. JFM 575 is preserved.
Peter Williamson
Peter W, thanks for the correction. John, I believe you could be correct about PD1A being smoother with their modifications. I do drive buses – but as more of a hobby than our resident professionals like Chris Youhill. I have only driven PD3s and only experienced PD2s and PD3s with STD as a boy. My only experience of PS1/PD1 is on the preserved rally circuit. They do have a reputation of being rough – but I think this is merely comparing the 7.4 and the 9.8 engines. Personally, I have found them different, rather than rough, and Granville Smith’s PS1/Plaxton running around Helmsley I found to be one of the best and sweetest vehicles that I have ridden on. Could be the driver is a critical factor. […and coming from an AEC man that is praise indeed!!!!!]
David Oldfield
It is most reassuring from the observations of John and David that the allegations of “roughness” are not borne out by present day experience. I think, though, that I may be able to identify the origin of the theory as I remember clearly in 1946 when I was ten years old that my first impression of Samuel Ledgard’s newly delivered half dozen PD1s was of very harsh knocking from the engines. This comparison was, of course, against all the Company’s many TSs/TDs virtually all of which were still in full day service and on top line coaching duties at the time. I do believe that the early “noisiness” of the 7.4 litre engine most probably arose from poor quality diesel in the aftermath of The War, and from the fact that operators’ fitters and engineers were entirely unfamiliar with the tuning required on what was, after all, an entirely new engine in the civilian area. Once the necessary practical experience was in place the engines began to perform in a very potent and civilised manner. I agree wholeheartedly with David’s praise of Granville Smith’s glorious PS1/Plaxton which for several summers has operated magnificent but tortuous services on the North Yorkshire Moors. Not many sixty year old vehicles can claim to ascend the long and notorious Sutton Bank’s 1 in 4 gradients without a whimper !! I can promise John that all the Ledgard PS1s/PD1s performed magnificently and smoothly. We had the following, from a quick mental resume :- NEW 6 PD1s 8 PS1s Ex BRISTOL 6 PD1s Ex RIBBLE 4 PD1s (plus 2 “converts” to PD2) Ex PRESTON 7 PD1s S/H COACHES 2 PS1s My personal experience was that the apparent large difference in capacity compared to the 9.8 litre engine was of little consequence, and the delightfully precise behaviour at all times of the PS1/PD1 clutches and gearboxes made them a delight to drive and, acoustically, a real treat in which to travel – or for that matter to issue tickets !!
Chris Youhill
What cruel fate that such Leylands (and their fellow AECs) are reduced to just happy memories! As a postscript, I have read – and heard recounted – that people who worked with and drove these “100” far preferred them to contemporary Bristol K5Gs.
David Oldfield
Would the ‘roughness’ actual/imaginary stem from the fact that pre-war Leylands had indirect oil engines (which were very quiet and smooth) and postwar ones direct injection? Was it my imagination that a characteristic of post-war Leyland engines was to ‘hunt’ on tickover (run through all cylinders in one go, then pause before repeating the cycle) rather than just have a conventional, even, tickover? Maybe it was another make of engine, or the engine was out of adjustment in some way.
Chris Hebbron
I think you’re right on both counts, Chris H
David Oldfield
I’m afraid Chris H that I haven’t the technical knowledge to express a qualified opinion on “indirect v direct” injection, but I’m sure that your suggestion may indeed be the reason for the difference in noise characteristics between the prewar 8.6 litre engines and their 7.4 litre. successors. As far as “hunting” goes you are absolutely right, and both the 7.4 and the 9.8 invariably had this habit. At the risk of being ticked off by devotees of the 9.8 I have to say that I always found these to hunt unpredictably and fussily as if they weren’t sure what to do next. On the other hand the 7.4 hunted with metronome accuracy comparable with the movement of a high quality Swiss watch, and in between each six injections would whisper a couple of delightful little refined whistles. If I’m thought there to be a little “over the top” well I’m “guilty as charged yer’ honour” and I admired and enjoyed the PS1s and the PD1s beyond measure.
Chris Youhill
I suppose that the best way to describe direct versus indirect injection sound characteristics would be to say that the latter type ‘knocks’ and the former don’t! In fact, simplistically, it is hard to tell a pre-war Leyland 8.6 diesel engine from a petrol engine. LAE12 looks much better in Ledgard livery than in the Bristol one, primarily because the all-white upper deck gives the vehicle a much ‘lighter and lower’ look. PD1’s must have been a small part of virtually every fleet in post-war Britain, either new or second-hand. Even London Transport had 65 of them, with Leyland bodies. When I worked in London in the mid-50’s, they would trundle past my office on their well-worn path on route 38A between Victoria and Loughton (Essex). I would catch one from time to time and enjoy the experience. They were all withdrawn in the mid 50’s and exported to Jugoslavia, and a hard life, to judge from the odd photo I’ve seen taken from there. Anyway, enough of this rambling – glad I was able to turn the clock back for a short while, Chris Y!
Chris Hebbron
Thanks again Chris H for that clarification. Just a small detail of information about the Ledgard livery – the top deck and lower saloon windows of LAE 12 do indeed look white in the picture, but the colour was actually a very very light grey, the manufacturer’s title being “duck egg blue.” I am fascinated by your memories of London Transport STD 112 – 176 as I was in great admiration of them also as a frequent visitor to London in those days. When travelling from Victoria to the West End I would wait as long as necessary to board one on the 38A and needless to say loved the journey. I’m not sure how many were allocated to Victoria Gillingham Street Depot (GM) but certainly when they were new they often appeared on the tortuous 137 route from Highgate in the north to Crystal Palace in the south – a very long run with some nasty hills here and there. I bet the drivers used to preselector STLs would curse anyone who halted an STD midway up Central Hill at Norwood !! There, I’m rambling now – I do apologise.
Chris Youhill
Chris Y’s description of the E181 (Leyland 7.4) “hunt” is not OTT at all – it is spot on. But oddly, it isn’t universal, at least not in the preservation world. Some hunt more than others, and the one in Philip Thornes’ ex M&D Beadle-Leyland doesn’t hunt at all. I wonder if this may have something to do with the fact that it wasn’t built for civilian use. Apparently it came, unused, straight out of a War Department box.
Peter Williamson
Peter that’s most interesting – I’ve ridden many times on the beautiful vehicle mentioned, and know Philip well, but I never realised from whence the engine came. Also when travelling I’m so in awe with happy memories from the period ambience that the lack of “hunting” has never registered with me !! Thanks though for confirming my general observation about these engines – much appreciated.
Chris Youhill
A very interesting thread, though have to say am not as enthusiastic about the PD1 as others here. Oldham rather than waiting for the PD2 which followed almost immediately in 1947, forged ahead and took 14 PD1s and 50 of the 8ft PD1/3s. They were sluggish and underpowered especially on the unforgiving gradients around that town. That they were used as driver trainers is no coincidence with their painfully slow gear changes where the revs having died away completely would need pumping up again. It was said by drivers that they could roll a fag between changes. The observation on Lythams PD1s is however totally correct, quite apart from the flat terrain they worked, they were much livelier with quicker gear changes, and this was all down to the fact that the flywheels had been bored out. This is a mod that other operators may have also adopted hence the differing characteristics between vehicles and operators? Certainly the sweet natured vehicles encountered nowadays may have much to do with the degree of tlc lavished upon them as opposed to when in service? Eastern Counties 20 PD1As which were all Gardner 5LW engined served from 1947-64, so a creditable record. The uneven tickover of the 7.4 E181 engine probably has more to do with the pneumatic governors with which they were fitted than anything else, and the related whistle on idling. Postwar Crossleys had similar idling characteristics for the same reason.
Keith Jackson
I have found the comment I made about Yorkshire Traction PD1’s – on the Smiths Luxury Coaches – Leyland Titan PD1 posting. I was reminded of it by your comment about the revs dropping, Keith – spot on. Compared with Doncaster Corporation Transport buses, they were painfully slow.
Joe
The distinctive ‘hunting’ on idle would more than likely be attributable to the vehicles concerned being fitted with pneumatic governors rather than the more usual mechanical type. In the post-war years CAV and Simms both produced fuel injection pumps which had pneumatic governors as an option, and several manufacturers specified these on some of their diesel engines, including Leyland. Albion was another and used them on its EN250 engine as fitted to their Claymore truck, and Nimbus small single-deck chassis for example. This engine was also fitted to the Bristol SU chassis. Ford Thames Traders fitted with Ford’s own 4-cylinder ‘Cost Cutter’ diesel also sported pneumatic governors, and likewise had that distinctive ‘rise and fall’ tickover. In fact many a Trader front bumper could be heard rattling in perfect harmony with its idling engine! I can vividly recall as a schoolboy, being fascinated by the tickover of Bradford C T’s EKY- and GKU- registered batches of Leyland Titan PD2s. They had that reassuring ‘hunting’ characteristic, which to my young ears sounded not so much of an affliction, but more a rather contented gentle mechanical “purring”. In later years I would again be treated to “that” tickover when occasionally travelling on one of West Yorkshire’s little Bristol SUL4As – although I couldn’t help thinking in this case that the little 4-cylinder engine was somewhat reminiscent of a coal wagon when idling! They had a tendency to lose dipsticks when new, as the horizontal EN250 engine had a dipstick tube with a quite shallow curve in order to fit neatly under the floor. Apparently the flexible dipsticks had a habit of ‘creeping’ up the tubes due to the vibrations set up on tickover, and over time they would simply pop out of the end!
Brendan Smith
These are all absolutely fascinating observations and opinions from different angles and I am really enjoying reading and learning from them. One thing though does surprise me a little on the aspect of painfully slow gear changes on the PS1s/PD1s and this is that no-one has mentioned an ingenious device called a “clutch stop.” I’m not an engineer so I can’t fully understand how this works, although I believe something akin to brake linings is involved, but on all the Samuel Ledgard examples it was extremely effective – although requiring a degree of confidence, I’ll explain. The system was to declutch once, placing the lever in neutral, and then to very positively and quickly fully depress the clutch whereupon the next gear could be selected silently before the engine revs dropped fully. This was most useful on hills when heavily loaded although there was no need to employ it on the level. When I say confidence was needed this is because any “half hearted” attempt at the procedure would result in a screaming protest like a sawmill, audible for miles around, from the gearbox and those of us with pride in the job soon learnt to do it properly or not at all. To a layman like me it seems obvious that a degree of “design mechanical cheating” must have been involved to enable the gear to be engaged at the wrong engine revs but the clutch stop was an official device which had to be kept, so the fitters explained, finely tuned – or else !!
Chris Youhill
I remember so well the Bradford PD2/3 s as described above!. I could never understand the random gurgle of the tickover which never seemed to reimpose itself on a regular rhythm pattern. Now I know why! This wonderful sound was vividly brought back to my notice last year when I sampled the Wallasey PD2 at Birkenhead. Bradford never had PD1s, but many fleets, it seems to me, were only too keen to get rid. Leicester comes to mind, whereas their PD2s did the best part of a 20 year stint. Were the East Yorkshire PD1s modified in any way, as I remember these as quite nippy on the rural routes from Bridlington to Hornsea.?
John Whitaker
Chris Y- are we talking crash gearboxes here? This sounds like the old technique of double declutching- pedal down, move into neutral: raise revs in neutral, pedal down, engage next gear as revs fall. Not as easy as that sounds. That is why drivers would labour the engine on a hill until stalling loomed.
Joe
Something that hasn’t been mentioned in connection with PD1 performance is overall gearing. I don’t know about the Tilling PD1As, but I do know that Manchester and Oldham’s PD1s both used the highest gearing available, which gave a high top speed but very poor performance on hills, whereas Wigan’s were much lower geared, giving better hill-climbing at the expense of a lower top speed. The approach to the clutch-stop was very variable throughout the industry. Tilling fleets were often clutch-stop strongholds, with the clutch-stops on Ks and Ls being every bit as effective as on the PD1 when kept in tune. The transmission on the Guy Arab III-V and Daimler CCG also had a clutch-stop, but it was much slower-acting, giving the driver a bit more breathing apace, but still faster than a double declutch. Returning to that tickover, I wonder if this will bring back some memories: Diddlydum (shoo-shoo-shoo-shoo) Diddlydum (shoo-shoo-shoo-shoo) Diddlydum (shoo-shoo-shoo-shoo)
Peter Williamson
Yes Joe, we are talking about crash gearboxes, but the “clutch stop” procedure is a completely different method to the normal double declutching. I didn’t stress that use of the “clutch stop” was only necessary on upward gear changes to cheat the normal rate of rev loss when taking the foot off the accelerator.
Thank you Peter – I recognised the melody straight away from your description and it will always be one of the top tunes in the automobile acoustic hit parade for me – a brilliant picture in words.
Chris Youhill
Shut me up if I’ve mentioned this before, but Smith’s Luxury Coaches of Reading had LAE 16 roofless as a tree-lopper. Being that much lighter it flew along and I even had the impression that the axle was higher geared than that of the Leeds JUG PD1s. Tree-lopping in the quiet lanes west of Reading was very enjoyable, the none-too-laborious task being further lightened by the old hands’ anecdotes of the romantic encounters they had witnessed over the years in the fields below as they gazed down from the lopping deck. I spare you the details… I do agree with what Chris, Peter and others have said about the PD1 clutch-stop: that very heavy flywheel made it essential for up-changes, but the PD1 clutch-stop seemed much less predictable than its AEC, Crossley or Bristol counterpart. Chris Youhill’s “screaming protest like a sawmill” beautifully sums up the price you pay for holding the clutch down for the minutes fraction of a second too long. One day when I hadn’t much to do I fiddled with the pneumatic governor of JUG 630 and I reckon I got the tickover down to a stable 150rpm, but I put it back before going out again. Oddly enough, I don’t recall any of our 7.4 engines hunting particularly, but they all sounded and “felt” different.
Ian Thompson
Keith Jackson mentions that the Eastern Counties PD1As had Gardner 5LW engines. I never knew this, and am surprised that Leyland would succumb to this deviation! Were they supplied new like this, or converted later by ECOC, and did other Tilling fleets have the 5LW fitted?
John Whitaker
Leyland would never have supplied any bus, at that time, with other than Leyland power. If they were 5LW powered, they had been retro-fitted. As I said above, Leylands were preferred to Bristol K5Gs. It could only have been an expedient.
David Oldfield
08/08/11 – 07:01
Just to correct two misapprehensions. All twenty of the Eastern Counties PD1As had lowbridge 53 seat ECW bodies, and all but one had Leyland six cylinder engines. The first, GPW 346 had a Gardner 5 cylinder engine. There were rumours of ECOC modifications to improve economy with a consequent reduction in performance, and Leyland Motors were not happy!
Nigel Richards
09/08/11 – 18:02
As a recent arrival on the internet and this site had me reminiscing? I was a driver for Bristol Omnibus Co. 1959/1965, and I was based at Eastville Depot where the whole batch of PD1s (less 3 at Lawrence Hill)were allocated, ah yes, I remember them well, getting a little tired though some of them, I loved ’em, they were certainly oddities amongst a great fleet of Bristol/ECW vehicles. The comments about hunting brought back vivid memories as did the talk of clutch stops, I particularly liked the way you could place your right boot “into” the throttle pedal, your heel nestling against the raised lip at the rear of the pedal. I have encountered a couple of them over the years at rallies and running days, and as a plus to all that after transferring to the country services at Marlborough St. Bus Stn in Jan. 1962 in the middle of the Great Snow/whiteout, I think that was the year Wilts and Dorset took over Silver Star of Porton Down, and lo and behold we had 3 Atlanteans on the fleet, initially based at W.S.M. “WESTON”, but then sent to Bristol for use on the Portishead 85 route, it was not my regular rota, I was an O.M.O. driver, but often drove them on overtime duties, my how they could power up the viciously steep Rownham Hill, uncanny how quiet they were with the big 680 engines in the rear ‘bustle’, of course they were not standard, and that being the watchword of the Tilling Group they were not around for long, oh how we missed that power. The reference to Gardner 5s, reminds of an occasion when I was climbing Tog Hill on the A420 one early morning with a Bristol LS, empty, and I was overtaken by an 8 wheeled AEC Regent belonging to Dobsons of Edinburgh I believe, fully loaded with aviation spirit for RAF Lyneham, a master class show of a large under stressed engine walking away with its load no problem. Of course, not many years later we were seeing Daimler Fleetlines zooming about the UK powered by HUGE Gardner 6LXBs, but that’s another story. Years later I was driving a DAF truck, which as we know came about with the collapse of Leyland Bus and Truck, and the emergence big time of Volvo and DAF etc. Thanks for the opportunity to roll back the years
Dave Knapp
02/10/11 – 07:03
Re Chris Hebron’s initial photo and comments about the ex Bristol PD1As, there were initially 150 engine and chassis delivered to the Tilling Group in 1947/8, and 100 of them were equipped with lowbridge ECW bodywork, and sent to 7 different Tilling Group Company’s the other 50 went to Bristol Omnibus where I was a driver at Eastville Depot, there were 25 fitted with ECW highbridge bodies and 25 with BBW highbridge bodies, they were all allocated to my depot apart from 3 or 4, I am not sure which, that were allocated to Lawrence Hill. As I have said on other occasions they were getting a bit tired come the 1960s, but generally speaking they would give a driver a satisfying return for being patient with grasping their “ALIEN” ways, I was quite fond of them, the Leyland sound of the 0600 engine was very welcoming to the ears, it certainly made a change to the usual Bristol/Gardner melodies which abounded in the Bristol streets. I moved to the country services in 1962 and that was my last contact with them, I did spot two of them some years later, they were internal transport at the Filton plant of British Aircraft Corp. where the prototype Concord was being built. The one in the photo, LAE 13/4044, I saw it at a rally at Wroughton nr Swindon, about 10 yrs ago, looked well spruced up and well ready to do “3 times up Oldbury Court” on the 11 service!! The chap that owned it said they were having a spot of trouble with the power steering and the air/con, oh, how we all laughed? I do believe I would enjoy an hour or two on a private road getting reacquainted with a well fettled Leyland Titan PD1A, that would certainly roll back the years!
Dave Knapp
02/10/11 – 10:34
The pre-war (i.e.1939-45) Leyland 8.6 litre oil engine was always a direct injection unit. It had an overhead camshaft and pot cavity pistons, and was governed to the then high speed (for direct injection) of 1900 rpm. It ultimately developed 98 bhp, compared with the 102 bhp at 1700 rpm of the contemporary Gardner 6LW, but it gained a reputation for smoothness and reliability at a time when certain other makes of oil engine were proving to have neither of these qualities. AEC obtained permission to use the pot cavity piston design for their engines, resulting in the direct injection versions of the 8.8 and 7.7 power units. I always understood that the only difference between the PD1 and the PD1A was the use of Metalastik spring shackles in the latter. The types were otherwise identical in specification. The 100 bhp 7.4 litre E181 was a toroidal cavity engine, and it was certainly rougher and noisier than its predecessor, and, having experienced problems with the flexible engine mounting on the TD7, Leyland reverted to rigid mountings for the PD1. However, the point made by Chris Y about the poor quality post war diesel fuel is surely true. Similarly, modern oil technology is so far advanced compared with those far off times that engine performance today, even for old motors, is very much smoother. The high revving, turbocharged screech boxes of modern times would never have survived more than five minutes on the fuels and oils of 1947.
Roger Cox
20/10/11 – 06:43
Re my comment above dated 09/08/11 – 18:02, I think I am a bit out on the date of the Great Snow, (I am a Vicar of Dibley fan), Jan 1962 should have read Jan 1963, some of the outlying villages, Doynton/Littleton-on Severn/and quite a lot more did not have a bus for weeks, and in spite of this the usual greeting from passengers after a big trek up to the main road to get on the bus was generally cheery and sympathetic to our travails trying to maintain schedules/timetables in such appalling conditions. I still think back to the, joys’ of a 4/5hr stint in the cab of an old Bristol L5G, the raked back side window of the cab to cope with O.M.O. duties, freezing cold, no mod cons, we used to call them “conker boxes”, rackety old crates as they were, I must confess they were in a minority, we mostly had LSs and MWs, which, though not state of the art were a big improvement.
Dave Knapp
28/11/11 – 09:21
Fascinating stuff! I rode many of Manchesters PD1 fleet, numbered 3000 to 3049 or 3050, as they were used on the 50X limited stop schools service from Sale to Manchester Grammar school. The hunting, whenever heard, still brings back memories, and that slow change especially from 3rd to Top gear!–wonderful. That part of the World being fairly flat, none of the buses I regularly used ever needed to use first gear, which in those circumstances could be regarded as an emergency ratio. The Gardner 5 cylinder Daimlers, numbered 4000 to 4500 were interesting. Clearly underpowered, but the odd one would seem to go like hell, I wonder if some were retro fitted with a bigger engine? Finally for now, in peak times in the 1951/2 years Manchester brought out some old Crossleys, one of which was so gutless that it would only just manage to get into top gear and hold about 18/20 mph on a dead level road. But it sounded normal! Happy days–
Mike Plant
03/01/12 – 17:11
It has been really interesting reading all the comments about the PD1. I am lucky enough to own the Warrington PD1 registered EED 5 which I have enjoyed driving and pampering for the last 30+ years. True to form, the E181 engine of EED 5 has that delightfully slow tickover (and so it should) that makes gear selection much easier, and a slow gear change that allows you to roll a cigarette between gears! Gear changing in hilly areas can be a bit of a challenge and the clutch stop does come in handy for a quick 1st to 2nd change and maybe even a 2nd to 3rd, but you have to be quick and ensure the pedal goes right to the floor. I have ridden on Philip Thornes really nice Beadle/Leyland coach and am really impressed with the attention to detail and excellent turn-out; I did notice that the Beadles engine is set to tick over a lot faster than on mine and wonder if this is simply how they prefer it? Whatever the reason, it has a lovely pedigree and its so nice to see it in service.
Phill Clark
06/02/12 – 07:43
I gained my PSV drivers license on a PD1 with Eastbourne Corporation in 1962 and afterwards drove them in open top form on the seafront service The performance was best described as adequate but I don’t recall them being noticeably rough, fitted with a pneumatic governor which gently whistled I realised after a while that when it reached a certain pitch the gears would engage very easily and silently without using the clutch making for a less tiring day but the change was always very slow, some drivers said they could roll a cigarette while waiting for the revs to die down (metaphorically speaking of course) ah happy days.
Diesel Dave
06/02/12 – 09:28
Phill, thank you greatly for your fastidious preservation OF EED 5 – a vehicle which I’ve long admired when I’ve seen it. I’m in no way a traitor to my native county of Yorkshire but, similarly, I’ve never been a party to the rivalry between the “red and white roses” and have always found all aspects of public transport west of the Pennines to be utterly absorbing. If I see EED 5 anywhere this season I shall make myself known if I may.
Chris Youhill
06/02/12 – 09:29
I’ve driven PD2’s & 3’s but never a PD1, but it sounds as if the gear change technique is much the same as the first vehicles I ever drove, they were Guy Arabs with the slow revving Gardner 5LW, very slow change up and loads of revs and quick change down, and the whole world heard about it if you got it wrong.
Ronnie Hoye
06/02/12 – 13:47
I drove PD2’s and PD3’s at Halifax from 1973 until the last was withdrawn in the early 80’s, and then as an Instructor I still regularly drove the two PD2 trainers until they went in 1990. Most operators had withdrawn their PD1’s by then (Halifax never had any anyway) but during my involvement in bus preservation in the 1970’s I drove both a PD1 and a PS1 on several occasions. Having heard all the adverse comments about them over the years, especially no less than Geoffrey Hilditch’s recollections of how difficult he found them to drive in Manchester, I had approached them with apprehension, but was surprised to find how pleasant and satisfying these two actually were. As Diesel Dave says, the trick with up changes was to listen to the wheezing sound of the pneumatic governor dying down, then as it just started to whistle, quickly snick it in – with or without clutch. These constant-mesh boxes had less movement in the gate, and required little physical effort, unlike the heavy synchromesh PD2’s and PD3’s. In hilly areas they needed a few more revs when moving off up a gradient compared to what I was used to, but once on the go they were surprisingly nifty performers – especially the PS1. I liked them a lot – full of character. One unusual bus we had in our group was a PD2/1 which was fitted with the PD1 type gearbox. The original synchromesh boxes had begun to fail dramatically in many fleets after only a short time in service, and for a while until the problem could be sorted out, Leyland began to fit the constant mesh unit in some PD2’s. There was no change in model designation, and little publicity was given to the matter – so not many enthusiasts knew about it until comparatively recent years. Those in the know about our preserved example used to rather naughtily not mention the fact when allowing someone else to drive it, then watch the hapless driver struggle whilst they fell about laughing ! Very silly, really (I wasn’t one of them I hasten to add). It was also a nice bus to drive though, with obviously more ‘go’ than a PD1, the only drawback being a severe transmission judder on moving off – something that many early PD2’s suffered from.
John Stringer
28/07/12 – 08:49
I agree with Phill Clark, who’s PD1 was the first I ever rode on as a youngster way back in the ’80s from Brighton back to Battersea if memory serves. Many years later I am the delighted owner of Plymouth PD1 DDR 414. After many years of driving various different PD2s & 3s I have to say I find the Driver Fatigue Factor of a PD1 is much less…
Bob A
02/04/19 – 07:00
Just a note to say that I saw LAE 13 on Sunday in safe hands and dry storage but under fairly expensive body repair. It looks like it might be some time before it is back on the road but it is still sound and impressive..I hope the work will be done one day.
Richard Leaman
03/04/19 – 08:34
The Group restoring LAE 13 are like many groups in that their volunteer base is becoming narrower and getting older so that with their running buses as well restoration takes a back seat and becomes an elongated process. It probably needs around 1000 man hours max to complete but there has only been minimal progress in the last 2 years. The above comment is not meant as a criticism just a statement of fact.
Roger Burdett
05/04/19 – 06:55
This string has started me off reminiscing. My earliest experience of buses was the village’s three or four times a day utility Bedford OB with wooden slatted seats on the Wrington to Clevedon service. Even then my latent engineering mind was intrigued by the manual folding door which was cunningly designed to shoot closed as the bus pulled away and naturally crashed open as the brakes were applied. My interest in buses began around 1948 when travelling in the family Vauxhall ten through Bristol, I began to see lots of new shiny green and cream buses and gleaming “LAE†registration plates with low numbers (and yes I did eventually spot LAE1) and these for some reason grabbed my continuing attention. Up until then what I could see from my low head height was a motley selection of red, blue and green double deckers as we travelled in the bombed city. Then I noticed that some of these new buses had LEYLAND on their radiators and others had Bristol. I didn’t think much of that until we had a family holiday in Blackpool which meant driving up the A38 and through Kidderminster and seeing all sorts of extraordinary buses in different colours. Getting nearer to Blackpool I noticed a few that had RIBBLE on their radiator and thought that they looked rather like Leyland radiators. This caused me some confusion and I erroneously concluded that those with Bristol must also be Leylands with the operators name replacing the manufacturers! I managed to ignore the fact that the radiators were different outline shapes and the driver’s windscreen bottom was horizontal on Leylands and drooping on Bristols. Around that time Ian Allan published the Bristol Tramways fleet list and being young and liking things new, I could not understand why it was printed with a blue and yellow cover! By the time I discovered it, Bristol Tramways had already duplicated three or four updates available free from their offices in St Augustine’s Parade. These were needed with the reorganisation around Stroud and Cheltenham which caused lots of odd vehicles to come and go rather quickly. All was now revealed and I was able to work out the differences between Bristol and Leyland and ECW, Duple and BBW and eventually ten years later ended up as a Tilling Group trainee graduate engineer! The LAEs also started my interest in registration letters and I could eventually remember most of the two letter county / borough one and two letter allocated letters and still find myself (mis-) interpreting the final three letters of present day plates as if they were issued in the heritage system! All 50 of the Leyland LAEs and the earlier vehicles of the batch with K registrations (far less exciting!) were allocated to Eastville depot in those days indicated by a little white round plate screwed to the front panel. Later in life, some of the ECW bodies returned to Lowestoft for a mid-life restoration and were noticeable on return as they had regained the black lining between the cream bands and the green (never applied by the company at repaint) and the upper-deck front bulkhead had gained shiny ribbed aluminium covering instead of lino. Sorry to bore you, but I feel better for adding this to the archive!
Geoff Pullin
06/04/19 – 08:11
Just brilliant to have that sort of post-reminded me of my teen years.
Roger Burdett
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
12/08/19 – 08:00
Thank you for a very interesting read. As a small boy I was struck by the sound of so many London Transport green double deckers. They would hunt at idle, getting faster and faster as they pulled away, until they finally got to 30MPH and the engines ran smoothly. Almost as though they had invented a missing cylinder, to cut back in only at speeds. With this amazing Internet, I’ve read that others noticed this too.
East Yorkshire Motor Services 1949 Leyland PD1 Roe H?R Seen on 25 June 1958 at the North Landing terminus of route 31 from Bridlington are these classic members of the East Yorkshire fleet. At that time, I remember them as regular performers both on the North Landing service and the then separate service to the Lighthouse. As a visitor from Nottingham, holidaying at Flamborough, I was intrigued by the destination screen arrangement, with what looks like an additional foothold in the middle of the radiator, together with the grab handle to the bottom left of the blind box, to help the conductor reach the board to flip it over. On the nearside shot, the additional foothold and grab handle can also be seen. Quite precarious! What a pity one of this class was never preserved. The other unusual aspect to me of East Yorkshire, apart of course from the Beverley Bar roof, was the Willebrew ticket system, the like of which I had never seen before. It all added to the impression of being on holiday in a different world and certainly left a lasting impression. Other vehicles in the above shots are top right JAT 439 – 471 and the side view is of JRH 991 – 518 both PD1s
Interesting vehicles with a system the ‘elf & safety’ folk would have a heart attack over nowadays! Was the dome-like roof replicated inside as well, or was that flat?
Chris Hebbron
Only the heads of those who didn’t duck!
David Oldfield
Not sure about the foot hole in the middle of the radiator, I would of thought that could get quite hot after a run from Hull to Scarborough or did EYMS supply asbestos lined shoes to their conductors
Trevor
These were among the most beautiful and characterful vehicles of their time, and rank very highly on my personal list of favourites. The interior upper saloon contour was identical to the “Beverley Bar” exterior. The Health and Safety comments are valid of course, but pale into insignificance in comparison with the metal “bible” displays common amongst the Tilling Group operators before the War, where the driver or conductor had to climb onto a slippery metal step while hoisting the entire heavy metal assembly up aloft !! These beloved East Yorkshire vehicles had another unusual feature within – the lovely Roe wooden window frames were not stained and varnished, as was the norm elsewhere, but were painted a pleasing mid blue in durable gloss. On the rear platform wall near the stairs was another delightful anomaly presumably caused by a temporary shortage of transfers. A warning notice, about a foot square, in gold leaf warned alighting passengers to :- WAIT until the bus STOPSOn quite a few vehicles this read “Wait until the COACH stops” – a kind of unintentional “tongue in cheek” accolade to the superior quality of these fine machines perhaps ??
Chris Youhill
Barton Transport of Nottingham acquired one of these, JAT 410, in the late 1950s or early 1960s. I think it was Barton running number 951. This may seem a very high number for a 1946 vehicle, but Bartons always numbered their vehicles strictly according to the date of acquisition, with no attempt to allocate batches of numbers to particular types. Hence the famous 1948 front entrance lowbridge Duple PD1s were in the 400 and 500 series. When they later acquired some ex-LT RTLs they were in the 1000 series.
Stephen Ford
Wonderful, evocative photographs! As a kid, whenever we went into York City centre, I would be looking out hoping to see one of these great vehicles on the 44/45/46 routes between Leeds and Bridlington or Hull – a rare treat, unfortunately, because it was a joint service with West Yorkshire, and usually the EYMS buses were single-deckers any way. Once we managed to travel on one on a trip to Bridlington but my dad insisted on sitting downstairs, so I never got to see the interior of a Beverly Bar roof. Their magnificent indigo and primrose livery was complimented by the lovely Leyland engine silky tickover. They had beautiful blue upholstery and cream stanchions which gave them an extra air of superiority. We’d got to Rougier Street to catch the Bridlington bus on a typically raucous York-West Yorkshire Bristol K5G still sporting a ‘bible’ metal indicator, (called a ‘flap board’ at York, and thanks, Chris for reminding me of them), so the comparison between the two vehicles was pretty one-sided. As Bob points out, another novelty was getting a Willebrew ticket; operationally, the system itself was cumbersome and laborious, but the tickets were fascinating for a young child to examine.
Roy Burke
Unlike Roy I have managed a ride on the preserved Roe bodied AEC Regent V WAT652 The overall effect was of entering a gothic church with a definite arching to the roof line I have also had a ride on East Yorkshire’s own Willowbrook bodied AEC where the interior roof line was not so pronounced However both buses were different to the norm. As well as the Beverly Bar roofed fleet EYMS also ran a fleet of standard lowbridge buses which ran in Hull and were not allowed under the Bar.
Chris Hough
I too remember the EYMS PD1s with great affection. The memory is made more vivid by Chris`s description of the mid blue painted internal window framing. I remember them so well as fast, smooth buses, which prompted me in previous posts to quote them in the “rough PD1 discussions” of a week or so ago! My main experience of them was on the Bridlington to Hornsea service, via Barmston, Beeford and Atwick, when we had our Skipsea “Bradford Tram” bungalow. It was after one of these visits to Skipsea, about 1950, when we were returning from Brid. on the Leeds service. Memory of the Brid to Leeds section has eroded away, but the York (Rougier Street) to Leeds section is so vivid! The (West Yorkshire RCC) bus failed, and we were transferred to a highbridge York West Yorkshire Bristol GO5G! I can still hear every grunt of the gearbox, and every growl of the 5LW as we (slowly) made our way through Tadcaster, and back to Leeds Wellington Street. Just one of those indelible memories as a youngster, which cemented my transport interests, and firmed up for ever my love of Bristol buses of that era!
John Whitaker
I’ve always been puzzled about the Beverley Bar roof. The inward taper to the upperworks I can understand, to enable the windows and sides of the roof to clear the sides of the arch, but why was it necessary to extend the roof upwards as well? And on these PD1s there is no discernable taper to the windows at all, just a domed roof.
Peter Williamson
Gosh, John, York to Leeds in a Y-WY GO5G! No wonder you remember that; 1935 or 1937 vintage, complete with a ‘flap board’ indicator, and, in around 1950, close to its withdrawal date. WY and Y-WY had a ‘contra-mileage’ arrangement under which, at weekends mainly, WY would use Y-WY vehicles to balance the mileage that WY vehicles had operated during the week on such things as school or works specials. I have a photo of a Y-WY K5G, (highbridge of course) used on service 43 to Scarborough; if you found the going to Leeds slow, imagine how a fully-loaded 5LW-engined double-decker coped with Whitwell. Incidentally, as a conductor with Y-WY in 1962 or 1963, I was once asked to stay on after finishing my shift to operate a late bus to Hull because the East Yorkshire vehicle, (I think they were then using AEC Bridgemasters), had broken down in Leeds. As it happens, they got it running again, so I didn’t get my overtime.
Roy Burke
Some optical illusions here Peter which can I hope be briefly explained. The reason why there was no “inward taper” on the PD1 windows is that the vehicles were only 7’6″ wide – I think the angle in the windows became necessary with 8’0″ buses later. Also I’m sure that the upper edges of the windows were only at the height normally found in “lowbridge” buses, and accordingly the roof was not actually extended upwards but was merely at standard “highbridge” level for passenger headroom purposes. This is a most fascinating discussion, and I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when EYMS initially approached bodybuilders with these special requirements – I daresay calendars were hastily scanned to ensure that it wasn’t April 1st !!
Chris Youhill
Yes Roy, the memory of the “G” highbridge ride is really vivid… it was one of the YG batch. I have to admit being a real West Yorkshire fan of those days, much as I also loved East Yorkshire, because the latter were different. Tilling fascination is something else! Another vivid memory of the Leeds to Bridlington route was the regular use of pre war L types, and the notice on Garrowby Hill “West Yorkshire Road Car Co” DRIVERS ARE INSTRUCTED TO ENGAGE LOW GEAR. Or was it “Requested”? I tended to lose interest in West Yorkshire after the 1954 renumbering, it being the pre 1950 types which I loved most, and it seems just like yesterday that I rode on Gs on the Thornton Road routes in Bradford, to Denholm and Keighley, where they competed with our beloved BCPT trolleybuses! Memories of conductors licking their indelible pencils, stacks of bible boards in the green hut in Chester Street, and the requests for “smokers to occupy rear seats”, and “Please tender exact fare and state destination”. The most evocative sound of all, the guttural growl of a 5LW just starting up, the inability for a clean gear change (always a grinding sound!) and drivers with their cotton summer dust coats. Wonderful memories!
John Whitaker
Yes John, I well remember the transfers in the prewar vehicles. I recall that the smoking one was on four lines thus :- SMOKERS ARE REQUESTED TO OCCUPY REAR SEATSAnother fabulous transfer used to fascinate me too – it was a transparent one, small and rectangular, which was applied to the insides of the windows and read :- WILFUL DAMAGE TO SEATS, FITTINGS ETC The Company will press for heaviest penalties against offenders
Chris Youhill
I DO remember the “wilful damage” transfers!! How evocative is that??!! Also the moquette covered box adjacent to the single seat over the wheel arch on the Js and pre-war Ls! Super comments too from you and Richard about the post war Ls. I remember being overwhelmed (like you) by the sheer modernity of the clean lines of post war ECW bodies when they first appeared, contrasting so strongly with the pre war “roundness”. Pre war ECW and Roe bodies were almost “Beverley Bar” with their domed roofs in highbridge form. Perhaps we should transfer this topic away from EYMS into a more WYRCC subject heading!
John Whitaker
I apologise if some of us are turning this lovely posting about EYMS PD1s into a discussion on West Yorkshire instead, However, recalling John’s and Chris’s comments on notices, I rather think the wording on the notice at Garrowby Hill was ‘instructed’. The ‘smoking’ notice I particularly remember on WY’s JO5Gs, but didn’t they also have a small plastic label on the backs of the front rows of seats with the same request instead of an ashtray? I was intrigued by John’s recollection that the GO5G he rode on to Leeds was a YG series; my own fleet list mentions 1935 AWW vehicles, (Y316-330) and 1937 BWT vehicles, (Y343-346), but the only record I have of Y-WY YG-registered vehicles, (apart from some Dennis Lancets), is of 3 lowbridge GO5Gs that were bought new from WY but sold back after only about seven months in 1935. Well, I’ve been wrong before! Like you, John, I find the sound of a 5LW most evocative. Y-WY certainly got its money’s worth out of them. Some of the 1939 batch of K5Gs, (admittedly they were rebuilt and re-registered), were still in service very nearly 30 years later.
Roy Burke
The latter one, I think was a Tilling or THC notice as I don’t recall seeing it on BET group vehicles. Midland General had it on all their vehicles and on double deckers also had: IN THE INTEREST OF OTHER PASSENGERS, WORKMEN ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED TO TRAVEL IN THE UPPER SALOON Presumably this was because the lower saloon seats were moquette whilst the upper deck seats were leather and easier to wipe clean after dirty workmen! In mining areas it was common for pitmen to travel to and from work in their ‘grime’ as many mines did not have pit-head baths until after they were nationalised. Another notice I remember was: SPITTING STRICTLY PROHIBITED which seems inconceivable nowadays but was also aimed at miners, many of whom used to chew tobacco rather than smoking it!
Chris Barker
31/01/11
Hi Roy Sorry about the YG/AWW. My mistake…I was dreaming about the main fleet G05Gs based at Bradford, which carried YG registrations.!! Old age creeping in!
John Whitaker
31/01/11
“No Spitting” was not just aimed at miners, and not at their tobacco which was only a substitute for woodies down the pit. Firstly, they and anyone living in the industrial atmosphere were prone to chronic respiratory problems which often meant the need to clear the airways: then it was felt that such clearance- by anyone- could spread TB. Those who remember those days find today’s macho spitting a bit disturbing. Because of their numbers and shift patterns, miners often had “special” buses, another interesting source of vintage transport.
Joe
31/01/11 – 15:07
Regarding the prohibition of spitting This brings to mind the verse by I think Spike Milligan There was a man from Dargeeling who took a bus to Ealing It said by the door do not spit on the floor So he carefully spat on the ceiling!
Chris Hough
31/01/11 – 20:19
With regard to “No Spitting”, as I recall, Hull Corporation buses carried the notice “Do Not Spit – Penalty £5”. I wonder how many £5’s were collected?
Keith Easton
01/02/11 – 05:10
You’ve beaten me to it Chris with your response to Peter’s Gothic roof question! You are absolutely correct about the buses being to standard highbridge height and layout, but with the upper deck windows set lower – in effect in the lowbridge position. Also the panel work between decks is of shallower, lowbridge proportions. Construction & Use Regulations stipulated a minimum gangway height for each deck, so the central gangway upstairs would have had to comply with this just as on any other double-decker, whether highbridge, lowbridge, Lodekka et al. Although the low set windows must have had an impact on the view from the top deck, it would have been a much easier solution for the coachbuilder, rather than setting the windows in their normal highbridge position and then trying to mould the glass into that classic Gothic shape! As Roy says, very evocative pictures indeed. As youngsters, my brothers and I often visited Bridlington and Flamborough in the family Morris Minor. If we were lucky we would catch sight of a pointy-roofed bus or two around Driffield, which meant that the sea wasn’t too far away. Our favourites were the PD2/Roe ‘LAT’ registered batch – some of which crooned their way around Brid bound for the exotic-sounding ‘Belvedere’. Roe bodies of that era were always beautifully proportioned, but I must admit to feeling that the extra width of the eight-footers somehow added a fullness to the design. The Beverley Bar roof was just the icing on the cake.
Brendan Smith
01/02/11 – 05:13
I don’t think £5 for spitting was very good value for money. If I had had money to waste in those days (and I must say that I never did!) I would have pulled the communication cord and stopped an express : “Penalty for improper use £5”!
Stephen Ford
01/02/11 – 15:21
Well said Stephen – I always admire a man prepared to haggle honourably for a genuine bargain !!
Chris Youhill
02/02/11 – 06:29
I can recall seeing signs that said, “Penalty for spitting – 40/-” which is strange wording; nobody ever sold me anything saying, “That’ll be 40 shillings please”. Maybe the folk who lived locally were poorer than those living in the £5 ones!
Chris Hebbron
02/02/11 – 10:00
Oh dear, this is getting silly! However, as we seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel somewhat, might I ask others for an explanation of the old notice in BR train toilets: ‘Gentlemen Lift The Seat’. Was this a request or a definition of a gentleman?
Roy Burke
02/02/11 – 20:57
The first sentence I ever read was “MIND YOUR HEAD”, found in all Reading d/ds until the Crossleys arrived with their stodgy “Caution: low roof”, but the one that tickled me most was “Do not speak to the man at the wheel whilst car is in motion”, seen in the normal-control front-entrance Guy B & BA single-deckers of 1926-30. Two of them had their 4-cylinder petrol engines replaced by AEC 4-cylinder oilers, with oversized-looking AEC radiators to match. The last were withdrawn in 1947. “Spitting prohibited” and “Please retain ticket for fare paid” afforded more reading practice.
Ian Thompson
03/02/11 – 20:10
The remark about “Gentlemen lift the seat” reminded me of a public convenience in my home area which had the sign “Gentlemen adjust your dress” – possibly leading to confusion as to which door one had entered or what one should be wearing. When this convenience was demolished a few years ago, the back wall adjoining another building was left intact, complete with this sign on the white tiling for all to see! (The “equipment” had been removed). And to bring this back to what this site is all about, this facility was adjacent to the White House pub, Milton in Portsmouth, which was a significant timing point and a short-turn destination for some routes. In the final trolleybus days, the BUT’s would run on the 5/6 from Dockyard through to Cosham Red Lion. But those lovely “Leylandised Crossleys” (ie the Crossley bodied DD42/7s with Leyland TD4 engines) would run short workings from the Dockyard and turn at Milton White House. The full route also passed the Green Lane terminus of other t/b routes (7/8, 11/12), so there were some colourful destinations (Red Lion, Green Lane, White House). And why ever did Portsmouth change the Dockyard destination to “The Hard Interchange”? OK, I know the street is called “The Hard”, and the interchange was for buses, trains and ferries, but who wants to undertake a “hard interchange” – perhaps it was difficult after all. Anyway, these days it’s called “Gunwharf Quays” but the buses are still in more or less the same place. Pity there are no Crossleys though. Portsmouth also had “spitting prohibited” on both decks of older vehicles, blue-edged gold lettering, with the additional wording “no smoking” on the lower deck.
Michael Hampton
03/02/11 – 20:42
With regard to destination indicators, I’m reliably informed that Maidstone trolleybuses carried the destination “Loose Womens’s Institute”! The terminus was situated in the area of Maidstone known as Loose.
Keith Easton
04/02/11 – 06:55
I think there is probably scope for an article on unusual, eccentric or amusing destination displays. Was Westward Ho! (Southern National) the only one that included an exclamation mark?
Stephen Ford
07/02/11 – 05:33
I have been researching this fleet, largely because I have loads of nostalgia for EYMS in the period 1946-1963. I have used the excellent East Yorkshire site fleet list, to gain a list for this period, but would love to know which of the TD4/5s were rebodied post war, with ECW Beverley Bar type bodies. Most grateful, if anyone can answer, and thanks in anticipation.
John Whitaker
07/02/11 – 05:43
I have managed to find a few prints of 1960s photos taken with a plastic Brownie camera. The location is Limekiln Lane which was the terminus for the EYMS Bridlington Route from Belvedere South Side Terminus to the North Sands (ie Limekiln lane- which was close to a Caravan site.
I took the above rear view shot in spring 1964 of JAT 462 fleet no 494 for the roof profile as so few of this view existed, it was a 1950 Leyland Titan PD1A H28/26R. I had heard that these Leylands were due to be disposed of within a short time so recorded them in Bridlington not far from my home – note the East Yorkshire Bus Stop sign and old cast iron bus shelter – boy did you need a shelter near the cliff top.
Ian Gibbs
07/02/11 – 09:05
After a quick look John I’ve found that the ECW rebodying of the TD4s/TD5s took place in 1948, creating some of the most fascinating vehicles ever. Those involved were :- 358/365/366/368/372/374/375/376/377/378/380/381/382/383/384. When I was in the RAF at Patrington in 1955/6 we used to go into Hull on Friday and Saturday nights and a duplicate was always provided on the last bus to Withernsea – it was invariably one of the rebodies to my delight. A most fascinating performance occurred on this journey. As each village was reached, and many people alighted, a rapid census of both buses would be carried out and as soon as the total could be accommodated on one vehicle a reshuffle was ordered, almost invariably at Keyingham, and the rebodied TD would return empty to its stable at 252 Anlaby Road while the service bus scurried eastwards to Withernsea Depot. Oh to go back to those happy days !!
Chris Youhill
07/02/11 – 09:07
Ian, a lovely classic picture at Limekiln Lane – and I’d completely forgotten, or perhaps never noticed, that the stop plate is marked “FARE STAGE”
Chris Youhill
07/02/11 – 20:07
Thanks Chris for the ECW rebody detail of EYMS TD4/5s. I remember them so well, and the super sedate smooth sound as they meandered from Ulrome to Bridlington. They were not the regulars on this route in my time, but they did come to Brid, I think direct from Hull via Skirlaugh, Leven and Beeford. I presume that other TD4s gave up their units for the Beadle rebuild coaches. What surprises me a bit is that more of the ECW Titans succumbed to rebodying than did the Brush variety. Perhaps ECW built to a price for the (unusual) double deck Federation style. My childhood trademarks for EYMS were dds with 3 windows up front on the top deck, and sds with oval rear windows!
John Whitaker
07/02/11 – 21:34
Further to the EYMS TD5 rebodies, which Chris remembers so well from the passenger shuffling occurrences (!) can anyone recall any other highbridge ECW rebodying of Titans in the TD3-7 range? There must have been a BET contract, as Ribble, East Kent and others received lowbridge bodies on TD4/5 chassis. I presume that all East Yorkshire`s Arab 1 and 11s were rebodied, all by Roe. The photo of the PD1A at Limekiln Lane is very evocative. Is it not on the old White Bus route out of town? I remember well going past the caravan park on White Bus Bedford OWBs, and we had a holiday there in 1964, probably just at the same time as the photo of the PD1A was taken. I am getting to like East Yorkshire more and more!
John Whitaker
08/02/11 – 05:20
Following Chris Youhill’s interest in that EYMS -Bus Stop -Fare Stage sign. Here is a picture of an interesting relic from the Golden Days of Bus Services
Ian Gibbs
08/02/11 – 05:25
I Believe that both White Bus and Eat Yorkshire operated services via Limekiln Lane to Flamborough. The acquired routes were soon assimilated to EYMS licences BE3/39 and BE3/40. By the way, John, East Yorkshire is fantastic. I have a full fleet list if you would like one. You can contact me via the website.
Keith Easton
08/02/11 – 05:27
I have always been fascinated by this bus. I am getting married this year and would love to use this bus. My brother is coming over from America and my Dad has always has old cars and buses. So I would like to have this bus on my wedding day and surprise them all. If you could let me know where I can talk to someone about this I would be so grateful saw this bus at Pocklington Thoroughbred Car Club rally this year. Thank you so much.
Carol Eveson
08/02/11 – 05:29
Me too John, for it’s fascinating history and the fact that it’s still very much in business today but I do worry about what will happen to it when Peter Shipp decides to retire!
Chris Barker
08/02/11 – 09:01
Hello Keith. Yes, I would love a full EYMS fleet list, as it would save me going through each individual number on the website fleet list. I only need to go as far as 1963 though, if that makes it easier. Many thanks
John Whitaker
Keith if you mail it to me I will pass it on I have a feeling that other people may be interested, I am for one.
Peter
10/04/11 – 05:00
Reading these East Yorkshire postings relating to the Leyland PD1’s has brought back some wonderful memories of holidays at the seaside in the 1950’s and early 60’s, when these buses were a constant source of fascination to me as they ambled around Bridlington; I seem to recall them showing “Old Town’ as one particular destination on the blinds, which was presumably the area around the harbour? Brendan Smith’s recollection of looking out for the sight of a “pointy-roofed bus’ around Driffield, and thus knowing the sea wasn’t that far away, was particularly poignant. We used to invariably stop at a cafe near Driffield on our way to the coast, I think it might have been called “The Four Winds’, and sitting there drinking tea, with one eye on the bucket and spade and desperate for the sight of an East Yorkshire “decker, is a very strong childhood memory. I have a feeling that the prominent windsock at the airfield, which was visible from the cafe windows, might well have been responsible for the name of the cafe! Likewise Ian Gibbs’ classic rear end shot of 494 at Limekiln Lane is very evocative of caravan holidays at Bridlington back in that era. My father once left the family camera, an old Agfa, on an upstairs seat at the terminus at this spot, and the bus had headed back into Bridlington before he’d realised his mistake. Sure enough, he found it lying right where he’d left it some time later after the vehicle had completed the round trip and arrived back at Limekiln Lane again. Those full-fronted PD2’s in the yellow and light blue livery running between Hull and Scarborough were something to behold as well, the “Beverley Bar’ roof looked even more striking on these vehicles, I thought. The sight of these remarkable machines trundling along the main road past the Butlins holiday camp at Filey, with all its flags flapping in the breeze, is an abiding holiday memory that will be with me forever.
Dave Careless
19/04/11 – 09:00
Thanks Dave for even more fascinating memories of a wonderful era in the greater Bridlington era. Two of your points are of particular interest. Firstly “Old Town” was actually nothing to do with the resort or the harbour – it referred, and still does, to the ancient settlement of “Burlington” surrounding the beautiful Priory Church and the Market Place and “Old Town” High Street. One of Williamson’s two town services terminated there in the Market Place and the fixed destination blind read “OLD TOWN and THE QUAY” – “The Quay” referring to the centre of modern Bridlington (Chapel Street). For some inexplicable reason the destination blind for the other service had the termini the other way round and read “THE QUAY and QUEENSGATE.” The Four Winds cafe was indeed right opposite RAF Driffield, later an Army Camp, and I’m sure still exists as a restaurant of some kind.
Chris Youhill
21/04/11 – 06:02
Thanks, Chris, for finally explaining where “Old Town” is in Bridlington, it only took me fifty plus years to get that straight, but as they say, good things come to those who wait!! I do have a couple of photos in my collection of a Bristol K and an L, both bodied by East Lancs at Bridlington, posed in front of the historic Bayle Gate, before setting out for Rotherham on delivery; presumably, this would be well into the “Old Town” area. Incidentally, not sure how widely known it is, but that Bridlington body building works also built school furniture as a sideline, and in fact built a pantechnicon body on an old ex-Rotherham Bristol chassis in which to deliver the desks and cupboards! I have a vague recollection of staying in a bed and breakfast at Bridlington not far from the East Yorkshire garage, and seem to recall it was on a road leading away from the seafront south of the harbour and the main part of town. Is this right, or have I got it all completely jumbled up in the mists of time?
Dave Careless
21/04/11 – 11:45
Thanks Dave for even more fascinating Bridlington history and, while I was aware of the East Lancashire “overflow” production (wasn’t it on the former RAF Carnaby airfield ??) I certainly knew nothing of school cupboards and desks. Similarly a removal firm in York, Whitby C. Oliver, once made a large van from a York-West Yorkshire Bristol J5G !! I’m afraid the mists of time have still to clear for you – aren’t we all in the same boat eh ?? – as the East Yorkshire garage was north of the town, just above Queensgate and below the Priory Church. The only depot I can think of in a road such as you describe for your bed and breakfast would be the Boddy’s one in Horsforth Avenue. Hope this helps rather than hinders !!
Chris Youhill
21/04/11 – 20:25
A big help Chris, no question, so thanks again. At least now I can finally put the thought that I’d once stayed in a guest house close by the Bridlington garage directly into the recycling bin, where it so obviously belongs! Perhaps it was in fact Boddy’s premises that I’d seen after all; at least I got that cafe opposite the airfield at Driffield right!! It seems as if I’ve been thinking about little else than those “Beverley Bar” buses ever since I read the piece on the East Yorkshire PD1’s and the subsequent comments, a wonderful trip down memory lane. There’s no doubt it’s because those elegant vehicles are synonymous with childhood holidays at the seaside that makes the memories of them so special. Just looking at photographs of them conjures up recollections of the harbour and the boat trips to Flamborough Head, the amusement arcades, and the obligatory trip round the lifeboat shed! But above all it was the buses; another wonderful sight was the cavalcade of United buses on the Scarborough sea-front, and at the North Sands terminus at Corner Cafe, but even that still didn’t quite measure up to the look and sound of those remarkable “pointy roofed” machines toiling around Bridlington all those years ago.
Dave Careless
20/09/11 – 14:42
I was a summer conductor on EYMS in Bridlington whilst I was at Hull University. Did my time in the summers 1960 to 1963. Mostly we “students” were assigned to town services. Spending the summer with £5 of pennies in a leather sack slung round one’s neck, a ticket machine on the other shoulder, and in a thick dark blue serge uniform—all for £10 a week—was a hard way to build up spending money for term time. However, it was also good fun, though one thanked the Gods that one didn’t have to do it all year. Mostly we had the AEC Beverley-topped buses in town. I remember one dreaded route (Brid to Scarborough) that used these. It went past Butlins at Filey. Understandably, the Butlins crowds were tight with money, and I recall many an argument about the right fare as we crept up Hunmanby Hill. Usually Major Richardson, the chief Bridlington Inspector, would be lurking at the Dotterel Inn, and he would back the “connie”. Later he’d tear a strip off you for letting someone take un-fare(!) advantage. If one kept in with the dispatcher, one could get a great route: the Saturday extra coaches to Leeds. You could get all the fares by Burton Agnes, and take it easy after that. The holiday makers boarding house changeover was Saturday, so the bus was weighed down with big suitcases as well as many large Leeds ladies and gents. On one Saturday lunchtime my driver stopped at the top of Garrowby Hill, came round and said with a straight face that he didn’t think with all the weight aboard that he could make it safely down. He asked me to select ten passengers to get off, with their luggage, and walk down. Fortunately, before I opened my mouth and got lynched, his straight face cracked. I lived in Flamborough and sometimes had strange mornings when I had to cycle from there to the garage on Quay Road, just past the Queensgate junction, to take over a bus that was assigned to route 28—Flamborough Lighthouse and North Landing!
Patrick Wesley
21/09/11 – 06:08
A wonderful set of tales, Patrick – thx for sharing them with us.
Chris Hebbron
21/09/11 – 06:11
Let us not forget another wonderful feature in Bridlington in those happy days of yore – United Automobile Services. Almost opposite the EYMS bus station in the Promenade was a little United booking office and space for about four buses (at a push) on the forecourt. From there departed United service 111 to Scarborough, after crossing the pavement !! That route ran via Speeton and Hunmanby. The premises are still there as a friendly little cafe – I’ve often been tempted to pop in and ask for a Bristol Breakfast and a Lowestoft Lasagne, but I suppose I would be humoured while they sent for the men in white coats !!
Chris Youhill
21/09/11 – 15:39
Looking at Ian Gibbs’s EY sign in his post of 8/2/11, I love the precision of the word ‘dep’t’ with its circumflex! How English has changed not not necessarily for the better. It also reminds me of the old railway sign, “ALL TICKETS MUST BE SHEWN”. In fact, my wartime schooling was by aged teachers brought out of retirement. We were taught some very old-fashioned English and ‘shew’ was one example. after some twenty years without anyone commenting, a new generation started telling me I’d spelt it wrongly and I re-adapted, although it still catches me out sometimes!
Chris Hebbron
05/11/11 – 11:36
My morning this Saturday started with a query, as to why ‘Atlas Editions’ do not produce a model of an EYMS ‘Bar bus’? Then it started…..reams of memories in these posts. I travelled by East Yorkshire ‘double-deckers’ on a daily basis from 1954 to 1960, from Willerby Square (which was ’round’ and still is)… to Beverley Grammar School (via Cottingham Green and Skidby). These vehicles had usually begun their routes at Hessle and Anlaby. The ‘Hessleites and Anlabyites’ had always laid claim to the upper-deck front seats, so we were often upper-deck back-enders’. I recall a favourite ‘Guy’ (That Indian Chief radiator cap will be worth a fortune now I guess)… (Fleet No.382) which had a tendency to ‘steam’ as it managed Skidby Hill. Many of the ‘youths’ had total disrespect for our school bus and took great delight in moving to one side of the upper-deck, then…grabbing the metal handrails began a rhythmic sway…..which needless to say put the vehicle into a dangerous situation…and one Glaswegian driver into a ‘more’ dangerous situation. On one occasion he stopped his vehicle, appeared on the upper deck puffing more steam than his ‘Guy’ and waged war on these ‘toffee-nosed little Gits from Grammar School’! (What a rude man). I have now amassed about 20 Atlas Edition bus models, but that company should be re-named to…. ‘Alas Editions’, as….’alas’ no model EYMS Bar Bus has appeared in its range yet. To conclude, as a lad…my pal and I used to cycle from our homes in Willerby to the EYMS depot at Anlaby Common. There we were entertained by the EYMS’s resident artist, the man responsible for those wonderful oil paintings of tourist venues that adorned bus station walls. On one unforgetful occasion I was allowed into the driver’s cab of a ‘double-decker’ where he sat me on his knee and allowed me to steer the vehicle, probably about 1 mph inside the garage. I doubt that ‘driver-knee-sitting’ would be allowed in this PC age either. Not that any driver would wish it now….I am 68 and 14 stones (of pure ‘East’ Yorkshireman).
Richard Pullen
14/02/12 – 07:45
I too travelled on a daily basis from Anlaby to Beverley Grammar from 1963 to 1968 on a wide range of EY buses – the first ones being PD1 Titans through the Regents, Bridgemasters, and finishing with the Renowns. I remember a visit to the Anlaby Common depot from the Primary school, I now remember catching the Willerby to Hull bus to travel to the primary school in the late 50’s when the weather was unfit for walking – the bus stop was just before St Peters Church on Wilson St. The buses that fascinated me then were the ” Flat Roofs” as we used to call them, remembering to duck if you sat down stairs on the offside, and the high step up upstairs to get onto the long seats. If only the diecast producers would look at the variety of EY buses over the years, and also KHCT’s impressive ” Blue and Whites”, pre Cleveland Transit and ultimately Stagecoach at present, there could be a fascinating range of models.
John Eggleton
14/02/12 – 11:18
There is a beautiful new EFE model of one of the Leyland PD2s with Leyland lowbridge body and the destination display “Hull via Patrington” – ie travelling from Withernsea. I was not aware, certainly in my RAF days, that any such lowbridge vehicles wandered due east of Hull, but perhaps this was a later development after October 1956 ??
Chris Youhill
18/02/12 – 15:37
I have to agree that the EFE PD2 Lowbridge is one of the best models they have produced – it still stands though, that the Beverley Bar range of vehicles would produce an unmissable selection of models, with the ultimate one being a ” Yellow Peril”. The stumbling block as always is the cost of new tooling.
John Eggleton
19/02/12 – 11:57
Can I be controversial? I remember, as a young boy, the arrival of the “Yellow Perils” and apart from the livery was not impressed and am still not – in looks they did not compare with the immortal PD1As and the superb PD2/3s. My family visited relatives in Newby just outside Scarborough on Saturdays – two hours plus on a PD2/3 and twenty minutes on a Bristol L – now there is an icon – to Newby on the 116 In Scarborough you could enjoy and contrast the EYMS and the United liveries,not to mention the West Yorkshire buses at the shared bus station at Northway including for a short time single deckers with bible indicators – there were also “standard” ECW bodies and the Beverley Bar version. In the early fifties when bus travel was heavy at holiday times a lowbridge was once used as a duplicate on the Scarborough route – how it got there I don’t know. Also in the early fifties EYMS would hire Regent IIIs from KHCT at weekends to be used on the Withernsea route – a note in the KHCT 1953/4 annual report states this happened on four occasions much less than previously owing to poor weather. Hire was much simpler than KHCT taking over an EYMS local service – the mileage balancing arrangements of the Coordination Agreement being too complicated. The lowbridge buses were used on one route to Hornsea and to Selby – highbridge buses used to carry a notice in the cab stating which bridges they were forbidden to pass under – I think one in Hornsea itself, one at North Cave and one at Howden – there might have been another but I’m not certain. In the early fifties EYMS had 11 lowbridge buses, 426/7 PDI/Roe L51R of 1947, 505-7 PD1A/Roe L51R of 1949 and 584-9 PD2/12/Leyland L53R. Four more were purchased, 632/3 PD2/12 Roe L56R in 1955 and 649/50 AEC Regent III/ Willowbrook L59R in 1957. Of them all I felt the Leyland bodies looked the best 382 was a TD5 of 1939 originally having a body by ECW H52R which was replaced with another ECW H54R body in 1948 – there’s a photo of it in the PSV/OS fleet history of EYMS Incidentally, how old is old – hard to believe that Hull’s first Atlanteans are 52 years old this year!
Malcolm Wells
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
30/03/13 – 07:22
Regarding the EYMS Beverley Bar buses, I have a question I’ve been trying to find a definitive answer to for years. What was the purpose of the white band along the roof edge? Perhaps the answer is obvious – to reveal any contact with the archway, which would also leave white paint on the masonry. Can anyone confirm this?
Re the discussion on signs and notices inside buses, there was the one widely seen in ECW lowbridge buses on lower-deck seatbacks under the sunken gangway and on the upper deck:
“PLEASE LOWER YOUR HEAD WHEN LEAVING YOUR SEAT”.
Some were clandestinely altered to “Lower your seat when leaving your head”!
Martin S
30/03/13 – 17:08
Regarding the white roof band on the EYMS Beverley Bar roofs, I believe this came about after the first Beverley Bar roofs were introduce, before the Beverley Bar roof, all of the roof on deckers was painted white, as with many other bus fleets, to avoid the roof of a Beverley Bar decker being all white and looking like a pile of snow! the top section was painted indigo blue to lower the profile, this was continued to cover the rear dome (not sure why), the remaining white section got smaller over the years and became a roof band and part of the livery, and was also carried on lowbridge deckers (not all) and saloons also had white roofs up to the 60’s. I don’t think the white band had anything to do with the Beverley Bar.
One of 19 identical PD1/1A’s delivered in 1948, 188 still looks very smart in its glossy maroon and white paint, with roof of grey, paint dipping at the corners a la London Transport’s post-war STL 18/20’s, which had identical bodies. It has just entered Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, having just come down Commercial Road and under Portsmouth & Southsea’s High Level Station bridge, seen to the left of the bus. Behind, and to the right, is Brickwood’s Sussex Hotel, with its brown-tiled facade. 188 has come from Portchester and is en-route to the Floating Bridge, Old Portsmouth, not, literally, a floating bridge, but a vehicle ferry over to Gosport. Note the police telephone box and the holidaymakers, dad with suitcase, on what looks a lovely Summer’s day, by the look of 188’s open windows. The trolley wires would be used for another few months. The photo was taken about 1962 and it’s nice to see one of these vehicles with a full blind display (perfectly set), since they were usually relegated to peak-hour working, with just a destination display, in this, the twilight of their lives. 188 was withdrawn in 1967, after 19 years service. The city coat of arms on the side is in a separate photo. The motto’s in English; no fancy Latin for Pompey folk! To the right of the main photo, just out of view, was the Taj-Mahal Indian Restaurant. In 1967, a colleague and I were invited to another colleague’s retirement lunch. He’d served in the Indian Army in the war and suggested we’d like a Madras Curry. It was our first curry and was so hot as be virtually inedible, but we couldn’t upset the man; so ate it! I never touched another curry for 20 years! For our host, however, it was not quite hot enough!
An early example of “Leyland Loonacy”. Weymann’s classic post-war design marred by Leyland’s insistence on siting the Speedo unit in such a position and way that the windscreen had to be small and squared off. The logic was that the Leyland body had a far more attractive windscreen (it did) and therefore people wouldn’t buy bodies from anyone else (they did). Did they really believe their own argument in Lancashire?
David Oldfield
25/12/11 – 09:25
What an excellent picture and the highlighting of the City Coat of Arms. Perhaps others may be put on the site with the translation of the Latin inscription. Incidentally nowadays you never see suit cases being carried since the invention of the trolley case.
Philip Carlton
25/12/11 – 18:41
The early post-war Weymann body was certainly a classic but it always looked at its best on the AEC Regent chassis where the radiator, cab windscreen, and in fact the whole package came together just right.
Philip Halstead
26/12/11 – 07:05
I lived as a child in the Gosport area from 1949 to 1952, and well remember the Gosport – Portsmouth Point chain driven Floating Bridge, which opened in 1840 and finally closed in 1959. As so often with short term decisions based entirely upon capital renewal costs, the closure of this facility was misguided, and the result may be seen in the extreme traffic congestion that now plagues the Gosport peninsula. If this photo of No. 188 was taken in 1962, then the Floating Bridge was long gone by then. though the slipway at Portsmouth Point may still be seen today.
Roger Cox
26/12/11 – 07:06
The RT/RTL and RM were designed as a harmonious whole – and this is generally acknowledged – but there have also been unofficial collaborations. Weymann always worked closely with AEC which probably explains why that combination seemed to work. [For a time, from 1933 to 1947, Sheffield Transport only had AEC and Weymann in that combination – their many Leylands always having other coachwork.] There was the Guy/Park Royal tie up – begun before Park Royal were taken over by AEC/ACV. Two others which, in Philip’s words “came together just right…” were the Bristol Lodekka (in all forms) and the BMMO D9. It’s what I call balanced design. Bad and/or ugly design is not balanced, there is always at least one thing that “jarrs”.
David Oldfield
26/12/11 – 11:21
Looking at a picture of preserved Sheffield 904, I realise that all of their Roe/PD2s from 1957 and the PD3s had exactly the same windscreen as the final Leyland bodies (1951 – 1954). Strangely, the Weymann and ECW PD2s had a different, smaller, windscreen (with similar profile) which Chesterfield also had on its Weymann PD2s. The other collaboration which I forgot (above) was Leyland and Metro-Cammell (as opposed to Weymann). Roger Davies, in his Ribble book, is only one person to state that there was tacit agreement, after Leyland gave up building coachwork, for business to pass almost automatically to MCCW.
David Oldfield
26/12/11 – 17:49
Tynemouth and Wakefield’s ‘Northern General’ had some AEC’s with this type of Weymann body, and Northern’s first 8ft wide buses were GUY Arab’s with a very similar body but with sliding cab door. When I started at Percy Main I did my training on one of them, the fleet number was 189 FT? ?89. It had a crash box, and you needed a block and tackle to steer it. One of them went to Chester Le Street depot where it became a full fronted dual control vehicle.
Ronnie Hoye
26/12/11 – 17:50
FLOATING BRIDGE took quite a while to disappear from the bus blinds, and local speech, too. Undoubtedly, it was old and worn out, but it was a shame it wasn’t replaced with a larger version which would have carried more vehicles. It was a tourist attraction, too. It’s hard to believe that the A27 between Portsmouth and Southampton (Itchen) also had a floating bridge until supplanted by a bridge in 1977, even though bridge plans had existed since 1936!
Chris Hebbron
26/12/11 – 18:51
Thank you Ronnie for that magnificent description of the action necessary to deal with heavy steering – its tickled me and I’ll be chuckling all evening now !!
Chris Youhill
27/12/11 – 18:09
Further to the comments above concerning Weymann bodies on chassis other than AEC, it is not difficult to find other post war exceptions to this tendency, but I never knew that Leyland deliberately tried to “dissuade” customers from purchasing non Leyland bodywork, as David so vividly points out! In the pre-war period, the Leyland/Weymann combination was perhaps more common, the Plymouth fleet coming to mind, as well as those handsome full front TD5s of Bournemouth. I also recall some comment in “Buses” in 1954, when Leyland had announced the end of bus body building, that MCW was the natural successor, a fact perhaps born out in the integral developments such as the Olympic/Olympian, and some of the lead up to the Atlantean. If anything, Park Royal would seem to have been more “in league” with AEC in the pre-war period, the balance shifting towards Weymann in the post war era. Classic Weymann bodies look magnificent on any chassis really, and my mind is so easily led to the pre-war Bradford fleet, where Weymann bodied Daimler COG 6s were a common sight. Of all the many coachbuilders which we remember, Weymann must rank as the all time “classic”, as they kept their basic trade mark shape and profile from 1932, with the original Rackham inspired design, until the Aurora styles of the mid 1950s, which, for a time, ran concurrently with the newly introduced “Orion”
John Whitaker
27/12/11 – 20:53
John. Source for the “squared off” Leyland comment is Doug Jack’s “Leyland Bus” and for AEC/Weymann cooperation “Weymann Story Part 1” (Senior, Townsin and Banks). This book also quotes a tendency, in the immediate pre-war period, for senior staff to move jobs freely between Addlestone and West London. Park Royal emerged from the ashes of Hall Lewis in 1931 but were only acquired by AEC/ACV in 1949. Weymann produced a one off, none to handsome, body for the prototype Regent which was exhibited at the Motor Show. This became Sheffield Transport 66. It was after this that the first version of the classic Weymann design emerged – the first of many for Sheffield, but only on AEC until 1953, after which Leylands were also bodied for STD. The Leyland /MCCW link was only really broken after Leyland “merged” with ACV in 1962 – after which Leyland/Park Royal-Roe was the preferred one stop choice.
David Oldfield
28/12/11 – 15:49
To add to the very knowledgeable comments made by John and David on the Weymann classical body of the thirties, forties and early fifties. a good livery such as Portsmouth Corporation was the “icing-on-the-cake” to show this body style at its best. Sadly Weymann lost the plot in the mid fifties when their Orion body appeared, and despite some good liveries applied by some operators, this body was never in the same league as the their earlier classical-style body. The Portsmouth Leyland PD1/1A Weymann was a gem, exuded quality and was very long lasting. In modern day language, it was a “value for money” bus.
Richard Fieldhouse
28/12/11 – 17:16
Just as a postscript to David’s comments on Leyland’s strategy to supply the all Leyland product, there is evidence to suggest that bodybuilding and chassis production were never of equal capacity, which is what surprised me about the undoubted truth which David has highlighted in this matter. Regarding the relationship between AEC, Weymann, and Park Royal before the post war mergers, I would be interested to learn whether this was any more than just a friendly association. I have been counting up the bodies on AEC demonstrators pre-war, and Park Royal seems to have a lead there, if that is anything to go by. All very “interesting stuff”, and, as Richard says, what magnificent vehicles (Weymanns) were, especially when adorned by a livery as attractive as that of PCT.
John Whitaker
28/12/11 – 18:17
More to the point, why did Leyland not have confidence in what was universally regarded as one of the best bodies around (style AND quality). The Weymann book and the Hall Lewis/Park Royal web-site show the fascinating and labyrinthine connections between each other and AEC – let alone the ECW, Roe and Roberts connections (nearly forty years before British Leyland).
David Oldfield
30/12/11 – 07:39
Maybe the alliances and associations were purely pragmatic. Imagine Blankchester Corporation saying EITHER (1) “we want 30 standard 56-seat deckers, and the all-important criterion is that they are delivered by 30 June next year.” OR (2) “we want 30 PD2s (or Regent IIIs or whatever). We are not in a great hurry but we insist on the bodies being provided by XYZ in order to support local industry.” Sensible manufacturers reply (1) “We can do it, provided you are happy to accept bodies from JKL or QRS, who are the only manufacturers who can supply bodies within your timescale.” or (2) “We are happy to fit XYZ bodies in order to secure your business.” The daft ones say “It is our corporate policy only to associate with our own chosen partners, so we can’t meet your delivery schedule/we are not prepared to fit XYZ bodies – and you can like it or lump it!” Sooner or later they go (or went!) out of business.
Stephen Ford
30/12/11 – 08:55
…..but Stephen. That sounds just like the barmy idea of current coachbuilders (especially COACH builders) hitching their waggons to just one chassis – thus depriving twice as many people of their preferred vehicles.
David Oldfield
30/12/11 – 14:05
Adopting a ‘take it or leave it’ policy Eg the Leyland National, and giving the customer little or no choice in the matter proved to be the eventual downfall of the British commercial vehicle industry. For example, did you know that when AEC became part of British Leyland, they had a design on the drawing board for a totally new lorry but it was rejected because the new Ergomatic cab was being introduced more or less across the board, and Leyland wanted to standardise production, so the design was sold to SAAB, it became the SCANIA 80 and 100, and later the 111, the rest as they say is history.
Ronnie Hoye
30/12/11 – 17:08
You’re absolutely correct, Ronnie. British Leyland, as distinct from Leyland Motors, went a long way to destroy local industry – helped by the National Bus Company and then, ironically, by Baroness Thatcher when she broke up NBC with privatisation and deregulation. There was a LOT of good in the Leyland Leopard but the AEC Reliance, particularly AH691/760s, was vastly superior. The AN68 Atlantean was an excellent bus but the consensus is that it would have had a run for its money had the FRM gone into production. Then, of course, both Scania and DAF had licences to build the 0.600/0.680 engines – but ended up doing it so much better. DAF/PACCAR’s MX engine, originally based on the Leyland, is a world beater. There are even more examples in the private car sector.
David Oldfield
31/12/11 – 07:32
I, too, have often thought that the FRM could well have dominated the rear-engined bus scene, had it gone into production. Dearer though it might have been, the fact that it was only a slightly modified RM, with a reliable pedigree, gave it the chance to sweep the board. Sadly, there were vested interests at work. Yet another might-have-been!
Chris Hebbron
11/01/12 – 06:50
Lovely to see this view of No 188 passing through the Guildhall Square, also the Cravens bodied trolleybus in another contribution here. I suggest that the picture date is a bit before 1962, nearer 1959/60. The bus still has a grey roof, and does not have flashing trafficators as far as I can see. The Corporation gave the motorbus fleet white roofs on repaint from late 1959/early 1960, and the exercise was completed by 1963 (apart from the odd older vehicle due for withdrawal, like vee-fronted Leyland TD4 No 129 (ex-127), withdrawn with grey roof in 1964). All the trolleybuses remained grey roofed until the end in July 1963. The simple lining out on the red paintwork, and the chromed radiator make the vehicle a proud sight. Some of the batch had painted radiators. When I was a young enthusiast, and read Buses Illustrated, there were several letters and contributions c.1958-60 about PD1 versus PD2 engines and performance – the PD1 always came off worst! In the early 1980’s (c.1985?) one member of the batch survived in a corner of a field with some other ex-CPPTD stock at Waltham Chase, on the Wickham / Bishops Waltham road B2177. I have no idea whether any of these survived or who was keeping them.
Michael Hampton
02/02/12 – 07:06
I was brought up in Portsmouth in the 60s and have clear recollections of this batch regularly taking us to the football grounds off of Eastern Road from Northern Grammar school for PE lessons. I remember seeing many of them delicensed in the side shed at Gladys Avenue Depot. interestingly one of the batch became a trainer bus at North End and was nicknamed Gladys! The bus referred to at Waltham Chase happily survives under the care of CPPTD.
Mark Southgate
07/05/12 – 09:26
I used to get the 145 bus each day from North End to Old Portsmouth. Cost 3d (three pence) from 1961 to 1971. The destination was Floating Bridge, although I never knew what that was, changed to “Point, Old Portsmouth”. Some buses in the early sixties also had letters. The A and B route along Commercial Rd for example, then became 1 and 2. Same route, different directions! Late night buses, “North End only”, would go to the Gladys Ave depot. Also Fratton Park specials from North End to “Football Ground”.
Jules
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
05/07/17 – 06:52
I’ve just come across a wonderful colour photo of a sister vehicle to 188, taken at North End Depot in 1966, on the cusp of being withdrawn the same year. It says so much of Portsmouth Corporation’s high standards that it could turn out a vehicle almost 20 years old, almost as good as new to look at. Note the white roof, which the corporation restored after WWII, in the early ’60’s.
Chris Hebbron
06/07/17 – 07:29
The steam powered vehicle transporting floating bridge ran between Gosport Ferry and Portsmouth Point, where the old landing stage can still be seen. Like the still running Sandbanks ferry in Dorset, it functioned by winding itself across by engaging chains laid on the floor of the harbour. It began operating in 1840 and received a new vessel, the Alexandra, in 1864, and she lingered on, spasmodically in the last years, until 1959. I lived near Gosport during the years 1949 to 1952, and remember it well, though I never actually travelled on it. Nowadays the Gosport peninsula is a traffic nightmare, and a vehicle crossing facility would surely be useful.
EED 8 is a Leyland Titan PD1 and according to others on the web it is said to have a Leyland/Alexander H56R body new in 1947 to Warrington as their number 24. Maybe Leyland were busy at the time and it was a Leyland body assembled by Alexander. It is at present owned by NWVRT and they have repainted it recently into Warrington colours. It was one of three half cabs in service during their 2014 rally at Kirkby.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
06/10/14 – 07:05
How close to a Leyland body is that?
Jim Hepburn
06/10/14 – 07:06
Alexanders built numerous bodies under sub-contract to Leyland – although the detailing on the Ribble Titans betrayed their non-Leyland credentials. I seem to remember reading that there was at least one other sub-contractor (Santus?) – and was SMT involved in this as well? SMT certainly built their own “Duple Vista” bodies on Bedford OBs which were virtually indistinguishable. Alexanders certainly built a “Leyland” body on a PD2 prototype.
David Oldfield
06/10/14 – 09:10
David, in a similar manner to the Alexander sub contract PD1s were also bodied by Samlesbury Engineering in Lancashire.
Chris Youhill
06/10/14 – 10:02
Thanks, Chris. I think maybe that it was Samlesbury that I had in no.
David Oldfield
06/10/14 – 10:02
Warrington 24 (EED 8) has been in preservation for many years in Warrington colours, and has indeed been subject to a recent repaint. Although, as has been said, the body was indeed built by Alexander, it is still ‘officially’ a Leyland body, and has always been described as such, in the same fashion as East Lancs bodies built by Bruce and later Neepsend were initially described as East Lancs products, although latterly Bruce and Neepsend have been used to describe them, so Leyland or maybe Alexander, but please not Leyland/Alexander!
Philip Lamb
06/10/14 – 13:54
…..and, of course, there is the long Alexander tradition of building other’s designs – sometimes under subcontract, sometimes not. (Glasgow’s “Weymann” bodies). This was replied to by the likes of East Lands and their R type clones!
David Oldfield
06/10/14 – 13:55
These Alexander-built bodies (the ones for Warrington at least) had a single window in their upper rear emergency exit – as opposed to Leyland’s more usual two – making the back end tend to resemble the prewar Leyland body. It is just discernible in this view. The other distinguishing feature was that normally they had four small sets of ventilation slots along the top of the cab door, unlike the standard Leyland product which had just two horizontal ones, one above the other. However the one pictured has the latter, so I presume must have acquired a secondhand door from a Leyland body at some point during its restoration.
John Stringer
17/02/15 – 15:13
Can some help me, I worked for Walsall Corporation Transport in the early 60s I remember Walsall buying 2 Warrington buses, I think they were EED 8/9 is this correct?
Bruce Johnson
18/02/15 – 06:42
Bruce J, I’m afraid that I can’t personally answer your question, but I wondered if you could yourself answer a query which has gone round a few websites without being satisfactorily answered. It concerns Walsall’s lightweight Leyland PD2, 823 (TDH 770). I have seen it referred to as being ‘semi-automatic’ but I wonder if you could say if it 1) was a preselect, like the ex-London RTLs; 2) had a direct air system, such as became normal on two-pedal Leyland PD2s, PD3s, Tiger Cubs and Leopards; 3) had an electric gear selector, such as on early Atlanteans, Fleetlines, etc. If you fail to get a response to your own query here, can I suggest that you try the message board at the sct61 site, it’s always a good place to have questions answered.
David Call
18/02/15 – 08:31
I think Walsall bought a couple of East Lancs bodied PD1s from Warrington , about the same time as the RTLs.
Steve Milner
19/02/15 – 15:55
The two Warrington Corporation Titans sold to Walsall Corporation were 100/01 (EED 9/10). They were Titan PD1A with Bruce L27/26R new in 1947 and sold to Walsall in July 1959 as numbers 198/99, lasting until being sold for scrap in 1963 and 1964 respectively. They were Warrington Corporation’s only two lowbridge buses.
Dave Farrier
12/03/15 – 06:44
I have been the owner of ex-Warrington PD1 EED 5 (fleet no.24) for nearly 40 years! Like EED 8, it has bodywork designed and produced by Leyland but assembled by Alexander – I have a copy of the letter from Warrington confirming this. The body on EED 5 is original and classed as a Leyland metal framed type: this has a cab door with four vents near the top and rear emergency door on the top deck containing two windows.
Phil Clark
12/03/15 – 17:03
In distinguishing between the Leyland and Alexander product on the PD1 chassis I have always used the style of the front panel of the cab as the determining feature. On the Leyland body it always conceals the mudguard, usually with the horn inserted as on the Warrington bus. The Alexander version has a shorter and slightly more set back panel allowing the bottom of the mudguard to protrude, as can be seen in the attached picture. This actually shows both PD1 (right) and PD2/1 (left) versions of the ‘pure’ Alexander product. There are also variations in the shape of the nearside canopy. The Leyland style on the Warrington PD1 is a continuous curve from top front corner to where it meets the mudguard, projecting in front of the bulkhead. This is echoed on the Alexander PD2, but on the PD1 it goes straight back from the front corner with quite a short valance with a basically angled profile. There is no projection of the side panel in front of the bulkhead. A further question is whether Alexander actually produced a highbridge version of the Leyland clone (as opposed to assembling Leyland parts). There are certainly none that I can locate in any of the SBG fleets, although they might have delivered to other fleets. Nothing at this period was supplied to any of the Scottish municipal fleets.
Alan Murray-Rust
13/03/15 – 07:10
The photo of CRG and AWG also seems to show 2 other diagnostic differences. The gap between the 2 blind boxes and the design of the top of the upper deck front windows.
John Lomas
13/03/15 – 12:49
The points you mention are diagnostic between the versions of the Alexander body; I was aiming to highlight the differences between the Leyland and Alexander products.
Alan Murray-Rust
05/05/15 – 07:23
I’ve seen EED 8 mentioned on here and just to let you know it’s back in Warrington and privately owned I’m trying to set up a page on Facebook for my husband it his is bus.
Trina
03/03/18 – 06:47
I am sorry to inform you that EED 8, which was preserved in Warrington, was destroyed in a fire on Thursday 1st March 2018. A sad loss.
Paul Mason
03/03/18 – 06:50
Sad to say Warrington Corporation no 8 EED 8 is no more, destroyed in fire at Fairbrothers Bewsey Warrington.
It was very sad to see the destruction of EED 8 by fire, a tragic accident that has destroyed all but the chassis, running gear, cab and the front, but it was remarkable to see the engine start and run straight away so that it could be driven out of the shed. I wish Ray and colleagues every good wish in their desire to rebuild the vehicle and hope that one day we can re-unite EED 8 with my bus EED 5.
Phil Clark
30/03/18 – 07:53
How sad, Phil. What actually happened?
Chris Hebbron
02/04/18 – 07:30
I saw the bus on BBC North West news and the vehicle was still recognisable but sadly I think the best thing for EED 8 is to be sold as spares for another Leyland PD1. The only other option, which would effectively mean building a new bus would be to follow the example of WW2 utility Guy Arab CDR 679, which lost its original body but was fitted with another utility body, but such matches are rare. I wish the owner well and I’m sorry about the fire.
Southdown Motor Services 1946 Leyland Titan PD1 Park Royal H26/26R
Taken with my rather primitive Comet S camera in Brighton in 1960, this picture is not one of my best. There were twenty five of these PD1s delivered between June and September 1946, and 269, GUF 669, arrived with Southdown in July. 269 was withdrawn in 1963 and sold to Mexborough and Swinton who upseated it to H32/26R, but withdrew it for scrap just three years later. The PD1, with its 100 bhp 7.4 litre E181 engine and slow gearchange, was never a lively performer, and would have found some of the hills around Brighton to have been a bit of of a challenge, but several were based at Worthing depot, and in the picture 269 is operating along the relatively easy coastal route 9 from Arundel to Brighton.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
01/05/22 – 07:37
Poor photo you might feel, Roger, but photos of immediate post-war buses are often fascinating. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a Park Royal bodied one before, still five-bay. Weymann ones are seemingly more common. I agree with the painfully slow gearchanges on these vehicles; you could drink a cup of tea between gears, at least you could with London Transport’s austerity TD4 STDs, which sometimes would appear at Raynes Park, on the 77A route! Why they were given challenging routes in Central London and not allocated to Country services, I don’t know. But that’s London Transport for you!
Chris Hebbron
22/05/22 – 06:47
I went on a family holiday to Worthing in 1959, our first Southern holiday. I remember these PD1s from that holiday and this particular bus from its days with Mexborough and Swinton as I worked as an apprentice at Parkgate at that time just along the road from the M&S depot. I don”t recall ever travelling on it or its sibling. They have a certain rugged attraction to the bodywork and certainly dissimilar to any other buses that I came across. Thanks for the memories!!
Ian Wild
24/05/22 – 05:46
Chris, the utility London Transport STD class of 1941/2 comprised eleven “unfrozen” buses of the Leyland TD7 variety, a type that was introduced in succession to the TD5 in 1939. The TD6 was a special Birmingham only gearless version of the TD7, the model number being changed by Leyland for the wider market. In addition to being higher geared than the TD5, a significant change was the adoption of flexible engine mountings, and, to reduce rock, the engine was equipped with a heavier flywheel than before. This, however, resulted in the engine revs taking a long time to die between upward gear changes, which, added to the high gearing, made the TD7 painfully slow on intensive town services. Perversely, the London TD7s were all allocated to Victoria garage where they were regarded with an attitude bordering on hatred, and STD 101-111 were the very first utility buses to be withdrawn from front line service by London Transport. They all went unlamented for scrap. In practice, several provincial operators found that the flexible engine mountings of the TD7 weakened the chassis frame at the back of the engine and restored their examples to the solid mountings of the TD5, so was it all worth it, one wonders. The wartime bus industry is reported to have been utterly dismayed when the Leyland TD8 utility bus option was cancelled by the Ministry of War Transport, leaving only the suspiciously unknown quantity called the Guy Arab available to operators. Perhaps the heavy flywheel TD8 might not have proved popular in practice, whereas the Arab went on to earn a reputation as a truly dependable workhorse. Despite having a rigidly mounted engine the PD1 also precluded remotely speedy gear changes, and Geoffrey Hilditch declared that this model had the slowest gear change he ever encountered, though it seems that he didn’t come across the equally ponderous TD7. Strangely, the single deck PS1 of identical mechanical specification did not seem to earn a similar reputation. No doubt the lighter vehicle weight permitted better forward progress through the gears.
Here is the picture of Williamson’s ex Doncaster Titanic (76 – DT 9643) in action in Queen Street. Unfortunately the destination blind is obscured by the sun but would say either “The Quay and Queensgate” or “Old Town and The Quay”, depending on whether it was quarter to or quarter past the hour, or on the hour or half past. It was a 1938 Titanic TT5c and served only one year in Bridlington, from July 1949 to July 1950. Possibly its Titanic running costs, maybe aggravated by the torque converter, resulted in this short career. In view of the notorious maritime disaster of 1912 I’ve always thought it either brave or cavalier of Leyland to give the model this particular name !!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill
18/03/12 – 11:28
Slightly off our normal bus subject – hard labour of a the non driving sort. In Nov 1907 a man called Arthur —- was charged on remand with stealing the tin box containing the fares collected on one of the ‘busses plying between Old Town and the Quay (note the old plural spelling for buses) the thief got 2 months hard labour – obviously not soft on crime in Bridlington!
Ian Gibbs
19/09/13 – 17:57
Doncaster had nine Titanics, some of which were passed to other operators – one even ending up with Yorkshire Traction. Some lasted until the early 1950s. Sheffield’s Titanics had a reputation for poor-hill climbing, and I believe they were used mostly on the relatively flat 57 route to Stocksbridge.
Geoff Kerr
20/09/13 – 18:38
Geoff – I believe Sheffield’s Titanics were known as ‘Dragonflies’ on account that they would ‘drag’ themselves slowly up the hill and ‘fly’ down the other side!
John Darwent
03/10/13 – 17:37
I recently came across this picture of Doncaster’s “Titanic” No 65. This was evidently taken outside the Charles H.Roe works prior to delivery. According to the accompanying text “It seems likely that this imposing bus was the only TT2 Titanic other than the three supplied to City and taken over by the L.P.T.B., of which the chassis numbers were 2288-90”. The photograph was credited to ‘Mr G. Warnes’
Nigel Edwards
04/10/13 – 06:14
These might not have been the earliest Titanics, for I have a feeling that I once saw a photo of a Western SMT TT1 Titanic which dated back to about 1928. So they were in the catalogue for a long time, even if they only sold in penny numbers.
Chris Hebbron
04/10/13 – 08:39
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but whatever were Leyland thinking of to use this model name when you consider the appalling shipping disaster of 1912 ?? Perhaps level headed operators paid no heed to this, but who knows if the insensitive name played perhaps just a little part in the low sales achieved??
Chris Youhill
04/10/13 – 15:04
Yes, Chris – it is indeed strange that they used the name Titanic so soon after the tragedy, but I suppose the then more recent Great War memories made this event almost trivial in comparison. However, I find it strange that, today, the Titanic disaster has become something almost to be “celebrated” as in Belfast. Sorry – not a bus related comment. However, it’s good to know that the AEC equivalent had a more positive and inspiring name – Renown, albeit with the same poor sales.
Paul Haywood
04/10/13 – 18:08
Of course, it was LGOC/LPTB who boosted the otherwise meagre sales of the pre-war AEC Renown; 1488 LT’s and 22 LTC’s, plus the true coach taken onboard from Edward Hillman (LT1489). The only other ones that readily come to my mind are the 25 bought by Leicester Corporation in 1939-40. As for the Titanic, the WWI torpedoing of the Lusitania might have made the Titanic sink into the background of folks memories. I’ve just realised the Freudian slip, but will leave it as an example of the way the mind innocently works at times! As an aside, I’ve only ever seen photos of Leicester’s Northern Counties-bodied Renowns (one preserved)- I assume that the MCCW versions were a different design.
Chris Hebbron
05/10/13 – 08:24
The famous Mr Rackham – who designed both the Leyland Titan and the AEC Regent – was vociferous in his dislike of what we now call tri-axle designs and disapproved of the LTs. Leicester’s MCCW Renowns were specifically delivered to a Northern Counties like outline to make all the Renowns look similar.
David Oldfield
05/10/13 – 08:25
65 was a 1934 TT2c withdrawn in 1947 (Peter Gould) Williamsons was Doncaster 76 a TT5c new in 1938 withdrawn in 1949. What a huge difference in appearance over 4 years. 76 would pass for a post war bus, but 65 looks almost 20’s.
Joe
28/02/16 – 15:19
My grandmother Doris was Ruben Williamson daughter, who married Samuel Bolton & lived across the road from the garage at 22 Havelock Crescent & my dad often told me about Williamson buses when he was 14 before school he used to help his dad Samuel bring the buses out (abo 1935). My dad was Arthur Williamson Bolton
Southdown Motors Services 1934 Leyland Tiger TS6T Short Bros. B40C (B39C from about 1946)
Two of these impressive and handsome vehicles (51 & 52) were purchased in 1934 for the Eastbourne to Beachy Head tourist service. The local authority would only allow the service to operate with single-deckers, so Southdown decided to buy the largest single-deckers available at the time, which, by law, had to be 30 foot long six-wheelers. Long-time Leyland adherents, they settled on the fairly rare TS6T (T standing for Trailing Axle), which enabled them to carry 40 passengers on the profitable route. A further two (53 & 54) were bought in 1935, this time TS7T’s. Originally fitted with Leyland 8.6 petrol engines, they were all fitted with 8.6 diesel engines in 1940. Despite their luxurious appearance, they were considered to be buses by Southdown, bearing the name in letters rather than “real writing”! After their hard lives, they were all withdrawn from service in 1952. The photo shows 551, in about 1950, about to depart from Eastbourne Pier and grind its way up to the top of Beachy Head. Note the driver in his summer uniform.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
29/05/11 – 17:46
What truly magnificent vehicles, and even further enhanced by the cream side destination boards. My own experience of the ascent on service 97 to Beachy Head is confined to the delightful open top Guy Arabs in the 1960s – and there’s scarcely any need to go into detail about the delightful acoustics of that journey !!
Chris Youhill
29/05/11 – 19:15
Yes, the austerity Guy Arab II’s were converted to open-top around 1950-51 and some re-engined with 6LW engines for the Devil’s Dyke/Beachy Head services. The service became 197 around that time, too. The open-toppers were used all along the South Coast, even a couple on Hayling Island. They lasted until about 1964. Unlike the TS6T’s, the basic Guys were regarded as coaches and given ‘Southdown’ side panels in ‘real writing’! A 1964 film, The Chalk Garden, has Hayley Mills and Deborah Kerr boarding one of them, with it pulling away. I don’t know how extensive the rebuilding of the bodies was, but they always looked impeccable, right to the end. Southdown were a class act.
Chris Hebbron
30/05/11 – 06:25
So true Chris H, Southdown were exactly as you say – “a class act.” The winning combination of high quality handsome vehicles and impeccable maintenance was perfected even further by perhaps the most dignified of all liveries in such very pleasing colours.
Chris Youhill
31/05/11 – 11:40
…and what about the Harrington Cavalier coaches with only 28 seats for there road cruises.
Roger Broughton
31/05/11 – 11:58
By the late 1960s, the Devil’s Dyke service was operated with convertible ‘Queen Mary’ Leylands. At Southdown, vehicle allocation, (including when the tops were to be removed), was decided by the Engineering Department rather than the Traffic Department, unlike other companies I knew, a practice that didn’t always contribute to efficient traffic management. Their policy on which style of company name to apply to any particular vehicle or type, was inconsistent. I am well aware of Southdown’s reputation amongst some enthusiasts, and I have no desire either to offend anyone or spoil their image of the company. Certainly Southdown itself thought it was a ‘class act’, a view it didn’t hide from its BET neighbours. However, at the risk of being thought sour, I remain to be convinced that Southdown was anything out of the ordinary. From an enthusiast’s point of view, its fleet was less interesting and in some ways less operationally imaginative than, for example, neighbour M&D’s fleet. For instance, I always thought M&D’s AEC Reliance coaches with ZF 6-speed gearboxes were decidedly better for both drivers and passengers than Southdown’s Leyland Leopards with Eaton 2-speed axles. The standard of maintenance and turnout was high, granted, but the same could be said of pretty well all major operators; their livery was attractive, (even though the capital letter version of the name was distinctly old-fashioned), but, again, the same could be said of many other operators. By coincidence, this posting follows one of Richard Fieldhouse’s lovely postings: – a West Yorkshire K6B. Having been involved at close quarters with the management of both companies, I have little doubt about which of them was operationally the ‘class act’. From a management viewpoint, West Yorkshire would win hands down every time. Sorry if I have upset anyone.
Mr A Non
01/06/11 – 08:21
I don’t have any professional reason to hide my identity but, in confidence, I can pass on similar comments from friends in the industry. The professional perspective and that of the enthusiast often differ and I have spent hours with professional friends explaining cogently why certain things had to happen which leave enthusiasts in a spin – including the splitting up of that sacred cow, London Transport. Personally, I couldn’t agree more about the superiority of the ZF Reliance (and M & D). I also include Southdown and Ribble amongst the all time greats – but one of my professional friends pointed out (with proofs and from personal experience) that both were basket cases when sold off by NBC at privatisation. […..and then there was the criminal end of those proud coach operators Yelloway and Sheffield United Tours (aka National Travel East) under the leadership (?) of ATL Group.]
David Oldfield
01/06/11 – 13:30
Mr Non, You know, you should never speak ill of the dead!
Chris Hebbron
16/01/12 – 17:35
I was born and lived in Southdown territory for over 50 years and drove for them for almost 22 years at their Eastbourne depot from 1969 so worked quite a few trips to Beachy Head but I regret only with the convertible PD3’s, except for a couple of “memorable” trips with a Bristol LD6B borrowed from BH&D for a summer season. The lack of performance was embarrassing so much so that drivers on the local private coach companies complained to the management of their sluggish efforts to climb the steep twisty road up out of Eastbourne. The company was definitely a “class act”, although conservative in it’s choices the vehicles were always solid reliable and very comfortable with well upholstered higher backed seats in an attractive patterned moquette, the same standards were maintained until the end of the PD3 deliveries after that they got pretty much what they were told as did all NBC companies. We felt at Eastbourne that our standards of maintenance and cleaning were higher than any other depot a view borne out when we drove vehicles from other depots (yes we were snobs) but of course all this went downhill as NBC increased it’s stranglehold on the company and things sunk to a low level, a brief respite when it was privatised (so it was a basket case) then came Stagecoach about whom I would rather say nothing. What followed was an extremely sad and messy end to a very proud and respected company but in it’s prime a true CLASS ACT by any ones definition. R.I.P Southdown
Diesel Dave
17/01/12 – 07:07
To be fair, Dave, it may not be (traditional) Southdown but, by all modern standards, Stagecoach IS a class act. It’s just not enthusiasts’ heaven – no one makes vehicles today that are interesting enough!
David Oldfield
17/01/12 – 15:54
Very belatedly, I’ve just seen A Non’s comments above, which, by chance refer to the three companies I knew well in the 1960’s: Southdown, Maidstone & District and West Yorkshire. I was both surprised and gratified to see that views I’ve always had, but have often kept to myself for fear of offending others, are shared by at least one other person. I think he’s spot on. First, I agree wholeheartedly that M&D’s AEC Reliances, with their 6-speed ZF gearboxes, were decidedly superior to Southdown’s Eaton 2-speed axle Leyland Leopards, both to drive and from a passenger standpoint. A Non is absolutely right, in my view, and I was glad to see David Oldfield’s endorsement of his comments. A Non is also correct, I believe, in describing M&D’s fleet policy as being more imaginative than Southdown’s. M&D didn’t always get it right, (as their sad experience with the Albion Nimbus and the early Atlanteans demonstrates), but they displayed a greater concern for their passengers and staff than their conservative southern neighbours. I agree with him, too, in his assessment of the management and management style of Southdown. They certainly made no secret, to their BET neighbours at least, of their own superior opinion of themselves. M&D and Southdown operated a number of long joint services with each other – to the point, unusually, of each company’s staff operating the other’s vehicles – but the relationship between the two managements was not especially close or particularly friendly. M&D’s Traffic Department co-operated more closely with East Kent, and both regarded Southdown as stand-offish. M&D was a pleasant company whose staff enjoyed intimate working relationships; Southdown was not. A Non’s right about the influence of the Engineering Department at Southdown over matters that at other companies were regarded as Traffic Department issues; that policy caused unnecessary operational problems and costs, and made for relations between Traffic and Engineering that were often strained and always distant, as I know from personal experience. Finally, A Non is totally correct in his judgment that West Yorkshire were a better managed company than Southdown. Southdown had a clumsy and inefficient management structure that may have flattered its own perceived superiority, but it cost more money than it was worth, it made decision-making difficult, and it had seriously demotivating consequences. In their own way, the Traffic Department at West Yorkshire had a high opinion of itself as Southdown’s did, but with one major difference: they were justified in their opinion. As a number of correspondents have pointed out, enthusiasts’ recollections of those days are sometimes coloured by memories of nicely turned out vehicles in smart liveries, perhaps ones they didn’t often come across and which therefore have extra nostalgic value. The managerial realities of the companies involved, however, does not always correspond with those recollections. I’m very sorry if I have offended any Southdown fans, but A Non raised important and valid points that were worth making even if they are often left unsaid.
Roy Burke
17/01/12 – 16:00
I’m assuming, David O, that your comparison is with the other big groups and am genuinely interested in learning in what respects it outshines the others. You’re right about the lack of ‘interesting vehicles around today, although ‘bottom fishing’ around the small independents sometimes produces the odd gem!
Chris Hebbron
17/01/12 – 16:01
Sorry, David. I totally disagree about Stagecoach. I have worked for this operator in the past, and now have to put up with a very poor and unreliable bus service through my village to the neighbouring towns. The Stagecoach maintenance budget is greatly over constrained, with buses suffering from extended silly faults that could be easily fixed with suitable finance. The basic obligation of a bus operator is to run the service(s) safely and reliably with clean, inviting vehicles. This is impossible if maintenance standards do not measure up. Deregulation gives bus operators carte blanche to run what they like and charge well above a reasonable margin in fares. Stagecoach has just handed out £340m to shareholders with Brian Souter and Ann Gloag personally getting £88m between them. A bit more on maintenance would be more appropriate. The present structure of our public road and rail transport industries is a disgrace.
Roger Cox
17/01/12 – 17:57
I am but a humble professional musician/music teacher with a PSV who has spent many (many) years driving buses and coaches (and preserved vehicles) on a part time basis. I am never “opinionated” because all my comments are considered and based on fact and verifiable material. Different managers, companies and sheds may occasionally fall short of the mark; politicians may ensure that expensive initiatives funnel investment into city areas and away from the rural population but Stagecoach has been vilified, often unjustifiably, for being Stagecoach. [I am talking about the mature company, not the young “pirate”. I am talking about the experience of industry professionals and real passengers alike.] You may not like them – that is your prerogative – but that is not my point. Only Stagecoach and Go-Ahead consistently win awards and plaudits from within and without the industry. It is on material like this – gleaned easily from publications like Route One and Bus and Coach Buyer – that I base my comments. …..so yes, Chris, I am comparing with other groups. And, Roger, it doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with you substantively and everything else. …..oh and, I don’t – and never have – had shares in Stagecoach or any other company.
David Oldfield
18/01/12 – 06:30
A number of interesting comments in this thread about the superiority or otherwise of certain operators but I will just confine myself to pointing out that if you go today to the exact spot where that photo was taken, you will find that the view is unchanged sixty years later (including the lamp post in the background) and that you may still board a bus there for Beachy Head although it may well be a Scania double decker of Brighton & Hove. A visit to Eastbourne is recommended for the annual running day in August which usually includes journeys to the top of Beachy Head in a PD3, a journey I first made some 45 years ago (and have the tickets to prove it).
Nigel Turner
18/01/12 – 06:31
In the area I live in, First Group operate the majority of services, with a few contributed by Stagecoach. These days, I much prefer to travel on a Stagecoach vehicle – their service locally seems generally more efficient, and cleaner. I could almost be attracted to modern buses! That is not say that First are inefficient or grubby, but they are not in the same ball park as Stagecoach in this neck of the woods. In general, the First Group local stock consists of some quite elderly vehicles too, which doesn’t necessarily help the image – but would the man in the street or on the seat notice this? Like some others here, I have no shares in any bus company and have never been employed in the bus industry – just an observer and passenger for many years, and this is just a personal view. Others can disagree, and we will enjoy reading the other comments in due course.
Michael Hampton
18/01/12 – 06:32
Thx, David, for quoting the source of your knowledge about Stagecoach (and Go-Ahead). Roy, it’s not whether ‘fans’ are offended by ‘insider’ comments – I think most of us contributing on this site are old enough to appreciate and welcome measured and informed opinion, rather than be influenced by one livery over another or the smartness of staff uniforms! I, for one, find these discussions useful and I’m sure I’m not alone. One point: for many years, Southdown had a fare-sharing arrangement with Portsmouth Corporation, which involved route-balancing swapping of buses (but not crews) at the year-end, usually with Portsmouth buses on Southdown routes, but I recall one year where the reverse happened. Do you know what the relationship was like between these two organisations?.
Chris Hebbron
18/01/12 – 08:39
A very interesting observation, Nigel, on the unchanged scene after 60 years. almost unheard of in this day and age! And thanks for the heads-up on the annual running day. Where would the actual date be published?
Chris Hebbron
18/01/12 – 10:36
Interesting observation, Chris H. Anyone who’s ever read any of your comments on this site will recognise both your own extensive knowledge of the industry and your commitment to remembering and understanding it in an informed, realistic and unbiased way. On the other hand, there are lots of comments, (you can see some on this page alone), that rate an operator on the basis of well turned out vehicles. Maybe I’m just sour, but I do rather disagree with the often expressed view – it’s clearly your view, and I have no wish to upset you – that Southdown were a ‘class act’. Operationally, they were often inefficient in many regards, certainly in comparison with West Yorkshire. The company seemed to encourage compartmentalisation, which in turn discouraged contact and co-operation both internally and with other operators. I found this to be in stark and unhelpful contrast with everything I had seen at WY and had been taught at Maidstone & District. I can’t, I’m afraid, throw any light on your question, Chris, about the arrangements at Portsmouth between Southdown and Portsmouth Corporation, since I was based in Brighton. However, illustrative of the point I’m trying to make is that in the year and more that I was there, I never met my ‘oppos’ at Portsmouth – my request to do so being summarily dismissed as unnecessary – and I recall speaking to them by telephone only once. Similarly, although we were of course heavily involved in the Brighton Pool with Brighton Corporation and Brighton, Hove & District, those operators were regarded more as competitors for staff than as partners. No need was seen for contact between us at an operational level, (the idea was variously described to me as ‘dangerous’ and ‘pointless’), and there was none. This site is not the place for gripes, however, and I repeat my apologies for attacking a reputation that many fans hold dear. I just don’t share their view. I have a high opinion of the operational efficiency of West Yorkshire, and I have the fondest possible regard for Maidstone & District, ramshackle and bumbling though they occasionally were. Both were, in my experience, better, (and definitely happier), operators than Southdown.
Roy Burke
18/01/12 – 13:56
But apologies are not required, Roy. We speak as we find and, as some of us have already intimated, the professional and insider view can be at variance – sometimes wildly – with that of the enthusiast. My conversations with “professional” friends constantly bear this out. [Personally, I would go for M & D and their Reliances – as well as their later Leopards.]
David Oldfield
18/01/12 – 14:47
I simply have to agree with Roy`s comments on the general points of difference between the likes of “West Yorkshire” and “Southdown”! The former Tilling group`s whole ethos was based on rugged efficiency with a truly Northern “no nonsense” approach, whereas the more noted BET operators always seemed to have the politicians ideal of putting on a “frontal image”. Certainly, in the Bradford area, I do not recall any adverse comments about West Yorkshire, it being an organisation which always commanded public respect. Unlike YWD, or Hebble, its vehicles were always well turned out, and the whole operation exuded total efficiency! Other members of the group always gave me the same impression, United coming to mind. I know I am only an enthusiast, and not an “insider”, but I was well tuned in to public awareness, and this feeling was, I am convinced, well founded. It is a great pity that this superb bus operator is no longer with us, as, like so many of our industrial organisations of the past, we did not know what we had until we lost it! As for the present day, I have no interest whatsoever, and suggest we stick to the 1970 (or earlier?) limit for this website!
John Whitaker
19/01/12 – 05:29
Well my comments certainly provoked a varied response from several of my fellow contributors to the site which I suppose is one of it’s aims. I have to admit my admiration for Southdown came about during my childhood from the early forties so has no basis in administration or engineering just my personal experience of being a passenger and enjoying that. I did drive some of M&D’s Reliances and Panthers on the Heathfield cycle routes and enjoyed the experience very much, if I am honest I must admit that I found the Reliance a far better vehicle to drive whether in bus or 6 speed coach form. If you took the time to master it the Leopard with 2 speed axle was a pleasant vehicle to drive but the engine never pulled as willingly as the AEC motor and the controls were much heavier. So you see my admiration for Southdown is purely a childhood fantasy and I will be forever prejudiced, thank you for indulging me.
Diesel Dave
19/01/12 – 05:30
If I could add my two penny worth to the debate. My vote for the class acts in the North East would go to three independents, OK Motor Services of Bishop Auckland, who had a mixed fleet of new and used vehicles and ran a number of services, and two one route operators, Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval and Economic of Whitburn, the last two had very similar livery’s, but all three had beautifully turned out vehicles, and you could almost set your watch by them. As for Tilling and BET, I worked for a BET company, Tynemouth and Wakefields a subsidiary of Northern General, our buses weren’t bad but Tyneside, another Northern subsidiary, were always immaculate, to be fair they had a much smaller fleet than us, but if I’m honest I would have to say that in general, United ‘a Tilling group company’ always seemed to have a slight edge, but nostalgia’s not what it used to be
Ronnie Hoye
19/01/12 – 17:49
The Eastbourne Running Day has its own website www.eastbourne-classicbus.co.uk This years event is on Sunday July 22nd and already promised are a Leyland Lion, AEC Regent III, Regent V and Leyland PD2 ex Eastbourne Corporation, a Guy Arab and Leyland PD3 ex Southdown and an AEC Reliance ex East Kent. I spent my holidays on the South Coast in the 1960s and 1970s riding on buses like these, well perhaps not the Leyland Lion!
Nigel Turner
27/01/12 – 06:29
As a former West Yorkshire engine fitter from 1969 to 1987, it is heart warming to read comments about the company being a ‘class act’. From an employee’s viewpoint WY was a good company to work for, with generally good facilities and working conditions. Certainly the atmosphere at the Central Works, Body Shop and Head Office complex in Harrogate was that of one big family – with all that that entailed! Despite the loss of our attractive ‘Tilling’ bus and coach liveries under the aegis of the NBC, and the relentless governmental drive towards one-person operation (whether it was needed or not), WY remained a well-run and generally well-respected organisation. Brian Horner was general manager for much of the NBC period, and in many peoples view built on the standards inherited from his predecessor Jack Lawrence. The bus and coach fleet were generally well-presented for what was a fairly large concern, and the tours and holidays side expanded under the steady hand of the late Gordon Dingle. The company had a policy of continued modernisation of its depots, offices and other facilities, and in the 1980’s WY devised a preventive maintenance programme to further improve vehicle reliability, based on its own data relating to component life. West Yorkshire was indeed a ‘class act’ and is sadly missed by many including me. I still have a soft spot for Southdown though……..
Brendan Smith
28/01/12 – 06:34
The Southdown engineering department had a penchant for cutting down the engine output of their Leylands and Guys, ostensibly in the interests of fuel economy, and road performance suffered. I recall particularly a ride in the early 1960s on one of the very fine Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IVs on route 23 between Crawley and Brighton, a service that encountered some pretty stiff gradients across the Weald and over the South Downs. The governor of the bus’s 6LW had been reset to such a low level that the engine died back at a road speed of about 25 mph. I always felt, also, that Southdown Leylands decidedly lacked sparkle on the road.
Roger Cox
17/12/12 – 11:24
I worked twice as a PSV conductor for Southdown Portsmouth depots in the 1960s as a student holiday job and had the fortune to work on PD3s of the time. As for the comment for nowhere for the conductor to stand, it was the custom for them to stand at the front at the base of the staircase and lean through an open window area over the left hand side of the front mounted engine to keep the driver company (obviously when safe to do so). The driver’s job was not so lonely and isolated as it is now on the ‘one-man bands’ that we have all become used to! Some drivers hated the PD3s especially the so-called’one-leggers’ which had a gearing system at the top of a long metal column that was mounted on the floor. I must admit that I considered the introduction of the ‘Queen Marys’ in 1957, when I was still attending school, unusual in the light that most bus companies were looking towards the introduction of Leyland Atlanteans in their fleets. Many PD3s came up to Leicester, where I now live, having being purchased by ‘Confidence’ for use for transporting the then British Shoe Corporation employees.
Bernard Robinson
03/01/13 – 11:23
I used to be a frequent traveller on Southdown route 12 (Brighton/Seaford/Eastbourne) in the late ‘forties and early ‘fifties. But this is about route 126 that went over Hindover Hill. I was assured in my youth that the name “High and Over” was a form of “Hindover” that was invented by the Southdown company in the ‘thirties. Can anyone shed light on that?
Ron
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
15/04/16 – 07:08
Just another comment about Route 126. It ran from Eastbourne to Seaford, via Polegate and Alfriston. I used to use it as a local holiday treat when resident as a kid in Eastbourne during the late 1940s, early 1950s. My real memories of it were grinding up the long hill of ‘High and Over’ just before entering Seaford on the last lap of the journey, but another memory is that I think there must have been a vehicle size restriction on this service because I do remember how tight the parking was for the bus stop outside the famous old pub in the centre of Alfriston. Also, as an aside, does anyone else remember Drusilla’s on this route – a well known tourist destination on this route for its zoo and miniature railway?
