Copyright S N J White
West Yorkshire Road Car Company
1938
Bristol L5G
ECW B32F
This bus is one of the final Bristol L5G pre-war single deckers in the series 110 to 205 which could be seen all over the operating territory of the West Yorkshire Road Car Company. It has a “bible indicator” with a minimum size “H” destination strip in place. The ECW body is more to the BET style, but an evolving body design preferred by West Yorkshire since the late twenties. The bus is parked in Leeds near the West Yorkshire Vicar Lane Bus Station circa 1950.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse
22/07/12 – 11:28
It is always a pleasure to see photographs of this generation of Bristol! They are so “purposeful”, and full of character!
I particularly remember this West Yorkshire variety, as represented here by 128, and memories of riding on these buses, both locally, and longer distance on the Leeds to Bridlington run, come flooding back. I particularly remember the wonderful sounds they made, and hope to soon re-live that experience by sampling the near complete United example in the care of the Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society! By a strange coincidence, some 20 of 128`s sisters, by now numbered in the SG series after the April 1954 renumbering, were sold to Lincolnshire in 1955 or 1956.
Richard points out the BET influence, which was particularly evident in the “porch” door arrangement.
I suppose, in the 1930s, there was more dovetailing of the shareholding between the BET, and TBAT groupings, the division of which became more distinct after the 1942 reorganisation.
I can also remember craning my neck out of the school window on Manningham Lane, in Bradford, as these wonderful buses growled by!
John Whitaker
23/07/12 – 08:14
With respect Richard, the number plate is blurred, 128 was CWT 869.
The bus was new to Ilkley depot and stayed there many years, and as an infant of five years old onwards I travelled to Ben Rhydding Primary School on it and its siblings throughout the War and beyond.
As John so rightly says, these vehicles were absolutely full of character in every way. Our childhood pranks, on the School Special service, included forcing weakly victims (I was often one) into the boxes with hinged lid which were next to each single seat over the rear axle. Other abominable conduct included “graffiti by deletion” in removing the gold “S” from “To seat 32 passengers” on the front bulkhead – the poor conductors usually preoccupied in trying to persuade the “Bellgraphic” ticket machines to issue fifty or sixty penny singles in a five minute journey !! Adjacent to the seating capacity transfer was another splendid gold four line notice which read :-
SMOKERS ARE
REQUESTED
TO OCCUPY
REAR SEATS
When I was four, and already hooked on the bus industry, I frequently dragged poor Dad to the depots and on one occasion a magnificent sight greeted us at Cunliffe Road. Standing on the angled forecourt stood 186 – DWW 591, newly delivered from Harrogate Headquarters and yet to carry its first “Bellgraphic” purchasing passenger !!
What very happy days those were – oh to return to them – and where have the last seventy one years gone ??
On a sombre note, and discarding the rose tinted spectacles for a moment, the War in Europe was reaching its worst severity and many residents of Ilkley were painfully aware of it, sadly.
Chris Youhill
Alt done thanks Chris
23/07/12 – 08:16
I’m not familiar with West Yorkshire’s territory, but surely these vehicles, with their 5LW engines, would have been a trial to drive in hilly terrain. The final days of some of them, in Lincolnshire, would certainly have been more suitable!
What was the driving force of the 1942 re-organisation, a strange thing to do in the middle of a war?
Chris Hebbron
23/07/12 – 13:06
These vehicles were relatively lightweight, and with a 32 passenger capacity never had to manage the same load as, say, a fully-laden 56-seat K5G double-decker. I never went up Whitwell or Garrowby Hill in one, but they always seemed to trundle along very satisfactorily. As John and Chris do, I have the fondest memories of them, in my case because the Service 97, on which they were regularly used, was the first time I was ever allowed on a bus alone.
I don’t know the precise reasons for the Tilling/BAT break-up, but I do know there was increasing tension between the parties, possibly over wartime vehicle allocation amongst other things. It seems just to have been felt that the two parties would do better in full charge of part of the empire rather to have to agree with each other about how to run all of it.
Roy Burke
23/07/12 – 18:24
Chris Youhill mentions disfiguring the gold leaf on the WYRCC buses In Leeds for many years a hypnotherapist advertised on LCT vehicles and I must own up some forty years later to amending the ad to read hypno the rapist on more than one occasion!
Chris Hough
23/07/12 – 18:24
Yes, Chris, I remember the “Smokers must occupy rear seats”, and “please tender exact fare, and state destination”, as well as the box over the wheel arch. My rose tinted specs are getting darker by the day! The WYRC territory is not all hills, Chris, it is just that there are some, severe in places, or long and arduous in others, but loads of “flat” in between.
In 1942, the 2 main groupings (this is a great over simplification!) were TBAT, (Tilling and British Automobile Traction), and the BET, which had BAT connections, hence the confusion.
In 1942, the company stockholdings were simplified, resulting in, basically, Tilling group, and BET. In the process, some companies “moved camp”. North Western became BET, and Crosville went the other way, to quote 2 examples. Wilts and Dorset, before 1942, were largely influenced by Southdown, but they too, moved to Tilling. Plenty more as well, but someone out there will know a lot more than I do!
Talking about hills, Chris, do you also remember the notice on Garrowby Hill;”Drivers are instructed to engage low gear”, headed West Yorkshire Road Car Company. No mention of EYMS!
I thought these memories originated only a couple of years ago, Chris !!
Other memories I have of these buses, and the earlier “J”s, is the trolleybus ride to Bingley, followed by the WY from Bingley to Dick Hudsons, walking across the Moor to Ilkley, and getting the WY back, stopping off for the best fish and chips in the world, at Guiseley.
Looking back, a most attractive world, but as you suggest, Chris, it is easy to put the less attractive aspects to one side. There were plenty of worries in the late wartime and early post war years.
John Whitaker
23/07/12 – 18:26
As an afterthought to the post above, I remember that West Yorkshire bus rides were at great speed, so the 5LW was never a problem! Even with a G or K so powered, the impression of speed was vivid.
On the other hand, it was just about possible to hear each cylinder firing in the 5LW when the double decker reached the summit of Baildon Brow, or Hollins Hill.
You can`t beat these old Bristols! They would have soldiered on for a 30 year stint or more, especially with the efficient management back up of one of the Tilling Group`s “flagship” fleets.
As Roy says, they trundled along very satisfactorily!
John Whitaker
24/07/12 – 06:43
Thx, John, for giving me a greater understanding of the split. When it comes to ‘keeping calm and carrying on’, in the war, I recall a GPO engineer on firewatch on the roof of a telephone exchange, being disciplined for, as it was delicately phrased at the time, ‘making water in his boots’, then tipping the contents away the next morning and putting said boots back on. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the case, it occurred to me when reading these old papers that thousands of Allied/Enemy troops, plus Jews, were dying every day and they were bothered about someone peeing in his boots! Another case was minutes of the Whitley Committee and concern that the GPO Home Guard were keeping ammunition in the building’s basement. What did they expect???
But I digress.
Chris Hebbron
24/07/12 – 18:12
Well well Chris Hough – the time for justice has come after all these years. I shall have no option but to inform Mr.M.A.Hamid’s solicitors of your confession. Only joking of course, and it was a very clever “adjustment” to the advertisement indeed !!
Chris Youhill
24/07/12 – 18:13
Another digression but so typically British any troops on active service (ie fighting) who appeared unshaven would be put on a charge!
Chris Hough
24/07/12 – 18:14
You say, John, that old Bristols ‘would have soldiered on for a 30 year stint’. Well, some of them pretty well did, as an earlier posting on this very site shows: the York-West Yorkshire 1939 K5Gs.
To be fair, the chassis were extensively modified and the new bodies dated from 1954/5, but the mechanicals lasted until 1969, when the vehicles even went on to get an extended life with Yorkshire Woollen District. A great example of the high quality of Bristol and Gardner engineering. My beloved Maidstone & District, while specifying AEC engines in their own postwar Bristols, chose K5Gs for Chatham & District, operating in the hilliest patch of M&D’s entire territory.
Gardner fan though I am, by the mid-1950s motor vehicles of all types were becoming more powerful, and the limitations of the 5LW made it a retrograde choice for double deckers; the more progressive decision was to specify 6LWs. Southdown, as you will know very well, Chris (Hebbron), not only specified 6LWs in all their postwar Guys, but fitted them retrospectively in the seven of their wartime Arab IIs that originally had 5LWs.
Finally, Chris, (since we WY aficionados are always so pleased to see a Southerner take an interest in that wonderful company that we want to make the most of it), do you know what induced Southdown, such a devoted Leyland customer, to enter into their affair with Guy? It was quite a big one: Southdown had as many Guys as M&D had PD2s.
Roy Burke
24/07/12 – 18:16
PLEASE LOWER YOUR HEAD was always ripe for modification, too, when it appeared in the downstairs saloon on a lowbridge double decker. There’s a direction sign a short walk from where I now live, which is supposed to point to Butlocks Heath. I’ll let you imagine how the local mischief makers convert it with insulating tape and correcting fluid!
Pete Davies
25/07/12 – 07:03
Oh blimey Pete, I do hope that “modification” was not a slur on a one time Prime Minister of this Land !!
Chris Youhill
25/07/12 – 07:05
Was it not World War 2 that induced Southdown to buy Guys? They were issued with Utility models and like other operators found them to be tough, reliable and economical.
Paragon
25/07/12 – 07:06
To pick up on the TBAT thread – before returning to WYRCC. The reason for the division of TBAT interests in 1942 was that (officially) it was in the interests of efficiency: TBAT companied had representatives from both BET and Tilling on their board of Directors and the Chairmanship rotated in alternate years, now BET and Tilling had differing ideas on how things should be done . . . John Hibbs quotes Claude Crossland-Taylor (GM of one-time TBAT-owned Crosville) as having stated that BET’s W.S.Wreathall felt that the arrangement “never worked” and that at board level “there was the feeling that it was no use doing this or that because next year it might be cancelled by the next Chairman”. One of the main problems seems to have been Tillings Chairman, J.F.Heaton: he had his own ideas on how things should be conducted (read the relevant parts of the three-volume “The Years Between 1909-1969” [the history of NOTC/WNOC/SNOC/ENOC] to see how ruthlessly he drove the senior management of NOTC out of their business after Tilling acquired control) and both Sidney Garke and R.J.Howley of BET found Heaton difficult to deal with (Howley is on record as having described certain of Heaton’s ideas as “rot” [strong stuff for the 1930s one imagines!])- it was Howley that convinced the BET board to divide the TBAT assets.
TBAT had been set up in 1928 to tidy up what had become rather complicated share-holdings by BAT (the BET subsidiary charged with developing bus operations) and Tilling: BAT had interests in 19 companies, of which Tilling had an interest in 11 . . . but Tilling also held an interest in BAT itself. TBAT was formed by reconstituting BAT, and Tilling gave up its shares in the various operating companies in exchange for an increased shareholding in TBAT. At the same time those BET companies – YTC being one – whose bus operations had outgrown their tramway origins were transferred from BET to TBAT control. After the Railway (Road Transport) Acts of August 1928, which allowed the four main-line railway companies to legally operate buses and haulage vehicles, it was agreed in November of that year – presumably to stave off development of a “railway-owned group” by encouraging investment alongside TBAT – that the railway shareholding in any TBAT-associated company should be exactly equal to the TBAT holding . . . although that didn’t stop the railways trying to do their own thing regarding Crosville and United.
Some BET companies (YWD, PET/PMT, SWT, NGT) remained outside TBAT (and were later joined by Hebble and the various subsidiaries of NECCo [COMS, Rhondda, WWOC, DGOC, “Mexborough”]), as did purely-Tilling companies (NOTC etc, BT&CC, BH&D) later joined by Westcliffe-on-Sea and UCOC).
At the time of its formation TBAT probably seemed a good idea in terms of tidying-up shareholding and presenting a united face against the railways’ intentions. But by 1942 the tensions were probably beginning to show, and the war provided a good excuse to unbundle things in the interests of inefficiency. The BET/Tilling shareholdings in the TBAT companies were not transferred to the holding companies, instead two new companies were formed to acquire the shareholdings – BET Omnibus Services and Tilling Motor Services.
So OK, back to WYRCC! Looking at the division of TBAT assets – WYRCC seems to have been the only TBAT company with a reasonable proportion of urban/rural mileage to to have been allocated to TMS. Crosville had some urban mileage in South Lancashire and the Wirral, but that was more than balanced out by the thin territory in North Wales.
Sorry, but I can’t get excited about the bus! Too many Bristols with similar bodies painted in standard Tilling red/green.
But why did WYRCC persevere with “bible” indicators long after linen blinds had been shown, by their adoption by nearly all operators, as being a much better/more practical alternative? Still “bible” indicators were better than Crosville’s ludicrous “Widd board” system of the same period.
Philip Rushworth
25/07/12 – 07:06
One of these vehicles (116 CWT 857) by then renumbered SG7 was (I believe) taken out of store, repainted and pressed in to service to run a shuttle service from Forster Square to Shipley (to avoid crossing the City Centre during re-development). I am guessing this to be in 1958 but I might be plus or minus a year or so. It was used for a West Yorkshire Information Service tour and I have a Box Brownie photo of it in the newly built Market Square in Shipley.
Gordon Green
25/07/12 – 10:20
No, Mr Youhill, it isn’t intended to have any connection with Lord Broadstairs (as he is mentioned in one of the Jeffrey Archer books) but he did keep his yacht nearby . . .
Pete Davies
25/07/12 – 11:24
I’m sure you’re right, Paragon, about Southdown’s introduction to Guys, and I couldn’t agree with you more about the qualities of these vehicles. It’s Southdown’s postwar fleet buying policy that intrigues me. They bought Leyland PD1s in 1947 and a whole load more in 1948, in which year they also bought about a dozen Arab IIIs. That might be explained by postwar supply issues, (I don’t know). However, Southdown bought Leylands regularly throughout the 1950’s, (for stage carriage they bought only Leylands), but for reasons I’ve never understood, included 48 Arab IVs amongst them during 1955/6. They never bought any more. M&D had special operational reasons for buying Arab IVs, but as far as I can see, Southdown didn’t. In so predominantly a Leyland fleet, the one-off Guy order just seems odd. If the company’s experience with Guys led them to prefer them over Leylands, fair enough; but why then buy more Leylands at the same time and stick with Leyland exclusively thereafter?
Roy Burke
25/07/12 – 11:24
Interesting posts…. it is not just now that the bus industry is mired in the politics of business. “Bible indicators” could have been regarded as a heritage feature in York (or Yark as they call it locally), together with those ancient high-nosed Bristols. My recollection of them in Rotherham or Doncaster (can’t remember which) is that the ? 5G engine would reach peak revs in seconds in first gear, so they would always set off with a screaming clatter: it all added to the heritage feel! The engines had a later life of course- on the back of showmen’s wagons, still, failing memory suggests, with red paint & Bristol badge.
Joe
25/07/12 – 16:43
Well isn’t it amazing Pete, what interesting facts we learn in these topics. I either never knew, or had perhaps forgotten, that Mr. Heath had ended his career in the Upper House.
Chris Youhill
25/07/12 – 16:44
Roy, as a regular here, I am really surprised that another reason hasn’t dawned upon you.
Many operators had a dual sourcing policy – AEC/Leyland at Sheffield; Leyland/Daimler at Manchester, or even triple as did Leeds and Birmingham. This also extended to regular preferred coach-builders. As much as anything, this was to spread the load and ensure early deliveries rather than putting all eggs in one basket. Southdown were obviously a Leyland operator but also happy with their allocation of war-time Guys. Maybe they had a need for quick delivery of vehicles which couldn’t be met by Leyland. They certainly did this at other times with Commers and Fords.
SUT and Yelloway were AEC operators who supplemented the front line fleet with Fords and Bedfords at various times – as indeed did Wallace Arnold.
David Oldfield
25/07/12 – 16:45
Philip Rushworth is entirely accurate in his assessment of the fundamental reason for the Tilling – BAT split in 1942. In retrospect, it does seem that a major industrial reorganisation at a time of severe national peril was rather curious, but the matter was brought about almost entirely because of the personality of J.F. Heaton. The Tilling involvement with BET came when Richard Tilling agreed to work jointly with BET in developing public transport, and, in 1928, took a shareholding in the BET’s subsidiary BAT. Richard Tilling died the following year, and when Heaton was appointed vice chairman, all the Tilling family members resigned from the board. Heaton, who later became chairman, came from an insurance background, and was appointed secretary of the Tilling insurance arms, Road Transport and General from 1919, and Motor Credit Services from 1922. From here he increased his influence over the Tilling transport interests, whilst remaining a director of the insurance business (which was taken over in 1923 by General Accident, now Aviva) until 1933. His style as chairman of Tilling was autocratic and intolerant, and the rift in management style with his fellow directors of TBAT caused frictions from the early ‘thirties. Heaton’s financial background was a major factor in his “one size fits all” mentality that imposed the rigid standardisation upon Bristol products on Tilling group companies, in marked contrast to the much more flexible BET approach to management. Whatever the solid engineering merits of the Bristol K5G and L5G, they were decidedly unsophisticated. Even Guy, in the midst of wartime expediency, could design and produce an effective, reliable flexible engine mounting, a feature that eluded Bristol until around 1950. Heaton’s total preoccupation with maximising quick financial return over all other considerations (seems to ring bells with the present day financial sector) brought him quickly to the negotiating table in 1948 when the new Labour government expressed a desire to nationalise road transport. The BET took a totally different view, and remained independent for 20 more years.
Roger Cox
25/07/12 – 16:46
Entertaining, Joe, though your version is of the local pronunciation of the name of my home city, my favourite rendition of it comes from the railway station. I have memories of arriving there in the horrid small hours of a cold winter’s night, to hear echoing around the vast, cavernous but deserted space of the main line platform the announcement: ‘Nyorg! This is Nyorg!’ The effect is best reproduced if you shout into a bucket while holding your nose.
I find West Yorkshire’s fetish for Bible indicatora as perplexing as I do Southdown’s flirtation with Guy. And why ‘Bible’? There doesn’t seem anything terribly ecclesiastical about any of WY’s destinations. At York, (sorry, Joe, Yark – or even Nyorg if you prefer), I never heard them referred to as anything other than ‘flap boards’.
Roy Burke
26/07/12 – 07:23
Fearful of opening a can of worms, can I make the tentative suggestion that the purchasing policies of some bus companies may have been subject to influences other than operational performance or builder delivery times? In those pre-subsidised days, when all manufacturers and many operators lived or died by pure, unfettered capitalism (as opposed to municipal rate juggling etc), the salesmen of chassis and body makers would undoubtedly have tried to influence chief engineers, proprietors and committee members. Not suggesting baksheesh, heaven forbid, but there must have been some out-of-hours wining and dining arranged by the under-dogs to try to break the stranglehold of the big boys. This may, possibly, explain why years of consistent purchasing policy suddenly changed for no apparent reason, only to change back soon after.
Sorry, gents, this is WAY off the WY L5G thread, but that’s what’s good about OBP – it makes one thread into a tapestry!
Paul Haywood
26/07/12 – 07:28
Things seem to have moved on since you posted the note to me, Roy, but here goes.
During the war, passengers waned fast as holiday/excursion traffic evaporated, coastal towns/beaches suffered severe movement restrictions and routes were modified away from seafronts, to avoid folk seeing coastal defences. The need for buses decreased, too, but, with 162 Southdown buses being requisitioned and expected deliveries diverted, Southdown had to make good some shortfall and borrowed from East Kent and Eastbourne. The waxing started with D-Day and 99 Guy Arabs arrived between 1943 and early 1946, an above-average 44 with the excellent metal-framed Northern Counties bodies and some with 6LW engines. Such was the build-up or bus traffic around Portsmouth/Gosport/Southwick (Allied Operational HQ at Southwick) that Southdown was ordered to take over Fareham Bus Station from Hants & Dorset.Long story short, the Portsmouth Area Manager (AFR Carling) during these frenetic times, took over as Southdown’s General Manager in 1947, His respect for the 6LW Guys’ performance, whilst being flogged mercilessly in the late unpleasantness, was the reason why he ordered Guys from time to time thereafter.
And we all know that it was a wise buy.
However, I don’t recall ever seeing many post-war ones around Pompey, although the open-top austerity ones were at Hayling Island.
As for bible indicators/flap boards and other such Northern quirks, this arcane system of indicators was quite new to me. Linen blinds and slip boards is all I’d ever come across. You learn something new every day, even though you didn’t really want to (actually quite interesting, but that’s between us)!
Chris Hebbron
26/07/12 – 07:28
I agree Roy about the Bible indicators – I bet many a staff member slipping on the pathetic metal footholds while trying to lift the enormous thing aloft, perhaps painfully grazing a shin, would come out with loud remarks which were anything but ecclesiastical !!
Much scoffing these days is directed at Health and Safety legislation, but such a dangerous practice as this should certainly have been outlawed – and of course in the case of the earlier “J” types the infernal thing even leaned forward when installed and the triggers had to be thrown to secure it.
Chris Youhill
26/07/12 – 07:29
Philip Rushworth’s post about Tilling’s J. Frederick Heaton is spot-on.
When Brighton Town Clerk and some councillors went to Thos. Tilling to discuss some sort of take-over of Tilling’s Brighton fleet, they found that they’d entered a lion’s den!
They said later that Heaton ‘was a man who could persuade others that he could make more money for them running their businesses that they could themselves’. He flatly refused any suggestion of selling Tilling’s Brighton business and the councillors found themselves agreeing to a completely different deal, albeit not a bad one in the end!
Chris Hebbron
26/07/12 – 07:30
As well as WYRCC using “bible indicators” Eastern Counties were also fans of these perhaps they were called this because they actually resembled Jewish Talmudic scrolls.
Lancs United also had a system of slot in stencils rather than roller blinds. The tin boards were kept under the stairs and were prone to falling onto the platform with a resounding clatter! The stencils were back lit at night.
Like WYRCC and ECOC LUT adopted normal roller blinds in the early fifties
Chris Hough
26/07/12 – 07:31
Bible indicators/flap boards, Widd cards, BMMO’s persistence with painted boards on single deckers, and Ribble’s externally-illuminated destination blinds . . . if you want to sell a product then the public have to know what you’re selling (in the case of road transport that means where you’re going). How many potential passengers missed their bus because – especially in the hours of darkness – they couldn’t identify the destination? Me! Well, I’m not old enough to to have fallen prey to any of the above but scrolling LED displays and other illegible/faint electronic displays have caught me out when in unfamiliar territory – will the industry never learn?
And I’ll add to the above list United Counties’s use of a tiny, cramped font on its linen blinds during the 1980s.
Rant over.
Philip Rushworth
26/07/12 – 07:33
I have learnt a great deal from my posting of this West Yorkshire Bristol L5G so many thanks to all the many people who have made a contribution. I have particularly found the character of J. F. Heaton of great interest and this may explain why the West Yorkshire Road Car Company had such an austere pre-war fleet and retained the use of its ‘bible indicators” well into the mid fifties. The term “bible indicator” was always the description used in by the crews in Bradford but I agree it was hardly ecclesiastical. I do think the TBAT/Tilling/BET descriptions and information are worthy of filing elsewhere on this site for easy reference.
Richard Fieldhouse
26/07/12 – 11:09
That’s no rant Philip, but is perfectly valid comment.
The tiny “off centre” font is no doubt yet another interference by highly paid “consultants.” West Yorkshire were guilty (I use the word without apology) of this to some tune on all classes of vehicle. Not only was the font tiny, and concentrated in around a third of the display width at the nearside, but it was in lower case lettering !!
Telescopes and/or magnifying glasses were needed to decipher “Ilkley”, “Otley”, “Leeds” etc. I suppose I’m often guilty of saying “I despair” – well I am, and I do !!
Chris Youhill
26/07/12 – 11:11
Apologies, first, for taking up yet more space, especially about southern BET operations in a posting about a northern Tilling company. You may well be right, David, and I thank you for offering your suggestions. As you say, dual sourcing and mixed fleets were common – just look at Southdown’s neighbour – but if that did become Southdown’s policy, it clearly didn’t last long. After 1956 they reverted to Leyland as sole supplier, (I exclude the Commer coaches, for which there is an operational explanation), and by the time I joined them, Southdown’s Engineering Department was very, very Leyland only. So if dual sourcing was the reason for buying Guys, the policy was, as they might have said at West Yorkshire, ‘neither nowt nor summat’. Supply difficulties might also be a reason, I agree, but being aware of the senior personalities at Stratton House at the time, I’m inclined to think Southdown would have got Leylands if they really wanted them. O.K. No more from me.
Roy Burke
26/07/12 – 11:12
Perhaps companies should adopt the Wigan Corporation policy of two green lights on either side of the indicator to inform prospective passengers that it was their bus as a ratepayer so they dint catch a Ribble or LUT vehicle by mistake.
Even when ECOC adopted linen blinds they often showed Eastern Counties or Service as a destination not very useful to intending passengers. Of course the SBG were renowned for paper stickers on windscreens as a destination with the proper indicator often left blank!
Chris Hough
26/07/12 – 11:13
Following on from awkward/dangerous blinds, I recall that a few of the earliest of LUT’s double-deck ‘Diddlers’ had a bracket, front and back, on the roof, which held the route number in metal stencil form. You’d have needed a ladder to climb up and change the darned things and also carrying a stencil up and down to-boot! There would have been a desire to keep the same trolleys on the same route, save for a catastrophe, but common-sense prevailed very quickly!
I’ll second Richard F’s suggestion of 26/7/12.
Could someone please describe a Widd Card to me?
Chris Hebbron
26/07/12 – 11:15
The subject of Bible Blinds and other methods brings me on to the subject of so called Tram Boards.I wonder if any other operator uses them as here at Lothian Buses.All buses have a metal holder in the lower front window and at various times the display shows Limited Stop etc or a variation of a route.At all three depots there is a large area holding the various boards.
Philip Carlton
26/07/12 – 14:02
For many years Morecambe & Heysham did not use route numbers when they were adopted many of the AEC Regents had a slot in card for this in the nearside upper deck front window totally unseeable in the dark!
Chris Hough
26/07/12 – 14:02
Apart from the Routemasters, all Northern General half cabs had a flip down ‘DUPLICATE’ sign mounted to the left of the windscreen
Ronnie Hoye
26/07/12 – 14:20
It has been said umpteen times here on OBP about the character of our long departed vehicles but I have to make a comment on the “scrolling LED`s” of today`s monstrosities, if you stand to the side the destinations cannot be read and if the sun is on them, equally they cannot be read, even with today`s technology on some scrolling LED boards lower case is also used.
David Henighan
27/07/12 – 08:16
I always thought the archetypal BTC display was best – separate single line destination in a good bold font, and a two or three line “via” display, sometimes incorporating the route number, or alternatively with a separate three track route number display. But, as Chris Hough pointed out, only good if it was used properly. What good came of showing destination “Western National” via “Service No.” I shall never know! Midland General/Notts & Derby had a slightly different layout (well, they would, wouldn’t they!) in which the destination was below the “via” screen, so the route was described in correct sequence, for example “Eastwood, Brinsley, Selston, ALFRETON” – except that the “via” displays were not repeated in reverse order so they were always back-to-front in one direction! City operators tended to go for simplicity on the assumption that the vast majority of passengers were locals who knew the network (London being a noble exception). Nottingham for many years had one-piece blinds which incorporated route number, destination and if necessary a “via” line, but on inward journeys usually didn’t bother with route numbers, just showing “CITY”. Later, suburb names replaced specific destinations, so that routes 20/52/57/69 were all just “Arnold”, 6/18/28 “Bestwood” and so on.
Stephen Ford
27/07/12 – 08:16
I remember these vehicles well in my childhood. Travelling from Leeds to Kirk Deighton on the Leeds-Knaresborough 36 route I think it was. They could cover the distance with speed…even faster when one of the Roseville Road drivers with a big handlebar moustache was driving he made the Bristol sing. I remember he once got on at Vicar Lane going to the garage and the young lad who was driving was not going fast enough for him he kept tapping on the cab window and waving him to go faster, I think he was late for his shift. On Sundays there used to be about 20 West Yorkshire both single and double deckers pass going to Scotton Sanatorium which dealt with TB in those days, the busses were all packed with visitors from Leeds. They Started about 1:30 and they were in convoy for a good 20 minutes and then they would return around 4:30. I used to sit on the wall and watch them all pass on the Sundays I stayed at my Aunts.
Brian Lunn
27/07/12 – 08:17
Having been born in Glasgow in the early 1930s, I can`t remember seeing anything other than roller blinds on either buses or trams. Maybe Scotland was way ahead of the rest of the country, at least in something!
Jim Hepburn
Widd plates [sic] were a sheet of paper sandwiched between two layers of celluloid bounded by a metal frame. They were displayed in holders under the front canopy/inside the front window (or for the route letters used for the double-decked Liverpool-Warrington services in the front upper nearside window). Crosville actually replaced the roller blinds it previously-used with this sytem in the 1920s: seemingly, linen blinds and destination equipment were considered too costly in terms of maintenance – when the TBAT-owned Western Transport and Llandudno Blues were absorbed in the 1930s the linen blinds were ripped out of the acquired vehicles and Widd boards substituted. What did Crosville display in the destination boxes of its buses? – a paper label stating “Crosville”. The Widd plate system lasted into the post-war years until replaced by the then standard two-piece Tilling display from 1946 onwards: apparently, Crosville had been required to pay Widd (the name of the firm owning the “technology” [there is a company called Widd Signs based in Leeds to this day]) for the rights to manufacture the signs itself . . . and that payment had to be justified. Having read previous posts, about the only point one could make in favour of the Widd plate system was that it must have been less risky/more convenient for the conductor than having to handle heavy metal bible plates.
Back to CWT 869. As pictured this vehicle is fitted with a “H” board, used for one-line displays (the display being on the horizontal bar, and the verticals fitting into the holders on the vehicle). Comprehensive displays were catered for by a rectangular board that filled the whole area of the indicator. Most boards had a flip hinged at the mid-line (either vertically or horizontally) so that with the flap left/right or up/down, as the case may be, the details for one direction were shown . . . at the terminus swing/lift/drop the flap and the reverse information was displayed, thereby saving the hassle of changing over the board at the end of every journey. That’s where I understand the term “bible indicator” comes from – swinging a vertically-hinged flap was like opening one of the huge leather-bound church or family bibles with which people in those days would have been familiar.
Philip Rushworth
27/07/12 – 08:44
No, CY, he didn’t actually get “elevated”. That’s just a figment of the novelist’s imagination, even though it has quite a ring to it. He only ever got as far as “Sir”.
Now, dot matrix indicators. Am I the only one [surely not!!!] to notice the things are almost impossible to photograph, and even worse on a digital camera?
Pete Davies
27/07/12 – 15:35
Thank you indeed to Brian Lunn for his memories of the wonderful J5G and L5G days – actually though the Wetherby/Knaresborough services were 37/38/39 – the classic 36 was Leeds – Harrogate – Ripon, and still is. I’m quite sure that every victim of “Mr.Handlebars”, both human and mechanical, will always remember him – the unchallenged holder of the title “The World’s most atrocious and callous bus driver ever.” How he could sleep at night I can’t imagine – he can’t have had any conscience about all the wrecked gearboxes and diffs, and abandoned passengers and early running for which he was daily responsible. My last experience personally was when I attempted to board the celebrated DX 82 at what was then the top stop in Cookridge Street on the 34 Ilkley route. The forward entrance Lodekka had already been thrashed into maximum speed uphill from the Terminus and, despite holding out a timid hand, I was left to wait for the next bus.
I’m surprised, well perhaps not, to hear that he had the arrogance to rap on any other driver’s cab window for increased speed – that says it all. Characters like him are one of the key reasons why people can’t be “coaxed out of their cars and onto the buses” !!
Now where’s that bottle of vintage embrocation ? – I think there was a drop left from the 1960s !!
You’re quite right PD in mentioning the difficulty in photographing dot matrix displays. Only if the display is not changing, and the light is favourable, and the lettering is not faded or worn, is there any chance of a decent picture – and of course intending passengers have even more to lose.
I think that the “Dayglow” destination blinds, with bright clear yellow lettering on black material are the best we are ever likely to enjoy – photographers and passengers alike.
Chris Youhill
28/07/12 – 08:30
Dot Matrix. Now wasn’t she a conductress at West Yorkshire’s Bradford depot?
Brendan Smith
28/07/12 – 15:57
Yes indeed she was Brendan, but perhaps you hadn’t heard that she’d got tied up with a PNEU driver called MOCY CLIC – they both went absent without notice and haven’t been heard of since – very sad.
Chris Youhill
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
30/01/18 – 05:36
I wonder if Chris Youhill remembers the glorious aroma at Vicar Lane Bus Station in Leeds?
It came from Thornes Confectionary who made Butter Dainties a very tasty caramel sweet with a chocolate centre. Sadly when you were on West Yorkshire RCC it was missed when the company moved.
David Thorpe
