Jersey Motor Transport 1959 Leyland Titan PD2/31 Reading H31/28R
780 JGY is a Leyland Titan PD2/31 with H59R body by Readings of Portsmouth. She was new in 1959, as J 8588, for the Jersey Motor Transport fleet and carries the usual advert for Mary Ann. Is my eyesight playing tricks again or does the bodywork look a bit “Park Royal”? She’s at Amberley on 21 September 1997.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
12/06/15 – 06:11
Did Readings use Park Royal frames hence the similarity?
Philip Halstead
12/06/15 – 07:54
I’m not aware that they ever did, Philip. They always seemed to plough their own furrow and were quite happy to do one-off orders to an individual design. Granted, this body shape is a bit Park Royal’ish, though. Was this one bus the total order for JMT, of its type? It certainly looks very smart, stylish and airy inside.
Chris Hebbron
16/06/15 – 06:51
The Ian Allan ABC British Bus Fleets ‘West of England’ (May 1964) included details of the JMT fleet and has a photograph of number 27 is included. The fleet list shows a batch of 5 Reading bodied Leyland Titan PD2/31s. They were numbered 16 (J 1583); 22 (J 8587); 27 (J 8588); 47 (J 1588) and 52 (J 1528). The dates new are given as 1958 (16, 47 and 52) and 1959 (22 and 27). Whether they all looked similar I don’t know.
David Slater
18/06/15 – 06:11
Jersey Motor Transport (JMT) J 8587 (22) and J 8588 (27) were the second batch of Reading bodied PD2/31 Titans delivered to JMT, arriving in June 1959. These were of a 4 bay design, where as the first batch had 5 bays {please see picture of J 1588 (47)}. No.27 was the last double decker bought new by JMT, ex London Transport RTLs being bought after that.
Also shown is a picture of sister vehicle J 8587 in service in Jersey at The Weighbridge Bus Station for many years the main departure point for JMT services. The rear of J 1528 (52), one of the first batch is seen on the extreme right.
Barrow In Furness Corporation 1958 Leyland Titan PD2/40 Park Royal H33/28R
CEO 956 is a Leyland PD2/40 with Park Royal H61R bodywork from 1958. She was built for Barrow In Furness Corporation (fleet number 169) and we see her parked on Middle Walk, Blackpool, on 29 September 1985. This is a date some of the readership will recognise, as being Blackpool’s Tramway Centenary day and she was taking part in a rally as part of the celebrations.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
03/09/15 – 07:17
What a handsome bus – helped by an attractive livery.
David Wragg
04/09/15 – 07:17
Thank you, David. I’ve always thought the livery bore some affinity with the Birmingham one, likewise that of St Helens (only in red).
Pete Davies
11/09/15 – 07:07
This vehicle along with No.170 (CEO 957), passed to the Furness Transport Group in the late 1970s, subsequently passing on to the Mersey and Calder Group. On Saturday 25th October 1986 it was hired back for one day by Barrow Corporation Transport and operated the final service journey (11pm Town Hall – Abbey Road – Harrel Lane – Washington – Town Hall), thus marking the end of 66 years of municipal transport in the Borough.
Larry B
12/09/15 – 14:22
Honourably bringing up the rear, behind this fabulous Barrow vehicle, is surely one of the splendid Lytham St Annes Leylands too. Those were the days indeed.
Chris Youhill
13/09/15 – 05:49
There’s a name I’m glad to see here again – not Leyland or even Park Royal… or Barrow – but Youhill!
Joe
13/09/15 – 11:15
Thank you so much Joe , that is very kind indeed. I have been through the mill to some tune this last couple of months but am now making the best of it – what else can one do ?? I am definitely not one of those to burden everyone else with my difficulties as this does neither party any good I always feel, so no morbid details here. Thank you once again though for your greatly appreciated concern – I have had many good wishes from various quarters and forums (fora I suppose for Latin aficionado’s) and these of course mean a lot.
Chris Youhill
13/09/15 – 11:15
Enthusiastically seconded, Joe!
Chris Hebbron
15/09/15 – 06:41
Correct, CY, and welcome back. The vehicle concerned is GTB 903. I feel the original is too close-up for submission for Peter to consider.
Lancaster City Transport 1957 Leyland Titan PD2/30 Massey H33/28R
998 AKT is a Leyland Titan PD2/30, was new to Maidstone Corporation in 1957, with fleet number 8. She has a Massey H61R body. In 1975, she and three sisters returned to their birthplace in the north west to join Lancaster City Council’s Transport Department, after the merger with Morecambe & Heysham in 1974. The new Council had a flurry of buying used vehicles in 1974/5, and Maidstone 8 followed the old Lancaster pattern of matching the fleet number with the registration, becoming 998. In this view, taken on 13 September 1975, she is westbound near the Grand Hotel, on Morecambe Promenade.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
20/11/15 – 06:54
There seemed to be something about Massey bodies and the seaside. Operators on or near the coast that had them that come to mind are Morecambe & Heysham, Lytham St Annes, Birkenhead, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Barrow-in-Furness. Chester, Colchester, Ipswich and Exeter aren’t that far off the sea either being on tidal estuaries.
Philip Halstead
20/11/15 – 06:54
Lancaster City Council had been told by the Traffic Commissioner that the 1940s and early 1950s AEC Regents inherited from Morecambe were unacceptably old and that was the main reason for the secondhand buys. Maidstone around the same time had a new broom General Manager who was convinced that the town didn’t need heavyweight double deck buses and the same job could be done by a fleet of lightweight single deck Bedfords.
Stephen Allcroft
20/11/15 – 14:20
Thank you for your thoughts, Philip and Stephen. If I remember rightly, what Stephen says would account for the views I have seen of Maidstone Atlanteans with operators in the Glasgow area. Incidentally, the building site in the background, in the process of becoming a block of apartments, was rather controversial, being at the Promenade end of Princes Crescent. There were rumblings at the time of ‘deals’ between the developer and Morecambe & Heysham’s Town Clerk, who was about to become redundant through the Reorganisation. He had long been in dispute with his employers over his address. He was supposed to live within the Borough, but lived just outside it, in Hest Bank. His mother lived within the borough, and he had his post delivered there. The Captcha code seems vaguely akin to a Rochdale registration: RDK7 . . .
Pete Davies
20/11/15 – 14:21
This vehicle had been on hire to Alder Valley at Reading the previous year.
Paul Robson
20/11/15 – 14:22
What a superb livery! This livery would certainly lift modern double deckers, as opposed to the random ramblings that pass as liveries today.
Allan White
21/11/15 – 06:06
Let’s not forget Southend-on-Sea, too, Philip, with the livery colours of both fleets not being too dissimilar!
Chris Hebbron
21/11/15 – 06:06
Further to Allan White’s comment. At the time the fiesta blue and cream Maidstone livery was new, having been introduced with the trolleybus Replacement Atlanteans. After a green and cream livery, the GM’s choice, was rejected the Lancaster city fleet was painted Trafalgar Blue and white.
Stephen Allcroft
21/11/15 – 06:07
Yes, Allan, it certainly beats Maidstone’s previous brown.
Pete Davies
21/11/15 – 06:08
In the mid-1970s I knew both the Lancaster Chief Engineer and the depot foreman at Morecambe, and did not hear any suggestion that they were under orders to get rid of the Regent IIIs. I was told that the local examiner was inclined to ‘pull a face’, but that was as far as things ever went. If the relevant bus met the required standards, there wasn’t much anyone could do. Of course, the Regent IIIs weren’t getting any younger, and no doubt costing more to maintain as time went by. I was one of four enthusiasts who purchased No.72 (MTC540) for preservation in 1975, and (for our own interest) we were given a copy of a list of jobs which would have needed to be done for a recertification, which Lancaster had apparently considered. It was an uncomfortably long list, for a vehicle with a very limited life expectancy.
David Call
21/11/15 – 06:09
The traditional livery at Maidstone was an attractive brown and cream worn by buses and trolleybuses alike. Trolleybus replacement began in 1965, and the new buses introduced the pale blue and cream livery shown in the photo above. In 1974 things changed dramatically at Maidstone when Alan Price became Manager of the transport dept. In that year local government reorganisation saw Maidstone Corporation become the extended Maidstone Borough Council with control over the old rural district councils to the south and east of the former Corporation boundaries. Maidstone then sought to run bus services in its new extended area which had hitherto been the province of Maidstone and District, and under the NBC Market Analysis Project, integration did occur under the name “Maidstone Area Bus Services”. Until 1974 Maidstone had operated a high quality all double deck fleet. Under its new manager this was quickly replaced with OPO Bedford Y type lightweight single decks and all double deckers had gone from service by 1979. In that year, to commemorate the 75 years of Maidstone municipal transport, a bus was repainted in the old brown/cream livery, and, for a while, this became the new standard again. In the meantime, surplus double deckers that had not been sold were hired out to other operators in that period when British Leyland was falling catastrophically short in the supply of new vehicles and spare parts. As the Maidstone fleet expanded to meet its enlarged aspirations, many second hand vehicles were pressed into service still in the liveries of their previous owners. Then, in October 1986 came deregulation, which, amongst its numerous stupidities, outlawed area operating agreements as being “uncompetitive”. Thereupon, Maidstone and M&D became competitors, with the Maidstone business relaunched as Boro’line. A new Best Impressions livery of blue and yellow with red and white trim (to my eye as every bit as grotesque as it sounds) came in at the same time, and double decks, new and second hand, reappeared in the fleet. In entering the new competitive environment, M&D adopted practices that later became the subject of the highly critical Competition Commission enquiry of 1993. To further its expansion, Boro’line succeeded in winning some London Regional Transport contracts. Unfortunately, Boro’line was not entirely adept at costing its operating activities, and began accruing very large debts. The whole business was offered for sale by Maidstone Borough, and Kentish bus took the London contracts early in 1992. A receiver was appointed to sell off the remaining operations but very few takers could be found. Discussions with more than 30 prospective buyers fell through. In the meantime, several buses were repossessed, though services struggled on. The end came in June 1992 with the sale of the of the residual business to Maidstone & District.
Roger Cox
21/11/15 – 06:09
The stories of the happy marriage of Maidstone & Morecambe fall into the category of “you couldn’t make it up”. They replaced 25 year old (and more) buses with 17 year old buses…? Maidstone were embracing the mini fashion which has swung to the opposite end now, with oversized buses on urban streets. I think a good compromise would be a 26ft double decker, 7ft 6in wide and carrying 56 passengers. A rear loading platform would speed travel, as would employing apprentices or “conductors” who could train as drivers once they had learnt the routes. It would never catch on…
Joe
22/11/15 – 11:34
Joe, you comment on the ‘happy marriage of Maidstone & Morecambe’. I think you mean the very unhappy, shotgun, marriage of Lancaster and Morecambe. So far as the thoughts about open rear platforms, apprentices helping to load the bus and learn the routes go, well, RADICAL isn’t in it! I did some afternoon conducting on some of Southampton’s preserved buses (the operation had by then become Southampton Citybus) during afternoons off from my job with the Council, and was amazed at how many folk said much the same thing: it was nice to have a bus with a conductor, and the engine and entrance where they ought to be. I mentioned this to the MD and he declared the thought to be economic suicide. You’re right, Joe – it won’t catch on!
Pete Davies
22/11/15 – 11:35
There is an excellent article in Classic Bus 135 (Feb-Mar 2015) on the Lancaster undertaking written by Thomas Knowles who was GM of the combined Lancaster – Morecambe & Heysham operation from its outset. Mr Knowles gives a fairly candid view on some of the problems he encountered in running the newly combined outfit. There are also some excellent photos illustrating the article.
Philip Halstead
23/11/15 – 06:27
No, Phil- the happy marriage of convenience of Maidstone & Morecambe- one with too many buses and one with too few! Not conductors, mind… interns or…runners… pupils… there were/are plenty of jobs where you do or did earn next to nothing for the privilege of learning the job. I don’t think the unions ever saw it this way..
Joe
24/11/15 – 13:48
Trafalgar blue is used by Lancaster City Council to this day to paint shelters and stops perhaps they are trying to tell Stagecoach something!
New to Southport Corporation in 1965, with fleet number 54. She is a Leyland Titan PD2/40 with Weymann O64F body, converted from H64F. When Southport was absorbed into Merseyside, there was uproar among the natives, who wanted to remain in Lancashire. The place does, after all, have a Preston postcode rather than a Liverpool one! Do the residents still hold – as many in Bournemouth and Christchurch do in respect of Hampshire and Dorset – that they live in Lancashire, but Merseyside is allowed to look after certain aspects of life? We see her on Southampton’s Itchen Bridge on 6 May 1979, while taking part in the local operator’s Centenary celebrations.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
22/12/15 – 07:11
Regarding the open top Leyland currently on site, please find attached a photograph of the bus? OR an identical one. It is seen on Trans Pennine 2015 and is in the William Hunter collection.
Tracked your picture down to 154 reg, my picture is of 151 ! How many did they get?
Roy Dodsworth
22/12/15 – 08:57
Hello, Roy! Thank you for your thoughts. I’m afraid I can’t help you, as the BBF ‘Lancashire Municipal’ book I found a few years ago doesn’t include this batch. I am, however, very confident that at least one of the other readers will be able to advise us both!
There’s almost a Beverly Bar tumble-home to CMW 151C’s upper deck glazing, distinctive I suppose.
Stephen Allcroft
24/12/15 – 06:24
Yes, Stephen, there is. I hadn’t noticed on the view of 154. Can anyone tell us if they were converted at the same time? The fleet list noted above suggests they were still H rather than O at the time of transfer to Merseyside.
Pete Davies
24/12/15 – 06:25
Oh, Southport’s resistance to Merseyside has taken many forms over the years. In bus terms red wheels were one of the first signs, then the use of municipal livery on open toppers and more recently on park and ride buses. As for the town itself since the abolition of the county council I suspect it’s less of a problem although sharing Sefton Borough with parts rather close to Liverpool has been a problem. I believe they managed to get Merseyside off the postal address a while back but in these days of ceremonial and postal counties and fragmented political counties it’s all a mess. I prefer to go with geographic counties which spares poor old Middlesex and puts my old home town of Widnes firmly back in Lancashire. On the Wirral they managed to get their postcodes changed from L to CH with a positive effect on insurance premiums….
Rob McCaffery
25/12/15 – 08:05
Prior to 1974 Southport was a County Borough: County Boroughs were created in 1889, when administrative County Councils were established, for larger towns/cities for which it was felt that administrative control by the County would be inappropriate/impractical – they were abolished by Peter Walker’s Local Government Act (1972). It’s my understanding that Southport was offered the option of incorporation as a Borough within either Lancashire or the Metropolitan County of Merseyside: the former would have allowed it to retain it’s transport undertaking but would have meant responsibility for education passed to Lancashire County Council, whereas Metropolitan Boroughs retained control of education (but lost control of transport to the PTE) – clearly the Aldermen and Councillors of the County Borough of Southport knew where their priorities lay. Initially it was proposed that the 1974 County boundaries would apply solely for administrative purposes and that existing County boundaries would be retained for postal and ceremonial purposes, but . . .
Philip Rushworth
25/12/15 – 09:40
I know exactly what Philip R means! In Southampton, there were moves to have the whole of Southern Hampshire – including Portsmouth – declared a Metropolitan County, so the local districts could maintain control of Education which, otherwise, would go to ‘those idiots at the County Council’. Gosport was what was called an “Excepted District” for Education, and Fareham was only an Urban District. It was, however, pointed out that a Metropolitan County would control the buses through a PTE, so the idea was dropped in favour of keeping the buses under local control and losing the Education.
Pete Davies
31/12/15 – 07:23
Along with at least two dozen fellow enthusiasts, I spent the best part of a week in the Spring of 1988 on holiday with 0651 as our principal mode of travel, the group having hired it, with several holding PSV licenses so that we could drive it ourselves. It was a fine week, with plenty of time spent on the upper deck in the sunshine, and I shan’t ever forget the crackling roar the old PD2 made as it pounded surefootedly up the steep Matlock Bank on the way to Chesterfield and Sheffield on the last night of the holiday. What a fine tribute that superb machine is to the designers and workers who spent their careers at the Leyland factory.
Dave Careless
31/12/15 – 12:22
Dave C, I think someone had clearly attended to the governor on your vehicle. I remember joining a tour of West Yorkshire in 1977 which used similar but earlier PD2/44 and thinking that it couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding! I was used to the performance of Halifax’s almost-identical vehicles and the comparison was stark. I always assumed that Southport’s were governed down severely as they only ran on very flat routes.
David Beilby
31/03/16 – 06:35
Note this vehicle up for sale as of April 2016
Roger Burdett
25/11/16 – 07:27
I was an apprentice fitter at Southport Corporation, Canning rd. Depot in the late 60’s. The batch of buses you were asking about were numbered from 43 – 57 and they all had vacuum brakes as opposed to air brakes and manual gearboxes not semi automatics and the 01 prefix numbers were only applied after the MPTE takeover. The later batch nos. were converted to OMO operation by moving the drivers N/S cab window outwards over the bonnet and the driver had to literally turn round to the left and face backwards to collect the fares, something of a feat even in those days! The Drivers who opted to become OMO drivers were paid the princely sum of 3d an hour more (note not decimal pence btw) to become OMO drivers! Mr Alan Westwell (now Dr. Alan Westwell) designed the cab window arrangement conversion when he was ‘The Rolling Stock Engineer’ at Canning Rd., note the title of RSE as opposed to Chief Engineer, as the title was from the old tramway days of long ago! The next batch of vehicles were Leyland Panthers which were numbered from 58-70
Norman Johnstone
25/11/16 – 10:38
When London Country came into being in 1970, it, too, set up the post of RSE (Rolling Stock Engineer). He was then supplied with an Assistant, so entitled, until the unfortunate acronym thus created subsequently led to the renaming of the post as ‘Deputy’.
Roger Cox
25/11/16 – 13:14
At Derby Borough/City Transport we had a Chief Engineer (the late Gerald Truran), and, a Rolling Stock Superintendent, and an Assistant Rolling Stock Superintendent. The latter two posts being a throw back to Trolleybus days.
Stephen Howarth
25/11/16 – 14:08
I can assure you that the title of Rolling Stock Engineer is still alive and well in the tramway field. I am one!
David Beilby
25/11/16 – 14:17
I am a volunteer at The North West Museum of Transport in St. Helens. We are at present in the process of restoring Southport Corporation 62 a 1946 Daimler Utility CWA6 which apparently is one of only a few surviving CWA6’s with genuine wartime utility bodies by Duple. We have just fitted a replacement AEC 7.7 engine which by all accounts are as scare to say the least. This particular vehicle finished it’s life at Aintree Racecourse as a Stewards Bus on the racecourse when the museum acquired it many years ago. If anyone has any more information regarding this bus please can they get in touch as we do have some very limited information on it as it is a genuine wartime utility bus bodied by Duple.
Norman Johnstone
27/11/16 – 07:40
I am glad Ronnie Cox didn’t let him convert Glasgow’s 229 forward entrance Double decks for OMO and I am sure the surviving drivers from early GG PTE days are too!
Stephen Allcroft
27/02/18 – 05:58
In the foregoing comments there is a reference to a PD2/44. I am not acquainted with such, thinking that PD2 variants ceased at No 41. Was 44 a special to Southport?
Orla Nutting
28/02/18 – 07:41
Blame the typist! I was wondering who would claim it was a PD2/44 then realised who wrote the post….
David Beilby
28/02/18 – 07:42
Re. Southport 62, the Utility Daimler. I was a volunteer at Steamport in Southport when 62 arrived. It was exchanged for Birkenhead 15, a PD2. It had been used as a sort of grandstand for the motor racing circuit at Aintree and was possibly a commentary position though I can’t be certain of that. When there was a clear out of some vehicles at Steamport there was a danger that it would be scrapped. Fortunately, I was able to arrange for it to be towed to the former Large Objects Store in Liverpool where it remained for some years. Upon the closure of those premises I assisted in removing the bus to a position outside the building to await removal to St Helens. During this operation 3 out of the 4 of us who were involved were attacked by cat fleas, presumably rather upset that the wild cats that had been living on the bus had fled the scene! Good luck with the work on 62. I was impressed all those years ago that the bodywork was so solid despite it being a Utility. If it still has a lot of blue seat frames stored upstairs, they are from Birkenhead 15, not being required for its role taking over from 62.
Jonathan Cadwallader
01/03/18 – 05:59
Typo notwithstanding, it isn’t true that PD2 variants ceased at 41. In the final “rationalised” range, the former PD2A/24, PD2A/27, PD2A/30, PD2/34, PD2/37 and PD2/40 were replaced respectively by PD2A/44, PD2/47, PD2/50, PD2A/54, PD2/57 and PD2/60. However, only the PD2/47 was actually built, for St Helens, Lowestoft and Darwen.
Peter Williamson
02/03/18 – 08:13
Thanks for that. I had a nagging feeling that I’d read about the PD2/47 somewhere.
Orla Nutting
10/06/18 – 08:38
Just an update on the Southport Daimler 62. The replacement engine has now been fitted and runs extremely well and lo & behold only a couple of months ago we actually moved 62 in the museum to another space next to where it was parked, albeit basically 10ft to the right in the shunt, but it actually was ‘driven’ to the next space after well over 28 years of having no engine in it and although the brakes were shall we say not exactly functional the handbrake worked perfectly (except for the ratchet which was sticking) and so did all the pre-select gears including reverse!
Norman Johnstone
22/06/20 – 06:52
43-46 UWM43-46 Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1961 47-50 WFY47-50 Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1962 51-54 CWM151-154C Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1965 55-58 GFY55-58E Leyland PD2/40 MCCW 1967 All looked identical but some detail differences: red or black radiator grilles front top deck opening vent windows or not side opening windows – some sliders, some rill type lower skirt panel near side immediately after door – some single panel with a slight curve to transition from the straight down door post to curved lower pane – some curved panel with no transition from straight down door post.
There’s a bit of a bus jam in Sheffield High Street on 9th October 1965 as 613, one of the large batch of A fleet all Leyland PD2s leaves the stand for a trip to Millhouses. It takes three Inspectors to peruse the Alexander Regent V in the background, hope they move out of the way before the member of the small batch of 1952 all Leyland PD2/10 manages to squeeze past the back of the queue and continue its journey. This little scenario (minus Inspectors) was re enacted last Wednesday in exactly the same place as I passed by – quite a coincidence! Sheffield’s all Leyland PD2s all put in a good innings, at 16 years old 613 looks in fine fettle.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
04/02/16 – 16:58
Strange how Sheffield used two different liveries for differing bodywork designs. The three blue bands was probably the standard but most of the Roe bodies and these Leylands had blue around the windows. The big city fleets tended to be very standardised and bordering on the boring with large batches of buses that looked more of less the same. Sheffield was the exception as they purchased smaller batches of widely varying vehicle types right up to being absorbed into the PTE. A very interesting and always well turned out fleet. We had civic pride in those days.
Philip Halstead
05/02/16 – 14:54
On the subject of civic/local pride First has repainted buses in Leeds and Bradford into former operators liveries. For some reason these are always immaculately turned out by their respective garages unlike some of the standard liveried stuff Makes you think eh.
First certainly did Sheffield proud with retro-painted Geminis to celebrate the motor bus centenary in 2013. The superb paintwork depicted both old and new style of livery – a splendid selection of photos can be found at – www.flickr.com/photos/
John Darwent
06/02/16 – 18:02
A great photo Ian, brought back lots of memories! Having spent what might be described as my formative years in Sheffield I can only endorse the comments made about the variety of the fleet, though our local route 61/63 was almost always provided with the Roe bodied Leyland PD3s which replaced the trams. From memory, the buses were usually well maintained and clean inside (apart from the nicotine stained ceiling of the upper deck before smoking was banned)! Perhaps the presence of a conductor made a difference? Now living in Dorset and using First in Weymouth, I have to say that the buses are usually clean inside and out as well.
Stan Zapiec
07/02/16 – 07:17
The images of the First fleet in Sheffield using the older liveries just goes to show how awful the current so-called liveries are. The old ones had style and dignity, and looked good as well.
David Wragg
08/02/16 – 06:33
Nice photo! I visited relatives in Sheffield in the 1960s so delighted to see this. Was the very small plate on the radiators a note that the bus was `antifreezed`? Can’t remember!
Steve Milner
08/02/16 – 16:24
The ‘three blue bands’ vs the ‘blue window surrounds’ wasn’t the only variation to be found in the Sheffield livery either. On first repaint, buses had their roofs painted smudge grey instead of the cream they were delivered with, as seen in this photo of the same all-Leyland PD2, 613, laying over in Castlegate, alongside the River Don. I’ve heard it said that the shade of grey was actually derived from mixing the residue of the blue and cream paint tins. In Ian’s photo of the bus, taken in its later years, the bus is seen to have had its original cream roof restored, part of the modifications made to the livery in the ‘Humpidge’ era of management. When C.T. Humpidge, formerly at Bradford, took over as General Manager from R.C. Moore in 1961, he made moves to do away with the practice of painting the roofs grey, and Roe bodies eventually lost their blue window surrounds, although intriguingly none of the Leyland ‘Farington’ style bodied PD2s so treated ever did, and retained their ‘blue window surrounds’ livery to the end. Humpidge also had matt black applied between the destination apertures to form a so called ‘consolidated display’, a move that still generates fierce debate amongst some older Sheffield enthusiasts even fifty plus years later!! And yes Steve, that small plate affixed to the radiator read “STD – Do Not Drain”
Dave Careless
10/02/16 – 06:17
If the ‘consolidated’ destination was controversial, why did they not go all the way and just have a single line? Almost all photos that I have seen have one of the two screens showing blank and I have yet to find a reason for two of them being fitted!
David Todd
10/02/16 – 16:32
David – from memory there were a few destinations that required the use of both screens, Dore via Brocco Bank and Beighton Handsworth are two that come to mind. Also I think the lower blind had (generally) City services whilst the longer distance services (generally) appeared on the upper blind. Note that on the photo above from Dave, Shirecliffe is on the top blind (exception proves the rule) whilst on the bus behind, 97 Southey Green used to have via Longley Lane on the lower screen hence its appearance on the top screen.
Ian Wild
11/02/16 – 06:23
Fulwood via Rustlings Road was another, Ian. I remember being fascinated as a kid, on shopping trips into the city, seeing these PD2s storming along Fargate showing Roscoe Bank or Brocco Bank, they seemed like exotic destinations to me at the time, I don’t know why! Ironically, even though they had the two apertures on the side over the platform, on route 1 they sometimes had to resort to carrying a red board with white lettering in the last nearside lower saloon window, reading ‘via Elm Lane’
Dave Careless
11/02/16 – 06:24
To emphasise Ian’s point, both blinds were used on a number of routes, 61/63 Beauchief and Woodseats Circular with Circular in the lower display spring to mind together with 74 Greystones Norton. So I think both blinds were in pretty frequent use.
Stan Zapiec
13/02/16 – 05:27
Or neither in use – instructions for the Stocksbridge locals were to “show blank” . . . despite “Garden Village” being available. If you follow this link //forum.sy-transport.co.uk/thread/13424/destination-blinds-lists (South Yorkshire Transport Forum, History, Destination Blinds) you’ll find listings from various destination blinds, including (if you work through the pages) various Sheffield Transport upper and lower and Y-type blind sets.
Philip Rushworth
12/06/19 – 06:37
Sorry, what’s this “B” fleet thing? Was there an “A” fleet as well, why?
Mark Chawner
12/06/19 – 10:53
…and a C Fleet as well! Others can explain better but it was all to do with the involvement of the railway companies.
Joe
12/06/19 – 12:41
Sheffield was a Joint Omnibus Committee where A fleet was wholly owned by Sheffield Corporation and operated within the city boundaries, C fleet was owned by the railways (LMS & LNER) and broadly speaking operated long distance routes often terminating at or near railway stations far afield. B fleet was jointly owned by corporation and railways and usually operated beyond the city boundaries but not so distant as C fleet. As might be expected there were many variations to this and buses from the B fleet especially could be seen on many A & C routes, buses from A fleet would often be seen on C fleet routes and a periodic mileage / income balancing would take place. Popular routes with hikers and ramblers would use vehicles from all fleets at peak weekends and Bank Holidays. See C.C Hall’s “Sheffield Transport” for a more detailed explanation. My very favourite fleet!!
Birmingham City Transport 1948 Leyland Titan PD2/1 Brush H30/24R
Here is a Leyland Titan PD2/1 with Brush H54R body, to Birmingham’s then standard design. She dates from 1948 and we see her in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979. She began her service at Yardley Wood depot and, Malcolm Keeley reports in his book in the Glory Days series, most of the batch so allocated from new remained there throughout their working lives. The others were at Perry Bar. The saga of the Brush bodies is not so happy, however. There had been some earlier disagreements between the builder and the operator, the former managing to convince itself that the product was entirely the opposite of what the operator wanted. This batch appears to have been the last of the Brush bodies for Birmingham.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
22/02/16 – 13:28
Interestingly, at the same time, Brush was building bodies for Manchester on Daimler chassis to Manchester’s post war standard design and there were a number of letters exchanged due to Brush’s “interpretations” which were not acceptable.
Phil Blinkhorn
22/02/16 – 16:14
Well, Phil, this makes me wonder if – by upsetting two of the country’s biggest operators – this saga is the reason Brush got out of building bus bodies not long afterwards.
Pete Davies
22/02/16 – 16:15
In 1949, coachbuilding at Brush employed around 1500 people and contributed £3 million towards the company’s £15 million productive total in that year. Then came the Korean War (1950-53), which brought a flood of armament related orders to Brush, who closed the coachbuilding activity in 1951 to concentrate resources on the more lucrative parts of the business.
Roger Cox
23/02/16 – 05:37
Yes, Roger, that diversion of resources for “War Work” would explain a lot!
Pete Davies
23/02/16 – 05:38
A most elegant vehicle indeed, unashamedly with very traditional appearance and further greatly enhanced by the very pleasing Birmingham livery.
Chris Youhill
23/02/16 – 10:48
And, of course, Chris Y, unblemished by adverts, a Brummie trademark, until the latter days. I confess to getting confused about the chrome/painted and aluminium rads on PD’s. I always thought the former to be PD1’s; the latter PD2’s. It doesn’t seem to work that way, unless the rad surrounds got changed about over the years!
Chris Hebbron
23/02/16 – 13:11
How right you are Chris H about the lack of disfiguring adverts – sadly of course we have to acknowledge that they are a valuable source of revenue but even accepting that some are totally “cheap” and abominable. Regarding PD1/PD2 radiator shells, just off the top of my head I’ve always thought that painted or chrome ones were frequently interchanged on PD1s – I just can’t think of any PD2 fitted with either of those.
Chris Youhill
23/02/16 – 16:46
Oh heck – I was so anxious to answer Chris H’s query that I overlooked the PD2 in the picture having a chrome shell. I wonder if batches of PD2s were therefore so equipped or has this one being “treated” during preservation – any informed answer would be appreciated please.
Chris Youhill
24/02/16 – 05:48
I think the chrome radiator shell was always an option but I can’t think of anybody except Manchester who took it. Even there they then went and painted them red!
David Beilby
24/02/16 – 05:49
All Manchester’s PD2s had chrome radiators but aluminium was the Leyland standard offering.
Phil Blinkhorn
24/02/16 – 05:52
I understand the choice of chrome pressed metal or cast aluminium radiator shells was down to the purchaser’s specification or at least it was for large scale orders. Most of Manchester’s PD2’s for example had the pressed metal shell which was chrome plated as delivered but always painted red at the first re-paint. This I understand was down to the frugal views of GM Albert Neil as the pressed metal version was cheaper.
Philip Halstead
24/02/16 – 05:53
Exeter took delivery of 17 PD2/1 in November and December 1947. They had consecutive registrations but the Leyland bodies of the first ten were in the 472 xxx series whilst the last 7 were in the 480 xxx series. I think the first lot had painted radiator shells and the later ones chrome. Certainly HFJ 144 (No. 17), which is preserved, has and has always had a chrome one. Some of these magnificent buses lasted 23 years in service with Exeter – and looked as smart at the end as when they were new!
David Chapman
24/02/16 – 08:16
Thanks for these informative replies folks, and I’m getting redder by the minute having just recalled that the two Kippax and District PD2s (GWX 823/4) had chrome shells – and I’ve even driven one of them when owned by Wallace Arnold !!
Philip H, Manchester’s PD2’s chrome radiators certainly were not all painted at first vehicle repaint. There was a massive variation across the fleet. There are plenty of photos showing older PD2s, from the early 1950s, in the all red scheme in the mid 1960s, with unpainted radiators and a good number of later vehicles in SELNEC colours still with the brightwork intact. Radiators were painted if pitted but serviceable. The bulk of those painted was, I was once told, due to time pressure on the spray booth when repaints into the all red scheme were under way. Certainly many vehicles were repainted earlier than would have been the case had the scheme not been changed and one fewer masking job would have saved a little time. Another view was that those so painted were handled by a particular shift which never masked the radiator shell. Almost all Parrs Wood’s and most of Queens Rd’s PD2s survived until SELNEC with the chrome untouched. Hyde Rd’s vehicles seemed to be mainly painted. A well known story is that a Burlingham bodied PD2 returned to Parrs Wood after being treated to the red scheme including a painted radiator. The batch were Parrs Wood’s pride and joy and the bus was sent back with tart instruction to remove the paint and never paint a Parrs Wood radiator again unless instructed. This certainly seemed to hold good throughout the 1960s.
Phil Blinkhorn
24/02/16 – 16:52
I particularly enjoy little tales like that one, Phil, it puts a human touch to it all, and makes our hobby that much more fascinating. It’s not just about the buses, it’s about the people who operated them and cared for them as well. Thanks for sharing it.
Dave Careless
25/02/16 – 05:44
I found a photo on Facebook of Tynemouth and District no. 31, an all Leyland PD2/1, new to Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company, complete with chromed radiator shell. I’m unsure of the photo’s copyright so I’m reluctant to reproduce it here.
Richard Slater
25/02/16 – 16:25
PD1’s and PD2’s were all fitted with pressed steel radiator shells until around 1949. Due to material shortages just after the war only a few were able to be chrome plated at first, the majority being painted. Then Leyland introduced the cast aluminium shell which became standard, with the pressed steel version available as an option. Halifax Corporation had nine PD2/1’s in 1947/48. All had chromed pressed steel shells apart from one which was painted orange. Throughout most of my childhood this was 101 (ACP 385) and it stood out from the others, but an official Leyland Motors photo shows a different one with the painted shell, and latterly in the mid-1960’s it had migrated on to a different bus again, so some swapping must have taken place at overhaul. Todmorden’s earlier PD2/1’s had painted steel shells, then came some chromed ones, then the later ones and the PD2/12’s had aluminium ones. Some later PD1’s – notably those supplied up to about 1952 to Central SMT – had the later aluminium version. I actually preferred the painted radiator shells on many PD1’s and PD2’s. I often thought that the chromed version tended to look a bit too gaudy, especially on some of those in an otherwise sombre municipal livery, and they also emphasised the slightest dints and imperfections which they tended to pick up quite easily. What I hated was when some operators – notably Leigh Corporation – chose to paint the later aluminium radiator shells, which looked absolutely terrible. By contrast, the chromed AEC radiator always looked superb to my mind, and always looked dreadful if painted over – Leigh Corporation and Liverpool spring to mind as offenders. I’ve wondered though, when Manchester CT painted their previously chromed shells, how did they get the paint to adhere and not just come off at the slightest scratch. Surely stripping the chrome plating would have been too much of a bother?
John Stringer
25/02/16 – 17:03
Some wonderfully interesting comments here, folks. Thank you!
Pete Davies
26/02/16 – 16:53
Thx, folks, especially John S, for helping to answer my question on “which PD rads when”! Another mystery solved!
Chris Hebbron
27/02/16 – 05:54
Richard, the photo of T&D 31 that you refer to is already on this site. Its in part two of my article about Northern General Transport Percy Main Depot. If memory serves, I bought my copy from a dealer at the Seaburn Historic Vehicle show.
Ronnie Hoye
28/02/16 – 06:05
Thanks Ronnie. I found it on another site, dedicated to matters Northumbrian. It was unattributed.
Richard Slater
02/03/16 – 06:24
Just catching up on the above after a few days out (due to computer death and replacement), and I can’t see that Phil’s statement about all Manchester PD2s having chromed radiator shells has been challenged. In fact the first 100 (3200-99) had cast aluminium shells, but since they were at Queens Road, I don’t suppose Phil saw much of them! See www.sct61.org.uk/
Peter Williamson
02/03/16 – 10:21
Peter,trying not to rely on memory I have been totally misled by a number of photos of both the Metro Cammell and Leyland bodied examples with shiny radiators when new. As for not seeing much of them, the 53 provided some sightings and visits to the city centre others, and North Manchester wasn’t a foreign ground to me, the radiator shells just didn’t register!
Phil Blinkhorn
16/03/16 – 05:05
According to Eyre & Heaps Manchester specified the pressed radiator shell because it was cheaper to repair when the dozier brethren ran into the back of something. Personally I would have thought the tin shell would be less resistant to casual knocks than the heavy casting, but the decision was presumably based upon feedback from accident repair statistics. It’s worth noting that Salford specified shorter rads on their CVGs for similar reasons, while Birkenhead and Rochdale just bolted a big lump of angle iron across the grille to protect it!
David Jones
16/03/16 – 08:17
Perhaps, David, if the ‘dozier brethren’ had been required to pay for the repairs out of their wages, they might have been more alert to their surroundings . .
Ribble Motor Services 1951 Leyland Titan PD2/3 East Lancs FCL27/22RD
This vehicle is easily recognisable as one of Ribble’s famous ‘White Ladies’. She has a Leyland Titan PD2/3 chassis, with East Lancs FCL49RD body. She dates from 1951 and, at the time of this photograph, she was with Quantock. I understand she has now passed to Sir Brian Souter. We see her outside the Guildhall, but Prestonians will know that this is not Preston Guildhall. The date of 1st January 2005 gives a clue – she’s in Winchester for a King Alfred running day.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
26/02/16 – 05:32
Back in the spring of 1972 I had read in “Buses” magazine that Premier Travel were about to withdraw the last of their ex Ribble White Ladies, so I decided take a day trip to Cambridge to sample one while I had the chance. I rode from Cambridge to Royston and the youthful conductor (who I now suspect was Paul Carter, later to write the history of Premier) told me that I could catch a bus from Royston to the depot at Chrishall and then another back to Cambridge. I did as suggested and at the depot I found the chief engineer in the process of handing over this very bus to a group of enthusiasts for preservation. It was to be 43 years before I saw it again at the Scottish Bus Museum at Lathlalmond in 2015.
Nigel Turner
26/02/16 – 08:43
Thanks for that, Nigel. I still can’t reconcile the lowbridge seating with coach designation, but there we are!
Pete Davies
27/02/16 – 08:36
These vehicles were often used on service X4 from Manchester to Burnley via Todmorden, which passed under a low bridge at Portsmouth (a suburb of Todmorden.)
Don McKeown
27/02/16 – 09:22
I’m pretty sure that the bridge which barred full-height double-deckers from services X4/X14 was on the A646 between Walk Mill and Towneley. There isn’t a bridge at Portsmouth, but there is one just down the road at Cornholme. This is passable for full-height double-deckers (Yorkshire Rider used highbridge Atlanteans on Halifax depot’s share of service 592, Halifax-Burnley), but, being an arched bridge, it’s still ‘risky’.
David Call
27/02/16 – 12:55
I drove this vehicle a few times for Stephen Morris before he sold it to Brian Souter. It certainly was a lively performer but rolled a lot upstairs. Great vehicle and lovely to see it.
Roger Burdett
28/02/16 – 06:11
The bridge between Walk Mill and Towneley had a maximum permissible height of 14ft 6in and was passable for full-height double deckers up to and including that height. I remember passing under it on an enthusiasts’ outing with Halifax JOC 377 (BCP 671) and we stopped to photograph it doing so. The bridge was a straight steel one – not arched – so it was not a case of getting the position right. I think in the days before WYPTE diverted the Halifax-Todmorden Burnley route via Mereclough and Pike Hill it was not unknown for full-height double decks to pass under the bridge, though low-heights were the normal allocation. I know Burnley & Pendle had to be careful when their coaching unit received some Volvo CityBus double deckers, as they were 14 ft 9in and had to avoid the bridge.
John Stringer
28/02/16 – 15:22
Bridge heights always a problem as there seems to be some debate regarding this particular vehicle and the necessity for using it here is a suggestion. I seem to recall London Transport Country having problems with RCL Routemasters some where in I think Hertfordshire where the road had been lowered so that the warning sign indicated enough clearance for said vehicle but upon exiting from under the bridge hit the back end of the vehicle. This is probably more common with HGVs particularly artics where the front of the vehicle rises up before the back and levels out earlier.
Patrick Armstrong
18/11/16 – 11:40
I used to “spot” these beautiful buses as they made their way through Prestwich, north of Manchester. I have also tried hard to interest someone in a die cast model but to no avail as they were only used by Ribble and Premier. What a shame!
Birmingham City Transport 1948 Leyland Titan PD2/1 Brush H30/24R
HOV 685 is a Leyland Titan PD2/1 with Brush H54R body, to Birmingham’s then standard design. She dates from 1948 and we see her in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979. She began her service at Yardley Wood depot and, Malcolm Keeley reports in his book in the Glory Days series, most of the batch so allocated from new remained there throughout their working lives. The others were at Perry Bar. The saga of the Brush bodies is not so happy, however. There had been some earlier disagreements between the builder and the operator, the former managing to convince itself that the product was entirely the opposite of what the operator wanted. This batch appears to have been the last of the Brush bodies for Birmingham.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
05/06/16 – 09:22
Brush had a similar “conversations” with Manchester regarding fifty bodies it was building to the Manchester post war Standard design on Daimler chassis at the same time. Manchester was unhappy with Brush’s interpretation and had to keep a watching brief on the progress to ensure what was produced was identical to the drawings. As it turned out the bodies were well finished and lasted well.
Phil Blinkhorn
07/06/16 – 11:43
Can anybody please explain what the dispute between BCT and Brush was about. Presumably the operator issued a comprehensive specification of their requirements for the builder to follow
Pat Jennings
07/06/16 – 18:48
Pat, according to his ‘Glory Days’ book on Birmingham City Transport, Malcolm Keeley reports that the rot seems to have set in – in more ways than one – when the timber frame bodies on the surviving 1929-31 AEC Regents had to have new Austerity bodies by Brush in 1943/4. There was supposed to be a decrease in price as a result of salvaging parts from the old bodies, but they had been from four different builders and the cost was actually increased. The next chapter takes place in respect of the Crossleys ordered in 1945. They should have had Brush bodies, but delays in delivering chassis caused Brush to ask to be ‘released’. Not an unreasonable request, perhaps, but Keeley says, “After the wartime disputes over the Regent and CWA bodies, small wonder BCT ceased to employ Brush.”
Pete Davies
09/06/16 – 06:45
Pete, that’s all true but the Leylands are 1948 deliveries whereas your comment finishes in 1945. If I were a betting man I’d put good money on Bush having the same approach as it took with Manchester.
Phil Blinkhorn
09/06/16 – 19:08
Phil B, I’ve spent most of the day looking in the Keeley book for his comments about this dispute, so far without success. I’m sure I didn’t dream it. I’ll post further on this in due course!
Pete Davies
10/06/16 – 05:33
Pete, you are quite right in your summary of Malcolm Keeley’s account of the Brush utility bodies for Birmingham, and the consequent decision by BCT not to use Brush any more. The account of the war-time re-bodying of the pre-war AEC Regents (p.26) describes the problems Brush had salvaging material from the old bodies by four makers, and trying to incorporate these into the fifty new bodies. Delivery was delayed because of the interruption to the production system, and additional detail design work was also needed. A major dispute broke out over the cost. (One is illustrated on p.30, and a trainer conversion on p.41). As you say in your original posting, Brush asked to be released from bodying the 10 Crossleys ordered in 1945, because of pressure of other work in their drawing office. They were already committed to 100 bodies on Leyland PD2s. Keeley, on p.48, indicates that BCT ceased to employ Brush, as you quote above.
Michael Hampton
10/06/16 – 10:21
Thank you, Michael . . .
Pete Davies
10/06/16 – 10:21
Thanks Pete and Michael. Perhaps the clue to the similarities to the dispute with Manchester lies in the drawing office.
Leeds City Transport 1955 Leeds Titan PD2/11 Roe H33/25R
This looks like a typical view from Yorkshire but these Leeds City Transport buses are interloping in Lancashire. Taken around 1970 the two Leyland Titans are seen in Rochdale climbing up from Sudden on Manchester Road heading for the town centre. The occasion was the Trans Pennine Rally from Manchester to Harrogate. Leading is 207 (UUA 207) a PD2/11 from a batch which were reputed to be the first Titans with Pneumo-cyclic transmission. Following up is 260 (5260 NW) a later PD3/5 30-footer. Both have Roe bodies.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Philip Halstead
28/10/16 – 07:41
Philip, I can’t make out the registration of the PD3, but I’d have thought it would be 5280 NW, ex Leeds 280, which is preserved (currently by Ensign, I believe, but probably with the Mile Cross Transport Collection at the time of your photo), rather than 5260 NW, which I don’t think survived.
Trevor Leach
28/10/16 – 16:55
They may have been the first batch of Pneumocyclic Titans but the very first is Leyland bodied demonstrator NTF 9 still owned by Edward Docherty who bought it from the manufacturer for A1 service work around 1955.
Stephen Allcroft
29/10/16 – 06:16
Is the date on the photo correct? The parts of the cars that we can see look to be more 1990 than 1970.
David Hick
31/10/16 – 08:18
This post is from a print and I regret I kept no notes of when it was taken. On reflection the date is more likely late 1980’s. After enlarging the scan the PD3/5 does look the be 5260. Apologies for any confusion but relying on memory with age is a tricky business.
Philip Halstead
31/10/16 – 15:11
I wondered about the date as I remember UUA 207 being stored on Pocklington Airfield in the 1980s alongside another ex-Leeds Leyland which was being used as a mobile control room/mess room by the gliding club.
ORV 989 is another in the long line of Portsmouth buses with the registration numbers in the ‘high 900’ series. It dates from 1958 and is a Leyland Titan PD2/40 with Metropolitan Cammell H56R body. It is seen in the St Catherine’s park and ride car park during the King Alfred running day on 1 January 2009.
This second view shows the Municipal Crest.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
25/12/16 – 10:22
What a nice Christmas Day sight! This bus is a superb example of restoration as not only does it look smart but it looks “real”, in other words like a Portsmouth bus would have done at the time. I think the adverts play no small part in this and of course they are not appropriate for every restoration.
David Beilby
26/12/16 – 06:54
Thank you, David. I must say, having seen other versions of Portsmouth’s livery, the others were nowhere near in the “elegance” department.
Pete Davies
26/12/16 – 06:55
Drop windows on an Orion, was this a design feature unique to Portsmouth?
I’m researching the production of Spitfires after the Woolston factories were bombed and have just met an 80+ gent who remembers a bus garage turned lorry garage in Twyford Avenue/ Alexandra Park area of Portsmouth where he saw plain metal Spitfire wings going in through big front doors and camouflage painted ones coming out. He said it reverted to be a lorry garage after the war. Anyone with info on where this garage might have been and anything about the wartime use of it would be great.
Alan Matlock
25/04/19 – 05:37
In 1933 and 1947 There was a Hants and Dorset depot on Villiers Rd, which is only half a mile away from Twyford Ave, and a Corporation depot was opposite it. https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/440401
John Lomas
25/04/19 – 08:15
Sorry, John, but the section of map shows Twyford Avenue in Southampton. The Corporation depot opposite the H&D one in Villiers Road was behind the Police Station. We are talking about Portsmouth’s Twyford Avenue if we are dealing with Alan Matlock’s enquiry. The H&D depot in Villiers Road was one of two “central works” type places, the other being in Winchester Road. One had the body works and the other had the chassis works. This was before the firm grew tired of waiting for planning consent to merge the two and went to Barton Park (now home of Solent Blue Line and Xelabus) in the early 1980s.
