Tag: Brush

Walsall Corporation – Sunbeam F4 – NDH 958 – 341

Walsall Corporation - Sunbeam F4 - NDH 958 - 341
Copyright Tony Martin

Walsall Corporation
1951
Sunbeam F4
Brush H30/26R

Former Walsall Corporation 341, by August 1970 owned by the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive, leaves Walsall Bus Station for Blakenhall. It is a Sunbeam F4 with much rebuilt Brush body and should be showing route 15. In the background is former Birmingham City 2593 registration JOJ 593, a 1951 MCW H54R bodied Guy Arab IV, transferred to Walsall in February 1970 with others to partially replace the trolleybuses, though it and its sisters were as old as the vehicles they replaced!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin

07/12/12 – 06:55

Nice view, Tony. Thanks for sharing. Others on this site have commented on the full front Vs half cab arrangement of motor buses, citing the amount the driver could or could not see on his nearside – among other factors – yet MOST trolley buses were full front.

Pete Davies

07/12/12 – 08:11

Just speculation but I wonder if the use of full fronts on most trolleybuses was to protect the control gear from water ingress as this was generally on the bulkhead where the engine would be on a motor bus.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/12/12 – 08:12

Surely, Pete, the driver of a Trolley knew that the nearside window was the limit of its width, whereas the problem in the half cab was that the front nearside corner disappeared if a high bonnet obscured the mudguards? Anyone know first hand? Presumably the mirror, if mounted on the nearside corner was a help. Do you remember when you, the driver, could see the front of your car?!

Joe

07/12/12 – 09:56

Actually, Joe, the discussion I remember was about how much less the driver could see with a full front! In the event, the rear engine came along, with the door directly opposite the driver, and the argument was stifled. There was a similar sort of discussion when I was working, and about half the folk who commented said they liked the tip-up seats in shelters and the other half hated them. They went off the market after too many people fell off and the makers’ insurance company jacked up the premium. In a way, I suppose, those who hated the things won.

Pete Davies

07/12/12 – 13:34

I wonder if the issue with full front buses was steaming up in that awkwardly inaccessible left hand cabin. This would probably be more of an issue with the rising emissions from internal combustion engines than the drier warmth from electrical machines. This would not be a problem with rear engine buses of course, and the passenger door gave easy access to the nearside front screen if necessary. I guess everyone will know that the original fleet of Notts & Derbys trolleybuses were half-cabs.

Stephen Ford

08/12/12 – 09:26

I have heard that the cabs of Walsall’s F4As, with their curved glass windscreens gave excellent visibility. There is one behind 341 above and my photo of 872 which is elsewhere on this site.

Tony Martin

08/12/12 – 09:27

A lot of early t/buses were halfcab, because they probably thought they should look like buses. Some even had fake radiators. The 1931 London ‘Diddlers’ were halfcab with a central headlamp on the bonnet front, a la trams!

Chris Hebbron

08/12/12 – 09:28

The Notts & Derby trolleybuses that Stephen refers to had the motor and associated electrical equipment under the bonnet (with ‘dummy’ radiator with the AEC/English Electric badge attached). The London United ‘Diddler’ trolleybuses also had the motor under the bonnet but no attempt was made to provide a ‘dummy’ radiator but there was a single headlamp in the panel where a radiator would have been. There were other instances of trolleybuses with half cabs – Birmingham Corporation for example. Most trolleybuses had the motor located between the chassis side members under the lower saloon floor with a short prop shaft to the rear axle. With this arrangement there was no need to provide a half cab arrangement and the nearside of the full width cab was usually taken up with the contactor cabinet, although some operators, like London Transport, opted to have the contactor cabinet mounted on the nearside of the chassis with access via flap in the vehicle’s ‘skirt’ (or ‘valance’ – depending on which term you choose to use).

Michael Elliott

25/04/18 – 05:41

In Bob Rowe’s new, 2018, book on Walsall Trolleybuses, there is a copy of the tender for the bodies of this batch. Especially interesting is that the Corporation specified that the seats should be covered in leather made in Walsall.

Tony Martin

Midland Red – SOS SON – FHA 472 – 472 – 2317

Midland Red - SOS SON - FHA 472 - 472 - 2317
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Midland Red (Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Co)
1939
SOS SON
Brush B38F

This uncredited wartime view of Midland Red FHA 472 (472 later 2317) shows it with masked headlamps and reflective mudguards. It was one of a large batch of SON’s built between 1935 and 1940 and is seen wearing its original lined and logo’d livery.
Incredibly, Midland Red then still favoured the use of bulkhead slot-in destination boards, even though the body shell seems to have provision for a small destination screen. These smart but archaic buses were rebuilt in the late 1940s by Hooton, Nudd Bros and Lockyer, but still minus a destination screen, which extended some of their lives until the late 1950s.

FHA 472_cu
Just visible in an enlarged view is the stencilled bulkhead route number X99, which ran from Birmingham to Nottingham via Tamworth and Ashby-de-la-Zouch. This long route, according to a 1962 timetable, needed 2¾ hours to achieve, even as a limited stop service. Was the lack of destination board a wartime security measure? Was this view taken in Birmingham or Nottingham?

Photograph and Copy contributed by Paul Haywood

06/07/12 – 07:25

What was the purpose of the nearside mirror. Certainly at the angle it was set it would have been no use to the driver for looking down the nearside of the bus.
Could it possibly have been for him to look into the saloon to see if there were any passengers wanting to alight whilst the conductor was busy collecting fares and hadn’t given the stop signal?

Eric Bawden

06/07/12 – 07:26

Paul – this shot of FHA 472 was taken in Nottingham. The location is Glasshouse Street and the building in the background is Nottingham Victoria Station.

Michael Elliott

06/07/12 – 14:28

I suspect you’ve answered your own question, Eric, as that would be my guess too; it’s only a guess, though, and there will be people out there who can give us a definitive answer.
It isn’t clear from the photo how much flexibility (if any) there was on the mirror arm: in other words, could it have been turned to give a view of either the nearside of the bus or the platform at the whim of the driver?

Alan Hall

FHA 472_mir

08/07/12 – 07:52

Another "Midland Red" gem!

Pete Davies

08/12/12 – 09:44

I may be repeating information mentioned elsewhere on the site but up until the 1st January 1958 there was no requirement for buses* to have a nearside mirror fitted. Observe bus photos up until the early 50’s, almost all with no nearside mirror! By the same token, there are lots of photos showing buses loading with the vehicle, unsurprisingly, some distance from the kerb. Knowing the delights (!) of driving a Regent II, what with its crash box, minimal power, heavy steering, curious pedal actions and cramped cab, I take my hat off to the guys that used to do a full shift in such a vehicle and all that without the assistance of a nearside mirror either!
*inc Goods vehicles, dual purpose vehicles and passenger carrying vehicle with more than 7 seats.

Berisford Jones

11/12/12 – 16:08

Seeing the SOS single deckers brought back an interesting memory. Just before Christmas 1953, my father drove the family straight six Daimler into the back of one somewhere between Malvern and Worcester. The force of impact disable the emergency door, and the front of the car was wedged under the bus against the back axle. I believe a crane was needed to eventually remove the car from under the bus.
I had two journeys on FEDDs. Once with an old aunt back to Perry Barr – I don’t remember where we had been. Later, a long ride – upstairs at the front from Birmingham to Sutton Coldfield on the No 107. They were still around Smethwick garage until 1960 – just missing being preserved.

jude5097

12/02/13 – 14:55

Memories!!! I lived twixt the 107 and Birmingham 5a route with the S76 and S67 passing my front door the latter were the buses from the Beggars Bush to Erdington Six Ways, one via Court Lane and one via Goosemoor Lane. All my life until National Service in 1954 they were serviced by AHA’s, CHA’s and DHA’s, nothing newer than that. The mirror was for the driver to see the passenger position generally, my grandad worked at Caryle Road and always commented that the Birmingham idea of a) the mirror in the cab looking back through the small glass window above the b) sliding glass communication window were far better ideas, particularly as he often was criticised by some drivers for moving the mirror when he cleaned the bus. I never thought of them as being ugly apart from the very early double deckers which seemed destined to take me to school in Sutton Coldfield for ever.

Bob Davis

Midland Red – SOS FEDD – FHA 236 – 236 – 2254

Midland Red - SOS FEDD - FHA 236 - 236 - 2254
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Midland Red (Birmingham & Midland Omnibus Co)
1939
SOS FEDD
Brush H30/26F

Midland Red FHA 236 (2254, formerly 236) was one of their unique pre-war, front-entrance, SOS FEDD double-deckers. They were built in large numbers between 1933 until 1939 with bodies by Carlyle (1), Short Bros, Metro-Cammell and finally Brush, each batch having gradual improvements and modifications. Like their SON single-deck sisters, they were extensively rebuilt by Hooton Aero & Engineering (and others?) in the 1940s to extend their lives. This example is seen at Stourbridge busFHA 236._ffjpg station, probably in the late 1950s. Note the position of the fuel cap, which fed the tank positioned beneath the driver’s seat. This postcard is uncredited so if anyone knows who took it, please let us know.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Paul Haywood

10/07/12 – 18:28

It’s interesting how this forward entrance layout, used extensively pre-war by Barton and London Country area as well as Midland Red died out in the post-war period only to find popularity again in the early 1960’s. The reasons cited for the adoption of forward entrances in the sixties were greater safety by giving the driver a better view of the entrance and easing the conductor’s workload as a result particularly on 30ft long higher capacity vehicles.

Philip Halstead

11/07/12 – 08:05

Looking at this, and at the single decker posted a few days ago, without looking at the caption, the radiator grille looks remarkably AEC, at first glance. Then, you study it and see it isn’t!

Pete Davies

11/07/12 – 08:06

Dare I say, that surely must be one of the most awkward looking designs imaginable. What strange proportions giving it a very "tall" appearance and the design around the cab is very unhappy. Even the radiator looks partly buried by the flat, featureless front.
Thank goodness this was only a blip in inspiration before coming up with many superb designs not long afterwards!
I hope this doesn’t upset anyone but beauty really is in the eye of the beholder..this poor bus needed help!

Richard Leaman

11/07/12 – 12:38

You’re absolutely right, Richard, on both the points you make: first, I agree with you that the overall design just doesn’t work. The whole of the cab area is untidy; the staircase gives the impression that the front offside passenger window has just been blocked off. The ‘tall’ appearance is possibly due to the angle of the photo, but you’re right about the radiator, the location of the front registration plate exaggerates the problem, and the livery doesn’t help either.
However, as you also remark, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; unlike many correspondents, I always thought the (much later, of course), Orion looked balanced and business like, (especially on M&D’s Guys), but at the time, the message I was being taught was that appearance is secondary to operational performance any way. An ugly duckling that was economical and reliable was preferable to a good looker that wasn’t.
The choice of entrance location, (Philip’s comment), is worth an entire separate article of its own. For urban working, there was a lot to be said, (before H&S concerns), for open platforms – quick, convenient for passengers, and, provided the driver was using his mirrors as he should, tolerably safe. Doors were less draughty for inter-urban use, but manually operated doors, especially rear doors such as Lodekkas had, were a drag for the conductor otherwise and were usually left open. In moving to front entrances, I think some operators – e.g Southdown with its Queen Marys – were motivated partly just by a desire to demonstrate their modernity; officially, the conductor remained responsible for giving the ‘go’ bell however busy. Personally, I never understood why operators chose rear or centre entrances on underfloor single deckers intended for stage carriage work.

Roy Burke

11/07/12 – 18:43

Although it wasn’t my favourite, I agree with Roy that the Orion – in the right livery – could still look good. [M & D, Sheffield and St Helens being three examples.] …..but ideally have a good looking, attractive vehicle that is also reliable and economic – in that order.
Am I the only one [ducks low to avoid flying missiles] that wasn’t over impressed with looks of BMMO buses? I have a thing about balanced designs and BMMO were, to say the least, quirky and original – and early Ds (1 – 5 especially) always seemed to be a cross between Clement Freud and Eyor; mournful and unhappy. […..or is now a good time to leave the country?]

David Oldfield

11/07/12 – 18:44

While the body, as a whole, is not unattractive, the detail is very deleterious to the overall effect. Although I’m no lover of sliding windows, the arrangement of these is bizarre. It’s also mean upstairs, in such a smoking era! The driving cab windows are so small as to be useless to a driver looking out, and the front/rear side ones are non-standard lengths! At least both headlamps are the same height!
I wonder if these FHA’s had the same entrances as the earlier EHA’s, whereby the (wooden?) doors were inset and there were two steps to climb before going through said doors. I recall the latter when I was based at RAF Stafford in 1956-58. My abiding memory of BMMO at this time was the sole bus (usually a D7), which ran through the Sunday night/Monday morning from Stafford railway station the RAF Stafford. This service must have broken records for overloading, with folk standing downstairs and upstairs and sometimes three to a seat! Bends were taken very gingerly, but with no guarantee that the vehicle would right itself then! If the bus wasn’t waiting, we’d take one of the pre-war Rolls-Royce taxis which held about 7-8 and were more than capable of 70mph, even at 20+ years old and God knows how many miles on the clock! When these beauties were replaced by Vauxhall Wyverns, my last journey from camp to station involved a driver who remained in top gear for the whole journey into town, slipping the clutch with expertise when crawling through traffic – such consummate abuse! But I digress!

Chris Hebbron

11/07/12 – 18:45

This vehicle remained in service until 1960 and was one of the final 6 withdrawn in December 1960. Two sister FEDD’s – 2120 and 2247 – continued as staff and training buses, I wonder how many miles they covered in their lifetime? I vividly remember as a youngster going ‘long distance’ with my parents to visit a cousin in Halesowen (from my home of Birmingham) and the route traversed the infamous ‘Mucklows Hill’. This was used for testing new buses and the FEDD’s were the staple diet on this route along Hagley Road and the climb-returning to Brum-was in first gear for about a mile, I can still hear the howl of the poor K type engine to this day!

Nigel Edwards

12/07/12 – 07:56

The use of forward entrance double deckers in the East Midlands before World War 2 was not confined to Barton. Midland General/Mansfield District (on AEC Regents) and Trent (AEC Regents and Daimler COG5s) were users of this entrance layout for double deckers as well. Trent also had a batch of FEDDs with MCCW bodies. After the War Barton continued with forward entrance double deckers with its Leyland PD1s with Duple bodies while MGO/MDT and Trent switched to rear entrance bodies on double deckers.

Michael Elliott

12/07/12 – 11:17

David, you speak as an enthusiast, and from that standpoint, your views, (appearance, reliability and economy in that order), are the appropriate ones and few enthusiasts would disagree with you. However, expressing your order of preference in M&D’s Traffic Department would have caused major head shaking; doing so in front of the Traffic Manager, Stanley Smith, would have been to risk a reaction of life-threatening proportions! Similarly, I don’t think your views would have been appreciated by the Chatham Detailer who’d had to send out a Guy Arab at ten o’clock at night to replace a broken down Atlantean – a not altogether unknown occurrence.

Roy Burke

12/07/12 – 12:05

I was going to say the same as Michael regarding East Midlands area use of front entrance double deckers. Just to add that Trent had quite a lot of their Weymann bodied front entrance vehicles rebodied with Willowbrook rear entrance open platform bodies after the war. I can also remember travelling from Alfreton to Nottingham on a front entrance Midland General Regent about 1952. They had big single piece manually operated sliding doors. Barton’s Duple PD1s however had power operated bi-parting doors – with a set of conductor or passenger operated open/close buttons on the inside, and I seem to think an external open button.

Stephen Ford

12/07/12 – 19:24

Roy, speaking as an enthusiast, I was saying "Why not have something good looking". Only the reliable and economic (in that order) were meant to be juxtaposed – ideally they should be good looking as well.

David Oldfield

12/07/12 – 19:24

In common with David Oldfield Midland Red buses sadly leave me cold. They may have been innovative but their looks were not for the purist with the possible exception of the C5 motor way coaches. No give me an AEC preferably with Roe bodywork any day!

Chris Hough

12/07/12 – 19:25

How interesting to get the operator`s viewpoint in these posts. Roy`s comments about his M and D experiences of management attitudes just makes me realise that operators had a totally different approach. It was all about profit and loss, with a dash of "public service" thrown in.
You have the best of both worlds, Roy, as you have enthusiasm, and a knowledge of the practical issues!

John Whitaker

13/07/12 – 06:01

Chris H., that’s music to my ears (AEC/Roe).

David Oldfield

13/07/12 – 06:0213/07/12 – 06:02

Fascinating isn’t it how attitudes and priorities change. These days it is all about appearances, image, reputation and less about genuine customer service. Maybe years ago it really did not matter what a bus looked or rode like as long as it arrived at 11.38am on the dot. The even more strange thing is that very many operators combined good looking vehicles WITH service as it is well documented on this website. It is a rather rare find today though!

Richard Leaman

13/07/12 – 09:16

I must agree with David and Chris about BMMO. All my enthusiast life, I have failed to interest myself in anything Midland Red. Something about their ugliness, narrow cabs, and "totally unlike anything elseness"
Perhaps the later examples were more pleasing to look at, but something was missing for me!
It was the same when SOS buses were in other fleets such as Trent, no appeal whatsoever, and I lived on one of the BMMO routes for the last year or so of their existence too!
However, if people ARE interested, who am I to criticise them. To repeat the current idiom of this site, "Beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder"

John Whitaker

13/07/12 – 17:08

Your meaning, David, was really quite clear, and I was, perhaps, being a bit pedantic in taking you up on it. You’re absolutely right; while reliability and economy are obviously vital factors, there was, (still is), no reason why the vehicle couldn’t also be pleasing to the eye. Hence, I’d agree with you totally about AEC/Roe – a great combination that fulfilled all three requirements.
My observations were just based on personal experience. Since I was supposed to be learning about bus company management, I always tried to understand, (and acquire), a ‘management’ view about the fleet rather than an ‘enthusiast’ view. Since, also, the then Traffic Manager was very well known as a man not to mince words, I couldn’t help, as I wrote my comment, getting a mental picture of his reaction, (which would have been voluble and scathing), to the idea that operational effectiveness should in any way be compromised by considerations of what he might well have described dismissively as ‘prettiness’.
My operational training in the Medway Towns altered my opinion of Leyland, a maker who until then I’d almost revered, especially in comparison with Guy, a maker who I’d hardly come across and had never thought about much. Guys every time!
I mentioned the Orion only because that’s what we had and they were very satisfactory in service. On balance, given a totally free hand, I’d probably have stuck with (6LW-engined) Arabs, but with the Park Royal bodies that East Kent had and which were still occasionally seen at Maidstone. Not the AEC/Roe combination that you’d have chosen, David, but if I’d been a Traffic Manager, I’d have been happy.

Roy Burke

14/07/12 – 07:24

AEC/Roe was one of my favourite combinations too, David, but not quite as nice as highbridge Bristol K/ECW!
There are many other "classic" combination favourites, and it would be nice to hear what they all are.
I`m quite fond of the whole range of utility bodies too, especially Daimler CWA6/Duple (shell back dome, of course) I dare not mention the famous phrase about beauty yet again!

John Whitaker

14/07/12 – 07:25

My first encounter with Midland Red buses came when, as an ATC cadet, I went on a week’s summer camp at Shawbury, near Shrewsbury, in 1957. With memories of the Picture Post "eyes" set each side of the front destination display on London buses at that time, I always thought that the curiously miserable, droopy expression of the D5 similarly deserved a teardrop on each side of the destination box. The crude radiator slots of the tin front didn’t impress me much either. The D7 was a bit less eccentric in appearance, but the set back front wheels of the D9, apparently intended to improve engine bay access, always looked a bit odd and unbalanced to me. At least the D9 and the contemporary S14 had a decently designed radiator shape instead of the primitive slots of previous types.
The early FEDD buses up to about 1938 had the unbelievably old fashioned radiator inherited from the ON type, and this was set off centre to the nearside, with the nearside of the cab positioned in line with the offside of the radiator. The result looked decidedly antiquated, and compared poorly with contemporary AEC, Daimler and Leyland models. The introduction in 1939 of the "AEC" lookalike radiator, as shown in the picture of FHA 236, though still offset, did improve matters somewhat, but the curious disparity in the spacing of lower and upper deck window bays makes the body look untidy. Probably another reason why Midland Red failed to enthuse many of we transport aficionados was the boring, unrelieved, overall red bus livery, though the black embellishment of the coaches showed what could be done with a bit more imagination.

Roger Cox

14/07/12 – 10:52

John. If you mean KSW/ECW, I agree with you. The only thing that spoiled Sheffield’s 1957 B/C Fleet PD2s was the tin front. The four bay body was far better than the five bay on the K – but Lowestoft’s rare five bays on Regent IIs were rather special.

David Oldfield

PS: Roy. Glad we’ve not fallen out – and still agree!

Midland Red – SOS SON – GHA 335 – 2416

Midland Red - SOS SON - GHA 335 - 2416
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Midland Red (Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Co)
1940
SOS SON
Brush B38F

Another image by an unknown photographer. It shows Midland Red 2416 (GHA 335), a SOS SON of 1940. Apparently seen in its final days – acting as a "Trainee Vehicle" – it still exudes an air of quaint gentility in spite of it having been rebuilt in the late 1940s. (It makes an interesting comparison with the other picture of a SON of this site in its wartime condition).
This view seems to show the driver under reversing supervision at an unknown location (help required please).
Its sister, 2418, is preserved as part of the Wythall collection.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Paul Haywood

03/10/12 – 06:19

Why is it that, every time I see one of these radiators, I think "AEC"? Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner by birth, despite the Lancashire origins!

Pete Davies

03/10/12 – 09:56

An amusing observation, Pete, that all readers will understand. I looked at the photo, as I did at the earlier one, and wondered about the destination display. The lack of information might be explicable because the vehicle is on driver training, and the similar lack of display on the other SON might (just) be explicable in terms of wartime conditions. However, why is there no destination box at all? The roof line seems to be begging for one. What was Midland Red’s practice?

Roy Burke

03/10/12 – 17:54

Roy, did it perhaps come from the era of slipboards mounted diagonally across the bonnet?

Stephen Ford

03/10/12 – 17:55

If you look at the other wartime SOS-in-service on this site, all is revealed about the destination boards (I had to look first)…. but it still looks as if they meant to have a proper box and changed their minds!

Joe

03/10/12 – 17:55

Yes, Roy, this lack of destination screen has always puzzled me. None of the MR half-cabs had them but, as we can see, the body seems to have been designed for a very shallow one. All these buses used destination boards, positioned in slots more or less where the "L" plate is, even after they were rebuilt in the late 1940s. When we consider that, by this time, MR were one of the most progressive operators in the UK – we have to wonder why they retained this archaic arrangement.

Paul Haywood

04/10/12 – 07:33

Not just the destination arrangement but the vehicle itself looks archaic. The last operator to buy SOS chassis from MR was Trent who took their last ones in 1940. Throughout the thirties, most of the Trent ones were antiquated looking. No doubt they were sturdy, no doubt they were economical, but when compared to their neighbours, East Midland and Barton with their impressive fleets of Leylands, I’ve always thought they must have been something of a joke.

Chris Barker

06/10/12 – 07:45

I agree with Chris that Midland Red’s in house SOS designs always looked archaic in comparison with contemporary competition, and the 1920s shape of radiator that, until 1937/38, preceded the "AEC clone" type shown above made the machines look even more ancient. The destination display matter is intriguing. By 1929, the Midland Red fleet consisted entirely of single deck vehicles, and to cope with increasing passenger loadings, the company introduced its first double deck design in 1931, subsequently producing fifty in 1932/33. This design, the DD-RE (I am given to understand that the often quoted designation REDD is erroneous) had a conventional destination display at the front between the decks, yet new single deckers continued to appear with the slip board arrangement on the bulkhead behind the engine bonnet. Someone at the top of the company must have had an intransigent attitude to persevere with this system for so long.

Roger Cox

09/10/12 – 08:19

In connection with Midland Red destination boards on SON vehicles, I remember that about 1950, there used to be an open box in Leominster Bus Station in which appropriate ones were stored for use as required. Nowadays, such an arrangement would provide a ready supply of offensive weapons!
Service numbers were displayed using stencils in a back-lit box in the front nearside window. Only two stencils of each figure were carried, hence there were no BMMO routes numbered 111, 222, 333 etc.

John Hodkinson

15/10/12 – 07:53

BMMO were in the forefront of advertising their services – although it seems Donald Sinclair didn’t necessarily approve of O.C. Power’s tastes in such matters. So why the blinking heck didn’t they see fit to actually advertise clearly where each bus was actually going? – dark night, fog . . . stencil and wooden board??

Philip Rushworth

29/01/13 – 06:30

The location is Rutland Road, Bearwood. Training Instructor Grainger is watching an obviously trustworthy trainee reverse out of the back entrance to the garage, adjacent to the training school – presumably the route through the garage was blocked.
Mr Grainger took me for my driving assessment when I joined the Midland Red in 1973, which I passed with colours if not flying, then certainly flapping in the breeze!

Lloyd Penfold

29/01/13 – 10:04

Lloyd – how good to get not only the exact location, but a name as well! Thank you. The photo has a late 1950s feel to it, so Instructor Grainger would still have at least a decade of active service left. It’s amazing to think that, presumably, he would have had to be proficient in driving these arcane specimens and the C5 motorway expresses!

Paul Haywood

29/01/13 – 15:24

LLoyd, funny how a name triggers the memory (now at 78 suffering somewhat). Mr Grainger took me in Fedd BHA 453 on 13th March ’57 – I kept the record of my training from 11th-28th March 1957 – and again on my ‘pre-test accessment’ on 28th then passed me to Mr Gowan and D7 4453 (XHA 453) for the test, passed OK. Wonder if you recall any of the other instructors : Messrs Shanain, Skinner, Yardley, Callaghan, Powell, Bennett, Mynard and Birch? It was a short but happy training month as I recall.

Nigel Edwards

22/03/14 – 08:26

Midland Red managed without illuminated destination indicators because it was a system where each route was so well known and each stop so clearly marked that it was hard to get the wrong bus by mistake:if in doubt you simply asked the conductor! I was about 12 when the last SONs were in service and I clearly remember that the vehicle batteries could just cope with starting the engine, the interior lights went right out and often had to be switched off in order to start! I doubt if the system could have coped with more lights! Remember that visibility was not exactly a priority in those days, when only a dim red stop/tail light was provided, and this was in a partly rural area. The departure stops were carefully worked out,to the extent that certain stops on a road were used by certain services only. There was one Stop I used near my home in town, which was provided for just the one cross-town route only… other services along that road, and there were many, just ignored it! A couple of my family worked on the buses in that era and never had a problem with destination boards: you just carried the ones you needed on that shift, not a full set!

Michael F

20/04/15 – 07:03

Another idiosyncratic point about SOS half-cabs was the way that the radiator was always offset to the nearside of the centre line of the vehicle by various amounts – particularly noticeable on the three FEDDs that had been given the ‘full frontal’ treatment while retaining the exposed radiator! (EHA 290 / 292 / 297)

Larry B

20/04/15 – 09:25

Larry, sorry to disagree but the SOS radiator was on the centre line, the optical illusion is due to the half cab being really a third of the width of the vehicle. The lack of a balancing mudguard on the offside adds to the illusion. As far as the FEDDs are concerned, from memory, the same illusion existed. BMMO cabs of the period were renowned for being cramped and it has been said elsewhere that the SOS/FEDDs were not the company’s finest products.

Phil Blinkhorn

21/04/15 – 06:23

Phil, the earlier SOS types with the rectangular radiator certainly had the radiator offset to the nearside whilst keeping the starting handle on the centre line. The picture of an ON at this link illustrates the point well:- www.flickr.com/photos/8755708 Midland Red seemed to take a perverse delight in the jarring aesthetics of its pre war designs. As you state, the cab tapered sharply towards the front of the vehicle to line up with the radiator offside, and the mudguards (one could scarcely call them ‘wings’ on such an ugly duckling) were different on each side. Whatever their mechanical virtues, these machines looked awful and the tedious overall red livery just compounded the problem.

Roger Cox

21/04/15 – 09:42

Roger’s link well illustrates the early production offset radiator but my point was regarding the bulk of SOS production, including the illustration on this thread. Larry stated that the radiator was always offset and this myth is perpetuated by many enthusiasts looking at photos because the optical illusion caused by the eccentric design of the cab, dash panel and mudguards misleads the eye.
Measurement of this thread’s and many other photos clearly shows that the vertical chrome strip in the centre of the radiator is at the centre of the width of the vehicle.

Phil Blinkhorn

22/04/15 – 07:25

Phil That is interesting because the starting handle aperture on the original photo at the top is not on the centre line of the radiator. Does that mean that the engine wasn’t on the centreline?

John Lomas

22/04/15 – 07:26

Phil, take a look at this frontal view of a FEDD with the later centre strip radiator. The middle point of the vehicle is surely the starting handle hole, with the radiator offset right up against the nearside dumb iron. //www.classictransportpictures.co.uk/photo_9863080.html

Roger Cox

22/04/15 – 07:26

Sorry Phil but I’m not convinced. If you look at the radiator position in relation to the spring dumb irons (which unarguably are symmetrical) the rad is closer to the near side spring than the offside.

Andrew Charles

GHA 355_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

23/04/15 – 07:05

I have looked at Roger’s link image of the FEDD, and I traced a line down from the upper deck window centre strut, as this seemed to be fitted centrally. This links up nicely with the starting handle hole, and shows that the radiator centre strip is clearly off-set to the near side. My understanding from reading years ago was that most if not all SOS forward control vehicles had a narrow cab, but eased the driver’s position a little by having the engine (and therefore the radiator) mounted towards the nearside. Wasn’t the pre-war Dennis Lancet similarly constructed, with an engine and radiator to the nearside?

Michael Hampton

23/04/15 – 07:06

To me, the centre line of the FEDD radiator agrees entirely with the pillar between the two front windows upstairs, which appears to be in the centre of the body. The cab is certainly less that half the width of the body, which rather distorts the balance of the lower deck. It looks as if the springs are not equidistant from the centre line.

Chris Hebbron

23/04/15 – 07:08

The only pre-war SOS buses with a centrally mounted radiator were the OLR class, which were coaches converted during the war to half-cab from full bonneted normal control, which is why the radiator was fitted centrally.

Tony Gallimore

23/04/15 – 07:08

Roger, Andrew and John, please measure the distances between the centre line of the radiator and the extremities of the vehicles, nearside and offside in both the photo on this thread an the FEDD photo.
As for the position of the starting handle hole there are many examples of Leyland prewar single and double deckers where the starting handle hole is offset yet no-one seems to say the radiators are also off set.

Phil Blinkhorn

24/04/15 – 06:30

Phil It was because of your insistence that the rad is central that I raised the question of the engine being offset.
Ford definitely offset the engine from the centreline on the 83e vans(away from the driver, they even had 2 holes as standard to allow for LH and RH drive) Morris also had an offset engine in a van of comparable size to the Ford.

John Lomas

24/04/15 – 06:32

Sorry, Chris H, but I don’t buy the idea that the position of the offside front chassis member and spring was further outboard than its nearside equivalent. The handling consequences would have been rather "interesting", unless one was driving, of course. This picture proves the point, I think:- www.sct61.org.uk/ttrc3333  
Phil, I concede that the starting handle isn’t centrally placed on the chassis, but I maintain that the radiator is offset to the nearside. If you check the dumb iron positions on the FEDD picture, they are definitely equidistant from the vehicle sides. It’s the radiator that’s askew.

Roger Cox

24/04/15 – 06:34

I accept the challenge and think I’ve found the perfect photo to illustrate the point.
In the TPC book ‘Midland Red’ Vol 1, page 126, is a photo of full front FEDD EHA 290, the radiator’s central filler cap is clearly to the nearside of the central windscreen pillar and the accompanying text states "….showing the radiator offset to the nearside."
There are a number of reasonable quality front end photos of both double and single deck models which highlight that the rad is mounted closer to the nearside front spring than the offside unit, the significance being that the springs are symmetrical to the centre line of the chassis.

Andrew Charles

Trent – SOS DON – RC 2721 – 321

RC 2721

Trent Motor Traction
1935
SOS DON
Brush B36F

Pictured on the HCVC Brighton Run in 1969 is RC 2721, an ex Trent SOS DON of 1935 with a Brush front entrance bus body that originally held 36 seats. SOS vehicles were favoured by the Trent and Northern companies during the 1930s, and the vehicle radiators were cast with the appropriate nameplates. No.321 ran for the Trent company until about 1953, when it then became a mobile booking office at Skegness, a popular holiday destination for coach trips from Derbyshire. In 1965 the vehicle passed into the hands of the Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society, who rallied it in its unrestored state as shown in the photograph for several years, before retiring it with a (long term) view to full restoration in the early 1970s. Other pictures of RC 2721 may be seen on OBP here (scroll to bottom):- www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/

The extensive refurbishment/rebuilding programme is currently progressing well, as may be seen at this site:-www.lvvs.org.uk/

The SOS ON (“Onward”) type appeared in 1934 following the increase in maximum permitted length of single deckers to 27ft 6ins. The ON had the compact SOS 6 cylinder 5.986 litre RR2SB petrol engine which allowed the body to house 38 seats, and some retained the petrol unit right up to withdrawal in the early 1950s. A diesel version of the ON was immediately put in hand, and after trialling prototypes with the direct injection Leyland 8.6 litre engine and the indirect injection AEC 7.7 litre A171 engine, production adopted the AEC unit. The petrol ON thus became the diesel DON, but the AEC six cylinder engine was longer than the BMMO petrol, reducing the body capacity to 36 seats. The indirect injection engines in the BMMO DON fleet were converted to the A173 direct injection type in 1938, and this Trent example was likewise modified. By 1935, the SOS type presented a truly archaic appearance with the offset antiquated shape of radiator, narrow cab set entirely clear of the bonnet and different shape and depth to the mudguards (wings is hardly an appropriate description) on each side of the body. It compared unfavourably with the contemporary classic designs from Leyland, AEC and other major manufacturers. Whatever the mechanical merits, it was as if BMMO perversely set out to make its machinery as ungainly in appearance as possible. Not until 1938 did the more modern “AEC clone” radiator appear on BMMO SOS vehicles, and then only on double deck FEDDs. The first single deckers with the new style radiator were the SONs of 1939, as seen in this OBP page:- www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

12/03/17 – 17:37

I should have added that Potteries was another company that took SOS chassis. Surprisingly, Stratford Blue, a BMMO subsidiary from 1935, took none.

Roger Cox

13/03/17 – 16:34

UP 551, is a 1929 Northern General B37F Brush bodied SOS QL. It has been fully restored by Beamish Museum, and is shown on their website. Its in regular use transporting visitors around the site, and as Roger says in his posting, the Northern name is cast into the radiator. Whether it would be allowed onto a public highway is not known, but when this restoration is complete, it would be nice if somehow they could been seen together

Ronnie Hoye

13/03/17 – 16:35

Although Stratford Blue ran a very eclectic range of vehicles makes pre-war, it was a very loyal Leyland user post-war. I used to enjoy visiting there (and Birds)from time to time in the 1950’s and 60’s.
A pocket history of the company can be found here: //lths.lutsociety.org.uk/

Chris Hebbron

14/03/17 – 06:51

Ronnie – From photos on the web, it looks as if Northern General CN 2870 has ‘Northern’ on its radiator, UP 551 having Midland Red. See: https://tinyurl.com/he7e48f

Chris Hebbron

15/03/17 – 07:06

That’s a strange one Chris, having seen UP 551 in the flesh as it were, and in all the photos I’ve seen, it has Northern on the radiator, and yet, as can be clearly seen, in this case it has midland.
Explanations or theories anyone?

Ronnie Hoye

15/03/17 – 16:08

It certainly is a conundrum. The radiator shape and bonnet profiles of the two vehicles are quite different and it seems unlikely that they would be swapped over at any time.

Chris Hebbron

24/11/18 – 08:47

I have an AEC 171 engine with engine number A171RB 3952. It is Direct Injection which is puzzling me – your article describes converting 171 Indirect to 173 direct injections – was this an engine replacement or were the 171’s modified to 173 spec?

Steve Bruce

22/01/19 – 07:26

With regard to UP 551 carrying Midland Red on its radiator.
The radiators were cast with Midland Red in the header tank when constructed. The Northern plate is a separate casting fitted over the Midland Red logo. This arrangement was replicated during the restoration of UP 551.
The image was taken during a visit of a group from the Midlands hence the Northern plate had been temporarily removed.

Friends of Beamish

08/12/19 – 06:27

A tardy response to Steve’s query above, but AEC A171 indirect injection engines were (almost) universally converted to direct injection, at least in the UK, but I would imagine that the engine numbers remained unaltered.

Roger Cox

Southdown – Leyland Titan – UF 4813

Southdown - Leyland Titan - UF 4813

Southdown Motor Services
1929
Leyland Titan TD1
Brush O27/24RO

Seen at the Southgate roundabout on the A23 Crawley By Pass during the 3rd May 1970 HCVC Rally is UF 4813, a 1929 Leyland Titan TD1 with the Brush open top O27/24RO open staircase body that it carried from new – it is not a conversion. It was restored by Southdown who ran it on the Brighton seafront service for some years, and it currently remains with the Stagecoach heritage fleet. The TD1 model, very advanced when it appeared in 1927, had a six cylinder 6.8 litre overhead camshaft petrol engine of up to 98 bhp driving through a four speed sliding mesh gearbox. Most examples were bodied with the Leyland lowbridge body, the firm initially holding the UK royalty rights for the single offside gangway upper deck layout. Until these patent rights expired in the mid ‘thirties, other manufacturers employed the twin gangway form of the upper deck for lowbridge orders. AEC initially used the ‘camel roof’ design on its highbridge Regent buses purely for cosmetic effect to give a low height appearance from street level, but this was soon abandoned as public acceptance grew of the stability of double deck buses. UF 4813 carries the radiator design of 1929 that then became familiar on all subsequent TD1 and the later TD2 machines. Earlier production retained the radiator shape of the Leviathan.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

Birmingham City – Leyland Titan PD2 – HOV 685 – 1685

Birmingham City - Leyland Titan PD2 - HOV 685 - 1685

Birmingham City Transport
1948
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Brush H30/24R

Here is a Leyland Titan PD2/1 with Brush H54R body, to Birmingham’s then standard design. She dates from 1948 and we see her in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979. She began her service at Yardley Wood depot and, Malcolm Keeley reports in his book in the Glory Days series, most of the batch so allocated from new remained there throughout their working lives. The others were at Perry Bar. The saga of the Brush bodies is not so happy, however. There had been some earlier disagreements between the builder and the operator, the former managing to convince itself that the product was entirely the opposite of what the operator wanted. This batch appears to have been the last of the Brush bodies for Birmingham.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

22/02/16 – 13:28

Interestingly, at the same time, Brush was building bodies for Manchester on Daimler chassis to Manchester’s post war standard design and there were a number of letters exchanged due to Brush’s “interpretations” which were not acceptable.

Phil Blinkhorn

22/02/16 – 16:14

Well, Phil, this makes me wonder if – by upsetting two of the country’s biggest operators – this saga is the reason Brush got out of building bus bodies not long afterwards.

Pete Davies

22/02/16 – 16:15

In 1949, coachbuilding at Brush employed around 1500 people and contributed £3 million towards the company’s £15 million productive total in that year. Then came the Korean War (1950-53), which brought a flood of armament related orders to Brush, who closed the coachbuilding activity in 1951 to concentrate resources on the more lucrative parts of the business.

Roger Cox

23/02/16 – 05:37

Yes, Roger, that diversion of resources for “War Work” would explain a lot!

Pete Davies

23/02/16 – 05:38

A most elegant vehicle indeed, unashamedly with very traditional appearance and further greatly enhanced by the very pleasing Birmingham livery.

Chris Youhill

23/02/16 – 10:48

And, of course, Chris Y, unblemished by adverts, a Brummie trademark, until the latter days. I confess to getting confused about the chrome/painted and aluminium rads on PD’s. I always thought the former to be PD1’s; the latter PD2’s. It doesn’t seem to work that way, unless the rad surrounds got changed about over the years!

Chris Hebbron

23/02/16 – 13:11

How right you are Chris H about the lack of disfiguring adverts – sadly of course we have to acknowledge that they are a valuable source of revenue but even accepting that some are totally “cheap” and abominable. Regarding PD1/PD2 radiator shells, just off the top of my head I’ve always thought that painted or chrome ones were frequently interchanged on PD1s – I just can’t think of any PD2 fitted with either of those.

Chris Youhill

23/02/16 – 16:46

Oh heck – I was so anxious to answer Chris H’s query that I overlooked the PD2 in the picture having a chrome shell. I wonder if batches of PD2s were therefore so equipped or has this one being “treated” during preservation – any informed answer would be appreciated please.

Chris Youhill

24/02/16 – 05:48

I think the chrome radiator shell was always an option but I can’t think of anybody except Manchester who took it. Even there they then went and painted them red!

David Beilby

24/02/16 – 05:49

All Manchester’s PD2s had chrome radiators but aluminium was the Leyland standard offering.

Phil Blinkhorn

24/02/16 – 05:52

I understand the choice of chrome pressed metal or cast aluminium radiator shells was down to the purchaser’s specification or at least it was for large scale orders. Most of Manchester’s PD2’s for example had the pressed metal shell which was chrome plated as delivered but always painted red at the first re-paint. This I understand was down to the frugal views of GM Albert Neil as the pressed metal version was cheaper.

Philip Halstead

24/02/16 – 05:53

Exeter took delivery of 17 PD2/1 in November and December 1947. They had consecutive registrations but the Leyland bodies of the first ten were in the 472 xxx series whilst the last 7 were in the 480 xxx series. I think the first lot had painted radiator shells and the later ones chrome. Certainly HFJ 144 (No. 17), which is preserved, has and has always had a chrome one. Some of these magnificent buses lasted 23 years in service with Exeter – and looked as smart at the end as when they were new!

David Chapman

24/02/16 – 08:16

Thanks for these informative replies folks, and I’m getting redder by the minute having just recalled that the two Kippax and District PD2s (GWX 823/4) had chrome shells – and I’ve even driven one of them when owned by Wallace Arnold !!

Chris Youhill

24/02/16 – 08:51

Regarding chrome painted radiators on Birmingham PD2’s, and 1685 in particular, more info here. www.wythall.org.uk/vehicles/vhov685.asp

Nigel Edwards

24/02/16 – 09:55

Philip H, Manchester’s PD2’s chrome radiators certainly were not all painted at first vehicle repaint. There was a massive variation across the fleet. There are plenty of photos showing older PD2s, from the early 1950s, in the all red scheme in the mid 1960s, with unpainted radiators and a good number of later vehicles in SELNEC colours still with the brightwork intact.
Radiators were painted if pitted but serviceable. The bulk of those painted was, I was once told, due to time pressure on the spray booth when repaints into the all red scheme were under way. Certainly many vehicles were repainted earlier than would have been the case had the scheme not been changed and one fewer masking job would have saved a little time. Another view was that those so painted were handled by a particular shift which never masked the radiator shell.
Almost all Parrs Wood’s and most of Queens Rd’s PD2s survived until SELNEC with the chrome untouched. Hyde Rd’s vehicles seemed to be mainly painted. A well known story is that a Burlingham bodied PD2 returned to Parrs Wood after being treated to the red scheme including a painted radiator. The batch were Parrs Wood’s pride and joy and the bus was sent back with tart instruction to remove the paint and never paint a Parrs Wood radiator again unless instructed. This certainly seemed to hold good throughout the 1960s.

Phil Blinkhorn

24/02/16 – 16:52

I particularly enjoy little tales like that one, Phil, it puts a human touch to it all, and makes our hobby that much more fascinating. It’s not just about the buses, it’s about the people who operated them and cared for them as well.
Thanks for sharing it.

Dave Careless

25/02/16 – 05:44

I found a photo on Facebook of Tynemouth and District no. 31, an all Leyland PD2/1, new to Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company, complete with chromed radiator shell. I’m unsure of the photo’s copyright so I’m reluctant to reproduce it here.

Richard Slater

25/02/16 – 16:25

PD1’s and PD2’s were all fitted with pressed steel radiator shells until around 1949. Due to material shortages just after the war only a few were able to be chrome plated at first, the majority being painted. Then Leyland introduced the cast aluminium shell which became standard, with the pressed steel version available as an option.
Halifax Corporation had nine PD2/1’s in 1947/48. All had chromed pressed steel shells apart from one which was painted orange. Throughout most of my childhood this was 101 (ACP 385) and it stood out from the others, but an official Leyland Motors photo shows a different one with the painted shell, and latterly in the mid-1960’s it had migrated on to a different bus again, so some swapping must have taken place at overhaul. Todmorden’s earlier PD2/1’s had painted steel shells, then came some chromed ones, then the later ones and the PD2/12’s had aluminium ones. Some later PD1’s – notably those supplied up to about 1952 to Central SMT – had the later aluminium version.
I actually preferred the painted radiator shells on many PD1’s and PD2’s. I often thought that the chromed version tended to look a bit too gaudy, especially on some of those in an otherwise sombre municipal livery, and they also emphasised the slightest dints and imperfections which they tended to pick up quite easily. What I hated was when some operators – notably Leigh Corporation – chose to paint the later aluminium radiator shells, which looked absolutely terrible. By contrast, the chromed AEC radiator always looked superb to my mind, and always looked dreadful if painted over – Leigh Corporation and Liverpool spring to mind as offenders.
I’ve wondered though, when Manchester CT painted their previously chromed shells, how did they get the paint to adhere and not just come off at the slightest scratch. Surely stripping the chrome plating would have been too much of a bother?

John Stringer

25/02/16 – 17:03

Some wonderfully interesting comments here, folks. Thank you!

Pete Davies

26/02/16 – 16:53

Thx, folks, especially John S, for helping to answer my question on “which PD rads when”! Another mystery solved!

Chris Hebbron

27/02/16 – 05:54

Richard, the photo of T&D 31 that you refer to is already on this site. Its in part two of my article about Northern General Transport Percy Main Depot.  If memory serves, I bought my copy from a dealer at the Seaburn Historic Vehicle show.

Ronnie Hoye

28/02/16 – 06:05

Thanks Ronnie. I found it on another site, dedicated to matters Northumbrian. It was unattributed.

Richard Slater

02/03/16 – 06:24

Just catching up on the above after a few days out (due to computer death and replacement), and I can’t see that Phil’s statement about all Manchester PD2s having chromed radiator shells has been challenged. In fact the first 100 (3200-99) had cast aluminium shells, but since they were at Queens Road, I don’t suppose Phil saw much of them! See www.sct61.org.uk/

Peter Williamson

02/03/16 – 10:21

Peter,trying not to rely on memory I have been totally misled by a number of photos of both the Metro Cammell and Leyland bodied examples with shiny radiators when new.
As for not seeing much of them, the 53 provided some sightings and visits to the city centre others, and North Manchester wasn’t a foreign ground to me, the radiator shells just didn’t register!

Phil Blinkhorn

16/03/16 – 05:05

According to Eyre & Heaps Manchester specified the pressed radiator shell because it was cheaper to repair when the dozier brethren ran into the back of something. Personally I would have thought the tin shell would be less resistant to casual knocks than the heavy casting, but the decision was presumably based upon feedback from accident repair statistics. It’s worth noting that Salford specified shorter rads on their CVGs for similar reasons, while Birkenhead and Rochdale just bolted a big lump of angle iron across the grille to protect it!

David Jones

16/03/16 – 08:17

Perhaps, David, if the ‘dozier brethren’ had been required to pay for the repairs out of their wages, they might have been more alert to their surroundings . .

Pete Davies

Birmingham City – Leyland Titan – HOV 685 – 1685

Birmingham City - Leyland Titan - HOV 685 - 1685

Birmingham City Transport
1948
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Brush H30/24R

HOV 685 is a Leyland Titan PD2/1 with Brush H54R body, to Birmingham’s then standard design. She dates from 1948 and we see her in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979. She began her service at Yardley Wood depot and, Malcolm Keeley reports in his book in the Glory Days series, most of the batch so allocated from new remained there throughout their working lives. The others were at Perry Bar. The saga of the Brush bodies is not so happy, however. There had been some earlier disagreements between the builder and the operator, the former managing to convince itself that the product was entirely the opposite of what the operator wanted. This batch appears to have been the last of the Brush bodies for Birmingham.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/06/16 – 09:22

Brush had a similar “conversations” with Manchester regarding fifty bodies it was building to the Manchester post war Standard design on Daimler chassis at the same time. Manchester was unhappy with Brush’s interpretation and had to keep a watching brief on the progress to ensure what was produced was identical to the drawings. As it turned out the bodies were well finished and lasted well.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/06/16 – 11:43

Can anybody please explain what the dispute between BCT and Brush was about.
Presumably the operator issued a comprehensive specification of their requirements for the builder to follow

Pat Jennings

07/06/16 – 18:48

Pat, according to his ‘Glory Days’ book on Birmingham City Transport, Malcolm Keeley reports that the rot seems to have set in – in more ways than one – when the timber frame bodies on the surviving 1929-31 AEC Regents had to have new Austerity bodies by Brush in 1943/4. There was supposed to be a decrease in price as a result of salvaging parts from the old bodies, but they had been from four different builders and the cost was actually increased.
The next chapter takes place in respect of the Crossleys ordered in 1945. They should have had Brush bodies, but delays in delivering chassis caused Brush to ask to be ‘released’. Not an unreasonable request, perhaps, but Keeley says, “After the wartime disputes over the Regent and CWA bodies, small wonder BCT ceased to employ Brush.”

Pete Davies

09/06/16 – 06:45

Pete, that’s all true but the Leylands are 1948 deliveries whereas your comment finishes in 1945. If I were a betting man I’d put good money on Bush having the same approach as it took with Manchester.

Phil Blinkhorn

09/06/16 – 19:08

Phil B, I’ve spent most of the day looking in the Keeley book for his comments about this dispute, so far without success. I’m sure I didn’t dream it. I’ll post further on this in due course!

Pete Davies

10/06/16 – 05:33

Pete, you are quite right in your summary of Malcolm Keeley’s account of the Brush utility bodies for Birmingham, and the consequent decision by BCT not to use Brush any more. The account of the war-time re-bodying of the pre-war AEC Regents (p.26) describes the problems Brush had salvaging material from the old bodies by four makers, and trying to incorporate these into the fifty new bodies. Delivery was delayed because of the interruption to the production system, and additional detail design work was also needed. A major dispute broke out over the cost. (One is illustrated on p.30, and a trainer conversion on p.41). As you say in your original posting, Brush asked to be released from bodying the 10 Crossleys ordered in 1945, because of pressure of other work in their drawing office. They were already committed to 100 bodies on Leyland PD2s. Keeley, on p.48, indicates that BCT ceased to employ Brush, as you quote above.

Michael Hampton

10/06/16 – 10:21

Thank you, Michael . . .

Pete Davies

10/06/16 – 10:21

Thanks Pete and Michael. Perhaps the clue to the similarities to the dispute with Manchester lies in the drawing office.

Phil Blinkhorn

Ideal Service – Leyland Titan – CCK 668 – 16


Copyright Unknown

Ideal Service (R Taylor & Sons)
1949
Leyland Titan PD2/3
Brush L27/26R

New to Ribble Motor Services (No 2691) in 1949 passed to Delaine, Bourne in 1961 as their (No 54) where it served 5 years when it then passed to R Taylor & Sons Cudworth in February 1966 (No 16) part of the Ideal Service When Taylors sold out to Yorkshire Traction in 1967 this vehicle passed to H Wray & Sons of Hoyle Mill Barnsley and remained in service until 1969.
Photographed outside Taylor’s garage at Cudworth.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Brian Lunn

26/09/17 – 06:45

Twenty years service from one of these vehicles who’s Brush bodies were said to be of questionable durability was a good innings.
Delaine’s beautiful livery must have inspired Taylors to replicate the V arrangement on the upper deck front panel and the application of the IDEAL name on the (illuminated?) glass panel is a nice touch. The large fleetname on the side is just visible and the whole thing looks very smart indeed, a worthy transformation from blue to red!
I can’t help thinking that H Wray & Sons might not have gone to the same trouble!

Chris Barker

26/09/17 – 14:23

Judging by the rubber window mounts I would guess this vehicle’s bodywork was rebuilt/refurbished somewhere along the way. In 1949 except for ECW this type of window mounting was rare. I seem to recall hearing or reading that at this time ECW had this type of window mounting patented. I am sure someone will comment.

Philip Halstead

27/09/17 – 06:22

Pictures of this bus in Delaine’s ownership are seen here:- //www.delaineheritagetrust.org/54.html The windows had already acquired the external flush rubber glazing at that time, so a body refurbishment took place either under Delaine or earlier. Full details about Delaine, including a historic fleet list, may be found on this web page:- //www.delainebuses.com/fleet.html

Roger Cox

Yorkshire Woollen District – Leyland Tiger PS1 – HD 7905 – 622


Photograph G. Brooke

Yorkshire Woollen District
1948
Leyland Tiger PS1
Brush B34F

This great shot of a superb bus arrived above due to a comment made on another YWD vehicle on this site. The person who made the comment said he owned the only survivor of a batch of 75 Brush bodied Leyland Tiger PS1s. This I had to pursue, the bus is owned by Dr Gordon Brooke who as a schoolboy went to school on these Tigers when they were new and then in his student days he was a conductor on the actual bus above.
Many of the Tigers from the original batch of 75 were re-bodied as double deckers in 1954/5 but 622 carried on until 1960 when she was withdrawn from regular service. Instead of being sold on to a dealer which was normal, 622 was used for other things. First she was used as a driver trainer by Yorkshire Woollen District and secondly as a tow-wagon/gritter by the engineering dept with the rear end cut away and most of the seats removed. In 1969 622 was sold to W. Norths (PV) Limited, Sherburn-in-Elmet (dealer).
Gordon acquired 622 in 1988 but did not start restoration until 1990, he then spent the next 12 years restoring her to an immaculate original condition as can be seen from the photograph above. To maintain originality 622 has been painted in the dark maroon livery of Yorkshire Woollen District instead of the later Post Office red, this would have been the livery when she was delivered new.
The above photograph was taken early 2006 and 622 is seen outside the shed where she was originally built in 1948 at the Brush bodyworks Loughborough, Leicestershire.

From a photograph and information contributed by Dr G. Brooke

For much more detailed information regarding YWD Tigers click here.

Looks like a beautiful restoration.

Many people are aware of the 1960’s standard BET body with curved screens at either end and some are aware of the earlier version on underfloor chassis. This is the earliest version on half-cabs.
Various contractors would build to BET’s standard design – the final type mainly by Marshall, Weymann and Willowbrook. In addition to Brush, Roe and Weymann built to this design but Yorkshire Traction also had examples built by Roberts and Northern Coachbuilders.
Brush sold out their coach building side to Willowbrook in the early ’50s and shortly afterwards Willowbrook sold out to Duple. The bulk of the Brush empire remained to do much railway work – especially building locomotives.

David Oldfield

I just had to make comment on the above vehicle. Could it be the vehicle in which I passed my PSV test? It was May 1966, the driving instructor was Clifford Allott.

Colin Wilson

This looks a superb restoration.
How lovely it would be to hear this vehicle running. These Leyland PS1 and PD1 buses were blessed with a fascinatingly musical sound, especially in intermediate gears. How I remember Southdown’s examples crooning and murmuring, with gulps and sobs when going on to the over-run! Vehicles of this era were far more characterful than in the last 30 years.

Tony Evans

What a wonderful surprise it was to see that someone had restored an Old Friend I served my apprenticeship in the Savile Town Central works and passed my PSV on this vehicle. I also drove its converted (to double deck) sisters on the Birstall to Thornhill route on many busy Saturday duties. Where is it kept? as I would love to see it!!!!

Chris Bligh

I agree completely with Tony Evans about the fabulous music emanating from the PS1s and PD1s. I passed my PSV test on Samuel Ledgard’s PD1 JUM 378 – it had just arrived, warm, from a peak hour duplicate and was tuned to perfection for the difficult course around West Leeds – I sailed around fervently hoping to pass with the toughest Ministry examiner whose fearsome reputation put terror into the hearts of even experienced lorry drivers, many of whom failed for the slightest tinkle of even one gear. As we descended a steep hill in third gear an exasperated voice wailed through the rear cab window “There are four gears on this vehicle” – Fortunately I didn’t fall for that one as I would have failed on the spot. We returned to Armley Headquarters, still showing “Kingsley Drive” on the destination blind, and I was handed the famous pink slip and there began some of the happiest times of my long career. I was allocated a late duty the following day on the Leeds – Guiseley -Ilkley service, and another fine vehicle rolled up – LAE 12, a PD1 ex Bristol with the fascinating combination of an ECW body. Quality design and construction to the last nut and bolt, and every bit as well behaved and delightful as her all Leyland “half sister” who had done so well for me the previous day on the PSV test.

Chris Youhill

Those ECW-bodied “Bristol Omnibus” Leylands were rather smart hybrids. Do you have a photo of them in Samuel Ledgard service, Chris?

Chris Hebbron

Plenty of such photographs Chris H, which I’ll send to Peter by E mail and perhaps some may appear on here. We had three ex Bristol PD1s with ECW bodies, KHW 631, KHY 395 and LAE 12. We also had a further three with BBW bodies, not handsome but full of character and soundly constructed, KHW 243, KHW 622 and LAE 2.

Chris Youhill

The preserved YWD Tiger is resident at the South Yorkshire Transport Museum in Rotherham.

Chris Hough

My father was employed as a coach painter/signwriter by Yorkshire Woollen during the 1950s. He painted these Brush bodied PS1s among others. 586/91 608/12/22 were painted in reverse livery and went on loan to Hebble at Halifax. Dad said these were painted in overtime.

Philip Carlton

Super picture of the YWD PS1 which stirs memories in Bradford`s Chester Street Bus Station. Trouble is, most were rebodied as double deckers in an all over drab red livery, with what I think were the first examples (or very early) of MCW Orion lightweight bodies.
The Federation design of single deck body dates well before WW2, going back to c. 1932, being built by Brush, ECW, Weymann, Roe et al. There was even a double deck version with front upper deck window in 3 divisions, but seen in much smaller numbers. YWD had some with centre entrance, and Thames Valley seems to be in my memory, but EYMS were the principle users.
Chris Ys remarks about ECW bodied Leylands (and BBW!!) also reminded me that the Tilling Group purchased these in the early post war years as they could not get the required number of Bristols. Pity West Yorkshire didn’t`t get any, but this always seemed to be a “flagship” fleet.

John Whitaker

Many thank for your reply Regarding the PS1 622 I wonder if any of your members know what happened to 773 (UTF 930) a Leyland Demo that ended up at Y W D T. As I said in my previous email I worked at YWDT as an Auto Electrical Engineer in the 50/60s and recall with very fond memories 773 this must have been the best of 56 seater conductor operated buses. It was a extremely reliable vehicle you sent it out on Monday morning and forgot about it until someone remembered it may need cleaning or the oil changing it just kept running. The drivers would fight to get it on there duty as it was a pleasure to drive and had vacuum brakes which where very progressive, so the Conductors loved it as well!! The brakes had the Leyland R P adjuster mechanism which worked extremely well and the only attention it required between relines was a liner check every 2 weeks (the other thing that sticks in my mind was the very unusual Exhaust Note which sounded like a Ferrari!!!) If this Super bus still exists I would very much like to see it (Distance NO object)
Also I would like to hear from any one who worked for Y W D T around the 50/60s as this was one of the best times of my life!!!

Chris Bligh

Chris, 773 was renumbered 54 in 1967 and withdrawn in 1970 going to Norths of Sherburn in Elmet in 1971 and then sold for scrap February 1971. I remember the bus well as I started work at Saville Town in 1969 and I am still employed by YWDs successors Arriva although at Belle Isle. The bus was frequently on Chickenley area services and would romp up Wakefield Cutting in third and as you say a very popular bus with drivers. Another thing I remember that was unique with 773 was the continuous push bell strip the only one of its kind in the YWD Double decker fleet until the arrival of the 1965 Fleetlines.
As regards people in the Engineering department when I started.
Depot Engineer at Saville Town was Eddie Beaumont.
A charge hand called Eric Daniels.
Central works foreman was Bennett (Jack I think)

John Blackburn

I have had a great shot of the YWD Titan 773 (UTF 930) sent to me by Bob Gell so it will be posted in its own right mid February.

Peter

With regard to YWDT staff I was apprenticed to Jack Bennett (mid 50s) who became charge hand at Dewsbury Central works (Repair Shop). Eddie Beaumont was Charge hand on the Daily Dock section. Eric Daniels was a Ganger on the Daily Dock, I believe he had returned to The Works after National Service.
I also believe Jack Bennett went on the be a Fleet Engineer or T A at West Riding at Belle Isle. His farther was a driver at Dewsbury and also played the drums in the YWDT Band, he was always known as Drummer Bennett. Also thanks Peter I will look forward to seeing the Photo in Feb!!

Chris Bligh

22/02/11 – 06:30

In response to looking for old YWD employees. May dad (Fred Sharpe) was with the company for many years. Started at Saville Town, went to Bradford (Hebble depot), back to Heckmodwike (Beck Lane) before being retired.
Fond memories of the kids bus trip to the seaside on a convoy of single deckers from Long Causeway each year, with our little ‘Paddington Bear’ type tags dangling from duffle coats (always seems to rain on those days!)
Dad used to take ‘specials’ at weekends in Bradford, often fishing trips, where the ladies would go on to the coast while the blokes did the angling. Sometimes we would get to go with them for the ride.
Used to live in Chickenley, cost us three-ha’pence to town on the L/M bus when I was first allowed to travel alone, to Sunday School. Pretty sure my dad passed his PSV on the Tiger as well. He’s still around (Feb 2011), in Mirfield. I live in Doncaster now.

Gordon Sharpe

Rather curious what L/M stands for when you say “three-ha’pence to town on the L/M bus”

Peter

That was the service ‘number’ – several YWD services ran as letters.

The ‘A’ buses went from Batley/Birstall through Dewsbury town centre to Thornhill. Later they did multi routes on the ‘A’, making them A1, A2, A3 and A4, to denote which direction they went round Thornhill – I remember those because I caught them to my Grandma’s and needed to know where I had to get off, depending which route it was running. They are now the 281/282/283 I think.

‘B’ and ‘C’ went from Ossett to Fir Cottage, which went past my other Grandma’s. ‘G’ was Cleckheaton. I can’t remember any others just now.

Service “L and M” was Dewsbury to Chickenley, The L went clockwise, the M was anti-clockwise through Chickenley itself (I think it was that way round). They are possibly absorbed into what is now the 126/127 which goes through to Ossett, but it’s donkeys years since I last rode on the bus up that way.
They were converted to numbers by the time we moved to Bradford. My dad went to the Hebble depot (YWD stored a couple of vehicles there) to pick up a YWD bus for the 66 route to Sheffield, long before the current X33. I could catch the 66 all the way from Bradford (Chester Street bus station) to Frank Lane (Rectory Park) at Thornhill, then a walk up the hill to my grandma’s.

Gordon

23/02/11 – 06:30

Just to note Chris Bligh’s comment about the Yorkshire Bus Company Band. My dad had a copy of the LP they released ‘National Tour’, which I have since digitised and added a CD to the music library of the hospital radio station in Doncaster & Bassetlaw, which I’m involved with.
Back to the bus itself – I must take a trip to Rotherham, never knew such a gem was down there! Would be such a surprise to my dad if I could get a picture standing next to it…!

Gordon Sharpe

07/03/11 – 09:27

The YWD F route was Birkenshaw to Batley. Some of the services went on the new Healy by-pass. It was not really a popular duty since there was no-where at Birkenshaw to get a pot of tea. There was a cafe in Batley but I think this was only open early morning.

Jim Broughton

16/03/11 – 17:30

Chris Bligh regarding 773 it was the Bus that Never rang in, I remember drivers bringing sweets for Ivor the Garage man just to have it.
I was also at the workshops in 1963 as Apprentice Auto Electrician and worked under you and Robin before been banished to Beck Lane to work with Herbert Smithson.
With regard to Fred Sharp he was most well known for throwing the running board across the garage every day when you cancelled any buses.
“Happy Days”

Brian Taylor

29/03/11 – 07:24

WOW!!!! What a brilliant web site. Not only do I find the bus I passed my PSV test on, but an old (sorry for the word) colleague Brian !! How the devil are you???? I remember you well!! (Just to clear up a point , when I was at YWDT I was known as Robin Bligh, but after a few years people started calling me Chris and it stuck!!) I have many happy memories of YWDT and the people who worked with us. I’d love to hear from you but this site is properly not the place! If you would like to contact me Peter at the Old Bus Photos website has my email address. I would be delighted!!

Chris Bligh

31/03/11 – 15:23

I think the garage man you referred to was Fred Smith at Beck Lane.Can you remember another garage man George Richardson who when you rang a bus in his stock comment was Let it develop.His sister Dorothy was a clippie at Beck Lane together they must have had over 50 years service with the company.

Philip Carlton

04/04/11 – 07:26

Yes Philip, I remember George very well!! He was a great guy, always a smile on his face and I believe he had spent some time in Iceland (the country not the shop) and had wonderful stores to tell about his time there. Also garage men at Beck Lane where Tommy Latham and Norman Pickles all great characters!!. Also remembered are Harry Snowden (Charge hand fitter) Walt Jennings (Foreman) Fred Smith (SS Fitter) Gerald Kay (SS Fitter) and of course Mrs Rocket canteen lady (I use the word lady lightly).
I vividly remember Tommy Latham going out to Bradford to tow in a PD Decker, with Gerald Kay with the old Tow Truck (Rigid Bar Tow) and arriving back in the depot on his own trailing the tow pole and wondering what had happened to Gerald. He was sent back to find him and did find him in the middle of Heckmondwike blocking all the traffic!!. It took him many (Long) years for him to Live that one down .

Chris Bligh

02/07/11 – 07:01

I learnt to drive in this bus in 1965, Clifford Allott was the driving instructor Tom Batty tested and passed me. They are great days to look back on I played football and cricket for the YWD for a few years 1960/1970 finally left the company in 1980. The photos are fine to look back on but they also bring back memories of cold winter mornings sat in cabs with newspaper around the windows to keep the draught out and most of them were an handful to drive I’m thinking mainly of the old Guys and the Salmon cans in particular. But it was an experience I wouldn’t have missed for the world.

John Ward

04/10/20 – 07:21

Great photo, my wife’s grandfather built this vehicle at Brush. We have seen it a few times at bus days out.

Mark Dwyer