BCK 367C started life as FRN 740 a 1954 PD2/10 with a Leyland H32/29R body which has been rebuilt to a PD3 format. She now resides in the North West Museum of Road Transport in St Helens, but was in need of some attention when I saw her during the summer. She has retained the Leyland outline to her bodywork, though some of the panels may have been relocated in the conversion and others have been added in order to lengthen her. Some visitors to the site may be thinking, “This isn’t in Preston!” Correct. She’s a long way from home, on Itchen Bridge in Southampton. The occasion was a rally to celebrate Southampton Corporation Transport Centenary, and the date was 6 May 1979. The ‘Union Flag on wheels’ following her is an Ipswich Fleetline in overall advertising livery.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
09/10/12 – 18:02
There were three distinctive types of conversions carried out by Preston between 1959 and 1967. Eight 7’6″ PD2/10s were converted and all bore the Preston devised chassis designation of PD3/6 – a designation that Leyland Motors accepted. All eight vehicles received new PD3 chassis frames, Forward entrances replaced rear platforms and much of the original outline and coachwork was retained. Between 1959 and 1963 four lowbridge bodies were converted. “The Leyland Bus” suggests that they were converted to highbridge layout at the same time as the road under the railway bridge that had necessitated their purchase had been lowered. In 1963 two highbridge vehicles were converted followed by two more, one in 1965 as illustrated above and a final conversion in 1967. The last two were widened to 8′. The classic Colin Bailey body outline is unmistakable – the only jarring note being the insertion of the short bay immediately behind the first window on the top deck rather than amidships. The original bodies had the more attractive version of Leyland’s final double deck design with recessed window pans and radiused corners top and bottom which were retained and which make the bus look as modern as anything else produced in the 1960s. Preston thus ended up with the only 7’6″ PD3s, the only forward entrance Leyland double deck bodies and the only 30′ Leyland double deck bodies.
Phil Blinkhorn
09/10/12 – 18:05
I submitted a view of DRN 308 in “more or less” original form, as a companion to this, seen while on training duties in Fleetwood in 1975. Unfortunately, Peter found it too dark to be used.
Pete Davies
10/10/12 – 09:40
I believe that Dreadnought Coaches of Alnwick has one. I once saw it in the dark returning from Wedding duties.
Philip Carlton
10/10/12 – 09:41
I wonder what one of the 7’6″ PD3s would have looked like with a St. Helens style PD3A front on as these were 7’6″ wide and most body builders had to taper the front of their 8ft wide bodies to accommodate them.
Eric Bawden
10/10/12 – 12:08
An interesting prospect, Eric, which would have qualified this class for an additional “unique” feature over those Phil B mentions above!
Pete Davies
10/10/12 – 12:09
Eric, A quick look through “The Leyland Bus” photos of St Helens front vehicles shows that some, rather than most, bodybuilders tapered their front to fit. The more traditional builders (such as Massey) only offered a taper but with other builders the width was at the discretion of the operator.
Phil Blinkhorn
11/10/12 – 07:31
I remember the Southampton Centenary Weekend in May 1979 very well. I was working at Derby City Transport at the time and myself and the late Gerald Truran, the Chief Engineer, (and Author of ‘Brown Bombers’ the History of Neath and Cardiff Luxury Coaches) entered Derby’s Foden Double Decker Fleet No. 101 in the event. Sorry but the Foden does not qualify for this site. The drive down was slow but uneventful until just before Winchester when she started giving cause for concern. Don’t ask me what, it is a long time ago and I am no mechanic. So a detour was made off the A34 in to Sutton Scotney where a visit was made to the long gone Taylor’s Coaches premises. The staff and management were most accommodating as is usually the case when Bus men need help from other Bus men, and a repair was made (NO charge) and we were soon on our way. One thing I remember about the visit was an old Bedford lurking in one of the many buildings. I made inquiries and was told it was a Bedford with a Plaxton Consort body and had come from Comfy Coaches of Farnham. Unfortunately, and much to my regret, I never took a photograph but I have found an image of it at this link. By the way, we did not win anything at the Rally but it was a great weekend, and the trip back was uneventful.
Stephen Howarth
11/10/12 – 08:58
With regard to Stephen’s visit to Sutton Scotney, Taylor’s had their Bedford OB HAA 874 in this same rally. It must have been a rare outing for her, as she was using the company’s trade plate.
Pete Davies
14/10/12 – 08:00
This is the ex Preston 2 (PRN 761) rebuild currently with Dreadnaught Coaches of Alnwick, referred to by Philip Carlton. It is seen at their depot in June of this year, on a typical (!) summer’s day.
Bob Gell
21/05/14 – 12:29
The PD2 version of No.61 was H30/28R when new. It was reseated to H32/29R in 11/1958 as part of a rolling programme to increase the seating capacity on all the PD2/10s. All four highbridge conversions were done to the same width of 8ft. There were no 7ft 6ins wide conversions. The four lowbridge buses were increased in height fom 13ft 6ins to 14ft 2ins. As previously said they were used alongside the lowbridge PD1s on the Ashton A service which passed under the height/width restricted railway bridge on Fylde Road. The road surface was lowered in 1957 thereafter permitting highbridge buses to pass underneath in the centre of the road.
Mike Rhodes
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
05/09/14 – 07:30
I was the owner and driver of 61 on the Southampton Centenary event, having driven it down from Somerset through Dorset and via zig-zag hill ! Lovely to see this picture, and it shows what good condition the bus was in at that time. Unfortunately it now languishes in the N W Transport Museum in St’Helens, looking rather unloved – no-one seems interested in it anymore, despite my offers to help fund its restoration. Any other Preston fans out there who would be keen to see it restored ? If so, leave a name and e-mail address, please.
Nick Sommer
Your email address will not be posted on site to avoid spammers, but I will pass it on to Nick.
The recent posting of a Sheffield Mann Egerton bodied PD2 fleet number 362 provided some interesting information on new bus orders about that time and here is one of the Roe bodied PD2/12 ordered at the same time as the Mann Egerton pair. These were very elegant looking vehicles with deep windows in both saloons and I think looked especially handsome in the C T Humpidge era livery with three blue bands. Interesting to note how Roe incorporated a variation of the standard Sheffield destination layout – probably necessary because of the reduced depth available because of the afore mentioned deep windows. I well recall these buses replacing the Fulwood via Hunters Bar trams as the first programmed tram replacement scheme in January 1952. The new 88 bus route ran between the City and Fulwood with the City terminus being uniquely located in Eyre Street outside the Motor Vehicle Licensing Office (near the Central Library). This continued I believe until March 1954 when the 88 became a cross City service between Fulwood and Malin Bridge at the same time as the 81/82 bus routes replaced trams between Ecclesall and Middlewood. Here is 391 in later life about to turn into Herries Road Depot on a summer evening in July 1967. The batch of nine were withdrawn the following year and 391 ended up inevitably with a Barnsley breaker.
I am, of course, predisposed and prejudiced in this post. Magnificent body, excellent operator – and pretty good chassis!!! I never quite got to terms with the “heavy on blue” livery that all Roes were delivered in and generally preferred this scheme – which was always on repaint. Nevertheless, I also felt that these PD2s looked slightly bald in this scheme. Never actually rode on one and didn’t realise it was originally a City only service from Eyre Street. Only used the 60 to Crimicar Lane in my childhood – the 88 didn’t go up the hill!
David Oldfield
14/10/12 – 10:41
What I could never understand about the Sheffield fleet is this: all the views I have, bought ones or my own work relating to the bus fleet, show this style of livery. With the trams, however, and there are several preserved at Crich, if it was delivered in livery “A” it retained that livery throughout. If it was delivered in “B”, it retained “B” throughout. Only the 1953 ‘Roberts’ trams had this style. Can anyone explain the apparent reluctance to modernise the livery on the trams, when it seems to have been done on the buses?
Pete Davies
15/10/12 – 07:32
Pete, you seem to have an inaccurate memory – or information – about Sheffield livery. This scheme was introduced in about 1936 for the Domed Standard (tram) Cars and extended to AEC Regent/Weymann buses. It was extended to all buses eventually, pre-war, including Craven and Leyland bodied TD5 Titans. The livery was perpetuated after the war on the Roberts trams – the only trams bought after the Domed Standards and, of course, the last “first generation” trams. It was also the standard bus livery except, for some inexplicable reason, all Roe deckers, Leyland Farington deckers and the final “not” Farington Leyland body (which were delivered in the short-lived and disastrous green experimental livery). The Roe and Leyland bodies had far more blue paint but most, if not all, Roes were painted in the scheme shown at first overhaul. Yet another superb colour shot by Ian.
David Oldfield
15/10/12 – 10:00
Thank you, David. The source of my information seems to be incorrect!
Pete Davies
15/10/12 – 17:22
The whole vehicle is pure and classic Roe, except for the front upper deck windows which look a little odd, the way that the top edge looks lower than the side windows. No doubt it’s just the evening sun shining on the white dome but it made me look twice, I thought some alteration had been done. Still a superb bus though!
Chris Barker
15/10/12 – 17:23
And don’t forget the variant of the grey roof, David, which buses tended to acquire on first repaint. I’ve heard it said that the grey was made up in Queens Road by mixing the dregs of the cream and blue paint tins, but I’m not sure how correct that is. I think the practice ended after Chaceley Humpidge became GM in 1961, as he wasn’t a fan of the grey roof. Personally, I think the ‘Farington’ PD2’s in their ‘Roe’ style livery looked better than ever with the roof painted grey. Oddly enough, the domed roof trams that inaugurated the ‘new’ livery had a variation of the grey roof, or at least acquired one eventually; perhaps in wartime in an effort to make the cars less visible from the air? If the grey was in fact a combination of the blue and cream, perhaps it was a conscious effort on the part of the paint shop to not waste a drop!!
Dave Careless
16/10/12 – 05:29
Dave, you are absolutely correct about the grey paint – actually called “smudge”. It gave a certain dignity to an already super livery. I do not know, and to my shame have not as yet bothered to find out, whether there was a policy about the smudge. My feeling is that it was applied before entry into service (whether or not by the coachbuilder or by STD) and lost on overhaul/repaint. I certainly feel that all the Weymanns (classic and Orion alike) on 26′ and 27′ chassis entered service with smudge roofs. The Domed cars probably likewise.
David Oldfield
16/10/12 – 11:45
I don’t know whether there was a wartime edict to paint bus roofs a less obtrusive colour . LPTB went from silver to grey to brown quickly. However, the dirt falling onto tram and trolleybus roofs from poles and wiring might well have been a consideration not to change back later.
Chris Hebbron
16/10/12 – 16:52
Grey roof painting was widely adopted on the outbreak of WW2. It was kept by many operations for a long time afterwards. For instance Manchester had its 1946 deliveries painted in this manner. When it converted its orders to 8′ wide vehicles they appeared with red roofs, the 7′ 6″ vehicles retained the grey so the bus washers knew how to set washer width. Few 7’6″ vehicles appeared in the “overall” red scheme but by that time the washers set themselves automatically. Stockport cut back its grey from 1946 but retained the centre of the roof in grey for all deliveries up to and including the first batch of St Helen’s fronted PD2s in 1962. Frank Brimelow specified translucent roofs thereafter but all re-sprays of grey roofed vehicles received the grey until SELNEC took over.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/10/12 – 08:30
On the subject of grey or other colour for the roof, one of my former colleagues was a descendent of B C Baker of Birmingham City Transport. Birmingham had a sandy colour for their bus roofs, apparently as camouflage. My colleague suggested it was to confuse the Afrika Corps!
Pete Davies
17/10/12 – 08:31
This bus and its windows is reminiscent of Roe’s 8ft Doncaster 121 and 122 which were sold to Blue Ensign after 4 years because either they didn’t fit the streets (official) or the washer (Tony Peart). Did they also have the cranked seats and “high level” rear platform? It seems that Roe had a sudden urge to innovate…?
Joe
17/10/12 – 11:24
No, Joe, that was a Doncaster thing. The vehicles you mention are closer to STD 18/19; 113-119 – the 1952 four bay bodied Regent IIIs (my equal favourite with 1325 – 1349). Incidentally, Charles Halls has these PD2s (386 – 394) as 1951 and 361/2 (the Mann Egertons) as 1952. I always took this to be correct and that the Roes were late ’51 and the Mann Egertons early ’52.
David Oldfield
17/10/12 – 18:04
One further thought with respect to Sheffield’s penchant for grey roofs, a style that became a thing of the past after C.T. Humpidge took over. It occurs to me that it must have seemed a bit like deja vu to the new General Manager when he got settled into the chair at Sheffield in 1961. Bradford’s fleet had grey roofs into the early 1950’s, when he took over the top job in that city, after which the roofs on the buses eventually became blue on his watch. When he took over the reins at Sheffield, and saw the tins of “smudge” on the shelves at Queens Road, he must have felt he was starting all over again!
Dave Careless
18/10/12 – 07:46
The Fulwood via Hunters Bar tram route that these buses took over from was converted to bus operation (service 88) on 5th January 1952 so this batch would almost certainly have been delivered in late 1951. I can only recall one Sheffield bus with cranked seats and this was all Leyland 651 of the 1949 batch (and then I think the lower deck only). Can the Sheffield people out there confirm this and what was the reason?
Ian Wild
18/10/12 – 10:44
Chieftain Buses of Hamilton acquired a second-hand ex-Sheffield TD5 Craven in the late 40s. BWB ###. The engine in this bus sounded different to any other TD5 I had come across. It surely could not have been a petrol engine? Any enlightenment?
Jim Hepburn
18/10/12 – 14:37
Leeds had one AEC Regent with staggered seats 700 NUM 700 a 1950 show exhibit which was LCTs second 8ft wide bus I have a vague feeling that these were removed and replaced with normal seating towards the end of its LCT life.
Chris Hough
19/10/12 – 06:32
The Sheffield livery variation on the Roe bodied vehicles has long been a talking point. The whole process was caused by the changes to the Leyland Farington PD2/1’s delivered in 1949. The mouldings below the lower deck windows were discontinued, along with upper beading. Leyland asked for a simplified livery in lieu of cream and three blue bands, for the high cost of lining out would be excessive. AEC Regent Weymann FWJ 808 was used to trial a simpler paint style. With a slight modification,this livery was adopted for the large intake of Farington PD2’s. When the Roe order for PD2/12’s was placed, a similar situation resulted. The narrow lower deck waist rail would have unbalanced the lower deck blue band proportions, therefore a decision was made to adopt the Farington style. The new GM C.T.Humpidge took a dislike to the Roe livery in 1962 and repaints received the standard livery in due course. Remarkably, none of the Farington fleet were so changed in livery style.
Keith Beeden
24/11/12 – 06:50
Referring to Jim Hepburn’s post of 18th October, as the BWA to BWE range of registrations was limited to 1935, I would imagine that the vehicle he refers to would be a Leyland TD4C/Cravens which used the torque converter rather than a convention gearbox and was commonly known as ‘Gearless Bus’. The sound produced, as I remember, from like vehicles surviving into the 50’s resembled a long monotonous droning noise especially from a standing start.
Just to add to David Oldfield’s response to Pete Davies on the subject of liveries. For Pete to understand that trams delivered in Liveries A or B would retain that livery throughout is erroneous. Following the standardisation of Azure Blue and Cream circa 1936, numerous older trams previously wearing the Prussian Blue and Cream were repainted into the Azure Blue livery. In fact, one such tram, namely 150, delivered in Prussian Blue in 1930 was repainted into the ill-fated Green livery in 1952 and then Azure Blue shortly afterwards.
As regards the subject of the post, PD2 No. 391, my humble opinion is that it looks absolutely dreadful in the Humpidge interpretation of the standard livery. As Keith Beedon has explained, the Farrington style livery was applied to the Roe designs for good reason and looked nicely balanced on these elegant vehicles. The painting out of the dividing bar on the front destination box just added to the desecration but credit is due for restoring the cream roof. I would refer all to C.C.Hall’s ‘Sheffield Transport’ Page 263 to see just how superb 389 of the same batch looked when new. (I’m sure many of you will have this book but if not and you are ‘Up North’, there is a copy in the splendid ‘Search Engine’ Reference Library at the National Railway Museum at York)
John Darwent
18/12/12 – 17:37
Referring to Ian Wild’s post of 18-10-2012, Keith Beeden advises that Sheffield all Leyland 651 was fitted with cranked seats on both decks. These were supplied by Siddall and Hilton. Here is an extract from Commercial Motor of 8th December 1950- Article titled Innovation Components and Accessories “More room with less seat” is the object of the new Sidhil-Morseat, manufactured by Siddall and Hilton, Ltd.. Sowerby Bridge, Yorks. Employing a cleverly cranked frame, this service-bus seat enables two passengers to sit comfortably side by side without encroaching on each other or on the gangway. The outer half of the seat, apart from being set back, as in a normal cranked seat, is also turned slightly inward, so that the “gangway” passenger’s elbows are out of the way of the inside” passenger. A recess in the centre of the seat provides additional elbow-room, enabling both passengers to get at pockets for their fares without the usual difficulty. Further, each person enjoys the full width of backrest and the “inner” passenger can more easily leave his seat without disturbing his neighbour. With this design, the conductor can move more easily about the bus, and is able, with less difficulty, to collect the fares from the window-side passenger.
John Darwent
19/12/12 – 07:29
Siddall & Hilton are still in business today in Halifax producing wire products, hospital beds and other ancillary equipment for the healthcare industry.
Eric Bawden
03/08/13 – 14:25
Long time since I visited this site , but thanks to John Darwent for info. on BWB Craven. By this time, it had a conventional gearbox but still sounded unusual. Now another ex. Sheffield bus was WJ 9094. Any info.?
Jim Hepburn
04/08/13 – 10:40
WJ 9094 was a Leyland TD3c, fleet number 94, Cravens H31/24R. Arrived 1934, withdrawn 1941. Think chassis number was 3606.
Les Dickinson
06/08/13 – 06:05
Thanks Les about info. on TD3c WJ 9094. This bus was converted to a conventional gearbox and served with J. Laurie`s of Hamilton`s “Chieftain” buses plying between Hamilton and East Kilbride, and was not withdrawn till 1954.
Jim Hepburn
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
14/10/13 – 08:09
Referring to my post of 18-12-12 about the cranked seats in Sheffield PD2 No. 651, I have now had the opportunity to photograph probably the last pair of ‘Sidhil’ Morseats in captivity which are currently in Sheffield AEC/MCW ex 255, now preserved as ex-gritter G55 in the South Yorkshire Transport Museum at Aldwarke, Rotherham.These seats were the spare pair supplied with 651 and retained by Sheffield Transport Department after the bus was sold on.
John Darwent
15/10/13 – 07:08
Not quite the last set in captivity!. Doncaster 122, the beautiful AEC Regent 111/Roe restored by the late Tony Peart has these seats as well.
Andrew Charles
15/10/13 – 18:03
Splendid news Andrew, thank you for posting. Has 122 a full set, upstairs and downstairs, do you know? I wonder if any more are lurking in preservation.
This Driver Training bus is seen shining in the sunshine outside Thornbury Depot at an open day in September 1973 a few months prior to the formation of West Yorkshire PTE. It appears to be in splendid condition for its age. Records show its withdrawal from normal service (as fleet number 569) in 1965 so it had a long innings as a driver trainer.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
16/11/12 – 09:00
These Leyland PD2/3s were a batch of 20 bought in 1949/50. The last ones were 20 years old when they were withdrawn in 1970. A mere 2 years before the 1961 AEC Regents. Somehow I don’t think todays replacements will be around in twenty years time!
Chris Hough
16/11/12 – 11:24
558 from the same batch is preserved. Last time I saw it, it was undergoing major body restoration at Sandtoft but was in running order. It spent it’s early preservation years taking members of the West Riding Transport Society to rallies and towing the society’s preserved trolleybuses around, a duty shared with Guy Arab II ex County 70.
Eric Bawden
16/11/12 – 11:38
I may upset a few people here, but I’d like to venture to suggest that Bradford Regent Vs 121-5 were withdrawn in 1972 not because they were worn out, so to speak, but simply because Bradford had a surplus of vehicles at the time – Fleetlines 336-55 being more than enough to see off the last Regent IIIs. The earlier Regent Vs, 106-20, would have been past their second recertification at the time. It has been inferred elsewhere that AV590-engined Regent Vs were a disaster, but AV590 engines continued to be fitted, almost to the end of production, and I’m not aware that Regent Vs generally had a short life – they seemed to last just as long as contemporary PD3s, Arab Vs, and CVG6LXs. One thing which does seem untoward is the quoting of EKY 569’s lower deck seating capacity as 27, rather than the more usual 26. Yes, this is consistent with the Peter Gould site, which asserts that all of the batch (554-73) were upseated to H33/27R in the mid-fifties. Most or all of Bradford’s post-war motorbuses were upseated in the mid-1950s, but no other batch apparently had the lower deck capacity increased to more than 26. This includes the 41-65 batch of PD2s, which must have been virtually identical to 554-73. A lower deck seating capacity of 27 implies a rearward-facing seat for five behind the bulkhead, and I can’t recall this as being a feature of any Bradford buses.
David Call
16/11/12 – 13:49
David. As one of AECs biggest fans, I would concur that all wet-liner AECs (470 and 590) were not as good as the A2** that preceded them nor the 691/760 that followed. I have long been puzzled, along with folk such as you, as to the vilification of Bradford Regent Vs. Sheffield’s terrain is as bad as, if not worse than, Bradford’s. Over a 100 590 Regent Vs gave sterling service – and a full service life – in and around the city and were quite frankly superior to the (very good) PD Titans let alone the typically iffy PDR1 Atlanteans. Was there something in the Bradford air that disagreed with the Southall fuel system?
David Oldfield
16/11/12 – 13:50
No David, none of Bradford`s buses had a rearwards facing seat, even after “upseating” I also believe that 121 – 125 were withdrawn due to their extra high fuel consumption. The Titan PD2/3s came in 2 batches, 554-573, and 41 – 65, the later batch not having the front upper deck rain shields, and thus having a more up to date look. Both batches of Titans looked absolutely superb in their original “Tattam” livery, with yellow lining, cream bands, and grey roofs, the livery to which the preserved example is, I believe, returning. Bradford`s operating and maintenance staff highly praised the Titans, and rightly so, BCPT was never really a “Leyland” fleet, the previous Titans being of the TD1 type, and subsequent ones, in 1967, of the PD3A variety, and consequently, they always had something of a “separate” feel about them amongst the more numerous Mark 111 Regents. This photo brings the memories flooding back! I always preferred a downstairs ride on a PD2, as the tickover “gurgle” used to fascinate me along with the other magnificent sounds, and the sight of the “Leyland metal framed body” badge is something else etched into my memory! Wonderful, high quality vehicles!
John Whitaker
16/11/12 – 15:35
It is the very essence of informed transport enthusiasm for each of us to have especial fondness for a particular marque or model, and this site thrives upon the diversity of discussion that arises from individual preferences. I personally felt that the Mark V Regent, particularly the noisy synchromesh version, did not measure up to the standards of the older Mark III in a number of respects – sacrilegious, I know, but my favourite Regent Vs were the preselective Gardner powered Rochdale examples – but the views of others offering a different opinion are equally valid. Whatever its shortcomings, real or imagined, the Regent V was not a commercial or operating disaster, and it served many operators faithfully for several years. David Call’s explanation for the seemingly early withdrawals of the Bradford examples seems a little strange to me. No properly run operation would wake up to find itself holding an unplanned surfeit of vehicles, thereby necessitating the early withdrawal of entirely serviceable stock. The earlier than expected demise of buses such as these, by no means only in Bradford, surely arose from the introduction of the New Bus Grant Scheme in the 1968 Transport Act. The opportunity of buying a new bus at half cost was seized upon by all operators throughout the bus industry, and perfectly sound Leyland Titans, Guy Arabs, Daimler CVGs as well as Regent Vs, were pensioned off early. Certainly, the Regent V could probably give most of the modern, tinny, lurching buzz boxes a good run for their money, and probably achieve that result at a lower cost in maintenance and fuel.
Roger Cox
16/11/12 – 16:45
Here pictured in April 1970, again on training duties, is one of the later batch of Leyland H30/26R bodied PD2/3s, GKU 61, delivered in 1950. This bus presents a bit of a puzzle. According to Peter Gould, the fleet numbers and registrations matched, which should make this bus No. 61, but the fleet number 60 is clearly displayed. Do our experts have an answer, please?
Roger Cox
16/11/12 – 17:14
Hi Roger, Bradford’s “0” series numbers were specifically for what they called service vehicles, such as tuition buses, grit wagons, tower wagons etc, and had no connection whatever with the fleet numbers of passenger stock.
John Whitaker
17/11/12 – 06:47
Many thanks, John. That explains it. This site is a goldmine.
Roger Cox
17/11/12 – 06:48
The AEC engine types that David Oldfield refers to as predecessors of the AV470/AV590 were the A208 and A218. The A208 was the original engine fitted to 9612E/9612A which was found to run hot when driven ‘hard’ and the A218 had an external water pipe feeding coolant to the rearmost cylinders to overcome this. The engine fitted to the Regent RT was the A204, which also received the external water pipe modification but without any change to the type number, which remained A204.
Michael Elliott
17/11/12 – 06:49
Bradford borrowed some AEC Regents from Huddersfield in the final months before the formation of the PTE. This may have been in part due to vehicle shortages as Bradford decided to buy no more new vehicles after 1972 as they were not in favour of the PTE and did not wish to furnish it with new stock. Certainly in the early years of the PTE a number of Leeds Daimlers saw service in Bradford to cover shortages.
Chris Hough
17/11/12 – 06:50
There are comments elsewhere on the BRADFORD thread about changes to the livery. Some apparent changes are caused by the lighting conditions, the film or the way it was processed – for example, I have a Royal Blue coach next to a Birmingham PS2 in one photo, and they both look alike, whether they were or not in reality. In the views above, are they really different shades of blue, or is there an outside factor? Nice views, by the way!
Pete Davies
17/11/12 – 06:53
Are the colours of these two buses supposed to be the same or is it a photo thing? If the same, which of the two is the more realistic?
Chris Hebbron
17/11/12 – 06:53
Both of these beautiful vehicles are presented in a way that would disgrace many modern operator – and they were only for driver training at the time! Well done, Bradford.
David Oldfield
17/11/12 – 06:54
I said I might upset people – I probably have, but I’ll probably upset a few more yet. AEC’s 470/590 engines may well have been widely criticised, but they must have had something going for them, or they wouldn’t have been introduced, and operators wouldn’t have bought them by the thousand. I don’t think Bradford’s Regent Vs were universally disliked – Stanley King may have disliked them, and he was inclined to make his views known. As for Bradford 121-5 having excessively high fuel consumption, I’ve heard this one before – but why would they be any more thirsty than 126-225, which had the same engines? The two-pedal control wouldn’t have made any great difference. I’m now going to take Roger Cox to task for his criticism of my suggestion as to why 121-5 were withdrawn when they were. At the height of the bus-buying boom (prompted by the ‘bus grant’) there was a two-year waiting list for new buses – any operator who could accurately predict how many vehicles would be coming due for replacement in two years time would need not only good business sense but a degree in clairvoyance. To have predicted within five, for a fleet of over three hundred, doesn’t seem bad to me. Don’t forget that operators were more likely to err on the side of underestimation – and finished up keeping vehicles they had been planning to dispose of.
David Call
17/11/12 – 08:39
As Chris says, the Bradford Blue has come up before. Years ago, I had problems trying to obtain a consistent blue in silk screen work, and eventually those who knew told us that blue was a translucent colour (or somesuch) and it depended on the colour of the primer. On the other hand, 35mm colour film did vary: I think Fuji was bluish and Kodak reddish- perhaps!
Joe
17/11/12 – 08:39
Another picture of a PD2 in the Bradford Training fleet. I took this hurriedly composed shot around 1969/70 but can’t quite make out the registration number. It looks like EKY 55? Can anybody positively identify it?
Eric Bawden
17/11/12 – 13:29
Re film colour. I’ve been shooting aircraft on AGFA, Fuji and a much smaller amount on Kodak slide stock since the early 1970s. I also have a fair number of prints/negatives from various film types. I’m currently scanning around 14,000 aircraft slides, 2,000 prints plus all the family photos using an Epson V700. Colour rendering and quality varies. The Epson tends to scan to a blue bias whilst Fuji slide stock of the period has an inherent green tinge. Agfa tends to a slight red and, if the slides have suffered from age, those tendencies are amplified. Kodak is a nightmare to scan and, thankfully, forms the minority of my shots by a long way. I find that I have to do some colour work in Photoshop with most slides older than 15 -20 years. Blue as a colour does have inherent pigment problems. I was a regular visitor to Bradford from a young age and there was always some difference in shades between their buses in the same way as the off white of Stockport’s scheme changed with not very great age. Am I right in thinking that the shade of blue in later years was deliberately darker than in the early – mid 1950s possibly to overcome fading? Going back to the comparison between the two photos I’d say, looking at the sky, that Ian’s photo is slightly overexposed either in the original or in scanning but the blue, were the colour temperature and exposure corrected, would approximate to an 1950s blue. Roger’s photo also has the sky over exposed, presumably to have enough exposure for the bus, but the green of the grass is more accurate. Having said that the blue red balance is out (look at the road surface and the various windows) so the blue of the bus will also be out. This: www.flickr.com/photos/1 illustrates how the colour is affected by light and shade and is closer to Ian’s shot. Here is the same bus on a grey day: www.flickr.com/photos/2 which is how I remember the colour (perhaps it was always grey when I went to Bradford (!) but again shows variation and is closer to Roger’s shot. Also look how much richer the cream is in the first of the Flickr shots compared to the second and the shots in this thread. Unfortunately the variation in film stock, exposure, processing and scanning is not going to help either justify or correct our memories where such issues arise. The only way to know for sure is to obtain the colour number used for the paint and then try to find a colour chart.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/11/12 – 14:37
The last six months of BCT was not a period of great glory. Last week I met some friends in Leeds from my days in the bus industry at that time including Brian Eastwood, who was then Assistant Traffic Superintendent at BCT. Brian reminded me of the day that the Chief Engineer, Bernard Barrington Brown [who was known as ‘B-cubed’] announced that there was a vehicle crisis. John Hodgson Hill, the Traffic Superintendent, then set Brian and Chief Inspector Fred Wilkinson the task of selecting running boards (vehicle schedules) that could be dropped. I seem to remember that eventually a list of boards that could be dropped was agreed upon and Arthur Wheet, who operated the address-o-graph and printing machine on the 6th floor of the Head Office at Forster Square, produced the necessary passenger notices of journeys that would no longer be operating. As I recall the problem came in part from a large number of vehicles requiring re-certification and I seem to remember that a great many of the first batch of 15 Leyland Atlanteans delivered in 1967 were out of service during the period immediately prior to the PTE taking-over.
Kevin Hey
17/11/12 – 17:26
Some interesting comments about colour rendering! It may seem a silly question – but I’m from British West Bradford, not the Yorkshire one, so I think I have an excuse! – is the 0 series a number or a letter?
Pete Davies
18/11/12 – 08:13
I think the “0” is a number, Pete, not a letter, but I do not really know, and does it have any significance anyway? !!. Regarding the shade of blue. This was adopted in 1942, inspired by the loaned Southend trolleybuses, and never as far as I know, altered until the demise of BCT in 1974, although it is possible that changes occurred as paint ranges changed, evolved, or improved over the years. There always seemed to be a pigment problem, with great shade variations, some buses taking on a distinctive turquoise hue as the paint aged between repaints. This was particularly apparent with certain vehicles, 611 being notoriously remembered. It must also be remembered that the industrial atmosphere changed for the better in later post war years, with less acid based colour deterioration. I also well remember the BCPT practice of “TUV” , where little black letters above the platform exit referred to the date of the last “touch up and varnish”. There was nothing smarter than a Bradford bus straight out of the paint shops, but, unfortunately, they never retained this shiny smartness for long! Strange too, that the “new blue” was adopted in wartime, when many motorbuses were decked out in khaki, but I believe that trolleybuses were not subject to quite the same WW2 restrictions as were motorbuses.
John Whitaker
18/11/12 – 08:13
It will be difficult to answer that one! I have a typed and duplicated official Bradford fleet list from the period and this shows the vehicles as “O.60”, but unfortunately that particular typewriter used the same character for the number and the letter, so you just can’t be sure. However, a letter would make more sense if you put the full stop in. As far as I can make out though, it never appeared on the vehicles themselves.
David Beilby
18/11/12 – 08:15
The subject of Eric Bawden’s photo is EKY 556. This was formerly fleet number 556. It was transferred to driver training duties as 067 in December 1970, was renumbered 033 in April 1972 and was sold for scrap to Hartwood Exports in February 1974.
Michael Elliott
18/11/12 – 08:16
Pete, does that mean you are really the Clitheroe Kid?
Phil Blinkhorn
18/11/12 – 12:11
No, Phil, but a former boss (the one who told me the Geoff Hilditch version of the advent of the Dennis Dominator, having worked with GH at one time) was. He looked too much like Eric Morecambe for his own good and was rather accident prone, but that’s another story altogether!
Pete Davies
18/11/12 – 12:12
Thank you for that information, Michael. If you look carefully you can just make out the fleet number 067, something that doesn’t show up on the original! From what you say I think I must have taken it in 1971, whilst on trolleybus photography ‘duty’.
Eric Bawden
11/01/13 – 14:28
In the early 1960s I attended school in Harrogate Road Bradford. One school special was provided by Bankfoot depot, usually an EKY PD2 or now and then a PKY Mark V. Normal services from Ludlam Street depot were RTs/HKW Mark 111/GKU PD2s. One bus which seemed to perform the best was PD2 573 even with a full load it seemed to power up the hills. Does anyone know if any modifications were made to the O.600 engine to improve performance. I think 573 was the last PD2 to be withdrawn in 1969. With regard the school special, what duty did the bus do on reaching Bradford City Centre
Geoff S
12/01/13 – 13:51
Nothing special about 573 that I am aware of Geoff. I often rode on this batch in their later years, sometimes as duplicates on the 80 route in the Mk V era, and I was, like you, always amazed at their performance. They could all, both batches, have soldiered on for another 20 years or so! In their earlier years, they absolutely “flew” up Manchester Road, so that you thought, apart from that superb “gurgling ” sound, that they were trolleys! Wonderful buses.
John Whitaker
13/01/13 – 07:22
Phil has given an excellent resume on colour, but Bradford blue and similar were prone to shade changes due to weather and also what base coat was being used under the blue. Although the blue would have been specified to the Paint suppliers whose tolerances would have been slightly different, the base coats could vary enormously – sometimes referred to as batch to batch variation, but often due to using a cheaper less opaque filler.After university I worked 4 years in surface coatings and was given the job to match the white from an artist impression of the new Hartley’s jam jar. Despite us having hundreds of shades of white I had to start from scratch and can remember adding some yellow and then a drop of black to make it look cleaner. Later I would work 8 years for Bayer who at the time owned Agfa so nearly all my slides used Agfa film as we got them at staff prices. These days as a modeller Bradford blue still causes problems – manufactures saying the model is finished in Bradford Blue. There is no modelling paint which is a direct match for these vehicles – you are advised to make up your own colour blend, or like me don’t chose to paint your bus Bradford blue – stick to Tilling Green which is much easier and readily available. Why did the New Hartleys Jam Jar fail – well not for the work we did on the paint, but although the sides were slanted inwards for customers to grab them easier from the shelves, the supermarkets found they could get less of these jars on the shelf than conventional ones with vertical sides. – sorry for going ‘Off Piste’
Ken Jones
13/01/13 – 14:09
Some paint colours are unstable. I moved into a house with a bluey colour on the window frames which needed repainting. The garage had a couple of old tins of Ripolin turquoise and I decided to repaint the frames, which finished up an accurate turquoise colour. After about two years, however, it had returned to the colour I first saw. Part weathering, but perhaps part salty air, being half a mile from the beach. However, the latter was not an influence in Bradford! My recollection of the Hartleys’ jars were that the new shape only held 12ozs rather than the earlier one pound jars, but costing the same. But maybe that was on another occasion.
Chris Hebbron
13/01/13 – 15:14
Following on the question of colour, particularly Phil’s earlier comments, this montage photo shows just how dependent we are on our subjective assessment. The two views are consecutive, taken just a short time apart, at the same location, in the same lighting conditions and of course on the same film. The two slides have been stored in identical conditions, but in separate boxes. The film is one of my rare forays away from Agfa, being Fujicolor, and has survived reasonably well in terms of colour casts. The originals look a bit brownish in the shadows. The difference in the outcome is due to the fact that they were scanned at very different times, although with the same scanner. The trolleybus was scanned in 2003, the PD2 4 years later. The trolleybus was one of my early scans, before I had become fully versed in what could be done in photoshop. It is definitely over-saturated when I now look at it, but it must have seemed OK at the time. Scanners do have a tendency to increase contrast relative to the original. The PD2 is perhaps a bit undersaturated, but looks fairly true-to life in terms of colour balance. The shade of blue doesn’t look to bad. The photo’s were taken on the last day of normal trolleybus service, 24 March 1972. The PD2 as well must have been close to the end of its working life, being already 23 years old.
Alan Murray-Rust
13/01/13 – 17:23
Quick comment on Hartley Jam Jars as I spent so long working on them – they were 12oz at request of shoppers who complained about having to buy 1 pound jars of things like Robertsons Jam, although some shops sold half pound jars of their marmalade. Initial pricing reflected that the Hartleys jars were smaller, then supermarkets moved prices to be same as lb jars, so Chris is right in remembering prices but other supermarkets just gave up and reduced the price of the Hartleys jars to clear space. He’s definitely right about paint being unstable both in settling out and application. Our back faces south and the colours are never the same as the front although black & white has worked best – we have had blue & white and currently red & white – think we might just go for white only next time.
Ken Jones
14/01/13 – 07:08
There are so many variables with paint colour. Memory doesn’t help nor, I understand, do some of the modern pigments which have different chemical properties to those of 40-60 years ago. I’m told that even using the same colour numbers to the same mixture cannot guarantee a match and then, of course, there is the absence of lead which would have been used in the white base, certainly prior to the 1960s. As far as Alan’s pics go, to my eye neither is spot on and they illustrate the problem with scanners as the trolley is over saturated, the PD2 is about right for its age but the grass and houses look too pale. It wasn’t any simpler in the days of black and white. Red, for instance, could be rendered on film in good lighting conditions as anything from light grey to the deepest black depending on the film used.
Phil Blinkhorn
14/01/13 – 13:14
Well, what a range of colours when one looks down these posts! The original photo may not be accurate, but is probably my favourite, albeit allowing for my colour-blindness. But then, after red, my favourite colour is among the greys and I mean this most sincerely, folks. Now you’ll tell me it’s green! And that gloss on the lower deck panels – very impressive!
Chris Hebbron
14/01/13 – 14:22
I was born about half a mile away from this location, and both blues look pretty good to me! In reality, as has been stated before, BCT buses demonstrated great variations when it came to shade and gloss, as the colour did not wear well. However, there was no finer sight than a BCT vehicle straight out of the paint shops! I firmly believe that such speedy deterioration was worsened after the appointment of Mr Humpidge, in late 1951. He sought to reduce costs, and rightly so, but his elimination of cream bands, yellow lining, and later, grey roofs, seemed to emphasise this deterioration. The full glory of the earlier “Tattam” livery is a sight to behold, as can be witnessed on 746 at Sandtoft, but the irony is that the pre-war Prussian Blue was not so prone to deterioration. I was brought up though, with Tattam`s “New Blue” as inspired by the Southend loans, and I have this livery etched on my psyche from childhood! To me, the perfect example of a classic livery.
John Whitaker
06/07/13 – 07:02
Catching up with the threads on Bradford City Transport, I am not the only one to have heard the reasons for the early withdrawal of Regent Vs 121-125 and do believe it was because of higher fuel consumption caused by Monocontrol gearbox, which is the old Automatic v Manual car argument. Bradford Regent Vs received very bad reports mainly because the injector pipe clips were not replaced at overhaul, and the subsequent vibration caused pipes to fracture. I am told by someone in the know that a fitter was stationed in the city centre on a full time basis. The problem was later solved by re-designing the pipe ends so they were more akin to Gardner injector pipes. Having had the problem occur on preserved example 6220 KW, for the same reasons, I can assure readers that it still happens!!!. Most wet liner engines are suspect as the seal between cylinder block and cylinder liner is of vital importance in not allowing water into the sump. AV470 and 590 are no different to Bristol BVWs in this respect and they suffered from similar problems. On the subject of fuel consumption, BCT 224 and 225 were experimentally fitted with AV690 engines. Needless to say the experiment did not last long and no other vehicles were converted.
David Hudson
06/07/13 – 18:11
The Dennis O4 and O6 engines were of wet liner configuration, and reputedly gave very little trouble, despite being of advanced design with four valves per cylinder and having the timing gears located at the rear of the block. The post war smooth running O6 in particular proved very reliable, and became popular with independent operators who had only basic workshop facilities for maintenance, so it would seem that the engineering skills at Guildford were not matched by manufacturers elsewhere in Britain.
Roger Cox
01/05/18 – 06:12
From what I can remember from the 60s and 70s BCT brought in Scania’s to be used as the first O.M.O. bus and was viewed at Duckworth lane depot, they tried to incorporate a self pay right coinage machine on the front platform…
Mr Anon
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
18/12/18 – 07:22
Mr Anon mentions the Scania which ran in Bradford These were originally ordered by Leeds but all were diverted to Bradford by the PTE Like all Scania Metropolitans they were very prone to corrosion and had quite short lives with the PTE.
H W Hunter and Sons 1951/2 Leyland Titan PD2/12 Leyland H32/28RD
Standing at it’s terminus in Northumberland Square North Shields, this is one of two Leyland Titans (DJR 681 being the other) from the small independent of H W Hunter and Sons who were based in the Northumberland mining village of Seaton Delaval. The one in the shot above had a closed platform, I’m not sure if doors were fitted, whereas the other Titan DJR 681 was the more common open platform type. At the same time they had the Titans I’m pretty sure they also had two Leyland single deckers, but I can only trace JR 6600. That started life in 1937 with a Burlingham B35F, but was rebodied by ROE in 1954 as a B39C. Hunters had one route that ran from Seaton Delaval to North Shields via Holywell, Earsdon, Monkseaton, Whitley Bay and Preston Village. From Monday to Saturday it was an hourly service, but rather strangely it was every half hour on Sundays. As well as the service vehicles they also had coaches but I don’t know the exact number, but to the best of my knowledge I don’t think the fleet ever exceeded about twelve vehicles in total. The appearance of this one is nothing special by Hunters standards, they were always immaculately turned out and meticulously maintained, when running, they didn’t tick over, they purred.
DJR 681 – Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
ETY 912 – Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
DJR 681 was about 1948/9 vintage and was defiantly all Leyland, so presumably it was a H30/26R Titan PD2/1 (Edit from a Michael Elliott comment 03/12 it was a PD2/3). The registration for ETY 912 dates it at about 1951/2, it could be an all Leyland as well, but if you compare the two photos there are several differences so I cant say for certain that it is. The window surrounds are rounded off in the corners and have an altogether much softer line about them and the slide vents are totally different. As you can see the platform was enclosed on ETY 912 but I can’t quite make out if doors were fitted.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
02/12/12 – 11:10
ETY 912 is an example of the definitive Leyland Farington body which was the the refinement of Colin Bailey’s 1930s design that had already been updated as exemplified by DJR 681. The Farington first appeared in 1948 but wasn’t greeted with great enthusiasm so Leyland went away, thought again and produced a classic design.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/12/12 – 11:11
It’s unfortunate, Ronnie, that you don’t know who built the body on ETY. If someone else had posted the views, with the same uncertainty, I’d have suggested seeking your opinion! Leyland were still building bus bodies when ETY was built – I have gathered from other sources over the years that they stopped in about 1953 or 1954, so it could just be a very late one, with updated details. On the other hand, it could be a clone from Alexander or “Psalmsbury”: someone will tell us.
Pete Davies
02/12/12 – 11:15
A bit of digging shows that ETY 912 is a PD2/12 with 27ft 6in length fitted with synchromesh gear box and vacuum brakes. DJR 681 was delivered, according to “The Leyland Bus” in which it is pictured, in 1950. Unfortunately the caption doesn’t state the sub type.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/12/12 – 12:01
Among the original quartet of lady drivers at West Yorkshire’s Harrogate depot was a girl called Eileen Hunter who had a North Eastern accent – it might be my imagination, its around forty years ago, but I seem to recall hearing that she was some family relation of Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval. I wonder if anyone knows ??
Chris Youhill
02/12/12 – 14:16
It’s interesting, Chris, that you describe the young lady’s accent as North Eastern. I don’t know how true this is, but I have been told that a true “Geordie” is someone who hails from Newcastle Upon Tyne, while others are not “Geordies”. Someone from Gateshead, for example, is just someone from Gateshead . . .
Pete Davies
02/12/12 – 16:20
Lets not go down that road, Pete, Newcastle was in the County of Northumberland, whilst Gateshead was in Co. Durham, and its a bit like a true cockney being born within the sound of Bow Bells. However, amongst the older generation, people from Seaton Delaval have a very pronounced Northumbrian accent and they roll the letter ‘R’.
Ronnie Hoye
02/12/12 – 17:05
Okay, Ronnie. “R” as in Retreat, then! A Londoner by birth, but definitely not Cockney !!!!
Pete Davies
03/12/12 – 08:04
Looking at these glorious photos of the two Hunter’s PD2’s and their Leyland bodies, that on ETY having the characteristic Leyland taper to the front bay of what was to me the ultimate front engine rear entrance body style. I was in raptures over the superb livery of both buses and the obvious care and attention that must have been given to them. Their traditional (outside of this site that is an unacceptable word) style and appearance make today’s garish and seemingly uncoordinated liveries of the big groups look even more as though, as was said of the camel, they were designed by a committee.
Diesel Dave
03/12/12 – 08:06
DJR 681 was a Leyland Titan PD2/3, new in 1950 with a Leyland H30/26R body. It was built to the then permitted maximum dimensions for a two axle double deck bus of 26 feet long by 8 feet wide (the PD2/1 was 26 feet long by 7 feet 6 inches wide). During 1950 the Construction and Use regulations changed and the maximum length for a two axle double deck bus increased to 27 feet with the option of 7 feet 6 inch or 8 feet widths. The designations for the Titan incorporating these changes were PD2/10 (7’6″ wide) or PD2/12 (8’0″ wide). Triple servo vacuum brakes were fitted but it was around this time that Leyland was experiencing problems with its synchromesh gearbox and many PD2s were fitted with the constant mesh gearbox as used in the PD1.
Michael Elliott
03/12/12 – 08:08
A true Geordie is someone from the North East but north of the River Tyne. Back to ETY 912, this is definitely a Leyland body but from the design which was the last flowering of the classic Leyland body before Leyland pulled out of the bodybuilding business around 1954. A very attractive final development with inset rubber mounted windows that could have no doubt taken Leyland into the 1960’s if they had not stopped production. It always seemed a strange decision to me to quit while you are well ahead of the game with such a quality design with a strong market following. I did read somewhere that the decision was made because at that time Leyland needed the body shop floor space for lorry production.
Philip Halstead
03/12/12 – 10:41
Diesel Dave – Oh how I agree wholeheartedly with you – most of today’s totally meaningless and expensive “liveries” go totally un-noticed by the travelling public and its incomprehensible that the “marketing” fraternity have managed to gain such a stranglehold on common sense – and the railway companies are no better either !! Michael – I know just what you mean about the PD2 and PD3 “synchromesh” gearboxes having wrestled many a time with their unpredictable “rubbery clunking” – a sad comparison with the “Swiss watch precision” of the glorious PD1 (yes, I’m unashamedly biased as a lover and admirer of the PD1). Philip – Yes indeed the 27’0″ x 8’0″ final version of the Leyland body was indeed “the last flowering” and Mr. Samuel Ledgard must have felt a real glow of pride when, less than two months before he died, the arrival of PNW 91/2/3 took our operating area by storm.
Chris Youhill
03/12/12 – 13:59
Philip, the reason Leyland stopped bus body building was to concentrate on the production of lorry cabs which were quicker to build than a bus body and thus generated faster cash flow for the company which could both invoice for bus chassis as soon as they were complete and finish trucks more quickly. In my view it was a great loss to the industry.
Phil Blinkhorn
03/12/12 – 14:00
Having spoken to a couple of my former colleagues who ‘like me’ can remember ETY, I still cant say for certain whether or not it had doors. However, the general opinion seems to be that it did, but rather than the conventional 2×2 powered concertina type, they were similar to the two piece manually operated folding version fitted to some of the early Lodekka’s
Ronnie Hoye
04/12/12 – 07:12
Leyland probably did need greater capacity for lorry cab production, but I have heard that part of the reason for the cessation of bus bodybuilding was strained industrial relations, bus construction involving more inter craft disputes than cab work.
Roger Cox
04/12/12 – 07:13
My favourite Sheffield PD2s were the OWBs with this sort of Leyland bodywork – a true classis despite its slightly anachronistic five bay layout. For many years it was proclaimed as the ultimate Farington but some years ago more knowledgeable folk than I pointed out that, whatever it may be called, it isn’t a Farington. Nonetheless, as Phil said, a great loss to the industry when Leyland gave up on bodywork – especially of this calibre.
David Oldfield
04/12/12 – 08:14
I imagine this is the type you mean, David: www.flickr.com/ Very handsome.
Chris Hebbron
04/12/12 – 09:14
Certainly is, Chris. Thanks for that. It is the publicity shot made by Leyland, pre-delivery, and is in the experimental green livery which lasted less than 18 months. These were the only buses delivered in green – the whole batch – but many buses and trams were repainted in green (some with darker green bands). There was such an outcry that they were all repainted into cream and blue as soon as possible – the Leylands into the Farington/Roe scheme with more blue than usual. [The Roe Regent IIIs and Roberts trams, also delivered in 1952, were cream and blue.] There is a story, unsubstantiated, that there was so much green paint left over that lamp standards in Sheffield were painted green for many years. [That they were so painted is fact.]
David Oldfield
04/12/12 – 11:35
Good story, David, and these stories are often true. Interchangibility is one of the advantages of being a municipal enterprise, although the reverse situation wouldn’t have worked – Striped cream/blue lamp standards; I think not!
Chris Hebbron
04/12/12 – 11:37
Roger, there were some disputes as there were at many body builders at the time. Doug Jack, in “The Leyland Bus” states that the decision was to increase space for cab construction and, I understand, years ago when he when he was Director of BL Heritage he always maintained that demarcation disputes were not critical to the decision. With the de-nationalisation of road haulage under the Tories in 1954, the Leyland and AEC truck building received large numbers of orders and pressure for short delivery. Apart from the necessity of meeting those orders, bus body building was slowing at the same time as was Leyland’s commitment to what was a slow and more complex process, compared to truck cab building. No new coach design had emerged since 1950 and the single deck underfloor body of 1951 on the Royal Tiger had not been a success, so much so that the prototype/demonstrator Tiger Cubs of 1952 were bodied by Saunders Roe and Weymann, the integral Olympian had not been bodied in house and neither were the experimental Lowloaders, the contracts going to Saunders Roe and MCW. Colin Bailey’s classic double decker body had been refined but there is no evidence of a replacement being moved any further than a few sketches. As a company, Leyland was more interested in engine, drive train and chassis development and no doubt the faster cash flow generated by truck building helped fund the development of the Atlantean and more refined truck and bus gearboxes.
David, the use of the Farington name has long been a matter of debate. The 1948 refinement of Colin Bailey’s design brought in rounded window pan corners, flush glazing on rubber inserts and a number of other refinements, including the elimination of the external belt rails and mouldings below the windows, giving a much plainer and more modern look. This was called the Farington to distinguish it from the immediate post war version of the body which remained on the catalogue. Production was very limited, partly due to a backlog of orders for the original post war model and partly because reaction to the body was unenthusiastic. Manchester received some of the last in 1951/2 (3265-3299) which had sliding ventilators in some bays, separately mounted to the rest of the glazing, the lower glazing resembling the shape of the tins a famous brand of processed fish. That, plus the substitution of metal interior finish for Leyland’s and Manchester’s previous wooden interiors and not least that the ventilators and some panels rattled soon after delivery, gained them the epithet of “Salmon Cans” . The next incarnation appeared at the 1950 Commercial Motor Show with an example for Leicester based on the newly permitted 27ft vehicle length. This formed the basis of all future Leyland double deck bodies. The rounded windows pans and rubber inserts were retained but the flush mounting, which had received much criticism, was replace by a mounting slightly recessed which found greater favour with the industry and added to the looks of the design. Double skinning of the roof, all side panels and all metal interior finish completed the changes. This was the true Farington and the Hunter’s bus above exemplifies the breed which most have agreed over the years is a classic. There was one last version as supplied to amongst others, Manchester, BMMO, Plymouth and the final vehicles which went to Trent. Minor interior changes were made but the the most visible external change was the reduction in depth of the rear upper deck emergency exit windows. These were not officially Faringtons as the name seems to have been dropped from 1952. Regarding your comment on the “anachronistic” five bay layout, there are proponents on both sides of the debate in both the professional and enthusiast camps. Six bay construction certainly was anachronistic but the arguments for five bay have more than a degree of sense. My most detailed information and knowledge comes from three operators, Manchester, Stockport and North Western. Manchester never bought four bay designs for its traditional double deckers. The reasons I was given many years ago was that five bays gave more rigidity, replacement of glass and damaged body panels was cheaper and one engineer told me that the thinking in the Department was that five bay vehicles looked more “balanced” (tell that to fans of the London RT!). Certainly MCTD went out of their way with their Northern Counties orders to avoid that company’s standard four bay product. North Western, having had just one batch of four bay Weymann bodied PD2s, quickly returned to five bays with its next PD2 order and Stockport, which could have ordered a five bay version of the Crossley built Park Royal design for its 1958 PD2 deliveries, decided on the standard four bay design but quickly reverted to suppliers offering five bays for all future deliveries.
Phil Blinkhorn
04/12/12 – 15:41
Chris, I’m sure those who visited Hillsborough on a Saturday afternoon would have been happy to see blue and cream striped lamp standards in that part of Sheffield
Andrew
05/12/12 – 07:20
Good point, Andrew!
Chris Hebbron
05/12/12 – 08:05
Continuing the deviation onto Sheffield’s OWB-series PD2/10s, four of these were bought by Oldham Corporation. I thought these looked particularly splendid in their crimson and white colour scheme as seen on 477 at the front. Two of them were repainted (actually in the early days of SELNEC) into the later pommard and cream and still looked good as seen on 475 in the background. This is the vehicle seen in green in the official Leyland photograph linked to earlier and therefore carried four very different liveries in its life. Taken on 14th February 1970 I can readily identify all the buses in the row behind 475 and what a good rally contingent they would make. The first is an earlier ex-Sheffield PD2/1, almost certainly Oldham’s 465 (LWE 110). Next is the sole remaining PD1/3 246 (DBU 246), then PD2/3 342 (EBU 872) identifiable by its vestigial offside number blind, the last one to retain this. Both of these had Roe bodies. Last and just visible is ex-Bolton PD2/4 472 (DBN 330), meaning that all three principal styles of post-war Leyland DD body are represented in this line-up.
David Beilby
05/12/12 – 09:14
Andrew, with OWLS as the decorative finial, no doubt!!!
Pete Davies
05/12/12 – 09:16
Another memory jogged by David B’s Oldham photo. How many Leyland bodies had sliding cab doors? I’d forgotten about that on 656-667 and I’m sure no other Sheffield Leyland bodies had sliding cab doors.
David Oldfield
05/12/12 – 11:04
Pity WL was not a Sheffield mark eh Pete?
David Oldfield
05/12/12 – 11:58
David, The mark which was really required in Sheffield was LS, then any number ending in 0 in front of WLS reversed, if that could have been reached would have been cherished.
Andrew
05/12/12 – 12:00
500 London RTWs had sliding cab doors but, other than the Sheffield PD2s I can’t bring any too mind.
Phil Blinkhorn
05/12/12 – 13:54
Certainly would, Andrew – and we all know how much support the OWLS need…..
David Oldfield
05/12/12 – 17:35
I cant say that I’ve ever seen one of this type with a sliding cab door. The first to have them in the NGT Group were the Weymann bodied GUY Arab 111’s of 1952, they were also the first 8ft wide vehicles, but the first Orion bodied PD2’s delivered to both Newcastle Corporation and Sunderland District both had hinge mounted doors.
Ronnie Hoye
06/12/12 – 07:04
Yorkshire Woollen Guy Arab 1 fleet number 483 was new in 1943 with a Massey utility body was rebodied in 1948 with a Brush body. This bus had a sliding cab door. It has never been explained why this bus gained this body when the rest of the wartime Guys were rebodied by Roe.
Philip Carlton
07/12/12 – 06:50
Strange how fallible the memory is isn’t it? I well remember travelling on the two Hunter’s double deckers [I lived in Preston Village] but can’t remember the door arrangement. The original comment about the Sunday service is not so very surprising when you know that Whitley was a very popular holiday resort in those days, both in and out of season. The buses and trains were well used at the weekends. I too am sure Hunters had single deckers at the time but sadly do not remember any details.
John Thompson
10/12/12 – 08:00
I thought you may find this interesting. Apart from the information on the front the only addition on the back is a Northumberland County Council Archives stamp. Hunters were established in 1926 so the picture was taken the following year, it gives no information as to who the two people actually are, but its not unlikely that its H W Hunter himself standing next to his first bus?
Ronnie Hoye
09/01/13 – 10:35
I am certain that ETY 912 did not have doors, and I am certain that there was another single-decker identical to JR 6600. It was quite common in the area in the 1950s for bus services to be more frequent at the weekend. United service 40, for example, from Blyth to Whitley Bay via Seaton Delaval was every two hours Monday to Friday and every hour Saturday and Sunday. In mining settlements like Seaton Delaval the men would walk or cycle to work in the colliery Monday to Friday, and women would be at home or walk to the Co-op for shopping. Saturdays and Sundays were the days for travelling further afield to visit relatives, go to the cinema, hospital visiting and the like. Hunter’s coped with the extra weekend work by employing part-time staff who worked for NCB during the week. Sometimes on a Saturday the garage would be empty as all four buses and four coaches would be out on the road. Monday to Friday only one or two of the buses would be out.
Paul Robson
07/07/13 – 13:57
I used to travel regularly on Hunter’s bus when I lived in Preston Village. It was the only bus to actually run down Front Street. I can confirm that ETY 912 did not have doors. The weekday service was every hour from North Shields to Seaton Delaval (departing Northumberland Square at -45 each hour), but for most of the day there was an additional bus between Delaval and Whitley Bay giving a half-hourly service on that part of the route. The half-hourly through service from Shields ran on Saturdays and Sundays, but I seem to remember on Sundays it only started in the middle of the day. I remember being told the more frequent service was to serve visitors to Preston Hospital. Hunter’s used hand-written Bell Punch tickets which seemed very odd.
Percy Trimmer
20/05/14 – 10:37
Some months ago someone asked if was connection between Hunters of Tantobie in Durham and that of Hunters of Seaton Delaval Northumberland. Available on ebay is a photo of a Hunters coach of Seaton Delaval showing Flint Hill. I took it that Flint Hill is Durham not Northumberland. Unless the information with ebay photo is incorrect. Anyone know the answer, separate companies? A photo appears on Leylandleopard ebay listing showing OUP 425D a Vam to Hunters of Seaton Delaval.
Alan Coulson
20/05/14 – 16:29
The vehicle depicted in the photo advertised on eBay is OPT 425D, a Strachans bodied Bedford VAM new to Hunter’s of Tantobie in August 1966. It certainly isn’t depicted in Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval livery, so it would appear that the photograph seller simply assumed the wrong operator. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hunters-Seaton-Delaval
David Call
21/05/14 – 08:11
David Call. Thank you for your reply. Sorry about incorrect registration detail.
Alan Coulson
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
13/11/21 – 06:19
Pete Davies (02/12/12): ETY 912 had a Leyland body, and, according to BLOTW, was new in 12/51. The last traditional Leyland bodies (i.e. not including those built at Workington many years later) were on PD2s for Trent, the last of which entered service in 1/55. Leyland stopped taking orders a couple of years or so earlier, but ETY 912 easily made the cut. The bodies built by Alexander and Samlesbury under contract to Leyland were, with one exception I believe, on PD1 chassis, and dated from 1946-8.
South Notts Bus Co Ltd 1951 Leyland Titan PD2/12 Leyland L53R
A fine array of Leyland Titans caught in Loughborough Bus Station in early 1970. On the left is South Notts. 48 (MRR 338) a PD2/12 with Leyland L27/26R body new in 1951. Behind it is one of their PD3’s with unusual Northern Counties forward entrance lowbridge bodies. To the right is Barton 834 (DJF 349), a venerable PD1 with Leyland H30/26R body, new to Leicester City Transport as its 248 in 1946, and purchased by Barton in 1959.
That’s a lovely surprise on a Sunday morning! Loughborough was one of my regular haunts in the early 1970s and your photograph made me feel that I’d travelled back in time. South Notts were a classy act and one of my favourite independents. By 1973 I was living in Nottingham, got married there (on a very low budget) and travelled from the registry office to the reception aboard a South Notts Lowlander from Broadmarsh to Clifton. Fond memories. If I ever get round to writing “Independent Buses in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire” (should be around 2015 if I’m still compus menti by then!), I’d love to use this image on the front cover.
Neville Mercer
27/01/13 – 12:36
No problem Neville.
John Stringer
27/01/13 – 12:37
Neville, I didn’t know such a thing was in the pipeline. That’s a lovely surprise for me on a Sunday morning! Having been born and bred on the Derbys/Notts border, I have memories of some of the operators and a great fascination for the ones which were before my time. I wish you the best of luck with it and look forward to it very eagerly indeed!
Chris Barker
27/01/13 – 16:32
One of my favourite independents too, Neville, having lived in Loughborough and surrounds since 1968! I do vaguely remember riding on this bus, and, more vividly, the later Weymann bodied ones. A truly fascinating and well run fleet, and a garage at Gotham which I could never drive past. I do have a full fleet list for South Notts, should anyone be interested, and I would love to know of any progress on the (LT2?) Lion at Ruddington.
John Whitaker
28/01/13 – 13:35
The PD2 was almost certainly operating as a duplicate to the PD3. South Notts always operated a duplicates policy, rather than improving the basic frequency, with the result that at busy times one advertised journey could consist of five buses. The two from Loughborough would be joined by a further one from East Leake, yet another from Gotham and a final one from Clifton. When Nottingham City Transport took over the business, the frequency was increased to a regular 15 minute interval between Nottingham and Loughborough with no increase in the vehicle output required. What this view also shows is how attractive the final Leyland body design was even in lowbridge format. With other manufacturers, the lowbridge version looked too much like a squeezed version of the highbridge original.
Alan Murray-Rust
29/01/13 – 06:44
I wonder if the duplication policy was due to fact that in those regulated days they probably would have had any application to increase frequencies refused. Three different operators ran three different routes and although it’s unlikely that Barton, being a close associate, would have objected, perhaps Trent would have raised an objection on the grounds that increased frequency could have abstracted end to end users. I’m sure British Rail would have objected too. Nevertheless, for anyone wishing to travel from Loughborough to Nottingham, what a fabulous choice of vehicles!
Chris Barker
29/01/13 – 10:05
My word Alan, FIVE vehicles on one scheduled departure !! I thought we probably held the record at Samuel Ledgard’s with four (all double deckers as a rule) on the 5.30 pm weekday departure from Leeds (King Street) to Ilkley. First in line was the 5.27pm to Rawdon (app 8 miles) followed by the 5.28pm to Guiseley White Cross (app 10 miles) and 5.29pm and 5.30pm to Ilkley (16 miles), the latter being the normal service vehicle. All were very well loaded at the terminus stop and, once on the road, virtually a full load was carried on each. These were the days when, other than monthly contract tickets, almost every passenger paid the full fare, or used the homeward journey on Workman Returns, and operators knew where they stood as far as revenue and outgoings stood.
Chris Youhill
29/01/13 – 15:18
You’re so right, Chris B. They were not such halcyon days for small operators, with the Traffic Commissioners to contend with and protectionism reigning supreme, not always in the passengers’ interest. You only have to read the book about Basil Williams (Hants & Sussex) fights to see the difficulties. I know some folk dislike/despise deregulation, but the previous system was far from perfect. In modern parlance, we need a ‘middle way’!
Chris Hebbron
29/01/13 – 15:19
Chris B may well be right. I certainly don’t think Barton would have objected – their Nottingham to Loughborough 10 was too long and circuitous, and probably little used for through journeys.(The ex-Leicester PD1 is a Kegworth short working – the through service was invariably a coach). From Nottingham the route was Beeston, Chilwell, Long Eaton, Kegworth, Sutton Bonington and Hathern (with some journeys also diverting to serve Lockington, Hemington and/or Kingston on Soar). Overall journey time was about 1 hour 20. Trent with their route 66 (straight down the A60) was the competitor for direct journeys.
Stephen Ford
29/01/13 – 18:05
Chris H, we had a middle way. The Fowler Transport Act of 1980 was trumpeted for its deregulation of coach services, but this much publicised feature masked a much more important change – the presumption in favour of applicants for Road Service Licences, which replaced the often insurmountable bias towards existing licence holders. The old stranglehold of the big companies was removed at a stroke. Deregulation had nothing to do with improving the state of the bus industry. It was driven by Ridley’s rabid hatred of state enterprise, and his determination to inflict damage upon the large Transport and General Workers’ Union, and thus Labour Party funding. His motivation was totally political. Deregulation has been a disaster. Remember Darlington Corporation and similar instances of bullying by the big boys. We now have powerful regional monopolies that can do exactly as they please and charge the public whatever they wish.
Roger Cox
30/01/13 – 06:19
If I recall correctly, Roger, the Fowler Act did introduce limited de-regulation and with it introduced government subsidies for services for which reasonable fares were being charged, but which were unprofitable. However, certain very Left-Wing Labour authorities (GLC, Merseyside and South Yorkshire are three that come to mind) cynically ‘milked ‘ the subsidy system by charging unreasonably low fares and producing loss-making situations and would not respond to government edicts to put the fares up again. The drain on the public purse was such that a government reaction was inevitable. And the rest, as they say, is history!
Chris Hebbron
30/01/13 – 06:20
I understand that under Road Service Licensing duplicate journeys could be operated up to five minutes in advance of a scheduled departure and up to five minutes after a scheduled departure without the need to register the additional journeys. This arrangement was used by Barton Transport in the late forties and early fifties, I further understand, on their Nottingham to Derby service thus turning a 15 minute service into a five minute service at various times on a Saturday.
Michael Elliott
30/01/13 – 11:29
As a regular on the Nottingham to Loughborough service in 1972-74 I can assure you that South Notts received very little “end to end” competition from the Trent operation – the fares at that time were almost double those of South Notts and the journey time almost the same. And people still wonder why I prefer independents!
Neville Mercer
30/01/13 – 11:30
I believe there was a legal requirement that vehicles operating duplicate journeys had to display a sign indicating such. Many operators simply displayed DUPLICATE on the destination screen, in the case of Trent, most of their half cab vehicles had a small hinged cast plate under the canopy which could be folded down when required. By the time of John’s photograph, does anyone know if this requirement had been rescinded?
Chris Barker
30/01/13 – 13:55
I was also going to mention Trent’s duplicate plates. Many operators just used the destination blind, which was fine as long as the bus was immediately behind the vehicle it was shadowing, but that didn’t always happen. I remember my mum having a row with the conductress after boarding a bus so destined at Ollerton, when returning to Nottingham. After presenting her (Trent) return ticket, the conductress asked “Can’t you read? This is the Mansfield bus.” “Well that’s not what it says on the front.” “Oh yes it is.” “Oh no it isn’t” “Oh yes it is.” “Well stop the bus and go and look for yourself then!”
Stephen Ford
30/01/13 – 17:34
Chris, there is nothing wrong in principle with the support of public transport with public funds. The rail system receives enormous sums in support, and Transport for London receives a hugely disproportionate subsidy in comparison with the provinces. The effect of deregulation upon bus patronage in metropolitan areas has been devastating, and having wreaked their damage in the cause of profiteering, several of the big groups are now withdrawing from major provincial conurbations and smaller urban concentrations. It isn’t that these areas cannot be run profitably. It is because the operators seek excessive margins to show eye watering profits in their annual reports to keep the City financiers happy and hence the share price high.
Roger Cox
31/01/13 – 06:01
Some of the half cab saloons of Yorkshire Woollen notably the large batch of Brush bodied Leyland PS1s had a pull down plate proclaiming Duplicate Car.
Philip Carlton
31/01/13 – 06:02
Well said, Roger! In addition to the demands of the shareholders, there’s the small matter of clowns like the OFT who object to a sale of depot from firm A to firm B because A isn’t making enough there to satisfy said shareholders. They say it’s uncompetitive, and A shuts depot anyway, thus saving firm B the agreed several £££££££. Can someone give me the date and time of the revolution?
Pete Davies
31/01/13 – 06:03
When Trent bought Barton’s “buses business” why didn’t they purchase Barton’s shareholding in South Notts? And then later, why did Trent allow South Notts to fall into the hands of NCT? Their actions with regard to the recent disposal by the Felix company of its stage-carriage service were completely different – and from what I’ve read above the South Notts operation must have been quite a money-spinner. Why did Trent (feel able to?) let this slip their grasp?
Philip Rushworth
01/02/13 – 06:14
By the time NCT acquired the assets, services and good will of the South Notts Bus Company but not the Company itself in March 1991, South Notts had been subject to severe and sustained competition, since May 1990, on its East Leake – Nottingham service and its Clifton Estate services from Kinch-Line. This competition caused both Arthur Dabell, the South Notts MD, and the Board of Barton Transport plc (Barton Transport plc having retained its shareholding in South Notts when it sold its own bus business to Wellglade Ltd in 1989) to say that action was needed to resolve the financial losses that South Notts was now suffering. The action was to sell out to NCT, with whom South Notts had maintained good relations since October 1986. I’ve often wondered why support for South Notts on its service between East Leake and Nottingham gave way when Kinch-Line started to compete. As a former resident of Clifton, but way before Kinch-Line arrived, I can say that there was a tendency to catch the first bus that came along whether it was NCT, West Bridgford or South Notts so there was not the same brand ‘loyalty’ there. Maybe the money South Notts made on its Clifton services, always charged at NCT fares, which were not excessive, had for many years given it a financial cushion allowing support of its cheap fare policy on the main line service. Since the 1985 re-organisation of the Clifton services (allowing NCT to introduce 100% driver only operation on its Clifton services) South Notts had 100% operation of the 67 and 68 via Trent Bridge, and its was these two services that were subject to Kinch-Line competition. There was talk of privately expressed surprise by South Notts ‘management’ back in 1968, when West Bridgford sold out to NCT, that West Bridgford couldn’t make money on ‘Cliftons’. We shall probably now never know why South Notts didn’t trade on its ‘good name’ and long tradition of serving the East Leake – Nottingham corridor to counter Kinch-Line back in 1990. Did Barton Transport plc want their money out while there was something left to sell?
Michael Elliott
01/02/13 – 06:14
Philip, An interesting question which I’m unable to answer but a perfect illustration of the old saying ‘What goes around comes around’ occurred this week. Trent abandoned their old Nottingham to Loughborough service many years ago but when Premiere Buses of Nottingham collapsed last Friday, Kinchbus, which belongs to Wellglade, who own Trent, stepped in and have now taken over operation of the No.9 service which was partly the old Trent service and partly the old BMMO X99. The difference is that the old Trent 65/66 used to deviate via Wymeswold and was basically every two hours between Nottingham and Loughborough, todays service which retains No.9 with Kinchbus is half-hourly and by operating direct between Rempstone and Loughborough, about twenty minutes has been lopped off the running time. So you could say the service has come back to Trent’s parent group and in response to Neville’s comment, I don’t think Wellglade will be charging the fares that Premiere charged for very long!
Chris Barker
20/05/13 – 16:52
Kinch (under its Wellglade ownership) was already running a Loughborough to Nottingham service via the A60 before Premiere travel came along. So although they took over the Premiere no. 9 service, they were already there. The BMMO X99 service did not run through Loughborough but followed the route of the old A453 – Birmingham/Sutton/Tamworth/Ashby/Nottingham. This route number was later revived by Arriva on a service from Shepshed to Nottingham via Loughborough but was discontinued some years ago
Brian Binns
21/05/13 – 12:06
Brian, The Kinch service 9 which competed with Premiere was withdrawn in March 2012; Premiere then had the route to themselves, until they ceased trading on 25 January 2013. Kinch reappeared on the route the following day.
Bob Gell
10/09/14 – 07:00
Digressing along the late, lamented X99 route for a moment, the diversion via Loughborough predated Arriva. A basic summary is that when Midland Red was split in 1981, the X99 continued to be operated by Tamworth and Coalville garages, which were allocated to MR (North) and MR (East) respectively and thus the X99 became a joint operation. Some time between around deregulation, possibly during the 1987 “Night of the Long Knives” MR (North) pulled off the X99, leaving what was by then Midland Fox in sole charge. Fox retrenched in turn, pulling the X99 out of Birmingham and reduced the service to Ashby to Nottingham, which it extended at one end to Coalville and diverted via Loughborough, pulling off the traditional route via Castle Donington. I lost track of it by the 1990s, losing interest in buses for a decade or two, but I seem to recall the route ended up running as the 99 and didn’t last too long once Fox was Arriva-d and the money-men took over, turning the whole Arriva bus operation nationwide into First-with-a-prettier-livery.
Ross
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
31/01/17 – 07:22
Thanks for the memories. My Mother was a friend of Chris Dabell’s wife and they often travelled together on the South Notts bus to Loughborough or Nottingham. Mrs Dabell would remark that “Chris would sooner see a bus filled with happy passengers enjoying the trip than putting up fares and having a lesser number of passengers. I often booked South Notts for the Sunday School outings and sometimes got alternative quotes. The South Notts were always the best price, and obligingly picked up people in the village and dropped them of at different points on the return to East Leake. South Notts also supplied buses to Skills on their Scarborough and Bridlington Saturday runs also a Yorkshire firm(?) Boddy’s would help on that run. South Notts were always the last buses to stop running in bad weather (fog, smog, snow amd floods.) Other companies withdrew services early in the day which meant that the school passengers were allowed to leave school early. South Notts just kept running …… no early school leaving for us. Duplicate busses, always on Saturdays. South Notts also “delivered” newspapers to villages on the Nottm to Lougborough route!. (and parcels collected at the various bus stops). South Notts did have a rival during and after the war. A bus came from Nottingham to East Leake every morning and evening. This bus brought staff to the “Control Centre” at East Leake Station. This bus (can’t remember the operator) was some times a double decker and made the journey via Ruddington and Wilford Hill. A real treat for us as children to travel on a “foreign route”. I recall the first Double decker. Which had been repaired on the top half using a panel from a Wigan Corporation bus. The panel had been painted South Notts blue, but the Wigan Corporation logo was visible through the paint. Happy memories
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Tynemouth and District 1957 Leyland Titan PD2/12 Willowbrook H35/28R
I think many of the job lot of anonymous photos I purchased must have come from the same source as the same locations crop up on a regular basis. Once again we are at the Whitley Bay Bandstand Terminus of the service 8 to North Shields Ferry Landing. Its been mentioned before about the amount of freedom Northern General Transport allowed its subsidiaries, and here we have a typical example. This is a 1957 H35/28R Willowbrook bodied Leyland PD2/12, one of 5 bought by Tynemouth and District, they were AFT 49/53 fleet numbers 219/23. About this time Northern ordered quite a number of PD2’s, 12 were rear door Park Royal’s originally for Sunderland District but diverted to Northern for use on longer routes shared with United, the remainder were Orion bodied, but as far as I’m aware these were the only Willowbrook bodied versions. The photo would be no earlier than about 1960 as by now the bus has been repainted and the top is red, where as it would have been cream when first delivered. They had the same O600 engine as the later PD3’s and were much lighter and far livelier, but they did bounce quite a lot, especially when running light. However, they had one big advantage over the PD3, a prayer book was not necessary as they were a lot less reluctant to stop when asked to do so.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
30/01/13 – 15:10
Nice view, Ronnie. Thanks for sharing. I agree entirely with your comments about the management style of the old Northern General. It continues today with the Go Ahead Group where, for example, it seems to be at the depot manager’s discretion whether the “We’re part of the Go Ahead Group” appears in the window or not. The opposite end of the scale when comparing with – certainly one of if not both – of the big groups based in Scotland!
Solent Blue Line 1963 Leyland Titan PD2A/30 Massey H31/26R
This PD2A/30 was new to Exeter City Transport in 1963, with Massey H57R bodywork. In this first view she was with Solent Blue Line, a subsidiary of Southern Vectis, established by two disgruntled managers of Southampton Citybus in 1987. Most of the time, 01 was the training vehicle, but she did operate peak journeys on some routes, notably between Southampton City Centre and the Thornhill Estate. A colleague who had the misfortune to travel on her on these occasions described her as a wreck. The current version of that route uses Mercedes Citaros! This view was taken at the Netley rally on 23 July 1989.
Copyright Pete Davies
In this second view, also at Netley, but on 12 July 1992, she has been restored to her previous Exeter condition. What a difference a coat of paint and a bit of care can make!
In case anyone was wondering, the bus alongside in the second view is the Maidstone & District Atlantean, 558LKP.
Pete Davies
01/02/13 – 06:19
In the “as restored” photograph she seems to have an enclosed platform (with doors?), whilst in the earlier photograph she has an open platform . . .
Philip Rushworth
01/02/13 – 07:37
Looking at other photos on the web this seems to be a removable doorway to allow the owner to secure the vehicle on trips. There are plenty of pictures of it as restored without doors.
David Beilby
01/02/13 – 08:40
Our moderator and I were wondering how soon readers would notice the presence or absence of a platform door! 1hr 14mins is pretty good going David.
Premier Travel (Cambridge) 1950 Leyland Titan PD2/3 East Lancs. FL27/26RD
Photographed in Drummer Street, Cambridge in 1970, this was one of eleven former Ribble ‘White Lady’ PD2’s, new in 1950 and purchased by Premier Travel in 1962. Around the same time that Ribble were taking delivery of these, Premier Travel had taken into its fleet three Daimler CVD6’s with uncommon Wilkes & Meade full-fronted double-deck coach type bodies with front ends and other styling features clearly influenced by the Ribble vehicles. The Daimlers were not a success and did not have long lives, but clearly still impressed with the White Lady styling PT’s management seem to have jumped at the chance of grabbing as many as possible when they came onto the second hand market. This one was withdrawn in 1972.
Thanks for posting, John. I have photos of others of this batch and find it to be an unusual – if not unique – way of using the Ribble ‘square triangle’ indicator display.
Pete Davies
24/02/13 – 12:39
Here is a photo of one of the Daimler CVD6/Wilkes & Meade vehicles. See: this link.
Chris Hebbron
25/02/13 – 07:19
The three Wilks and Meade (there is no ‘e’ in Wilks) bodied Daimler CVD6 “County” class double deck coaches, were delivered in 1950 and withdrawn in 1964 (HVE 401) and 1966 (HVE 402/3). The Ribble White Ladies arrived in January 1962, and thus ran alongside the CVDs only for a maximum of four years. The Wilks and Meade bodies on the Daimlers were of very poor quality, and had to be extensively rebuilt using new framing by Premier Travel in its own workshops. The Leylands and their East Lancs bodies were much better buses, and lasted with Premier for eight to eleven years. Paul Carter’s book on Premier Travel (Capital Transport) is the comprehensive history for anyone interested in this operator.
Roger Cox
25/02/13 – 07:22
As Roger Cox has correctly pointed out on the page on this very forum devoted to the bodybuilder Wilks & Meade, that is the correct spelling, rather than the much more frequently quoted Wilkes & Meade. If in doubt, refer to the OBP page devoted to Wallace Arnold – the evidence is there for all to see, in glorious black & white!
David Call
28/07/14 – 07:53
In the background can be seen one of Primitive Travel’s, sorry – Premier Travel’s, ex Devon General AEC Reliance buses (VDV xxx). These were acquired during 1970, so this and the presence of the ECOC LKH dates the picture to no earlier then the summer (note the leafy trees) of 1970 and no later than 1972* when DCK 212 went to Wally Smith’s scrapyard at Thriplow. *The LKH is almost certainly 168 as by this time it was one of just two surviving K’s in Cambridge; the other, 269, bore adverts between decks whereas 168 didn’t towards the end. But whether 168 or 269, the final demise of the Cambridge K’s narrows the date of the picture down to 1970-71. On the Wilks & Meade bodies, the problem was the use of unseasoned timber in their construction. This was a common problem in the early postwar years and by no means confined to PT’s Daimlers. One of the three PT Daimlers, HVE 401 “County of Cambridge” spent many years after withdrawal quietly decomposing at the rear of PT’s Godmanchester depot. It was later kept company by one of the ex LT RF’s and a Burlingham Seagull coach. The nameplate from HVE 401 (these were small ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ things mounted above the radiator grille) ended up in the late Mr Lainson’s then office at 15 Market Hill; maybe the other two also ended up there but I don’t know.
Darren Kitson
14/07/18 – 07:09
I worked at Premier Travel, Chrishall for approx., 12 years. First as a conductor, then a bus driver. Working for a small company was a pleasure, and I made a lot of good lifetime friends, in fact it was more like a family.I am still interested in old photo’s or books, and would willingly help anyone wishing to fill in about routes run by them. A Mr. Grice ran the Chrishall depot for the whole of my time, and a more dedicated man you would not wish to meet, working far more than the normal hours today, and 7 days a week.
Mention has been made elsewhere on this site of Manchester 3494 getting beheaded at the Bridgewater Canal and gaining the body from 3363, the chassis of which had been damaged in an accident. The above photo is a photo of 3494 with its original Burlingham body shown at the top of Kenyon Lane, Moston at the Ben Brierley in 1966.
This next photo was taken when Keith Walker, Peter Thompson and I were visiting Parrs Wood depot in March 1969 and shows 3494 with its Leyland Farringdon body from 3363. It was good to see the name of Malcolm Crowe on the Old Bus Photos site. Malcolm was one of the people who introduced me to buses outside Britain and although his photos of Portugal were a revelation, I have unfortunately never been able to get there. I’ve been to a lot of other places but still want to get to Portugal. Peter Dorricott mentioned that when he was driving at Birchfields Rd depot he was told that bus restoration took place in one of the disused entrances. My former English Teacher at Plant Hill Comprehensive, Miss Bates had a boyfriend who was involved in the restoration of Manchester tram 765 and through her, Geoff Guinn and I were invited to Birchfields Rd one evening to see work on 765. It was a fantastic piece of restoration work. Later of course 765 ran at Heaton Park and Crich. Mention of old coach operators and going on tours from newsagents brought to mind some of the usual operators used to get from New Moston to Scarborough, Blackpool, Morecambe and Southport. Wilsons Coaches of Failsworth had a Maudslay half-cab which I remember well but of course by the time I was old enough to understand how rare and beautiful it was, it had gone, although I was later told it was lying in a corner of the their garage. The other local operator was Threlfall’s, evidently related to the beer concern.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Lynas
15/03/13 – 08:40
Ian, I presume you are in possession of a higher-resolution photo of the bus passing the Ben Brierley and therefore in a position to state with confidence that it is actually 3494 which is depicted. Looking at the above pic I would have guessed at other than 3494, but one of my ‘alternatives’ wouldn’t have been a TNA so that would obviously be out. ‘Farringdon’ should of course be ‘Farington’ – and yes, I am not going to let myself be roped in to the perennial debate regarding which Leyland bodies were genuine ‘Faringtons’! Talking of Leyland bodies, does anyone know (I suspect that I should really know the answer to this one myself) if a Leyland body was ever fitted to other than a Leyland chassis? I’m pretty sure that Leyland never put one of their bodies on anyone else’s chassis, but did any operators do any transferring?
David Call
15/03/13 – 08:41
The photograph of 3494 was taken on the occasion of a visit to Parr’s Wood garage on 15th March 1969 by a PSV Circle tour to commemorate the last Manchester PD1/3s. There were plenty of people travelling as there were two PD1/3s and also Daimler CVG6 4127 (now preserved)! I have a similar photograph, but not very good as it was taken with an Instamatic camera. After the closure of Parr’s Wood garage 3494 moved to Hyde Road and I find I noted it working on the express services to Saddleworth on occasions. I wish I’d made the effort to photograph it! To the right of the bus is the former Midland Railway route to London from Manchester which closed about that time. It has since been converted to a Metrolink route, but has not yet opened (that’s a few months away). Parr’s Wood garage itself closed in 1970 and is now a Tesco supermarket – all that’s left of the original is the clock tower.
David Beilby
15/03/13 – 11:13
Ian, thanks for posting those shots. Have you a date, at least to the month, of the shot of the Burlingham body? The reason I ask is that 3494 was, as far as I remember, a Parrs Wood vehicle for a good deal of its life in both guises. The accident took place in October 1966 on route 22, a Parrs Wood route, so what is 3494 doing very much in Rochdale Rd depot territory, sans offside nut guard ring anathema at Parrs Wood at the time)? Another point of interest is the position of the registration plate. As far back as March 1958 MCTD wrote to Burlingham pointing out that, as radiator shells were sometimes exchanged, plates should be placed on the body and this was done from the July 1958 onwards deliveries (3495 – delayed from February – and 3503 onwards). There’s a picture in The Manchester Bus of Orion bodied PD2 3611 carrying its correct plate UNB 611) on the front cab panel at the same time as it has TNA 480 on a plate on an obviously swapped radiator shell from Burlingham bodied PD2 3480. Given all of that it’s odd that 3494 still has its plate on the radiator after eight years and a visit for major overhaul and total respray. Indeed preserved 3496 which is preserved as it was after respray into the all red scheme still has its plate on the radiator as it was after withdrawal.
In the light of David Call’s comment and my suspicions, I’ve played around with the photo and used a magnifying glass and the shot with the Burlingham body looks like 3484, which would make sense as it was allocated to either Rochdale Rd or Queens Rd – I think it was the former.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/03/13 – 12:15
I’ve long had the idea – without any substantiation – that the Burlingham bodies supplied to Manchester were rather more upright (Orion fashion) than those they supplied to Ribble. How far adrift from reality am I this time
Pete Davies
15/03/13 – 14:50
Interesting question from David Call. I wonder what the response from Leyland would have been if someone had asked them to body a chassis other than one of their own! But yes, the wonderful Green Bus Company of Rugeley, Staffs created one when they rebodied a Foden which had been a coach with a Leyland d/d body, both of which were pre-war. So there you are, a Leyland bodied Foden, if only a picture existed!
Chris Barker
15/03/13 – 14:51
Pete, you are absolutely correct. The front profile was to Manchester’s own upright design, the window radii were slightly reduced and the rear profile was also more upright.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/03/13 – 16:35
Referring to David Call’s question about non-Leyland chassis carrying Leyland bodies, Bamber Bridge Motor Service created such a vehicle. In 1950, they acquired BRD 755, a 1943 Guy Arab I 5LW/Strachans L27/28R ex Reading Corporation. In 1953, they rebodied it with the Leyland L27/26R body from Leyland TD4 ATD 596, which they had bought new in 1935. That Leyland chassis and the discarded Strachans body were scrapped. The Guy gave a couple of years more service to BBMS before passing to Leak, Preston in 1955, and going for scrap in 1956.
David Williamson
15/03/13 – 17:55
To the best of my knowledge no new Leyland body went on other makes of chassis. CIE built their own version of the standard Leyland body with three screens upstairs at the front – including on PD3s. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there were also examples of this body built new on to AEC and Daimler chassis.
David Oldfield
16/03/13 – 07:31
CIE had a great mixture of their own versions of Leyland’s Colin Bailey designed body, all most all of which retained the original 1930s single pane upper deck rear emergency exit window see: www.busesinireland.com/1 and www.busesinireland.com/2 There were a number of two and three pane front upper deck window variants as well as five, six and SEVEN bay body construction. Some were totally anachronistic such as the SEVEN bay, three pane OPD3s see: www.busesinireland.com/3 Some AR class Regents did not have Leyland style bodies see: www.busesinireland.com/4 These were delivered ckd for GNR(I) but I can’t definitively confirm the bodybuilder though I suspect Park Royal. Half of these were subsumed into the CIE fleet when GNR(I) was split between CIE and Ulsterbus. Those imported in 1946/7 for CIE did have a Leyland style body see: www.nationaltransportmuseum.org I haven’t found a picture of any of the six DR class Daimler CWD6s but as the chassis and bodies were supposedly delivered ckd from the UK I very much doubt they would have had anything resembling a Leyland body though I’d love to see a photo if they did!.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/03/13 – 08:49
CIE’s three AA-class Regent Vs had Leyland-style bodies, and they were seven-bay (like the RA-class PD3s). Here’s a pic www.busweb.co.uk/
David Call
16/03/13 – 14:50
Nice find David. I assume the lack of lower deck windows towards the rear was because the space on the lower deck offside was used for luggage – not to mention the assorted livestock and parcel deliveries CIE used to handle, even in the cities.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/03/13 – 18:47
In the early postwar period, Alexander built some bodies of Leyland design under licence and Cardiff had a batch of Crossley DD42’s delivered new with this style of bodywork. Although not strictly Leyland bodies they were Leyland in appearance and gave a good impression of what a Leyland body looks like on a non-Leyland chassis.
Philip Halstead
17/03/13 – 05:54
One thing I didn’t think to mention about the CIE AAs was that their initial use was to replace passenger trains between Waterford and Tramore, and they were known to have increased luggage capacity. The extra panelling is unusual, though. The Cardiff Crossleys are more often than not quoted as having Scottish Commercial, rather than Alexander bodies, although several versions of the story seem to exist, e.g. the bodywork was subcontracted from Alexander, or that Scottish Commercial panelled the Alexander frames. One of the batch, 46 (EBO 900), was preserved and is apparently still in storage, but hasn’t been used for many years. There are several photos of it on the net (both before and during preservation), and this is about the best www.flickr.com/
David Call
17/03/13 – 05:56
Interesting Philip since Alexander made such bodies on Titans for Leyland – under licence and with official sanction.
David Oldfield
17/03/13 – 09:54
A better photo from the point of view of seeing just how Leyland the body is can be found on here: www.mikestreet.webplus.net/ The side view is totally Leyland, as is the rear upper deck emergency exit but the driver’s dash panel, the Crossley headlamps and mudguards change the look of the vehicle even more than the Crossley radiator.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/03/13 – 11:38
The attached photograph should materially assist the confusion regarding the bodywork on Cardiff 46!
In fact I believe it is the cause the confusion, as the Scottish Commercial plate is of them acting in the capacity of dealers rather than coachbuilders. They were Crossley agents and had apparently sub-contracted the coachwork to Alexander. The confusion is probably also helped by the fact Cardiff already had some Crossleys with Scottish Commercial bodies. These, like the lowbridge examples were bought through Almondsbury Engineering and two even had Gloucestershire registrations. They had the more traditional Scottish Commercial appearance, which was a squared-off Manchester style. Western SMT created an unusual hybrid when they rebodied wartime Guy Y191 (ASD 253) with the Leyland body off TD5 D138 (CS 7037). There is a picture of it in Buses Annual 1970, but the effect was lost as the front was flattened and looked more like a rebuilt utility body. You had to look further back to see the Leyland lineage.
David Beilby
17/03/13 – 15:39
Neither Leyland nor Alexander had 4-bay bodies during this period. (re Cardiff buses) I seem to remember seeing some exposed radiator Regents with Park Royal built Leyland lookalike bodies, but I can`t remember where.
Jim Hepburn
17/03/13 – 15:40
I’m sure I picked it up on the net once that Almondsbury Engineering were a company which ordered the three highbridge Crossleys for their own staff transport, but very quickly decided they weren’t required, or perhaps Almondsbury went out of business, I’m not certain now. This does seem basically consistent with the wording on the Mike Street site, linked to above. I haven’t previously encountered the notion that Almondsbury were agents for the manufacturer(s). My apologies, of course, David, if they were. Perhaps some Cardiff-area contributors could settle this one?
David Call
17/03/13 – 15:41
In 1936 and 37 East Midland received 16 Leyland TS7’s with Leyland B35R bodies. These were re-bodied in 1939 with new ECW DP35R bodies. The Leyland bodies were then fitted to some 1930-1 AEC Regals whose bodies were scrapped. Then in 1947-8 a batch of new AEC Regal I’s were delivered for which bodies were not immediately available, so 14 of the Leyland bodies were transferred from the pre-war Regals onto these new chassis, the remaining 2 being sold on. The new Regals were then re-bodied by Willowbrook (B35R) in 1951.
John Bunting
17/03/13 – 17:18
David, my reference to Almondbury’s involvement in the lowbridge Crossleys came from the Crossley book and was something I was unfamiliar with until I looked it up for my reply. Your interpretation of the history of the three highbridge examples is pretty much the story as I understand it as well.
David Beilby
18/03/13 – 12:20
Alexander bodied some AEC Regents for Scottish Omnibuses after the war which were based on the pre-war Leyland design There is a shot of one on www.sct61.org.uk
Chris Hough
18/03/13 – 15:42
I remember these buses Chris. They were Regent 3s with preselect gears. They came into service in 1948. They looked very much like a Leyland at the front but had more of a utility look at the rear. Alexanders later refined this body to look more like a Leyland lowbridge body and used it for their own PD1s.
Jim Hepburn
06/09/13 – 16:30
Coras Iompair Eireann (CIE) owned 150 Leyland bodied buses delivered to them in the years 1948/9. One hundred complete Leyland double deckers of the standard Titan chassis and body design then in production for British operators Numbered, R291-390 were delivered between 1948 and 1949. These buses soon became known a ‘Boltons’ due to there similarity to those buses also being operated by Bolton Corporation. A further 50 complete Leyland buses, R391-440 were bought to complete the tram conversion programme in 1949. This batch were known as the ‘Capetown’ class. They differed from the earlier ‘Bolton’ type in having a number of CIE design features and so resembled pre-war Leyland bodies. Twenty nine of this class, R411-440 were PD2/1 chassis of 7ft6in width.
David J. White
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
18/02/14 – 11:38
Sorry to be away from the site for so long, but the intervening period since 15th March 2013 has been taken up with visiting Japan, organising and getting married, visiting the U.S.A., a myriad of jobs at a new house and further work on Australian buses histories. So my apologies to David Call, Phil Blinkhorn and David Beilby. To David Call, unfortunately I don’t have the negative of 3484 (that I thought was 3494 – although I must admit to not remembering that 3494 was a Southern bus, not a Rochdale Rd bus). Before leaving U.K. I “gave” away a lot of negatives, not understanding the value of them. In Australia I have sorted all my prints and finally sorted which ones still had negatives and which didn’t. I’ve then scanned those prints without negs (of which 3484 was one because I gave most of my Manchester negs away – bright boy – not). The negs from my Bencini camera are actually reasonably good and its surprising how many rolls sent to a company in Brighton for printing all those years ago, which came back “unable to be printed – too dark” now print up beautifully and I include in those a “Metalcraft” bodied Foden taken on a PSV Circle Tour and a rare Daimler with one of the Doncaster operators on another PSV Circle Tour (sorry I cant be any more precise because I’m at work and don’t have access to my photo folders). Just looking at a photo of Ashton 67 and Oldham 408 in Wallshaw St – I was on that tour also and have a similar photo to the one posted. I don’t have a neg of that photo either. Regards to all the fans in the Manchester area and I’m still working on the history of the Panthers and Panthers Cubs that came to Australia. One or two have survived as motor homes.
The scene on the parking area at Pond Street bus station in Sheffield, in August, 1959, featuring a line-up of Sheffield vehicles, including one of the NCB bodied Crossley DD42/5’s, put to work as a driver trainer after withdrawal, and painted in the reversed livery of the service fleet. Nearest the camera is ‘A’ fleet (Corporation owned) 623 (LWE 123) a 1949 all-Leyland PD2/1, in the ‘Farington’ style livery with dark blue window surrounds, at the time operating from Greenland Road garage, and next to it is ‘B’ fleet (ownership shared by the Corporation and British Railways) 178 (SWE 278), an MCW bodied Regent III dating from 1954, and working from Bramall Lane garage, seen here resting after working in from the delightful Derbyshire hamlet of Castleton, famous for its limestone caves, on service 72.
The other two are both ‘A’ fleet buses, next to 178 being one of the 1948 Roberts bodied AEC Regent III’s, 327 (KWB 927) working from yet another of the Sheffield garages at the time, this one on the roster of Herries Road depot. Between 327 and the Crossley trainer is an unidentified FWA-registered Regent I dating from 1938, one of the eleven of a batch of fifteen vehicles (395-409) that were rebodied by Roe in 1952. These rebodied AEC’s somehow managed to retain their rugged pre-war appearance despite the much newer, stylish bodywork from the Crossgates works. On the radiators of the three Regents can be seen the sheet metal tabs that were often noted attached to the grilles of Sheffield buses, reading, as I recall, “STD – Do Not Drain.” !
This photo was taken as my mother and I were hurrying through the bus station on our way to the Midland Station to catch a train to London, on our way back to Canada after a summer holiday, having emigrated there the year before. I was just eleven years old at the time, and noting the magnificent line-up, implored my mother to take out the family Agfa and snap a quick shot! Not always quite so eager to please, she obliged on this occasion, and in so doing provided me with what was undoubtedly the first colour photo in my Sheffield collection, which has grown significantly since then! However, due to the circumstances in which it was taken, not one of the other views stirs the same poignant memories for me as this one does.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Dave Careless
19/03/13 – 14:31
A very nice addition to the “Sheffield” page, Dave. Thanks for posting.
Pete Davies
19/03/13 – 14:47
Incredible Sheffield line up and, as usual, your comprehensive knowledge fleshes out the detail. [Two small points: Regent IIs were post war and Castleton is a village – hamlets have no church.] Do you ever get back these days?
David Oldfield
19/03/13 – 15:54
Thanks, Pete, glad you liked the picture. I realised a short while after I’d captioned the photo, David, that those FWA-Regents weren’t Regent II’s, I should have had my first edition of BBF No. 2 beside me for reference when I wrote it!! Yes, I do get back from Nova Scotia from time to time, but probably not as often as I’d like. I was back for the 50th London Transport trolleybus event at Carlton Colville last May, (couldn’t possibly miss that) and spent a few enjoyable weeks in Sheffield as a guest of long-time friend and fellow Sheffield enthusiast, Paul Fox. Remarkably, my aunt still lives in the same house in the east end of the city where I stayed during that summer holiday in 1959, and for the record, father’s old Agfa camera that took the picture, that he brought back with him from Germany after the war, apparently still exists in the care of the Photographic Society of Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland!! What a pity that the buses it was pointed at on this overcast summer’s afternoon don’t exist along with it!!
Dave Careless
19/03/13 – 17:10
I don’t get back as often as I would like, Dave, and I only live in Surrey. I know of Paul, and have met him a couple of times – once when he brokered a second hand copy of Charles Halls book for me. Paul is better known by my closest school friend, Ian Manning.
David Oldfield
20/03/13 – 06:11
That’s interesting David, I wasn’t aware of the connection. I know Ian a little bit, he gave me a splendid run around Paisley one evening many years ago in a Clydeside Scottish Routemaster, truly expertly driven, one of the best RM rides I’ve ever had. Happy times!
Dave Careless
20/03/13 – 08:18
A great picture Dave. There were line-ups like this every day of the week. Different combinations all the time. Today’s wheeled boxes will never compare. Hope you have more to follow. Thanks for posting.
Les Dickinson
20/03/13 – 08:55
Well said, Les. Like the wheeled boxes. No sane person would “bad mouth” the (generally) well run and well kept fleets in London, Manchester or Birmingham. They were however, to quote a friend, boring in their ultra standardisation. Sheffield did have standard buses in that they had (the usual) dual sourcing policy from preferred suppliers. For many years this was Leyland and AEC – latterly Daimler when AEC deckers were no more. Weymann was a standard supplier until they folded in 1963. Alongside were Leyland and Craven pre WWII and then Roe in the ’50s. The interest was in the constant “odd” purchases and those unique to the JOC B & C fleets. The standards were still as high, if not higher than those in the standard fleets.
David Oldfield
20/03/13 – 10:04
Perhaps we’re biased David, but I loved the variety. I had a piece in Buses Yearbook 2012 about some of the unique and unusual buses in the fleets at Sheffield. Nothing too technical, just a layman’s notes really. Things like the Mann Egerton deckers, Strachans, Cawood, Craven bodies all added to the unique character. ECW bodies in a “municipal” fleet, Alexander bodies on 30 foot Regent Vs, Regent V fronts on Regent IIIs. Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be?
Les Dickinson
20/03/13 – 12:33
Enjoyed your piece in BY 2012, Les. I’m not going to apologise for being biased.
David Oldfield
20/03/13 – 12:34
I’m not convinced by David’s statement that the Manchester fleet suffered from ultra standardisation. Between 1950 and 1964 (the end of front engined, rear entrance deliveries) there were no less than 3 basic designs from MCW (Post War Standard, Phoenix and Orion) plus Atlanteans and Fleetlines and the Orions alone had 3 different versions – 4 if you want to be picky – plus umpteen variations of window vents making many individual vehicles look different, not to mention two versions of Cave Brown Cave heating/cooling. In addition there were 2 different Northern Counties body styles, 2 versions of the standard Leyland body and Manchester’s modified Burlingham bodies on Leyland and Daimler, each looking different. Add in the trolleybuses, Post War Standards of two body widths on Leyland, Daimler and Crossley and anyone on the street in Manchester would be faced with a wide variety. By 1964 Manchester had also changed the front end of its rear engined vehicle deliveries and it was only 4 more years until the Mancunians arrived adding to the variety.
Phil Blinkhorn
20/03/13 – 16:19
Excellent – taken before my time in Sheffield, but the LWE and SWE batches were still active in 1965. I came through Castleton on Saturday, and the 72 bus is recognisable as the 272, now running every hour.
Geoff Kerr
20/03/13 – 16:28
I think its safe to say that the only Yorkshire municipal operator who had a standardised fleet at that time was Todmorden with all Leyland Titans, all the others had something different. Bradford rebodied second hand trolleys. Doncaster trolleybus bodies rebuilt for motor buses. Halifax a very mixed fleet triple sourced chassis plus the odd Loline and Albion saloon for good measure. Huddersfield no corporation motor buses until the sixties the JOC had Guy saloons. Hull dual door trollies a big influx of second hand deckers to ease the way to one man operation. Leeds a very odd collection of saloons three chassis types for eight buses triple sourced chassis polished bonnets. Middlesborough ECW bodied Leylands and Guys Dennis Lolines. Rotherham single deck trolleys all rebuilt to double deck. Sheffield has already been discussed and the aforementioned. Todmorden and the companies were just as exiting even THC owned WYRCC ran pre-war Bristol Ks until well in the sixties. Now we have the ubiquitous Wright bodied deckers and little of real interest to those of a certain age!
Chris Hough
20/03/13 – 16:36
Les, the variety you mention that was so much a part of the Sheffield scene back then was, as you say, very much in evidence every day, and I needed to go no further than the bottom of the small cul-de-sac where my aunt lived, which ran off Owler Lane, to witness it. Not only were there PD2’s like 623 here, on the 17 service, which had only just supplanted the trams, and themselves replaced the following year by first generation Atlanteans and then again later by the magnificent Roe-bodied PD3’s, there was a steady stream of Cravens, Roberts and Weymann bodied Regent III’s on the peak hour workers services, shuttling between the large housing estates of Southey Green and Parson Cross and the miles of giant steelworks at Brightside and Templeborough. And just a few yards down the road were even more wonderful Regents, turning every few minutes at the Reform Chapel to head back along Petre Street to the city, and out the other side to the more fashionable suburbs of Graves Park and Hollythorpe Rise. On Saturdays, just to liven things up, the new 30-footers would often get on there as well, both Weymann and Alexander ones. To sit there on the stone wall and watch it all go by was really quite magical.
Dave Careless
20/03/13 – 17:45
My maternal grandmother lived on Woodhouse Road (Intake) and we saw her every Saturday. My little stone wall was by the shops at the junction of Woodhouse Road and Mansfield Road, Dave. AECs on the 95 and 41, lowbridge Orions on the 15/19/21, various PD2s on the 23. [Not to mention EMMS 3 and 46.] Even half an hour, free of the family, on the stone wall was bliss.
David Oldfield
20/03/13 – 17:46
In my run down of the Yorkshire municipals and their oddities I forgot to mention Teeside Railless who pinned their hopes on the trolleybus for their entire existence and beyond, they rebodied many trollies and had some ex Reading ones at the very end. Equally their motor bus policy was a straight Leyland/Roe one unlike their immediate neighbours Middlesborough who quickly went to Fleetlines with NCME bodywork.
Chris Hough
21/03/13 – 06:14
To follow on from Chris’s recent post, around these parts (which I shall call “Youhill-land”) I find that the attire of the staff now provides more interest than the vehicles: “high-vis” or not; jeans or uniform (?) trousers; baseball cap – First (and who decided that a baseball cap was appropriate uniform issue?) or random – or not; woolley hat – see previous – or not; there seem to have been so many changes of uniform over the years that I can’t actually work out whether uniform or “smart casual” is being worn, but the permutations/combinations seem endless; tinted sunglasses/mirrored sunglasses of myriad styles – even in sunless winter; and whoever might be accompanying the driver – offspring, girl/boy-friend, wife, friend, “random pick-up” – draped over front dash.
Philip Rushworth
21/03/13 – 06:17
Dave Oldfield, you forgot the Chesterfield contribution of Titans on the 62/4, also passing your look-out post on the wall, and what about the Sheffield Regent III’s on the 25 Beighton, 26 Killamarsh, 30 Eckington. That wall must have seen much excitement over the years. Were you still there when the EMMS Alexander Lowlanders started passing by? Happy Days.
Les Dickinson
21/03/13 – 10:54
Yes, Les, I had forgotten – but it’s fifty years of decline (mine and the buses) which has passed in the interim. Lowlanders? Not sure. The sojourn on my wall ended after my translation to (the original) King Edward VII School. …..but Oh the memories.
David Oldfield
21/03/13 – 17:30
David, another strategically placed stone wall was at the bottom of Burngreave Road, at Firvale. There was all kinds of activity there, including Tracky, West Riding and Yorkshire Woollen buses on the 65 group of services, but best of all the KWA-PD2’s pounding up the hill towards the city every few minutes on the 150/151. The trams shuttling between Meadowhead and Sheffield Lane Top made for a spectacular sight at this location as well, not to mention the full range of splendid sound effects.
Dave Careless
22/03/13 – 07:44
…..and Burngreave Vestry Hall could almost combine both of them – but I’m not convinced there was a suitable wall upon which to perch.
David Oldfield
22/03/13 – 07:46
I well remember the KWA registered batch of PD2s on the Shiregreen services. My Grammar School was at the top of the long climb from Pitsmoor and I decided that the 150/1 to Bridge Street was a better bet than the almighty crush to board a tram into the City (who says we schoolboys were better behaved in those days? – at least we didn’t use the foul language commonplace on school journeys nowadays – probably didn’t even know it!) Back to the buses, the initial 537-557 batch of PD2s had green rexine across the top of the lower saloon front bulkhead whereas the later ones had this area painted cream. Just a small detail but it somehow made them that much more different. Later when I started work I was placed for a time at Ecclesfield which involved journeys on Yorkshire Traction’s PS2 rebodies and later PD3s on the 65 service.
Ian Wild
22/03/13 – 09:09
Firth Park, Ian? Had an interview there – but no-one in Sheffield wanted me and I started my teaching career at Stretford Grammar School. Before then, often enjoyed the delights of Tracky PD3s when visiting relatives in Barnsley and also regularly visited a friend of my father at Pitsmoor/Firshill at the top of the hill between Firvale and Burngreave.
David Oldfield
22/03/13 – 10:18
The inclusion of 178 (SWE 278) in the picture raises another point. This was one of thirty-six similar buses delivered in 1954. Twelve for the A fleet were straight forward, ie 724-735 (SWE 424-435). The others were two for the C fleet, 1154/5, and twelve for the B fleet, 178-199. The registration plates were not issued in line with fleet numbers. SWE 254/5 were issued to 188 & 199, whilst their expected plates (SWE 288/99)went to 1154/5. Presumably this was due to delivery dates vs their “needed on fleet” dates. Can anyone give a definitive explanation of this anomaly please?
Les Dickinson
22/03/13 – 16:29
Can’t help Les, but your maths is shaky. 179 – 199 is twenty-two, not twelve. It was these I was most used to in the Greenhill/Lowedges area.
David Oldfield
22/03/13 – 16:30
I might be able to, Les. According to friend and long-time Sheffield observer and enthusiast, Keith Beeden, due to their long-distance work, it was decided to fit the two ‘C’ fleet examples, 1154/5, with saloon heaters to provide some passenger comfort in winter. Problem was, somebody at Queens Road made a mistake and the heaters accidentally got fitted in the wrong buses, 188 and 199!! Rather than mess about with the heaters any more, the simpler solution was to swap the two buses that had received them with the two actual ‘C’ fleet examples, which ended up in the ‘B’ fleet, bearing the numbers of the two which had been switched out. Which just goes to prove that if you look long and hard enough, you’ll find there’s usually a reason for everything!! Towards the end of its life, SWE 299 made a memorable last trip to Bradford, organised by local enthusiasts, and once it got into its stride, acquitted itself very well despite its advancing years, and the jeers and taunts from the crews of other buses on the service that it encountered along the way!!
Dave Careless
22/03/13 – 16:31
I used to be a pupil at firth park Grammer from 62-67. It was on the way home where I learnt the skill of jumping off the bus as it went from Haymarket onto High St. It was a Policeman on point duties at the time, no traffic lights. The tram replacement no 75 (via Burngreave to Sheffield Lane Top), were AEC 5 Regents, Roe & Alexandra bodies. Many were garaged at Brammall Lane. I remembered them being delivered. The no 17 to Sheffield Lane Top (via Attercliffe & Page Hall Road) were all Leylands with Roe bodywork. There was a fatal accident on Page Hall Road, no 475 I think. The picture in the paper at the time showed no damage to the bus!
Andy Fisher
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
23/03/13 – 07:38
Has anyone any info. on the BWB reg. TD5s with Craven bodies?
Jim Hepburn
23/03/13 – 07:39
David O – no, I went to De La Salle Grammar on Scott Road at Firshill.
Ian Wild
23/03/13 – 09:05
Deep apologies, Ian. Taught at a Catholic Public School down here in Surrey and discovered that the father of two of my pupils was a De La Salle boy. [A friend, Old Edwardian, is Head of Music at Notre Dame. Was it deliberate to have them as far apart as possible at either end of the city?]
David Oldfield
23/03/13 – 16:06
Going back to Chris Hough’s comments about standardisation, particularly the TRTB bus fleet: Although it is true that all purchases from the late 1950s onwards were the Leyland/Roe combination, the all-Leyland buses (4 PD1A, 12 PD2/1) that formed the immediate post-war fleet renewal formed more than 50% of the bus fleet until the arrival of the 1965 Leopards. As late as 1967 they could still be found doing duty on the ‘T’ service into Middlesbrough. Add the pair of Dalesman-bodied coaches, and it was far from being an uninteresting fleet in the mid-60s!
Alan Murray-Rust
23/03/13 – 17:50
I went to De La Salle as well Ian, as you know and for shame was one of the mob of boys fighting to get on to a tram at the end of Scott Road for a while.The same tram transported me across the city to Abbey Lane where we lived back then. When the trams were replaced by buses on the 61/63 services instead, between Abbey Lane and Shirecliffe, I used to walk to and from Burngreave Road and could avoid the crush at Scott Rd. Also the tram replacement buses were the Roe bodied Leyland PD3s which I always thought were quality vehicles, even with their tin fronts. The other attraction, as noted elsewhere was the proximity of the bus stop to Burngreave Convent school for Girls! In reply to David O, if it was policy to keep us boys and girls apart it didn’t work as my wife was a student at Notre Dame, but we’re getting away from the subject here.
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
