Southampton Corporation 1963 AEC Regent V 2D3RA East Lancs H37/29R
373 FCR is a Regent V, 2D3RA, from the Southampton City Transport fleet. Unlike some, which had Neepsend bodywork, she is listed as having East Lancs bodywork, of the H66R configuration. She was new in 1963. She’s seen in Winchester, during a King Alfred Running Day on 1 January 2009, on the roundabout at the eastern end of The Broadway…
…and, yes, she is heeling over somewhat!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
26/05/14 – 09:40
Even allowing for some over enthusiastic cornering, it looks as if some of the leaves in the rear spring have failed, a matter that should receive urgent attention.
Roger Cox
26/05/14 – 11:28
This really is an action photo! The upstairs passengers might well have wondered if she’d ever recover!
Chris Hebbron
06/01/17 – 11:11
I purchased 373 FCR in 2012 and indeed a new set of springs was needed! Progressive restoration work got her back to Class 6 test standard in 2015 and she ran in revenue earning service for Stagecoach at Goodwood Races that year
Andrew Dyer
06/01/17 – 14:21
On seeing the dramatic picture I had a feeling that springs or tyres must be to blame – the Regent V, especially in 8’0″ form, was a very stable vehicle indeed normally. Strangely, we had a batch of fifteen “eight footer” lightweights at Leeds City Transport. The last one in service, well after the others had gone, looked almost as alarming when stationary at stops – I openly admit to have been petrified of 909 1909 NW and was very glad to see the back of it.
Chris Youhill
06/01/17 – 14:22
Andrew, I saw the entry attributed to “Andrew Dyer” and wondered if you were the one about whom I had heard via Simon Bell, then I read your comment. Welcome aboard, young sir. Hold very tight, please!
A Mayne & Son 1964 AEC Regent V 2D3RA Neepsend H41/32R
8859 VR was an AEC Regent V 2D3RA with a Neepsend H73R bodywork originally with A Mayne & Son of Manchester. She was built in 1963 and delivered in January 1964 and is seen at the Wisley rally on 5 April 2009. Rumour has it this bus was exported to Japan for use as a sight seeing bus, not sure if that is true.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
18/08/14 – 06:55
“Rumour has it . . . .” Well, I didn’t know of that one. Our editor must have added that to my caption! Updates, anyone?
Happily sister vehicle 8860 VR is in the care of Manchester Transport Museum.
Chris Hough
21/08/14 – 07:02
This shot came in without name or comment. I presume it was taken when 8859 VR was in service with Maynes, it is on route 213x to Droylsden Sunnyside Road and the pub behind is/was ‘The Royal George’ which was a Vaux pub at the time, can any of you Manchester chaps confirm if I presume correctly.
Peter
21/08/14 – 08:14
The photo of 8859 VR is on Lever Street in Manchester where the direction of flow of the one-way system had been reversed. Hence the terminus had to move from its original location in Stevenson Square which is just behind the bus.
David Beilby
21/08/14 – 12:42
The picture has come from the SCT61 site, it was taken in October 1995 by which time this bus was in preservation, it was running in connection with some sort of GMTS museum/Maynes joint event. Vaux did not acquire its Manchester pubs until long after Maynes had withdrawn their Regents!
Michael Keeley
21/08/14 – 15:26
oops 8859 VR the shot without a comment, it was me !! sorry the comment seems to have floated away somewhere. Sadly this fine vehicle was indeed exported to Japan early 2013 approx. She was retained by Maynes and stored for many years at the Ashton road garage (now an Aldi supermarket) also at the Stuart street coach depot nearby, I visited the yard many times and stated it would be wonderful to see the bus on the road and actually was prepared to purchase the bus, Stephen Mayne told me the bus was his baby!! and would not be sold on. The bus spent some time at Maynes Warrington depot in the open and then on loan to the North West museum of transport at St Helens. She was looked after by a dedicated group of drivers and was cleaned and polished up and overhauled to take part in the 75th anniversary of Maynes running day she performed well only failing once. The photo I have submitted was taken on Lever street Manchester October 1995 whilst in service on the running day, I then jumped back on board ah that symphonic AEC gearbox and engine !! Sadly she went back into store as mentioned above and following the sad passing away of Stephen Mayne it seems the remaining directors had no interest in retaining a piece of company history such as the respected Dalaine family at Bourne, and the Goodwin family in Manchester. The bus was sold from St Helens to an enthusiast near Basingstoke I believe, finally ending up with bus dealer Mike Nash and exported to Kobe in Japan, she was used advertising a children’s charity initially, the plan was to use the bus as a London tour bus on Rokko island, she is most likely painted red by now!! But I have no further information to date, a sad loss if I had been aware she was for sale she may well still be here. As mentioned sister bus 8860 VR is there for all to see owned by lifelong Maynes enthusiast and expert Brian Lomas well done Brian for saving here, check out his amazing views of both vehicles on his Flickr page 8860 Brian. I have had an interest all things Mayne for many years (its an illness we all have this bus lark …but thanks to this amazing old bus photo site we can all chat and submit our photos, and information to benefit and enlighten us all many thanks) however I am desperate to view any photographs of F & H Dean of old church street Newton Heath bought out by Maynes circa 1960, but continued the Dean fleet until 1967 help please anyone!!
Mark Mc Alister
17/01/15 – 06:08
Maynes 8860 VR is in Manchester Transport Museum for all to see. //www.gmts.co.uk/
Sheffield Corporation 1960 AEC Regent V 2D3RA Roe H39/30RD
This is July 1974 and South Yorkshire PTE has been in operation for just over three months. The bus looks a little uncared for, no fleetname, no destination and generally a bit shabby. It is at Bents Green terminus of the 81/82 Cross City services. At 14 years old, the bus still exudes an air of quality, these were really smart buses in their heyday when they were used on various B fleet services to Bradway, Low Edges, Castleton etc.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
08/12/14 – 15:58
This bus would have been an unusual sight on this route in 1974- which may account for the lack of a destination- some lazy crews would not bother trying very hard to find destinations on a strange bus. At certain times of day a bus would have been available in the City Centre to cover for breakdowns etc. – this may have been it. SYPTE was very slow at repainting the fleet until extra paintshop capacity at Rutland Way was acquired c1980- some vehicles were running around in Sheffield livery until c1979 and looked pretty deplorable at the end.
Phil Drake
09/12/14 – 11:53
I remember these buses from our days in Sheffield Ian. From memory, as you say, they were mainly used on the longer routes outside the city boundary. I seem to remember that they had or were later fitted with saloon heaters and together with the platform doors this made them almost luxurious in the cold weather!
Stan Zapiec
10/12/14 – 06:27
Ian did of course post a photo of 1331 when brand new at Roe’s factory at Leeds. This shows how superb these splendid vehicles looked in their heyday. You can view it at this link.
John Darwent
13/12/14 – 06:34
I would rather have the blue & cream Sheffield livery, even in a poor sorry state, than the horrendous brown & cream.
Andy Fisher
16/12/14 – 06:35
Andy, I agree with you but I don’t know if you’ve seen the Sheffield Volvo B7TL painted in SYPTE brown and cream – it actually looks quite stunning!
Ian Wild
16/12/14 – 10:01
The worst livery was when SYPTE hastily overpainted the blue bands with whitewash to eradicate the Sheffield connection.
Dave Farrier
22/12/14 – 07:40
I am not saying all later brown & cream busses looked bad, just the SCT busses repainted did nothing to enhance the appearance of a wonderful bus. Notice the wheel rim on this one. It seems to be the smaller grooved type fitted to the input of 1959 tram replacement fleet from Roe (not shown outside the factory), not the full chrome ones fitted on the Alexanders & most other forward control busses in the fleet. It also seems to have a blue back wheel. With all the Atlantians in service, they obviously did not care about these older, beautiful busses.
Andy Fisher
25/12/14 – 07:00
23rd, saw a Wrights 08 plate painted in the brown & cream. Pass the bucket!
Southampton Corporation 1965 AEC Regent V 2D3RA Neepsend H37/29R
This AEC Regent V with East Lancs (Neepsend) H66R bodywork was new in 1965 to Southampton City Transport with fleet number 371. Some of this delivery (358 to 370) were to have been 358 HCR to 370 HCR, but were caught in the change to year suffix numbers. Indeed, some of them even failed to have their booked BTR …B marks, and gained BOW …C plates instead. BOW 507C isn’t one of those so marked in the fleet history by A K MacFarlane-Watt. In this view, on the soggy afternoon of 1st February, 1979, she has been repainted in the 1930’s livery and renumbered 100 for the operator’s Centenary, and is being positioned outside Civic Centre for the Committee inspection. My then boss, the City Architect, said he had commented to the Transport Manager that it looked very nice, but asked “Why the P&O advert?”. He said that Bill Lewis replied, “They paid for the repaint.”
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
13/10/15 – 06:43
At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal preference. I’m not a lover of tin fronts, most tend to look a bit harsh, and some are positively brutal in appearance, but the AEC seems to buck that trend. A few round edges and a bit of bright trim makes all the difference. Mind you, when a bit of neglect sets in where badges go astray, or trim is painted over, or bits are removed and not replaced, well that’s another matter entirely.
Ronnie Hoye
13/10/15 – 08:58
Thank you, Ronnie. I suppose that – having grown up with the Regents of Morecambe & Heysham corporation – the arrival of the Regent V was something of a shock. I wonder if this is why some places didn’t go for this ‘new look’ and stayed with the exposed radiator on their Regent V fleets.
Pete Davies
14/10/15 – 16:10
I always think that there was something Macho about the preference for exposed radiators- a touch Mack or Peterbilt, or deferring to the traditional Atkinson. Doncaster only ever had fibre-front CVG’s- Leyland and AEC deckers were exposed radiator until the half cab was bustled away.
Joe
15/10/15 – 07:21
Thanks, Joe. A “real” Scammell, perhaps, or the Thornycroft Mighty Antar, with the snout, rather than those designer products from their latter years . . .
Provincial (Gosport & Fareham Omnibus Co) 1957 AEC Regent V LD3RA Park Royal H37/28R
Taken at Hoeford depot on 30/03/69 having been recently transferred from City of Oxford where it had been No H972 this photo shows newly painted Provincial No 60 an LD3RA AEC Regent V with a Park Royal H37/28R body registration number 972 CWL delivered to COMS in December 1957. As a fan of the AEC concealed radiator and the AEC marque in general I find this and the elegant 30ft long Park Royal body an irresistible combination, the only way the effect could be improved would be for it to be in the original superb Oxford livery. This was taken on the same occasion as my posting of the Guy Wulfrunian.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave
14/04/16 – 06:05
Very nice shot Diesel Dave. I too am a fan of the Regent V in all its forms and this is a most handsome version. It would indeed have looked the bees knees in City of Oxford livery, but at least in your photo it’s paintwork looks fresh – probably just repainted out of Provincial’s distinctive ‘jade’ green livery. (Don’t ask me the shade as I haven’t a clue as to what is was officially called!). The NBC leaf green and white also seems to emphasise the length of the AEC nicely, which brings me to the date of the photo Dave, as NBC corporate livery didn’t make its debut until late 1972 I’m afraid. The Regent is wearing the original white ‘Double N’ arrowhead alongside the fleetname. This was replaced some years later by the red and blue arrowhead within a white square. Sadly I did not get to know the Provincial fleet until the early ‘eighties, by which time the fleet was standardising on the Leyland National. Mind you I was fortunate in seeing Provincial’s Bristol-ECW RELL in the wonderful ‘Anniversary livery’ in Gosport a few times while staying with friends, which gave a tantalising glimpse of life before leaf green.
Brendan Smith
14/04/16 – 06:06
Very nice view, Dave. Thanks for posting.
Pete Davies
14/04/16 – 06:06
As the NBC corporate image was introduced in the summer of 1972, I don’t think the stated date in 1969 is correct.
Nigel Frampton
14/04/16 – 08:11
The “jade green” originally used by Provincial was… “Provincial Green”! When Provincial 35 (’36 Regent BOR 767) first came into preservation in 1969 and needed a repaint, Dulux were able to call up the code and make the correct shade of Dulux Coach Paint – for the first time in many years. Provincial later turned to a ‘stock’ colour (I don’t know the details of this) which was very similar, but different enough for some enthusiasts to say that the colour on 35 was ‘wrong’!
David Chapman
14/04/16 – 10:28
Very low seating capacity for a thirty foot double-decker, you would normally expect a bus of this size to be H41/32R. Must have had excellent legroom, unlike some modern buses!
Don McKeown
15/04/16 – 07:15
Yes, Don. That very discussion was included in members’ comments in respect of my contribution on the Hants & Dorset (ex Oxford Via Provincial) 975CWL.
Pete Davies
15/04/16 – 07:16
I suspect that the date is closer to 1973/4 as I seem to recall that 975CWL was in use by Hants and Dorset around then and may have been transferred around the same time.
Steve Barnett
15/04/16 – 07:17
All the Aldershot & District Dennis Lolines had 68 seat bodies by East Lancs, Alexander and Weymann, and were superb vehicles to ride in (and to drive). As Don suggests, modern buses with their closely spaced hard plastics “shaped” (but not to my contours) seating are excruciatingly uncomfortable.
Roger Cox
15/04/16 – 07:17
These buses were known as ‘Queens’ by their Oxford crews due to their sheer size. I seem to recall that the relatively low seating capacity had something to do with local union agreements, but I stand to be corrected. Sister bus H975 is preserved awaiting restoration.
Hebble Motor Services 1957 AEC Regent V D3RV Weymann H33/28R
Due to a height restriction at their garage in Walnut Street, Halifax, Hebble had always purchased lowbridge double deckers, and their first two Regent V’s (75/76, GCP 4/5) of 1956 carried lowbridge Weymann Orion bodies. However, by early 1957 the northern end of the garage had been modified to accept conventional highbridge buses and so the next double deck deliveries were the first of this layout. As with the previous pair they were AEC Regent V’s of the D3RV variety, with the A218 9.6-litre engine from the Mk. III and vacuum brakes, but with Weymann Orion H33/28R bodies. On delivery in March 1957 they were the last vehicles to be numbered in the original fleet number series (81-83, GJX 845-847), but by June a new numbering scheme had been introduced and they became 301-303. They were still unable to pass through into the lower section of the garage and after a few incidents it was decided that highbridge vehicles should have their radiator cowls painted in cream, as well as having cream steering wheels as a warning measure. They were half a ton lighter than the two lowbridge Mk. Vs and were consequently very potent performers, producing the most amazing growling sound effects from their straight-through exhaust systems. They also initially had exhaust brakes which added an impressive cacophony of clicking, hissing and booming sounds whenever the brakes were applied, and I’m sure that many Hebble drivers drove them to exploit these effects to the maximum – I know I would have done ! I believe that at first 301 and 302 were initially allocated to Bradford Park Lane garage to operate Hebble’s share of the 64 Bradford-Brighouse-Huddersfield, as I saw them only occasionally in their early days passing our house at Stump Cross, Halifax, but 303 was based at Halifax and quickly became a regular sight on the 7/17 services to Bradford, and was a favourite for operating the very fast-timed Saturdays-only 29 “Wibsey Flyer” to Bradford via Wibsey. After these Hebble switched to forward entrance Mk. V’s and the cream front cowls continued to be applied for a while, but by 1960 they had reverted to red. Originally in red with a single cream band above the lower deck windows, they later had the cream extended around those windows, then following the delivery of their first and only new Fleetline in 1966 cream was also applied around the upper deck windows too, as shown in the photo above. The fleetnames were originally of the block capital style with the middle letters undelined, but later an italic style was adopted. 301 was withdrawn in April 1970, but 302/303 survived a little longer to be renumbered into a Yorkshire Woollen-based series as 600/601, 600 being withdrawn in December 1970, but 601 lasting until the end of Hebble’s stage service operation in March 1971. All passed to the dealer W. North of Sherburn-in-Elmet, but by this time Hebble’s maintenance standards had sunk to an all time low and they found no further buyers other than the scrap man. A sad end to some most impressive buses.
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer
09/06/16 – 16:58
I’ve just realised I made an error in the copy. 81-83 were not numbered in the original series, which had commenced at 1 in 1924 and reached 190 by 1947, whereupon a second series reverted to 1 again and reached 83 with these Mk. V’s. (Eight second hand Tiger TS7’s and TS8’s from Yorkshire Woollen District were tagged onto the original series as 191-198, presumably as they were not intended to stay long).
John Stringer
09/06/16 – 19:09
Hebble was a bit of an anomaly in that although a BET operation it was much smaller than the municipal operators with which it co-existed. Halifax, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds were all much larger and shall we say more prestigious operations than Hebble. Probably not surprising that in the end it was swallowed up by Halifax although some of the coaching operations went to Yorkshire Woolen if I remember rightly.
Philip Halstead
10/06/16 – 05:39
I have long wondered why the National Bus Company subsequently allowed the engineering standards at Hebble to degenerate to a point where the vehicles were operating in a state that bordered on, or in some cases, actually attained, the dangerously illegal. GGH refers to some truly hair raising (though, sadly, not for me, nowadays) examples of Hebble maintenance, or the lack of it, that emerged on HPTD taking over the company in 1971. From 1968, NBC inherited the nationalised element of the Halifax Joint Omnibus Committee, plus the entire Transport Holding Company and BET interests in Hebble. Why then did it wait three years during which time Hebble suffered inexcusable neglect before offering the business to Halifax? Were there some political sensitivities to smooth over, such as the possible wounds to civic pride in Leeds and Bradford, that might have arisen with the arrival of Halifax operations in those cities? I am sure that John’s remarkable understanding of the wider scene will furnish some answers.
Roger Cox
12/06/16 – 06:51
Before the takeover by Halifax in 1971, some Hebble routes based on Bradford had been transferred to West Yorkshire Road Car (WYRCC), including the Bradford – Huddersfield service 64. In 1972, Calderdale JOC (the undertaking formed by the merger of Halifax and Todmorden JOCs) transferred one bus working on the former Hebble Bradford – Brighouse route to WYRCC. At the same time, to replace the loss-making ex-Hebble Halifax – Bingley service, WYRCC reorganised its own services in the area. These changes were partly a response to NBC’s claim that Halifax had taken over so much of Hebble. The JOC’s report had even envisaged the possibility of WYRCC participating in the former Hebble Halifax – Leeds service, but this did not happen.
Geoff Kerr
12/06/16 – 06:52
In terms of injured pride in Leeds and Bradford. Bradford used to have joint services with Hebble while the services to Leeds had limited pick up and set down rules. When Calderdale took over the rules continued so there was no loss of traffic but Leeds.
Chris Hough
12/06/16 – 09:08
If I remember rightly – its a long time ago but maybe mid 1970s – the Leeds – Dudley Hill – Halifax service, formerly 8 but later 508, became operated by Leeds’ Bramley depot. So parochial had LCT’s western operations been up to then (apart from the 72 joint with Bradford CT) that those venturing to Halifax were looked on with the reverence usually reserved for spacemen and the like!! Chris H may have more accurate information??
Chris Youhill
12/06/16 – 16:56
Roger, I’m afraid my ‘understanding of the wider scene’ does not extend quite as far as you may imagine ! Call me shallow and a bit of a philistine but I have never found the inclination to be that interested in the political machinations that take place both within the industry and between it and national and local government. I tend to be more grounded in the ‘what actually happens on a day-to-day basis’ and ‘how it happens’, than the ‘what ought to happen’ and ‘why it happened’. It’s probably for that reason that it was fortunate that I never progressed into a management career, as I would most likely have become quickly disillusioned and depressed ! Therefore I cannot really offer much in the way of an explanation as to why the NBC took so long to part with Hebble. Through most of its existence Hebble had directors who were also on the board of Yorkshire Woollen, and the two worked closely together – particularly with regard to coaching, and occasionally lending one another staff. In the last year or two of Hebble’s existence the NBC brought them closer together, the vehicles adopting YWD’s red livery and the vehicles being renumbered in a 5xx/6xx series within the YWD numbering scheme. There was a certain exchange of services, with Hebble’s share of the 64 Bradford-Huddersfield passing to West Yorkshire, and I imagine that all this was seen as the precursor to an eventual absorption of Hebble into YWD, in the same way as Mexborough & Swinton was absorbed by Yorkshire Traction, and Stratford Blue by Midland Red. However YWD themselves were seriously struggling in the late 1960’s with vehicle maintenance and the ability to operate a full service and so they had more pressing matters to concentrate on. The BET group had always retained those smaller companies mentioned, apparently to provide a means of allowing up and coming trainee managers to hone their skills with a smaller unit before progressing to greater things. Hebble was ideal for this purpose as it operated local stage, express, excursion and tour services, and several well known (in their day) managers of larger BET/NBC companies had at some point done their stint with Hebble. I always felt sorry for Hebble’s last manager – David Dickinson – who suddenly found himself dumped at Halifax with the unenviable, nay impossible task of managing a company that must have seemed to be gasping its last breath before drowning in a quagmire. There had been occasional talk in the local press since the late 1960’s of the possibility of a takeover by Halifax JOC of Hebble services, mostly put about by Halifax GM Geoffrey Hilditch himself. Some of his newer buses even had ‘Bradford’,’Wakefield’ and other destination included on their blinds, but I suspect that other parties to a possible deal may have regarded Hilditch as a bit of a ‘cocky and ambitious upstart’ and did not want to see him getting his own way and ruling the roost. I may be wrong about that, but I did work under him and know what he was like. Regarding Chris Y’s comments about the 508 Halifax-Dudley Hill-Leeds (let’s quote it the right way round, Chris !). Leeds’ Bramley Depot came onto the route when it was extended across Leeds City Centre from King Street to the Central Bus Station. They provided two buses, with Calderdale (Halifax) providing the other three. Bramley drivers quickly developed an appalling reputation for running early, especially in the evenings, and having a generally bad attitude. I worked permanent late duties on the 508 for a few years during this period and regularly observed them passing in the opposite direction up to 20 minutes early on many occasions, and probably hundreds of people were left behind over the years – most never having even seen the bus go by and having just assumed it had been cancelled. When it was decided (rather foolishly, as it turned out) to extend the 508 beyond Halifax westwards out to Rishworth, for the unadventurous Bramley drivers it was the last straw and they would have none of it, so Calderdale drivers got the whole service back to themselves again. The Rishworth extension was not a success and it was soon cut back to its original form, but Leeds were never invited back on again and to this day, though now operating into Leeds via Farsley and Kirkstall, it is still 100% First Halifax worked.
John Stringer
13/06/16 – 05:56
John, You didn’t miss out much by forgoing a management ‘career’. Much of mine was spent with LCBS, its forebears- not too bad generally, but its successors became an entirely different story. With the fracturing of the established companies in preparation for privatisation, things became very nasty at times as certain people used every stratagem available to secure their futures under the new order. I was glad to get out of Kentish Bus at the end of 1987, and resolved never again to seek a bus industry management post in the cut-throat private ownership environment. Back to Halifax. Yes, I too can well appreciate the existence of a level of scepticism at NBC about Geoffrey Hilditch, who never disguised his “Greater Halifax” aspirations. This might have influenced NBC to hang on to the rump of Hebble until its survival became perilous, but the neglect of the company was utterly disgraceful. Independent operators would have had their operating licences revoked if engineering maintenance had declined to the dangerous state that existed with Hebble. Turning to the unreliable Leeds element in the joint operations with Calderdale, this does illustrate a weakness that often arises in supervision standards when two different participants are involved in a route. Did the Calderdale inspectorate not have authority over the Leeds staff on the joint operation?
Roger Cox
13/06/16 – 05:58
Thanks John for a wealth of interesting information about the 8/508 service, and by way of humble excuse I must admit that I was reading my compass wrong way round when I described the terminal points in the order that I did. As regards early running I sadly have to say that in LCT/Leeds Metro District days this crime was by no means confined to Bramley depot – the same was widespread at Seacroft, Middleton, Sovereign Street, Headingley and Torre Road as well. This meant that the conscientious folks were doing all the work while the work shy element had an easy time, and of course the passengers suffered as a result. To a very large extent the satellite tracking system of modern times has virtually eliminated early running and a good thing too.
Chris Youhill
13/06/16 – 10:59
Roger – your last sentence raises a most interesting point regarding joint operation of a service. The old established 72 service from Leeds to Bradford was shared by Leeds City Transport and Bradford City Transport and the inspectors of either could supervise any bus and it worked very well indeed. As an enthusiast I quite often, if on the area, took advantage of this to check superb Bradford buses. The silent recommendation though was that the inspectors of each operator would more or less stay local normally. I recall one occasion when I slipped up badly – I boarded a “Bradford blue” on the Leeds Ring Road at Wortley and on the front seat upstairs was an obnoxious character claiming that he couldn’t find his ticket. I “smelt a rat” and insisted that he did and in turning out each pocket, deliberately slowly, he produced an astonishing array of old rubbish and battered tickets galore – but no valid one. A further rumpus occurred as he finally realised he was going to have to pay again and by the time I’d seen to that – I’d been totally engrossed in the case – I realised to my horror that the bus was at Laisterdike within a mile or so of Bradford. I should add that checking the Bradford tickets was a bit of a nightmare anyway as they were still using low value Ultimate tickets even on such long routes. Now the Leeds Chief Inspector of the times was an unreasonable tyrant and used to forensically examine our checking sheets in the hope of finding something to “nit pick” about, but mercifully my delightful “away day” trip went un-noticed for a change.”
Chris Youhill
13/06/16 – 17:14
Halifax inspectors certainly had authority over Leeds drivers within Calderdale, and similarly Leeds inspectors could – and regularly did – check Halifax buses in Leeds. The middle section of the 508 route also passed through a significant sector of Bradford too, but I don’t ever recall their inspectors ever boarding. The problem in the evenings was that there was only one inspector allocated to ticket checking duties, and even then they would always use the flimsiest excuse to seize the opportunity to avoid going out ‘on the road’ if there was a nice little warm office job that could be found. Even then, if they did go out the service had been reduced so much that it was no longer possible to just hop on and off buses at random, and most had a set sequence of bus journeys and connections worked out that was the same every day. Consequently all the drivers knew what trips they would board, and more importantly which they wouldn’t. One particular inspector had his checking sheet written up in advance and would spend a considerable time in the late afternoon going through the sheets to ascertain which drivers would be on which trips. Then over teatime he would sidle into the staff canteen and seek out these various drivers, sit down alongside them and start up a friendly conversation. Then he would quietly ask them to verify they were on a particular trip on his sheet, then slip it beside their their dinner plate, point to the appropriate line and say “Just sign there – save me a job”. All being well he would gather signatures for every journey, then of course not bother leaving the office all night ! Either that, or he would slope off home for a few hours. We shouldn’t have signed of course, but then they always had ways of getting their own back if you refused. I have to confess a bit of inexcusable naughtiness on my part. There was one particular inspector who did go out checking and always started out boarding my regular first trip after tea – the 1850 508 Leeds. He would ride to the lower reaches of Northowram where he knew he could then cross the road and catch the inbound 508 back to Stump Cross, then on to a 549 Brighouse and so on. My trip was always lightly loaded out of town, but this chap was a bit of a chatterbox and would stand at the front yacking on about this and that. I would deliberately drag my heels up the road and divert his attention from checking his watch and looking out for the inbound bus. Nine times out of ten I would be able to manipulate matters so that he missed his connection and he would then have to get off and wait ages for the next one – his evening’s entire plan totally fouled up ! Yet he always fell for it. As far as checking Leeds Bramley drivers running early, Halifax inspectors’ prearranged plan did not include their trips as they didn’t ‘fit’. Though the first time point at Shelf was within Calderdale, the ones at Odsal, Dudley Hill and Stanningley Bottom were in Bradford (where nobody wanted to check) and the one at Bramley Town End was in Leeds. The worst trips for running early were their last two from Halifax at 2220 and 2250, after which they ran to Bramley Depot – in fact the last one terminated at Bramley Town End and ran straight in from there. During the daytime on the 508 it was laughable the way that once past Stanningley Bottom going towards Leeds, the Leeds drivers upon spotting a 508 catching them up would slow right down to a crawl and then pull in at the next stop, irrespective of whether there was anyone boarding or alighting. They would then remain there until the Halifax driver passed them. If I had to pull in myself to drop off, and stopped behind the Leeds bus, they would still not move off, and if necessary would just pull forward a few feet, then wave me past. They used to do it to one another too, and it was not unusual to see maybe three assorted Leeds buses parked up waiting for each other to move, or just crawling along at 5mph in a convoy – all waiting for a 508 to pass them and clear the road. Halifax drivers were different altogether and couldn’t be bothered with all this dawdling and work avoidance, so we just used to whizz past and get on with it.
John Stringer
14/06/16 – 06:04
What fascinating and slightly worrying information, Chris and John. If timetables were so blatantly disregarded and bunching so common, is it any wonder that many bus users said “enough’s enough” and bought a car? It would be understandable if traffic was the cause of bad timekeeping, but such “Spanish practices” (if I’m allowed to say this phrase nowadays) showed a disdain for the passengers. You and Chris were obviously true busmen, but some of your colleagues did a huge disservice to the industry and certainly helped to perpetuate the downward spiral of bus use.
Paul Haywood
14/06/16 – 06:05
Gosh John, now there really are some revelations there and its safe to say that with the Chief Inspector at Leeds, the tyrant I mentioned – others in the post were fair but stern, the Halifax inspectors would never have got away any of that Luddite activity and forgery. On another point, perhaps the Bradford inspectors were only permitted to board Leeds CT/Metro buses on the two joint services 72 and 78??
Chris Youhill
14/06/16 – 06:05
Sorry to nitpick John but Stanningley Bottom was and is well within the city boundary of Leeds and their inspectors should have been actively checking tickets and time keeping.
Chris Hough
14/06/16 – 11:14
Chris H – you are correct regarding the current Leeds boundary but psychologically Stanningley Bottom was, since tramway days, always considered to be the boundary between Leeds and Bradford. To be pedantic, the correct name is Stanningley Bottoms. I first heard this used when I travelled from Leeds to Stanningley on a Hebble Regal 3 saloon. Thinking I had boarded the wrong bus, the conductor announced “First stop Stanningley Bottoms!” which, for a ten-year old, I found highly amusing. I hadn’t boarded incorrectly, of course, as I wanted to experience the thrill of riding non-stop all the way up Stanningley Road even though this involved a lengthy walk home. Those old fare protection arrangements limited the choices for some, but gave a much speedier ride for many others travelling further distances. This advantage is now largely lost as most interurban services stop at every road end and penetrate every sprawling housing estate regardless of potential usage. Until 1974, of course, Stanningley was effectively split within Leeds, Pudsey and Farsley which must have been a nightmare for village life. The old boundary with Leeds was a few hundred yards east of the Bottoms (which was part of Pudsey). Local government reorganisation had many faults but at least it unified this community.
Paul Haywood
15/06/16 – 06:12
One point is that blatant early running must have led to very low passenger loadings, and examination of receipts over time would tend to suggest that particular services, or even whole routes, were surplus to requirements.
Stephen Ford
15/06/16 – 18:16
I spent many years in the bus and coach industry, and have to say that an unholy alliance of obstreperous (and militant) drivers, undisciplined supervisory staff (as set out above) and indifferent and incompetent management are largely responsible for the self-destruction of the bus industry. I have heard many times the comment “This would be a good job if it wasn’t for the passengers” only half tongue in cheek. It is fashionable to poo-poo the word customers when referring to passengers (and it is true that this is often used insincerely to try to pull the wool over said customers eyes) but I have the notion that if more basic customer care had been used when passengers were there in plenty then perhaps they wouldn’t be so scarce now. It is unfortunate that many in service industries in the UK are unable to distinguish between “service” and “servile”.
Malcolm Hirst
16/06/16 – 05:50
Very well summed-up, Malcolm! It reminds me of the attitude in many shops, not very long ago and I am amazed that some of them survive, where staff had the attitude “If we’ve got it, it’s on the shelf. If it isn’t on the shelf, then we haven’t got it.” However did the management let the staff get away with it?
Pete Davies
16/06/16 – 08:13
Way back in 1972/3 I applied for a job as a Schedules Clerk with Leeds City Transport. Glad I did not get it.
Stephen Howarth
17/06/16 – 06:12
We shouldn’t forget the Traffic Commissioners, either, acting as arbitrators among competing operators when any changes to routes were applied for by one of them and, seemingly, usually keeping the status quo, with nobody ever considering what would serve the customer better!
Christopher Hebbron
18/06/16 – 06:11
To some extent I agree about the Traffic Commissioners.However on the bus scene some protection was (and is?) desirable to protect the network so as not to concentrate all operators on the same lucrative routes. One of the unfortunate by-products of deregulation was the ending of the often used principle of cross-subsidisation where many operators partially subsidised unremunerative routes to preserve their commercial position. When opened to full competition this became an expensive exercise and so it has led to curtailment of services and ever-more expensive subsidies to keep the minimum of service levels. It should be noted that the predictions by the pro deregulation brigade of free competition and lower fares/better services have never come to pass – and the alliance of nominally competing groups have a monopoly that NBC could never have dreamed of. Most of my experience has been in the coach industry and there the Traffic Commissioners activities were really restrictive. There was little or no opportunity to innovate. Objections to linking of licences often meant that some towns and villages had almost no excursion provision, and attempts to serve special events always led to objections by the express operators even where a day return facility did not exist ! Experiments to tap new sources of traffic or innovative destinations were almost impossible.Now that the major operators have mostly opted out of “occasional” coaching the opportunities are theoretically there, but the potential customer base is now so small that it must be difficult. Creating excursion traffic is hard work, and requires real flair and many man-hours. The “regional companies” (NBC parlance) were happy to get the revenue but I think in many cases they saw the work required as a distraction. Early deregulation of the excursion business together with an even earlier ditching of the silly (and unenforceable) separate fares rules would have led to a much healthier outcome.
South Wales Transport Co Ltd 1955 AEC Regent VMD3RV Weymann H33/26R
Seen at the Swansea Bus Museum Running Day was this AEC Regent V MD3RV010 bearing Weymann body M6709 H33/26R and new to South Wales (447) in 1955. South Wales were loyal AEC customers over the years. For several years the livery was all-over red without the cream waistband.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
02/09/16 – 06:48
A lovely photograph Les, and thank you for posting it, as it brings back happy teenage memories. Sister vehicles MCY405/8 were acquired by Samuel Ledgard in late 1966, closely followed in early 1967 by NCY453/5 from the 1956 batch. When “Sammie’s” was taken over by West Yorkshire in October 1967, the South Wales quartet were among the vehicles retained by the Company, and were given fleet numbers DAW1-4. Initially allocated to WY’s Otley depot, the vehicles were later transferred to Harrogate, where they soon settled down to duties on local services 1/2 Bachelor Gardens-Woodlands, and 9 New Park-Oatlands, plus occasional stints on the 11 Roche Avenue-Cawthorn Avenue and 12 Fountains Avenue-Starbeck routes. Their delightful melodic tones and wonderful throaty exhaust notes immediately endeared my brother and I to their charms, and at every opportunity we would endeavour to catch one into town, even though this meant a five minute walk up to Skipton Road from our usual stop on King Edward’s Drive. As I had a morning paper round covering Bilton and Bachelor Gardens, I was also party to ‘The Regent Symphony’ early each day, when often the only other sounds to break the stillness were birdsong or the occasional car. The sound of the AECs barking away up Bachelor Gardens or the Hill Tops could be heard quite a distance away, and gave an indication of whether I was running late, or to time on my busy round. I’m not sure if the residents living along the route would have shared my love of such sound effects, but as a 14/15-year old, I no doubt felt that “sometimes there’s just no pleasing some people!”
Brendan Smith
02/09/16 – 14:08
My word, surely one of the best ever pictures of a superb preservation achievement. To think that our Ledgard quartet, as described above by Brendan, once looked like that !! Much as I loved them in Ledgard territory I was never as lucky as Brendan in hearing them bellowing their lusty way up the steep Skipton Road from the A 61 Ripon Road – and in one of the lower gears the contralto/soprano accompaniment from the gearbox must have been glorious !!
Chris Youhill
03/09/16 – 06:28
I would imagine that the use of these Regent Vs by West Yorkshire must have been a rare case where drivers preferred buses from an operator taken over to their own native stock!
Peter Williamson
06/01/17 – 11:10
After service with South Wales, MCY 407 went to Whippet Coaches of Cambridgeshire and then between 1968 and 1978 was with Charlton-on-Otmoor Services of Oxfordshire. I passed my PSV test on her in 1975! It went back to Wales for preservation from C-on-O
Southampton Corporation 1967 AEC Regent V 3D2RA Neepsend H40/30R
KOW 909F was in the last batch of AEC Regents delivered to Southampton, in 1967. It is of the 3D2RA variety and the body was built by Neepsend, to the H70R formation. It was decorated in the early 1980s as being the Transport Department’s last rear entry bus, but then came Deregulation and it was returned to service. In this view, it is in Highfield Lane, on a special running day to mark the closure of Portswood Depot. It’s 30 May 2010.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
27/02/17 – 07:54
When all the perfect ingredients come together you get the perfect end result as in this case, having the best chassis of it’s type with elegant well balanced bodywork finished with a simple and tasteful livery, to me proves the point. All that is missing, understandably are the sound effects of the AV691 engine and the Monocontrol gearbox the thought of which brings me over all nostalgic. AAAh happy days.
Diesel Dave
27/02/17 – 16:000
Glad you liked it, Dave!
Pete Davies
27/02/17 – 16:02
I could not agree more with Diesel Dave, with one exception. Who came up with the idea of those front indicators above the mirror line. I can see the logic of not reflecting in the mirrors, but those particular light units were the same as Duple fitted on later model Super Vegas (I think) – one on the side & one on the lower front corner. They were not very efficient on the coach, & next to useless on the Regent V on a sunny day (we used to get those in Southampton, don’t know about now though!)
David Field
27/02/17 – 16:46
Those indicators worked on my Dinky VAL!
Joe
28/02/17 – 16:37
The reason I asked was that, Southampton being quite conservative (small c) in it’s view to change (Late model Arab III’s, etc), it seemed an odd thing to do when the rest of the fleet (Arab III’s, Arab UF, PD2, PD2A, Regent V) were fitted with a different type of side indicator, mounted at waist height, just behind the cab door. These lights were quite ornate in shape, and had been used since the first buses were fitted with flashers (on the front only as I recall). I think they might have been made by Rubbolite, they were the same as fitted to Dodge 500 series trucks. I can imagine the Stores having boxes of these in stock, looking up at the new buses & saying “there goes the budget”!! I think the next change must have been to the teardrop shape Lucas flashers on the Atlanteans.
David Field
01/03/17 – 06:35
Comparing this with a photo of an earlier example, I notice that an emergency window has appeared immediately aft of the cab. It could be that the relocation of the flasher from that position had something to do with that. Alternatively it might just have been a a belief that the flashers would be more noticeable on the front of the bus than at the side, possibly following some sort of incident. And of course nobody would have known that they were going to be useless on a sunny day when they ordered them from the catalogue!
Peter Williamson
01/03/17 – 06:36
The indicators were one of two versions offered by East Lancs/Neepsend at the time. The other type was fitted at the same height but on short arms protruding from the body with round orange plastic covers so the indicator could be seen from both front and rear. An exception were Reading’s East Lancs bodied Lolines which had the traditional side indicators fitted on the very front of the between decks panels.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/03/17 – 07:11
The comments about the type and positioning of the front indicators reminds me that Eastbourne Corporation’s two batches of PD2’s had different types, the 1966 batch No’s 71-80 BJK 671-680D had two a teardrop shaped fitted at lower deck window level behind the cab door and a round flat lense mounted on a shaped housing low on the front wing, the latter looking something of an afterthought. The second batch No’s 81-85 DHC 781-785E had the same type of high mounted type as the Southampton Regents I don’t recall any problems with them.
Diesel Dave
21/12/17 – 11:40
I remember the Ramsbottom East Lancs PD3s had that arrangement of flashing indicators.
Huddersfield Corporation 1960 AEC Regent V 2D2RA East Lancs. H37/28R
192 (PVH 992) was an AEC Regent V 2D2RA with East Lancs. H37/28R bodywork, one of a pair (192/3) added to the Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee fleet on 1st February 1960. They had the AV590 engine and Monocontrol semi-automatic gearboxes. The traditional exposed radiator arrangement had remained an option for the Mk. V and the JOC had taken eight Roe-bodied examples (182-189) a couple of years previously, but this pair must have been amongst the last examples before the option was withdrawn. With their sturdy and well finished East Lancs bodies they were in my opinion the most handsome of buses, so typical of the Huddersfield fleet in that period – oozing real quality. The Corporation/JOC system at Huddersfield had worked in a different way to the one at neighbouring Halifax, not being based on whether the services operated outside the borough or not, but on what type of vehicles were used. Tram and then trolleybus routes had all been run by the Corporation whilst all motorbuses were the responsibility of the JOC. However when trolleybus abandonment in favour of motorbuses began in the early 1960’s the old arrangement would have eventually meant the JOC would have operated all the routes so a new agreement was reached such that former trolleybus routes would remain in Corporation hands and a separate fleet of buses was gradually built up carrying a more streamlined trolleybus-like livery and numbered from 101 upwards. From the 1st October 1969 the Corporation took over the former railway company’s share of the JOC (by then owned by the NBC) as well as the local stage service of Hanson’s Buses, and from then until the formation of the West Yorkshire PTE in April 1974 all services were Corporation operated. 192 and 193 passed into the PTE fleet as 4192/4193 and were withdrawn shortly afterwards and scrapped. 193 is seen here in Huddersfield’s Manchester Street Bus Station in the latter all-Corporation days having just been treated to a magnificent repaint.
Photograph Peter Berry – Copy John Stringer
20/09/17 – 06:08
The exposed radiator AEC Regent V seemed to be very much a Yorkshire thing. In addition to the Huddersfield examples, Leeds, Doncaster and East Yorkshire also had them. The only non-Yorkshire examples I can recall were some for City of Oxford and Rhonda. As we’re talking Yorkshire here where the natives have a reputation for thrift, could it have been that the exposed radiator version was cheaper!
Philip Halstead
20/09/17 – 08:22
But in Sheffield we had 86 Regent III with Regent V fronts!
David Oldfield
20/09/17 – 08:24
Thrift, nowt wrong wi that lad, after all, it is easy for anyone to identify a Yorkshire man abroad; he is the one at the till saying loudly “How Much”? However, the real reason for the exposed radiators is some Yorkshireman appreciate beauty more than tin fronts (the manager in Bradford who bought hundreds of tin fronted Regents, was not, after all, a native thee knows).
Stuart Emmet
20/09/17 – 14:34
I suspect that it was more an accessibility issue. I can remember in my far off preservation days what an awkward and painful experience it was just trying to remove and refit the lift-pump on my AEC Renown, standing precariously on a step ladder slumped over the wing with the bonnet edge trying to crush my ribcage as I reached down into its innards. With the exposed radiator you just lifted the bonnet and there it all was, and if the job was a bit bigger you just unbolted the wing, lifted it off and you could get right in there and reach everything with ease.
John Stringer
20/09/17 – 14:36
Nottingham City Transport had a little matter of 65 exposed radiator Regent Vs – nos. 209-273 (UTV 209-238 and XTO 239-273). Park Royal 62 seat bodies. Delivered 1955-56.
Stephen Ford
20/09/17 – 14:37
Huddersfield also had two Guy Arab IV with exposed radiators, and nearby County Motors had four.
Don McKeown
20/09/17 – 14:42
A small correction to the caption – motorbus deliveries to the Corporation fleet were numbered 401 up, 101 being reserved (at that time) for JOC double-deckers.
David Call
22/09/17 – 07:20
Don’t forget the elegant Guy Arabs of Exeter Corporation which took delivery of 20, all with exposed radiator, between 1956 and 1960.Five had Park Royal bodies, five had MCW, but the best looking were the Massey-bodied ones – the first five and the last five. Fortunately number 50, TFJ 808, the first of the Masseys, survives in superb condition. It was chosen for preservation by Colin Shears as it was ‘the most musical’!
David Chapman
23/09/17 – 07:07
An exposed-radiator Mk.5 that is easy to overlook is the most individual one of all, Longwell Green bodied PWO783, number 9 in the fleet of Bedwas & Machen UDC. Of the fleets that have been mentioned, only Doncaster and Nottingham failed to go on to buy concealed-radiator equivalents.
David Call
25/09/17 – 13:36
True, David: Doncaster returned to Daimler in the 60’s and had to buy concealed radiator CVG6’s but amongst its last half-cabs were some exposed radiator PD3s around 1963. I used to wonder if exposed radiators were seen as more macho in the Council Chamber- like Atkinson coal lorries or even Peterbilts. There was not a lot else Macho about a PD3 and Doncaster transport seemed to be about eking out, so cost was probably the answer: although making an exposed radiator look respectable cannot have been so cheap compared to a glass fibre moulding.
Joe
27/09/17 – 06:19
As John Stringer says the exposed radiator arrangement made it much easier to access the engine and its ancillaries than with a tin (fibreglass or aluminium) front. Also the view of the nearside kerb from the driver’s seat was better. The big snag was, I suspect, the exposed radiator was deemed old fashioned in the eyes of the fashion police of the time. Plus the fact accident damage was probably easier to repair on a “tin” front with the use of plastic filler.
John Anderson
02/10/17 – 07:29
In Manchester the issues were certainly engine accessibility and driver sightlines, to the extent that, when Daimler refused to supply chassis with exposed radiators, Manchester worked with them to redesign the alternative.
Leeds City Transport 1957 AEC Regent V MD2RA Roe H33/27R
Leeds was one of several operators initially not persuaded by the AEC “new look” front end (a preference with which I entirely concur), and its first Regent V deliveries retained the classic radiator design and hence the outward general appearance of the Regent III. These buses were of the MD2RA air braked specification of which Leeds became the largest customer, being powered by the AV470 7.7 litre engine driving into the four speed Monocontrol transmission. They were delivered in two batches, all with handsome, traditional Roe H33/27R bodywork. WUA 760 to 839 (with corresponding fleet numbers) came into service from January to November 1956, and XUM 840 to 894 arrived between March and October 1957. In the photo above, XUM 888 is seen in April 1970, four years before Barbara Castle created the heavy and inefficient hand of the West Yorkshire PTE that was to fall upon the municipalities of Bradford, Calderdale, Huddersfield and Leeds. I understand that these buses did not long survive in PTE ownership. Geoffrey Hilditch paints a revealing picture of the dire financial performance of the PTE in his “Steel Wheels and Rubber Tyres, Volume 3”. Later still, of course, another dogma driven politician of the opposite persuasion, a certain N. Ridley was to wreak even greater devastation upon the entire bus operating industry outside London, a saga that has previously been discussed at length on this forum.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
21/05/18 – 06:39
These buses were all withdrawn before PTE days. The last of the WUA batch had gone by April 1973. The XUM batch had perished earlier, all bar one (accident damaged) in 1971.
Dave Towers
23/05/18 – 06:44
These small AECs flattered to deceive they had an attractive body but were of light weight construction and when idling in later years the rattles were almost syncopated. In addition because Leeds were frugal with fuel a fully laden example could really struggle on the most gentle of inclines For some reason they always seemed to really lean into corners perhaps due to their lightweight construction I well remember one occasion when one really heeled over at the bottom of New York Street in the city centre so far over did it go that the platform was causing sparks to fly from the road surface and was leaving gouges in the roadway!
Chris Hough
24/05/18 – 07:34
Chris, I recall that our highly respected and informed contributor, Chris Youhill, once commented on this forum about the distressing propensity of Leeds City Transport to cut down the engine fuel pump settings on this fleet of Regent Vs. These buses, with their modest AV 470 power units, must have been truly pathetic performers after the fuel pumps had been reset to “economy” levels. Yes, for years, a great many Bristol double deckers got along (albeit steadily) with the 94 bhp 5LW, but, in my experience, AEC motors were never remotely in the same low speed torque league as the Gardner.
Roger Cox
24/05/18 – 07:36
A feature of Leeds buses of yesteryear which always mystified me on visits to the city as a young lad was the unpainted bonnet cover on PDs & Regents of LCT. Nobody has ever given me a proper explanation as to the reason for this, somebody said it was so the fitters did not scuff the paintwork if the bonnet had been painted when working on the engine, but I do not know how true this is.
Andrew Spriggs
28/05/18 – 06:42
This was always given as the reason It survived three managers so was certainly a proper policy rather than a managerial whim and was in use in prewar days. Even the last batches of enclosed radiator AEC Regents with enclosed radiators had the feature The nineteen fifties and afterwards Daimler’s and the PD3As had green bonnets oddly the Crossleys also had painted bonnets.
