Photos – Page 4 – Old bus photos

Newcastle Corporation – Leyland Titan – LVK 11 – 359

Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Newcastle Corporation
1949
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland L27/26R

Yet again another shot from the job lot of shots I bought at the market I’m afraid there is no information on the photo. But staying on the low bridge theme of Newcastle Corporation that I have been posting, here is a line up of three Newcastle low bridge double deckers. Between 1948/9 Newcastle took delivery of quite a number of all Leyland Titans, among them were 6 low bridge variants – LVK 6/11, fleet numbers 354/9 – 359 pictured. They replaced 4 pre war Daimlers BTN 100/3 (fleet numbers unknown) and for a while they ran alongside these utility Guy Arabs, the two in the photo are still in the blue wartime livery. Unfortunately I cant find any information about the Guy’s as regards fleet numbers, Registrations or bodybuilder etc.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

27/07/12 – 08:37

The two Guy Arabs appear to be of the Mark 1 type with the short bonnet. The bodywork seems to be the standard Brush utility L27/28. Unfortunately, I do not have access to a Newcastle fleetlist to confirm.

Roger Cox

27/07/12 – 08:38

Unlike many of our number, I cannot whip up any enthusiasm for utility bodywork. On the other hand, I have boundless enthusiasm for the all Leyland PD2 – especially the earlier examples and the final version. The true Faringtons, with their separate ventilators, did nothing for me. Sheffield had going on for 150 of the early all Leyland PD2s (but all Highbridge) as well as numerous Faringtons and 12 of the superb last version.
As an AEC man from an early age, I always loved these PD2s with an almost silent tick-over (and a distinctive beat) and superbly finished bodywork. Luckily when Leyland gave up on coachwork in 1954, Sheffield continued to buy these wonderful beasts with top quality bodywork by Roe and Weymann (pre Orion). Similar Roe and Weymann bodywork also sat atop Regent IIIs and Regent Vs – the old dual sourcing in action.

David Oldfield

27/07/12 – 08:41

Well, our anonymous photographer has produced another gem. I, for one, never knew Newcastle had blue buses. Equally, I once photographed a red Bury bus at a rally. When I reported this to my father, he said he remembered them in red, and they had changed to green post-war.

Pete Davies

27/07/12 – 15:42

Pete, I’m pleased to say that a preserved example of Newcastle’s all Leyland PD2’s ‘LVK 123’ is still alive and well and is part of the N.E.B.P.T. Ltd collection, it’s a 1948 highbridge example and has been restored to it’s original blue and cream livery, as per the Guy’s in the picture. At the beginning of 1949 ‘half way through production of the order’ the livery was changed to the yellow and cream with maroon line out and red wheels which most of us will be more familiar with. I’m not sure if the low bridge vehicle in the picture pre dates that, but it wasn’t unusual for some block batch registrations to be held back and issued to later vehicles, I suspect that’s the case here and this is from the 1949 batch, I think it took about two or three years to change the whole fleet and being the newest I would think the blue PD’s would have been at the back of the queue

Ronnie Hoye

27/07/12 – 15:42

Newcastle had blue buses until the nineteen fifties the Northern Coachbuilders bodied AEC Regents being the first yellow buses delivered new One of the LVK batch of PD2s has been restored to the blue. In contrast Newcastles trolleys were yellow from the start.

Chris Hough

27/07/12 – 15:43

The photograph is a real gem and illustrates the difference between wartime utility bodywork and the standards on the return to peace.
In 1942 Newcastle Corporation received 2 Guy Arab I with Massey H30/26R bodywork numbered 245-46 JTN 505-6. They were withdrawn in 1950. Another 2 Arab I with bodywork by Strachans L27/28R were received in 1943, numbered 247-48, JTN 607-8. These are recorded as being withdrawn in 1950, with 247 going to Darlington Corporation as a driver training vehicle.
The Leyland Titans 6-11, LVK 6-11, were new in late 1949 and would have been among the first motorbuses delivered in cadmium yellow livery, which hitherto had been applied to trolleybuses only.
I hope this information is helpful and thank you for posting some wonderful photographs.

Kevin Hey

28/07/12 – 08:53

As mentioned elsewhere and by others in these pages, it really is amazing what previously unknown (or forgotten) information surfaces in response to the publication of a photograph. Keep up the good work, gents!

Pete Davies

28/07/12 – 12:11

As Kevin points out, Newcastle had two fleet colours, Trolley buses were yellow and motor buses blue, that all changed in 1949 when all vehicles adopted the trolleybus livery, still with me?. Some time later all the fleet numbers were changed, existing trolley buses up to 99 were renumbered starting with a 3 in front, 100 became 400, and any new vehicles carried on from their with 628 being the last, this meant that motorbuses were also renumbered and 359 pictured above became 11. Confusing isn’t it?

Ronnie Hoye

28/07/12 – 12:19

The lowbridge Arab 1s with Strachan bodies supplied to Newcastle were part of a batch originally intended for London Transport, before they successfully switched the requirement to CWA6 Daimlers D1-6. Bradford got one too, No.467. Not sure where the others went without looking the details up.

John Whitaker

28/07/12 – 15:54

Ronnie, I think that the pre-war and wartime trolleybus fleet was renumbered in 1946 and the fleet number for the beginning of the postwar trolleybuses began at 443 – although the first trolleybuses to be received after the war were the 20 BUT Q1s starting at fleet number 479.
The motorbus fleet was not re-numbered enbloc, although some renumbering of batches occurred. In March 1963 6-11, LVK 6-11 became 354-9 in order to vacate numbers for the impending delivery of 25 Leyland Atlanteans that became 1-25, 1-25 JVK, with bodywork split between Alexander and Weymann as was customary practice with Newcastle Atlanteans until 1966.
Similarly,in March 1966 Leyland Titans 115-36, LVK 115-36 were renumbered to 415-36 to create space for a batch of 28 Weymann bodied Leyland Atlanteans 106-33, KBB 106-33D. The remainder of the 1966 delivery was 26 Alexander bodied Atlanteans which became 239-66, KBB 239-66D. I believe that these batches were originally to have been numbered in a single series 401-56, JVK 401-56D.
I hope this clarifies things. As you say, it was confusing!
John’s comment about the Strachans bodied Guys being part of a batch originally intended for London is very interesting. The topic of wartime deliveries and the role of the Regional Traffic Commissioners and Ministry of War Transport is one that is ripe for studying.

Kevin Hey

28/07/12 – 19:10

Expanding on John W’s comments, LT was allocated eleven unbuilt lowbridge Guys from Strachans and four from Northern Counties. It only needed thirteen. Strachans bodies did not impress them, from LGOC days, and NC were an unknown quantity. LT found that they were three inches too high than their preferred height. Strachan offered to build the bodies to LT’s required height, but this would have entailed eliminating one step from the staircase, making one of the remainder too high for comfort. LT then wanted to build thirteen of its own lowbridge STL bodies for the Guy chassis (like the earlier, unfrozen ones) but was forbidden to. It was the two surplus Guy/Strachans to LT’s needs which went to Newcastle, in May 1943, fleet numbers 247/248 (JTN 607/608). Both vehicles were reconditioned after the war, but were disposed of in 1950.

Chris Hebbron

28/07/12 – 19:12

I agree Kevin; wartime allocations were fascinating!
This is another complicated story, well told in Ken Blacker`s book, “London`s Utility Buses”. London managed to persuade the powers that be, to allow them to build some STL pattern lowbridge bodies, and this enabled them to avoid the 13 Guys mentioned. Some were actually bodied by NCME, but the Strachan variety were disposed of as follows:-
Potteries. JEH 472/3
Aldershot & Dist. EHO 695
Red & White EWO 484
Skills (Nottingham). GTU 427
Bradford Corporation. DKY 467
South Shields Corporation. CU 4549
Newcastle C.T. JTN 607/608.
The Bradford bus finished up as a “school bus” (tuition vehicle), and thus lasted well into the 1950s, and consequently into my memories.

John Whitaker

29/07/12 – 11:03

Sorry, Kevin, I got it the wrong way round, but why make it so complicated when the whole thing could have been done by adding a letter to the beginning or end of the existing number. A simple system could use F – R – S – T. ‘F’ could be either front entrance or front engine, the same would apply to ‘R’ – ‘S; would be single deck and ‘T’ Trolleybus, but I’ve just seen a flaw in that idea, you don’t need a university degree to work it out, or am I just being cynical?

Ronnie Hoye

30/07/12 – 10:58

Ronnie, an interesting idea. Most municipal fleets used a pure numeric system for fleet numbering rather than alphabet-numeric. Two fleets that used the latter were Glasgow and Liverpool, although Liverpool began the process of moving to pure numeric a short while before being transferred to Merseyside PTE. Stockton-on-Tees began using alphabet-numeric some years before being merged with Middlesbrough and TRTB to form Teesside Municipal Transport. There may well have been others but I can’t think of any. Still, if I have missed some then I’m sure that someone will add a comment or two to complete the picture.
The renumbering of some of the Newcastle motorbus fleet in the mid-1960s was a consequence of the very large numbers of motorbuses that were delivered in a very short period of time for converting the trolleybus system to motorbus operation. By 1954 the motorbus numbers had reached 354 and the next deliveries in 1956 began at 137 (after the 1948 high-bridge Leyland Titans that ended at 136). As an aside, in 1957 this necessitated renumbering the Daimler CVD single-deckers 164-73 to 364-73 so that new deliveries of motorbuses could continue to be numbered in sequence. By 1962 this sequence had reached 238 and there was a gap of 12 numbers vacant to the start of the 1949 batch of AEC Regents that started at 251.
The undertaking had ordered 25 Leyland Atlanteans for delivery in 1963 and these were numbered from 1 upwards. By 1965 this sequence had reached 105 and was encroaching on the 1948 high-bridge Titans that began at 115. Of course, even renumbering the Titans to be 415-36 was insufficient to accommodate the entire batch of 56 Atlanteans due in 1966 and half of them was numbered 106-33, and the other half 239-66. I would be interested to hear of the reason for the original plan to number these 401-56 not proceeding.
Finally, a word for John. When I joined Bradford City Transport immediately prior to the formation of the West Yorkshire PTE, the driving school was in the capable hands of Inspector Harold Gobby, although for the life of me I cannot remember where it was based. The conducting school, which was based in the basement of the Forster Square offices, was in the hands of Inspector Joseph (Joe) Straughton. Ah, happy days!

Kevin Hey

30/07/12 – 16:02

You should be able to tell us a tale or two, Kevin.
I suppose it was Leylands in Inspector Gobby’s day, although one of the Crossleys replaced 467 for a time in 1958. Was the trolleybus driving department under the same control?
I left Bradford in 1968, but it will always be my favourite fleet!

John Whitaker

31/07/12 – 05:50

During my time as an Instructor at Yorkshire Rider/First Halifax, the earlier pages of the PSV Test Results Book showed several tests conducted for WYPTE/Metro Calderdale in the mid-seventies by an examiner called H. Gobi.

John Stringer

23/12/12 – 08:05

Further to the discussion on Newcastle Corporation Leyland bodied PD 2/3s here are two photographs I took of LVK 123 at the 1977 Dunbar Rally.

Gerald Walker

23/12/12 – 13:44

Kevin is more of an authority on this subject than I am, but if my information is correct, LVK 123 is actually older than LVK 11. Newcastle Corporation placed an order for these Leyland’s to be delivered in 1948/9. Most of them were the high bridge type, but the order also included 6 of the low bridge variants. Registration numbers were issued as a block, but as is often the case with large orders the vehicles are not necessarily delivered in numerical order. Up to 1949 Newcastle had two liveries, motor buses were blue and trolley buses yellow. Whilst these vehicles were being built it was decided to standardise the whole fleet in the trolleybus livery, but by that time part of this order had been completed and among others, 123 was delivered in blue, the remainder, including LVK 11, were delivered in yellow. Unless the normal repaint process was accelerated to speed up the livery change, 123 would have been blue for about three years

Ronnie Hoye

26/12/12 – 07:16

A question for Ronnie – and others! – about an anomaly in Newcastle post-war panel numberings, triggered by Ronnie’s comments about allocation of registrations. Newcastle ‘started again at 1’ with panel numberings after the war, with a batch of five CWA6s taking numbers 1-5 (albeit delivered over a three-year period, 1, 2 and 5 in 1945, 4 in 1946 and 3 in 1947, all with second-hand pre-war MCCW or PR bodies). Another batch of fourteen CWA6s with Massey bodies came next, in 1945 and 1946, but numbered 13-26. The numerical gap between these batches wasn’t filled until 1949, by the low-bridge Leylands 6-11. By this time other deliveries had taken numbering in the new series beyond the 100 mark. Does anyone know the background to this? It’s often puzzled me.

Tony Fox

26/12/12 – 15:42

Never having seen anything on paper I cant answer that one, Tony. It must have made sense to someone, but Newcastle seemed to make a simple system of numbers based on the registration far more complicated than it need be, some vehicles retained their number the whole time they were part of the fleet whilst others were renumbered at least once, and in the end some fleet numbers bore no relation to the registration. Speaking for myself, I would have used a simple pre or suffix system of letters to denote either vehicle type or the year they joined the fleet, that way you could still use the registration numbers as part of the fleet number and never need to change it, regardless of how many vehicles you had. London Transport for example

Ronnie Hoye

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

09/09/14 – 18:00

I remember the so called “Blue Buses” Daimlers very well.
They had preselector gearboxes which must have been a boon for the drivers and low down on the inside left a Notek Fog lamp – very famed and desirable by many! – which was very necessary in the old days of coal fires and heavy industry which caused very extreme smog on Tyneside/North of England.
Another unique feature of the older Daimler buses with registrations from FVK 197 on was they had next to the front destination screen a 5 inch blue light!
No other Newcastle bus photos? I remember so well the Haymarket bus station with a real mixture of buses/coaches from Northern – United Automobile Services and of course Newcastle Corporation Transport!

Stuart Beveridge

10/09/14 – 07:00

Kevin H, John W, John S – I recall that when the Bradford trolleys finished in 1972 it was reported that the last trainee to pass his trolleybus driving test did so a few weeks earlier, and the examiner was an Inspector Gobbi – at least, that’s how I think his name was recorded at the time. Gobby, Gobbi, or Gobi, I presume it’s the same gentleman being referred to.

David Call

10/09/14 – 18:00

In WYPTE days this gentleman had carried out a number of PSV Tests for Calderdale-based trainees, and his name was recorded in the Driving School’s Test Results record book as H. Gobi.

John Stringer

10/09/14 – 18:00

In his original post Ronnie mentions he can’t identify the body builder of the Guy utilities and, though Kevin Hey lists the two Strachens bodied vehicles Newcastle had, there is no direct tie up to the photo though it is obvious that the bodies are not by Massey, who built the first two delivered. To state the B******g obvious, to quote Monty Python, the Arabs in the photo are the Strachans bodied examples, JTN 607 and JTN 608, close examination shows JTN 608 is on the left.

Phil Blinkhorn

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – NWE 561 – 361

From the Tom Robinson Collection

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Mann Egerton H30/26R

There have been many previous references to Sheffield PD2s including those bodied by Leyland, Weymann/MCW, Roe and ECW but as far as I know, the small but rare order for two buses from Mann Egerton hasn’t been mentioned. These buses enjoyed the usual thirteen year life with Sheffield prior to selling on. Tom Robinson of the Sheffield Transport Study Group comments and I quote “362 went via a Barnsley scrapman to Paton’s of Renfrew. Paton was so pleased with the bus he immediately tried to buy 361 which was at the same scrapyard. Alas it was in the course of being scrapped. In time ex 362 was cut down to single deck. The result of a fire, I think, and used as a tow wagon. They really were impressive and heavy vehicles. The saloon woodwork was especially opulent.”
Keith Beeden advises that although the original contract called for H30/26R, steps were taken shortly after delivery to change this to H32/26R possibly because Roe were seating H33/25R on their deliveries at the time

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Darwent

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

The Roe PD2s were the first of many bodies from the Crossgate works. They were NWE 586-594 but were delivered earlier, in 1951. I suspect the reason for both bodies being higher seating capacity was that they were (Sheffield’s) earliest vehicles to 27′ rather 26′ length.
Despite many comments to the contrary, even by eminent experts, there was a standard – but not standardised – Sheffield bus. [During most of the ‘fifties it was either a Regent or Titan with either a Weymann or Roe body.] It changed with time and the demise of certain companies but a lot of the post war interest was with the “distress purchases” when, especially Weymann, could not meet demand. Occasionally the distress purchases turned out to be gems – true of these two Mann Egertons. There are two magnificent green London Transport Ts on the Rally Circuit (9.6 powered Regal III – a single deck RT) which attest to the beauty and quality of Mann Egerton’s work.
Mann Egerton were better known as the Norwich Austin dealer and they bodied many early post war Austins as small coaches, but the London Transport work did no harm to their reputation and their balance sheet.

David Oldfield

13/09/12 – 07:05

Here is a picture of 362 with Patons: www.flickr.com

Stephen Bloomfield

13/09/12 – 08:33

Very handsome vehicle, especially in that fine livery. Had no idea that Mann Egerton had ever built d/deckers. Sad that 361 was broken up after such a short life: if they were heavy then they must have been pretty robust too.

Ian Thompson

14/09/12 – 06:29

Ian, they are supposed to be the only deckers they ever built. They did get as far as building underfloor coaches as well – including a pair of AEC Regal IVs for Creamline of Bordon Hants.

Stephen. Can’t find 362 on flickr.

David Oldfield

14/09/12 – 06:32

They were certainly unusual looking, and stood out, especially with that slightly recessed panel at the front where the destination boxes were, which was unique in the fleet. But to my mind, they weren’t nearly as handsome as the OWB-registered PD2/10’s (656-667) alongside which they ran regularly on the 69 service joint with Rotherham Corporation. I seem to recall the two Mann Egerton’s sat down at the back end quite noticeably, especially when they had a good load on, but perhaps that was just a perception.
Ironically, one of the PD2/10’s, 666, was cut down to a gritter/towing vehicle by STD, just like Paton’s ended up doing with the former 362, and in its sheared off form, G56, as it became, was kept busy for many years, considerably longer than the fourteen years it served as a bus, towing all kinds of disgraced rear-engined machines back to Central Works from wherever they’d decided to expire. And it always looked quite happy doing it!

Dave Careless

14/09/12 – 06:34

A smart bus, indeed – but does anyone know why these had the sunken destination screen box? I know some pre-war and early post-war Sheffield buses had this feature, but it was by no means universal. It would be interesting to speculate that, had Mann Egerton ever tried to sell d/d’s to LT following on from their successful PS1s, then this large screen box area would be almost the same proportions as that used for the roof-box RT!

Paul Haywood

14/09/12 – 06:35

A quicker link to the ex- 362 picture Stephen.
Debateable whether the Patons livery does the bus any favours though. www.flickr.com/

John Darwent

14/09/12 – 06:37

Is it just me, or can anyone else see a distinct resemblance to Roberts bodywork (also very heavy!) sct61.org.uk/da86 ?

Peter Williamson

14/09/12 – 06:14

Apparently Glasgow Corporation FYS 494 fleet number D66 was a Daimler CVD6 with a Mann Egerton H30/26R body, new in 1951, scrapped 1960 and rebodied with an Alexander body from FYS 488 fleet number D60 which was a Daimler CD650, (10.6 litre with power steering) but chassis scrapped, not a very popular bus that one.

Spencer

14/09/12 – 06:39

Glasgow Corporation received a Mann Egerton bodied Daimler CVD6 double-decker in 1951 – D66 (FYS 494).

David Call

15/09/12 – 07:08

You’ll be hard pressed to find many of today’s featherweight Eurobuses fit to be preserved in future years and yet in the fifties the professionals were complaining about buses being too heavy. [Please compare fuel mpg of a fifties half-cab with a Euro 5 diesel.]
Why do people eulogise the Mann Egertons and their contemporary Roberts Regent IIIs – let alone their mainstream Weymann and Roe cousins? They were beautifully made, well made and looked good. The lightweight Orion and similar PRV/Roe offerings were the reaction to these heavy bodies. I ask you, what would you prefer?

The recessed destination display was, indeed, a pre-war Sheffield feature. There are echoes in the 1949/50 Cravens/Regent IIIs – featured on this site earlier this year. The most interesting manifestation was on the immediate pre-war all Leyland TD5cs, which had to have non-standard small upper deck screens to accommodate it. It was also a feature of the 1936 Cravens/TD4cs and “broke” the blue line under the upper deck windows. Weymanns managed to get the display in without either recessing the display or breaking the line.
Some post-war bodies managed to “avoid the line” in the Weymann manner but most encroached into the line surrounding the number display without breaking it. Significantly, the 1953/4 PD2/Weymanns avoided the line, like their predecessors, but the subsequent 1954 Regent III/Weymanns “encroached” in the normal post war fashion. Hours of scrutinising photographs has not yielded a satisfactory answer to the question, Why?

Dave. Couldn’t agree more. 656-667 were my favourite PD2s.

David Oldfield

15/09/12 – 07:09

In Classic Bus 110 I asked if Sheffield was the only order for M.E doubledeckers. The reply, and a follow-up in Classic Bus 112 will probably interest those who have responded above.

Les Dickinson

15/09/12 – 07:11

The reason that Sheffield ordered the two Mann Egerton bodies is quite interesting.
In November 1949 a tender was advertised for 30 double deck buses, complete chassis and bodies or chassis only or bodies only.
At the time, all the STD PD2/1’s delivered since 1947, carried Leyland bodywork. The Leyland management advised the transport committee to “look elsewhere for bodywork”
In consequence, an intended order for 30 buses to the forthcoming new regulations of 27′ x 7’6″ was varied. The result was that an order for 10 NCB, 2 Roe and 2 Mann Egerton bodies were contracted.
Surprisingly, Leyland offered to supply 16 complete vehicles to the existing 26’x 7’6″ PD2/1 standard. Unfortunately, NCB ceased trading, and Roe were awarded another seven bodies. The balance of the outstanding 11 (9 Roe 2 Mann Egerton) were built on the PD2/12 27’x 8′ chassis, authorised in 1950. This batch of 11 replaced 13 trams for the City to Fulwood tramway abandonment. Therefore the original 30 require was reduced to 27. Quite a complicated situation!

Keith Beeden

15/09/12 – 07:13

I understood that Newcastle Corporation also had some Daimler CW’s rebodied by Mann Egerton

Stephen Bloomfield

16/09/12 – 06:50

So, Keith, Leyland were anticipating pulling out of coach-building that early and at the same time were already showing signs of their later take it or leave it attitude. Thanks for the insight.

David Oldfield

16/09/12 – 06:52

Stephen
You may or may not remember me from our time together at BCT, but that’s another story.

Newcastle Corporation had a batch of 5 Daimler CWA6 vehicles delivered between 1945-47 that received new Mann Egerton bodies in October 1950. They had been delivered new with second-hand bodies transferred from 1931 vehicles.

Kevin Hey

14/12/12 – 16:17

It is true that Newcastle had Mann Egerton Deckers , there were I believe three on Daimler chassis, possibly rebodies of chassis that had originally been fitted with pre war Metro Cammel bodies taken from scrapped earlier chassis, and also Glasgow had one Mann Egerton bodied Daimler, D66 I believe

Mr Anon

05/07/14 – 17:34

Mr Anon, Newcastle had 5 Mann Egerton bodied Daimlers, they were fleet numbers 1 to 5, JVK 421 to 425.

Peter Stobart

Preston Corporation – Leyland Titan PD – BCK 367C – 61

Copyright Pete Davies

Preston Corporation
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/10 – PD3
Leyland – Preston Corporation H38/32F

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.

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – NWE 591 – 391

Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Roe H33/25R

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 â€“ 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.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

14/10/12 – 10:47

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.

John Darwent

Bradford Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – EKY 569 – 34

Copyright Ian Wild

Bradford Corporation
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/3
Leyland H33/27R

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.

Chris Hough

Hunter’s – Leyland Titan – ETY 912 – 18

Copyright John Kaye

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.

David Call

South Notts – Leyland Titan PD2 – MRR 338 – 48

Copyright John Stringer

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.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

27/01/13 – 11:49

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

DaveM

Tynemouth and District – Leyland Titan PD2 – AFT 51 – 221

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!

Pete Davies

Solent Blue Line – Leyland Titan PD2 – 86 GFJ – 01

Copyright Pete Davies

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!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

01/02/13 – 06:19

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.

Pete Davies

Premier Travel – Leyland Titan PD2 – DCK 212

Copyright John Stringer

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.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

24/02/13 – 09:54

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.

John Harvey

Newcastle Corporation1949Leyland Titan PD2/1Leyland L27/26R

Sheffield Corporation1952Leyland Titan PD2/12Mann Egerton H30/26R

Preston Corporation1954Leyland Titan PD2/10 – PD3Leyland – Preston Corporation H38/32F

Sheffield Corporation1952Leyland Titan PD2/12Roe H33/25R

Bradford Corporation1950Leyland Titan PD2/3Leyland H33/27R

H W Hunter and Sons1951/2Leyland Titan PD2/12Leyland H32/28RD

South Notts Bus Co Ltd1951Leyland Titan PD2/12Leyland L53R

Tynemouth and District1957Leyland Titan PD2/12Willowbrook H35/28R

Solent Blue Line1963Leyland Titan PD2A/30Massey H31/26R

Premier Travel (Cambridge)1950Leyland Titan PD2/3East Lancs. FL27/26RD

Newcastle Corporation
1949
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland L27/26R

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Mann Egerton H30/26R

Preston Corporation
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/10 – PD3
Leyland – Preston Corporation H38/32F

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Roe H33/25R

Bradford Corporation
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/3
Leyland H33/27R

H W Hunter and Sons
1951/2
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland H32/28RD

South Notts Bus Co Ltd
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland L53R

Tynemouth and District
1957
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Willowbrook H35/28R

Solent Blue Line
1963
Leyland Titan PD2A/30
Massey H31/26R

Premier Travel (Cambridge)
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/3
East Lancs. FL27/26RD