Tag: Brush

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

Barnsley & District – Leyland S3 30T – HE 12 – 5

Barnsley & District - Leyland S3.30.T - HE 12 - 5


Copyright Pete Davies

Barnsley & District
1913
Leyland S3.30.T
Brush B27F

Here are two views of HE 12, a Leyland S3. 30.T from 1913. The body is a Brush B27F and she is in the livery of Barnsley & District (fleet number 5) – a precursor of the famous Yorkshire Traction. She’s seen on display at Longcross, near Chobham, on 1 April 2007. This was the London Bus Preservation Group event, normally held at Wisley airfield.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

26/04/13 – 07:43

Looks like one of Mike Sutcliffe’s immaculate restorations. Magnificent machine. Only 14 years before the TD1 appeared!

Ian Thompson

26/04/13 – 08:48

I was at that event Pete and Ian, and the restoration of this vehicle is superb beyond description. Incidentally the annual “Cobham” event is no longer held at the windswept and inhospitable Wisley Airfield. We went last weekend and it is now held at Brooklands Motor Museum, where the splendid new bus exhibition is now open.

Chris Youhill

27/04/13 – 07:55

Did you notice, Chris, the careful positioning of the stop for the horse-drawn “STAR OMNIBUS” and Concorde? Quite a dramatic contrast!

Pete Davies

27/04/13 – 09:22

horse bus

I did indeed Pete notice just the fascinating contrast that you mention, and here “hot off the press” is the picture I took on Sunday having had the same feeling about the wonderful “ancient and modern” scene. The horse bus was well patronised most of the day and its rather strange to reflect that it has stayed in service far longer than the ill fated Concorde. The beautiful Belgian horses must have thought that it was their birthday as they were plied with mints and biscuits by delighted onlookers at every “terminus.”

Chris Youhill

27/04/13 – 09:50

Great pictures Pete, thanks for posting. Thanks also to whoever has put in the work to achieve this result!

Les Dickinson

27/04/13 – 13:14

At the rate fuel is rising in price, there could be a renaissance in horse buses! With such proud and beautiful horses, many would welcome it! A truly moving photo, Chris Y, and thx so much for posting it.

Chris Hebbron

28/04/13 – 08:19

There is, of course, the difference in opinion about a horse:
1) It’s a form of transport, it keeps the grass down, and feeds the roses.
2) It’s dangerous! The front bites, the middle sags, and the back kicks.
I vote for option 1!

Pete Davies

28/04/13 – 09:28

…..but like any motor vehicle, Pete, option 2 only applies when there is misuse or abuse from the driver…..

David Oldfield

29/04/13 – 16:01

Not sure about that David. I seem to remember that in the olden days, one of the first things children were taught was “Never go close behind a horse” – and it wasn’t for what might drop on your shoes either!

Stephen Ford

30/04/13 – 05:36

Just for kicks?

David Oldfield

30/04/13 – 05:37

Don’t forget, if you abused the mechanical gear change pedal on a pre-selector Daimler you got similar results as….
…. the back leg of an abused horse!

Eric Bawden

30/04/13 – 13:17


(Copyright unknown)

It’s always been a source of wonderment that horsebuses and the like often appeared to run top-heavy, yet didn’t turn over. However, maybe they did! An extreme example is this 1910 photo of a staff outing of the wonderfully-named Portsea Island Gas, Light & Coke Co., which is likely to have some 20 folk aboard, with perhaps one inside! I’m assuming that climbing Portsdown Hill was a No-No!

Chris Hebbron

22/05/13 – 17:48

“The Muggleton Inn” (Wetherspoon) in Maidstone displays a photo of D 9717 1913 Leyland acquired second-hand by Maidstone & District from an unknown operator in 1914. But Wetherspoon’s have wrongly captioned the photo as a Tilling-Stevens!

John Humphrey

15/11/13 – 08:51

I have produced a CAD Line drawing of this bus and would like to forward a copy to the owners. Does anyone know how to contact them?

Russell Riley

Pennine – Leyland Royal Tiger – MTC 757 & MTD 235

Pennine - Leyland Royal Tiger - MTC 757


Both photographs by “unknown” – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Pennine Motor Services  

MTC 757 – 1950 – Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13 – Brush B44F

MTD 235 – 1952 – Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/15 – Leyland C41C

There has been some discussion on another posting about the former Leyland demonstrators, MTC 757 and MTD 235, the latter being still with Pennine and mentioned in the new PSV Circle listing on preserved buses. I have “bought” slides of these two, and I know when and where they were taken, but I’ve no idea of the photographers. MTC 757, the bus version, is seen in Malham in June 1964. MTD 235 is seen in Gargrave in September 1967. MTC 757 had a Brush bus body, while MTD 235 is quite clearly Leyland’s own. “The Dalesman Cafe” on the right of the lower shot was still thriving when I was last in Gargrave a few months ago!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/08/12 – 12:31

Wouldn’t you put the dates of these two the other way round? The bus looks remarkably modern and simple for 1950- even the peaked front dome (or is that a trick of the light?) Could it be a rebuild? On the other hand the Leyland (export?) body looks a bit 1940’s Detroit at the front, especially that chrome “dribble”.

Joe

05/08/12 – 14:11

Joe, it’s definitely a trick of the light – MTC 757 did not have a peaked dome, and was a very neat looking bus for the time. It was built in 1950, and acquired by Pennine in 1951. They withdrew it in 1967 and it is believed to have been scrapped.
MTD 235 was the prototype for the Leyland Royal Tiger coach body, and as originally built it did not have the multi-windowed ‘lantern’ type windscreen arrangement seen here and familiar on all the production examples, though it must have been modified very early on, as all the photos I’ve seen of it with Pennine show it as it is here. I must rack my brain (quite difficult nowadays) and try to remember which book I have that shows it in its original form and report back. Don’t hold your breath !

John Stringer

05/08/12 – 14:34

I had – please note the past tense! – black and whites of both these vehicles, and taken at Lancaster Bus Station. MTC most certainly did not have a peaked front dome. I have a copy of the Pennine history by Donald Binns in collaboration with the operator, which has a photo of her on page 49. The caption includes “It was scrapped in August 1967 after 16 years service and with 825,000 miles on the clock”.

Pete Davies

05/08/12 – 14:35

The dates given in the posting would seem to be correct. MTC 757 was a Royal Tiger PSU1/13 with Brush B44F body built as a demonstrator in 1950, and bought by Simpson of Gargrave t/a Pennine in 1952. Brush ceased building psv bodies in 1952. MTD 235 was also a Leyland demonstrator, and it carried the standard Leyland 41 seat coach body for this model, though the chrome trim was adapted to meet customer choice, and some examples did not have the “swept under” front panelwork. This body continued to be available up to the time that Leyland closed its coachbuilding facilities in 1954. The PSU1/13 version of the Royal Tiger had the horizontal O.600 engine coupled with a four speed synchromesh gearbox and vacuum brakes.

Roger Cox

05/08/12 – 15:06

MTD 235 is still owned by Pennine and is kept at Barnoldswick and is worked on when time permits.

Philip Carlton

06/08/12 – 07:27

The Brush body was a nice design and must have been one of the very earliest on an underfloor engined chassis (apart from BMMO). Quite different to those supplied to Yorkshire Traction/Woollen. Presumably it was 7ft 6in wide?

Chris Barker

06/08/12 – 08:34

Chris, MTC and MTD were both to the usual 8ft width for underfloor engined vehicles of the time, so far as I am aware.

Pete Davies

11/08/12 – 07:23

Think 8′ was standard width for these underfloors. Although they still existed quite recently as a heavy engineering and railway manufacturer, Brush effectively became Willowbrook in bus terms. [Not sure who bought whom.] The next Royal Tigers for Tracky were Willowbrook – but built by the same men in the same factory.

David Oldfield

11/08/12 – 12:07

Several Royal Tigers were built to 7ft 6in width, it was offered by Leyland as an option. Hebble and Devon General had some Willowbrook bodied examples.
Brush are still very much in business, in Loughborough adjacent to the railway station. It was just their bus building activities which they disposed of in 1952. All production was then transferred to Willowbrook including some double deck Daimlers for Derby which were in build at the time and Brush designs disappeared almost immediately.

Chris Barker

12/08/12 – 07:16

Willowbrook existed in Loughborough from 1931, totally independent of Brush. They occupied the retail site now known as Willowbrook Park.
Brush voluntarily quit the bus body building enterprise in 1952, but locals tell me that their designs were passed to Willowbrook.
As Chris says, Brush are still in business, but they are a mere shadow of what they once were, and are no longer the town`s biggest employer. Once upon a time, they were the second largest tramcar builder in the UK, and that was just part of their total business!
What about Pennine though! Still in business, and they have seen it all and survived it all, and still continue as a small independent. I remember them well from my courting days, with wife to be living past Settle, on the Pennine route!
Good old Happy Days are getting even happier!

John Whitaker

12/08/12 – 07:18

I thought Pennine only had a garage in Skipton, but from Philip’s comment above, and from looking at their current timetable showing some early morning services starting in Barnsoldswick, I realise they have a garage there as well. Does anyone know how many vehicles are accommodated there; presumably only 4 or 5?

Dave Towers

28/08/12 – 14:29

The Pennine garage at Barnoldswick was acquired with the business of Ezra Laycock Ltd in 1972. As an ex-Laycock employee I ought to be able to confidently tell you the depot’s capacity – I can’t quite do that, but I think that the answer is five, although in Laycock days vehicles were parked outside as well. According to the timetable three buses start and finish at Barnoldswick, so that is presumably how many operational buses are kept at the depot. I did have it in my head that MTD 235 had been moved to Skipton, but I may have imagined that bit.
As far as I am aware Pennine also continues to use the small depot at Settle, capacity two vehicles.

David Call

29/08/12 – 07:26

I notice that Pete Davies has mentioned (on the Pennine LWY 702 posting) that MTD 235 is indeed now resident at the Skipton depot.

David Call

29/08/12 – 18:59

All is explained, at last. The section about MTC 757 & MTD 235 appears under a total of four headings – Brush (bodybuilder), Leyland (bodybuilder), Pennine (operator), and Leyland Royal Tiger. Only under the heading of Leyland Royal Tiger is there a section devoted to Pennine’s LWY 702, and it is at the foot of that section where Pete Davies has mentioned that MTD 235 is now at Skipton depot.
I would not expect LWY 702 to be mentioned under Brush, of course, but I am surprised that it does not at least get a mention under Pennine (operator). As to whether it should appear under Leyland (bodybuilder) or even Leyland (chassis builder), I suppose you will have to draw a line somewhere regarding what gets included and what doesn’t, there were an awful lot of Leyland buses manufactured. In passing perhaps I could mention that I noticed that under the heading of Leyland Royal Tiger Cub, only one of the three sections actually relates to an example of that model. The other two refer to the infinitely more common Leyland Tiger Cub.
Should I trawl through the other headings checking for similar errors/anomalies? It would beat counting sheep, I suppose.

David Call

30/08/12 – 06:56

The comments engendered by entries to this Forum frequently range far and wide, often well beyond the strict confines of the original submission. We have all had at least one reprimand, not, be it noted, from our webmaster, for straying from the initial subject, but that is entirely within the spirit of this site. The wealth of interest, information and detail that emerges thereby is invaluable. I think that we should go on regarding ourselves as a bus enthusiasts’ equivalent of Dr. Johnson’s Literary Club, with free ranging discussion. Cross referencing every point made in the “comment” columns would be a nightmarish task. Let us just be very grateful for this splendid site.

Roger Cox

30/08/12 – 11:47

Agreed, Roger. It’s worth remembering, too, that, although not as good as cross-referencing, there is a search facility on the website which I’ve found useful a couple of times.

Chris Hebbron

31/08/12 – 07:24

I think most of us form a loose group of cyber friends with a common purpose. I think that overrides any jobsworth tendency to pedantry – and that comes from one of the world’s biggest pedants!

David Oldfield

31/08/12 – 07:25

Contrary to what I stated above, it seems that the section devoted to LWY702 actually appears under all the headings I mentioned – I hadn’t realised that many of the headings lead to multiple pages. It does not help, of course, that my search engine (google) only picks up words and phrases which are contained in the first of those multiple pages – not the second and subsequent.

David Call

11/05/14 – 11:14

On the Pennine (operator) pages, Chris Wright and Orla Nutting comment on the forthcoming closure of the company.
There has been some confusion about MTD 235. Some sources say she’s at Barnoldswick (spoken locally as Barlick) and some (including me, based on reports I’ve had) say she’s at Skipton. To a degree, both are right and both are wrong! On withdrawal, she spent MANY years gathering dust at Barnoldswick garage. About 2 years ago, she was moved to head office with a view to start of restoration. The inspection was duly undertaken and it was found to be [I quote] ‘a massive job’ which would divert too many staff hours, so she’s back at Barnoldswick, apparently with one of the Leopards new to Ezra Laycock.
I suspect that a number of readers will be concerned about the future of MTD maybe she should could go either to the Leyland Museum or to the one in St Helens if the family don’t keep her.

Pete Davies

12/05/14 – 08:37

The ex-Laycock Leyland Leopard reputedly stored at Barnoldswick depot can only be OWY 197K, since that was the only Leopard ever owned by Laycock’s.
An interesting point is that throughout the few months of its time with Laycock’s, and into Pennine ownership, it carried the incorrect registration OWY 179K.

David Call

13/05/14 – 06:34

Thank you, David, for your comments about the Leopard. In the Donald Binns book about Pennine, there are two photographs showing her with OWY 197K, but the listings in the book show both registrations! She is shown in the book as being stored at Ingleton, but that is clearly out of date if my information from company staff the other day is correct.

Pete Davies

23/05/14 – 07:51

Pete. I paid my respects to Pennine on the last day 16th May I Actually wrote to Maurice Simpson wishing him well for the future and how sad it was Pennine Motors was closing down. I suggested MTD 235 should be restored in memory of his father and the company and what his plans are for the vehicle.
Work was carried out on the brakes and other bits and pieces the chief engineer tells me, however she is to be towed back to Skipton in the coming weeks but what the future is it is not clear as yet.

Mark Mc Alister

25/05/14 – 10:33

Thanks, Mark, for your update.
Before I retired, I worked in the passenger transport team of Southampton City Council, dealing with the local operators over aspects of their services. The national concession scheme was just coming into use. My managers commented on several occasions that the regulations said that the level of reimbursement must be strictly neutral, in that the operator must be no better off and no worse off through taking part in the scheme.
The reports I have read in various places all suggest that North Yorkshire County Council have a different view.

Pete Davies

26/05/14 – 09:28

The point made by Pete Davies was first specified in the Ridley 1985 Transport Act when each local authority had the power to determine a concessionary fare scheme. This led to wide variations throughout the country, and some authorities, of course, chose not to offer any meaningful scheme at all, which was one of the reasons why the Labour government, in reality, John Prescott, decided to ensure that mandatory schemes were available everywhere from 2001. This was followed up in 2007 by a national scheme for England. The Welsh and Scottish administrations pursued their own policies. This new scheme maintained the requirement that “Travel Concession Authorities are required by law to reimburse bus operators for carrying concessionary passengers, on the principle that the operators are “no better off and no worse off” by taking part in concessionary travel schemes. The aim is not to subsidise bus operators, but to pay for any increased costs that they have incurred”. The legislation goes on to say, “The national bus concession in England is available at any time on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, and from 9.30am to 11pm on any other day. TCAs are able to offer concessionary travel outside these hours on a discretionary basis”. I understand that North Yorkshire allows the passes to be used from 9am until 6am the following morning, which is entirely lawful under the clause stated above.

Roger Cox

26/05/14 – 09:29

The situation in respect of the depot premises is as follows.
Skipton: To let at £40,000 p.a. or might sell
Barnoldswick: Sale agreed
Ingleton: Sale agreed
Settle: For sale (‘Guide price’ £75,000) or might let
As Mark McA says, the future for MTD 235 is not clear – it looks even less clear now. We can only hope that it will be, as suggested by Pete, donated to one of the established museums.

David Call

26/05/14 – 14:01

Quite right, Roger, but it’s the amount of reimbursement that seems to have upset matters in this case.

Pete Davies

21/02/16 – 15:44

Re MTD 235 – can anybody give me an update on this coach’s current condition and location please?

Howard Piltz

21/03/16 – 15:54

It appears to have been offered for sale on Ebay in 2014 but the highest bid, just over £2K, didn’t meet the reserve price. Since then it has been off the radar.

Mike Morton

23/03/16 – 05:42

“Just over £2K”, Mike? That’s just silly, given the nature of the beast. I’d have expected another ‘0’ on the figure . . .

Pete Davies

23/03/16 – 17:10

Pete
That’s the reality of Bus Preservation lots of effort/money but nothing like the financial return of vintage cars.

Roger Burdett

23/03/16 – 17:14

Sadly Pete, the generation of enthusiasts that remember and appreciate this era of classic vehicle are getting on in years and fewer in number, and probably feel that it is a bit late in the day to start getting involved in such a substantial and expensive restoration. The majority of active preservationists nowadays are more into the vehicles of their youth – such as Nationals, Olympians and Metrobuses, and even more recent types than those.
I attended the open day at the Dewsbury Bus Museum the other week and thought I’d sample a few rides on the free bus service into Dewsbury and back. I rode on the superb recently restored West Riding PD2 and then the West Riding PS2 but was surprised to note that though plenty people were photographing them, there were relatively few that chose to ride on them, whereas the Olympians, RELL, Leopard and even the virtually new Arriva Enviro Whateveritis were packed out with excited punters.
Time moves on, and so will we, and I fear for the long term future of many of our favourite classic buses.

John Stringer

24/03/16 – 05:56

Re MTD 235. It did not meet reserve on eBay in 2014 (highest bid £2250) so presumably its still with Simpson (t/s Pennine Coaches) Skipton.

John Wakefield

24/05/16 – 08:58

MTD 235 once again on Ebay.

Dave Philpot

30/05/17 – 06:42

MTD 235 has been sold on in Yorkshire.

Phil Clark

22/11/17 – 07:37

I can report that restoration of ex-Pennine Royal Tiger MTD 235 is continuing with the mechanics receiving a thorough overall and work commencing on the body. It is hoped that it will make a return to the road one day soon, keeping fingers crossed!

Phil Clark

23/11/17 – 07:09

Wonderful news!

Pete Davies

23/11/17 – 07:10

Good news indeed Phil-thanks for the report.

Stuart Emmett

23/09/18 – 06:14

I am currently restoring the ex-Pennine Leyland Royal Tiger MTD 235 – has anyone got a destination blind for this or any Pennine posters or notices or timetables that were displayed in their buses in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s? I will be pleased of any help or copies of anything that will add to the restoration. Thank you, you can contact me through this website.

Phil Clark

05/11/18 – 13:38

The only blind I have seen also covers 1972, 1983 and 1986 changes and includes the former routes of Laycock, Skipton and the ex Ribble locals and Burnley etc.
1950’s/1960’s when MTD was in main service then the range was small. Therefore would suggest only needs to include Malham, Tosside, Morecambe, Lancaster, Ingleton, Gargrave, Settle, Skipton, and Contract.
On further materials-assume, you already will have the Donald Binns 2000 book called Pennine Motor Services that includes many timetables.
Hope this helps and that your worthwhile project continues on. Any ideas when it might be completed?

Stuart Emmett

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

18/11/18 – 09:26

I’m trying to locate the Leyland Royal Tiger MTD 235 mentioned in your website. My dad is a retired bus driver and it’s his favourite bus. I’m trying to arrange just to see it really.

Steven Davies

27/01/19 – 07:41

Thanks for your info on MTD 235 destination names that will be useful, at the moment it has no blind gear as this must have been removed some time ago, so I am trying to find replacement blind gear (if anyone has some!). I haven’t found that book on Pennine but I hope I’ll find it some day. I have found some old Pennine excursion flyers which I hope to make use of. Restoration continues albeit slowly as I’m finding much of the rear end wood frame has decayed or is missing and this is not my favourite job! I am part way through rewiring the coach as much of the original is in a very poor state. I think it will be a while yet before it is finished, but if anyone has any memorabilia, old Pennine notices, posters or unpublished photographs I will be pleased to know!

Phillip Clark

28/01/19 – 07:39

Pennine book available right now suggest be quick www.abebooks.co.uk/

Stuart Emmett

29/07/22 – 05:56

Hello Phillip – wondering how the preservation of MTD 235 is progressing please.

Stuart Emmett

Portsmouth Corporation – Karrier WL6/2 – TP 4835 – 46


Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.


Copyright CPPTD

Portsmouth Corporation
1927
Karrier WL6/2
Brush H32/28R

Portsmouth Corporation, primarily a tram operator at this time, having dabbled with some Thornycroft J’s, Guy J’s, Dennis 50 cwt’s, an LGOC B Class, Dennis E’s and a Karrier CL, then decided to go for some big boys, buying eight Karrier WL6/2’s registered in two batches, in 1927. Here is a photo of No. 46 (TP4835) with Brush H32/28R bodies. This was during a brief era when 6-wheel buses were “de rigeur”, with higher seating levels and, when front-wheel braking was uncommon, four wheels with brakes at the rear were better than two. However, Karrier was not the company to buy them from! Geoffrey Hilditch in his excellent book “A Look at Buses” recalls that Karrier had not realised that it was necessary to have a crown wheel and pinion BETWEEN the two axles, which set up mechanical stress and continual breakdowns. On one occasion a lady with two children was walking along the downstairs bus aisle when a flailing drive shaft came through the floor, narrowly missing them. Karrier”s policy was not to bother to keep spares for its products for much longer than production ceased, adding to the users” problems and, no doubt, prejudicing repeat orders for the company”s products, when Leyland/AEC were becoming the leading lights. Suffice to say, that when the Huddersfield company finally started to produce some quite capable models, such as the Chaser and Consort around 1930, sales had dropped right off and, with the Wall Street Crash causing a slump, never really recovered, leading to Rootes taking over the firm in 1934. As for those in Pompey, they were persevered with for one year longer, until 1935. The lining-out of the bus is extensive, yet surprisingly simple for the period, with no fiddly work at the corners which was often prevalent at that time, Portsmouth being no exception. In latter years, simple lining out became the order of the day again, as you can see from the Crossley DD42/7 I posted recently. I assume the colours were maroon/white, as the tram and later bus livery.

And the Knight & Lee store (“Still a Foremost for FASHION – Second to None for VALUE”), advertised on the side poster? Not exactly in the category as Binns of Newcastle, either in store size or bus advertising presence, it nevertheless still exists under the more famous “John Lewis” name! More staying power than the bus!

And a question – something is sticking out in front of the radiator. Is it a headlamp? At, say, 9″ diameter and therefore the same depth, plus a bit more space, it would seem to be sticking out about 15″ beyond the radiator front and, if not actually fouling the starting handle, making the use of the handle more difficult than otherwise would be the case. Blowing that part of the photo up to 400% does not, sadly, help provide an answer.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Headlamp is clearly visible on the offside mudguard. As a suggestion, might it have been an audible warning device? After moving on from rubber bulb horns, it could have been some sort of patent mechanical klaxon. Or a fog light maybe?

Stephen Ford

It”s a headlamp!

The lamp on the offside wing is a sidelight, despite it size.

Buses as late as (if I remember correctly) 1967 didn”t have to have two headlamps, and if they did, they were not required to be of the same size or height from the ground. That”s why early pictures of Routemasters often show them with only one headlamp lit: they were on separate switches! Also, in the early post-war period you often saw buses (notably Manchester Corporation ones) with one original full-sized lamp and one tiny, former blackout lamp.

David Jones

13/02/11 – 06:38

H_lamp

I enlarged the picture & brightened it which then seemed to show that the headlamp was not in front of the radiator but mounted on the offside chassis dumb iron by a clumsy looking bracket.

Brian

13/02/11 – 18:34

Well done, Brian, that settles it. The headlamp is certainly formidable-looking!

Chris Hebbron

14/02/11 – 09:46

What a wonderful old vehicle this is!.
Did PCT have some with EE bodies as well?
The Brush version seen here is a FC version of the CX Guys supplied to Leicester. Forward control 6 wheel double deckers!
The fascination of buses from this era is their close tramcar ancestry, and the swift development in design between 1928/9, and 1932 is dramatic!

John Whitaker

Leicester`s CXs were, of course Normal control. My enthusiasm went ahead of my typing fingers!

15/02/11 – 06:24

Yes John, CPPTD took delivery of another six, 48-53. in 1928, with English Electric bodies, these lasting until 1934, with 52 being the very last of them all to be withdrawn, in 1936. You are so right in your mention of the huge leap in body design in that five years or so.
BTW – If anyone wonders about Portsmouth Corporation’s coat of arms, it is a star with a moon underneath, cupped upwards. The motto is: ‘Heavens Light – Our Guide’. And in English, too – no fancy Latin for Pompey!!

Chris Hebbron

18/06/12 – 11:57

Chris, you are obviously as fascinated as I am by this bus generation! I think it is because it is just past my recollection, as my earliest bus memories were during WW2, and anything of an earlier generation was just “out of reach” if you follow me!
This rear view is particularly valuable, as such views were quite rare, and it gives me some indication as to what the rear end of a Leicester Guy CX would have looked like. A similar body although modified for fitment to a normal control 6 wheel chassis.
The English Electric version was quite similar, but I do have recollections of that family of buses, as I can (just) remember the Bradford English Electric “Paddlers” of 1929. See David Beilby`s galleries, where other, similar delights are to be found!  Wonderful stuff!

John Whitaker

19/06/12 – 11:38

You”re right, John W, it was a period of fast change, which soon saw some early competitors off, especially with the Wall Street Crash of 1929. And with six-wheelers, Guy/Karrier got it wrong and AEC/Leyland got it right when it came to needing a diff between the twin axles. With the rear view of the bus, it clearly shows the tram influence, with the two side bulkheads aft of the saloon and the round-shaped winding staircase.
A rounded back, door between bulkheads, a controller and brake handle and it could pass for a tram end! And the internal view of the EE bodies for similar vehicles on David B”s excellent website, shows two enormous floor traps to gain access to those troublesome rear axles! Glad the photo was useful to you: it was to me, too.
I’d love to have ridden on them!

Chris Hebbron

03/11/12 – 17:15

CPPTD Karrier WL62_lr

Here’s a rare and lovely photo of four Karrier WL6/2’s parked around the side of Portsmouth’s Guildhall, possibly awaiting a concert crowd to take home.
If any Northerners think the building looks familiar, it’s an exact copy of Bolton Town Hall. However, it was gutted in the war and rebuilt many years after in a much more simplified style, losing much of its original glory.

Chris Hebbron

04/11/12 – 15:43

Chris, it was a delight to see your latest WL6 photo in Pompey, and it has served to re-ignite my fascination for this era. There seemed to be a “punctuation mark” in development stages, between this era, and the more rounded style post 1930/2. This “mark” was probably the TD1 Titan, and both sides of it are fascinating in a different way.
My nearest actual memory glimpses are the Bradford “Paddler” trolleybuses, which were direct relations of the English Electric bodied variant of the WL6 at Portsmouth. Similar bodies were built for Oldham on Guy FCX chassis, and, of course, good old Dodson reigned supreme in producing bodies to this classic style. A photo of the Portsmouth and Southampton (Thornycroft) 6 wheeler EE bodies would be of great interest, and, I am always amazed that the wonderful Wolverhampton fleet of the 1920s, in both petrol and electric format, does not generate more historical enthusiast interest. How fascinatingly different was a normal control 6 wheel motorbus!
The whole 1920s 6 wheel idea was a step too far, too quickly, in the drive for seats in the tram replacement climate, but when it comes to enthusiast content and memory, then unsuccessful they were NOT!!
Come on you OBP followers. Lets have more of the really old stuff! Or is it me getting longer in the tooth than anyone else? !!

John Whitaker

05/11/12 – 17:19

It really was a time of great change then, John, with petrol to diesel and open staircases giving way to enclosed platforms and open cabs to enclosed ones, especially in London. Boxy bodies giving way to more rounded, streamlined ones (now they’re boxy again). The second photo (rear of bus) has a bulge for the lower deck, which I’ve seen called ‘tumbledown’ in the past. Anyone know why – was it the type of staircase that necessitated the bulge or passenger risk, or what?
I really must try to trace a photo of the 1928 batch of Karriers, with EE bodies. they seem more elusive although there were 6 against 8 of the others, almost even.

Chris Hebbron

06/11/12 – 06:37

Hi Chris. These Brush bodies are very similar to the Leicester Guy CXs, which had a similar rear tumbleholme/tumbledown, but which does not commence its inward bend until first stair riser level, so I think it was purely a “fashion”, and very common. The staircase was a half landing type, but Dodson bodies of this era had tramway style “half turn” or direct stairs to the tramway spiral style, and consequently , in plan view, the enclosed bodies had a much larger off side radius at the rear, compared with the near side. EEC bodies were very similar to the Brush design. I will try to gain access to the Brush Archive at Leicester Museums, to see if I can get access to photos of these Karriers, and others built by Brush. There were also batches of six wheel Maudslay Magnas for Coventry which were superb, magnificent machines!
Hall Lewis also built bodies for Karrier WL6, as did Roe, on Karrier and Guy, and also Short Bros.
Northampton had some Guy FCX with locally built Grose bodies too, but all in good time John…slow down a bit!

As an afterthought on the Karrier 6 wheel double deck motorbus theme, does anyone know the correct designation, as most photo captions refer to the double decker as “DD6”, and the single decker as WL6/1 or 2. Also, was the maximum length for these buses, prior to 1931/2, 28ft, corresponding with the 25 ft for 4 wheelers? I never did know, but think the single deck could be built to 30ft,and the decker 28ft, this rising to 26ft and 30ft. in 1932 (viz ST to STL). Many trolleybuses were built to 30ft. length, as represented by AEC type 664T (663T for the shorter option), but were there any post 1932 30ft. 6 wheel motorbuses? I cannot think of any, but that means nothing!
It would seem that a resurgence of interest in “full size” motorbuses was about to materialise c.1939, with Leicester purchasing batches of “Renowns”, and there was a Daimler COG6/60 chassis, due to be demonstrated to Leicester, destroyed at Daimlers works in the blitz. Please correct me if I say these were not 3o footers.
Also interesting is the fact that both EE and Brush, the first and second main supplier of tramcar bodies in the UK since 1900, were so prominent in the concept of “large capacity” motorbuses in the 1920s, and that both voluntarily abandoned this business during, or soon after WW2. The third supplier of tramcar bodies, Hurst Nelson of Motherwell, never really got into bus building at all.
I wonder if we could get together to make a list of all known pre-1932 6 wheel dd. motorbuses. An interesting read?

John Whitaker

26/07/13 – 17:42

I mentioned above a near-miss accident with one of these buses, but have found a news clipping about an horrific fatal accident with Wallasey Corporation Karrier DD6, a variant of the WL 6/1 & 6/2. Sadly, both Karrier and Wallasey Corp’n got away without being blamed. You’ve got to feel greatly for the husband. SEE: www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/

Chris Hebbron

27/07/13 – 07:41

This horrific accident was mentioned in a history of Wallasey Corporation published c.1958 in Buses Illustrated. The author stated that as a result, all the Wallasey Karrier six-wheelers were withdrawn from service immediately. As I remember it, there was a hint that the cause was prop shaft failure, due to the stresses of the inadequate design of the twin rear axle, and that this accident also caused some other operators to get rid of this make of six-wheelers sooner rather than later.

Michael Hampton

27/07/13 – 09:08

Portsmouth, in its usual way, kept them going until 1935, probably the full span of their lives, for the time!

Chris Hebbron

28/07/13 – 07:34

I remember that article, Michael, and I also attended an illustrated talk in the mid 1960s given by my then boss, Geoff Hilditch at Halifax. He mentioned this tragic event, and later, writing as ‘Gortonian’, covered it in one of his Buses Illustrated articles. It was reprinted in his book ‘Looking at Buses’. These Karriers did not have a safety bridle on the shaft linking the engine to the gearbox, and when two of the three connecting bolts sheared off suddenly, the third held, causing the shaft to flail around and up through the floor with devastating results. Karriers never fully recovered their reputation after that accident.

Roger Cox

29/07/13 – 07:45

Doncaster received four AEC Renowns in 1935 and three Leyland Titanics in 1936 all with Roe H60R bodies.

Malcolm J Wells

29/07/13 – 14:46

portsmouth

To show both body types on the same chassis, here is a rare photo of CPPTD’s Karrier WL6/2 No.50 (TP 6874), delivered 1928. These sported EE bodies very similar to the Brush ones, with the same seating capacity. The most obvious difference was the top deck’s far less neat side-sliding windows on this body. In this photo, the bus clearly has two headlamps Of the batch, 52 lasted the longest, until 1936. (Copyright: English Electric)

Chris Hebbron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

16/11/13 – 10:50

Karrier Ad

I’ve come across a 1928 advert, making great claims about their WL62 chassis.
I’ve no idea in whose livery the bus in the photo is (someone may know), but I am intrigued about the unusual non-cutaway section of platform on the rear of bus. I’ve never seen such an example before and it might be an added clue.

Chris Hebbron

07/08/16 – 06:55

Re: 1928 advert.
the livery is for Liverpool. they bought 6 two wheel chassis, and had the bodies built in the tram works.

Art

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

11/07/17 – 06:53

This is in response to Chris Hebron’s message of 26/7/13 (!) with its link to an article about a passenger disappearing through the floor of a Karrier six wheeler and being killed by the machinery underneath. Over the weekend I was looking at the floor of the Bournemouth 6-wheel Karrier single decker LJ500. My usual experience of bus floors is ECW and Beadle products where the floors are 1″ or 7/8″ T&G boards. The lightweight Bristol SC, where everything was skinned down as much as possible to save weight has floorboards 5/8″ thick. The Hall Lewis body on LJ500 has boards a smigen over 1/2″ thick. The saving grace for the SC is that the distance between supports is a lot less than those on the Karrier – 18″ or so compared with 3′ or more. I have to say that standing on the floor in LJ500 it didn’t feel all that safe and having now read Chris Hebron’s comments and the Wallasey article I understand why.

Peter Cook

12/07/17 – 07:24

On 6/11/12 (was it that long ago!), John Whitaker was interested in compiling a list of pre-1932 double deck buses manufactured. I’ve had a quick go and come up with the following, a couple of them are single deck ones.
AEC Renown (single and double), Bristol C (two chassis, only one of which bodied), Crossley Condor (one only), Guy CX & DD, Karrier DD, WL6 (both), Clipper (single) & Consort, Leyland Titanic (TS6T/TS7T single), Northern General SE6 (single), Sunbeam Sikh.

Chris Hebbron

West Bridgford – Daimler CWA6 – GNN 410 – 25


Photo by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

West Bridgford Urban District Council
1945
Daimler CWA6
Brush H30/26R

Here is a fine example of a utility body built just at the end of the war all very square and flat with little if any panel beating due to using unskilled labour to build it. You can also see just how small the headlights were and a painted radiator rather than polished alloy or chrome, not that it had anything to do with the war but you can also see the pop out trafficators (top right of photo below).

The CW series (“W” stood for “war”) started production in 1943 with the CWG5 which had a Gardner 7.0 litre 5 cylinder engine in total 100 were built before being superseded in the same year by the CWA6. The CWA6 had an AEC 7.7 litre six cylinder engine over 800 were built until in 1945 when Daimler introduced its own 8.6 litre six cylinder engine which was called the CWD6. Production of the CWD ceased in 1946 but due to waiting for bodies some did not get on the road until 1947 the CV series (“V” stood for “victory”) followed with production starting in 1946. All CWs regardless of engine had the Daimler fluid flywheel four speed preselective gearbox and vacuum assisted brakes.
The above bus entered service in April 1945 and was withdrawn from service in 1967 according to a fleet list I have dated 2nd April 1965 courtesy of WBUDC it states that this bus still had its Brush body so I do not think it had a rebuild but I bet it had a fair bit of touching up.

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

At the St Helens road transport museum there was a Daimler similar to the West Bridgford one here, the engine did not have a cylinder head on so I could see it was a 6 cylinder engine. But no 2 pot was only 2″ in diameter while the rest were about 4″-5″ any clues? was it a start help cylinder or balance help issue. What engine was it, the fuel injector pump had 6 outlets but no 2 was slightly different. The Vacuum pump was in front of the injector pump.
I remember the West Bridgford buses very well, they always looked a bit more posh than my fathers Nottingham City Transport, dad was commercial manager for many years, which meant I spent many a happy hour in the depot.

Ken Johnson

07/03/11 – 09:27

WBUDC was taken over by NCT in the late 60’s

Roger Broughton

11/06/13 – 12:31

A very belated answer to Ken Johnson’s question about the mysterious tiny piston visible in the temporarily headless AEC 7.7 engine of EWM 358, the ex-Southport Corporation Daimler CWA6 awaiting restoration at the St Helens Transport Museum, which I revisited with great pleasure last Saturday.
One of the pistons is at top dead centre, and with an overlay of dust covering both block and piston the actual bore diameter is obscured. Clearly visible is the toroidal combustion chamber in the piston head, looking for all the world like a baby piston in its own right. To add the the confusion, the other piston that would have been at TDC is missing, so that ALL bores except for the mystery one appear empty. The only inline sixes where only one piston at a time is at TDC are two-strokes, which this engine most definitely isn’t!
The whole vehicle is a major restoration project, so thanks, congratulations and best wishes to the Museum for their achievements up to now and in the future.

Ian Thompson

11/01/16 – 16:00

EWM 358 It was acquired by Blundell’s coaches in March 1957 – I took my double decker test on it. Wilf Blundell who was the British Stock Car champion was a friend of Mrs Topham of Aintree and the Daimler was frequently to be seen in use as a mobile grandstand. It suffered problems with its timber body and I think that is what led to its arrival at St Helens.

EAO

23/09/16 – 06:54

As a further insight to this vehicle I have just become a member of the NWTM and have the job of rebuilding the replacement engine for this vehicle, The original engine had thrown a leg out of bed (smashed the block on both sides due to con rod failure) The heads where removed for inspection.
I will update this agenda as work proceeds.

John P

23/09/16 – 11:01

All utility bodies built of wood suffered from timber problems within 6-8 years, EAO, as green (unseasoned) timber was used in their construction. London Transport started overhauling their Daimler CWA6’s around 1949 and gave up about halfway through the 281 they had. They found that much of the wooden frames had completely disappeared into dust and that correcting the work was far too time-consuming and therefore expensive! They didn’t like the 12 or so CWD’s they were allocated and replaced them fairly quickly with 7.7 AEC engines recovered from scrapped STL’s. One problem with the Daimler engine was that the exhaust manifold was next to the driver and made the cab very hot at times. Also the timing chain was at the rear of the engine and difficult to access. Isn’t the subject of utility buses fascinating???

Chris Hebbron

24/09/16 – 07:44

Gardner engines also had the exhaust on the right hand side, and that certainly didn’t influence their acceptability. I understand, also, that the Daimler CD6 engine had timing gears rather than a timing chain. Both the CD6 and the contemporary Crossley HOE7 copied exactly the bore and stroke dimensions of the pre-war Leyland 8.6 litre unit, but neither came remotely near that fine engine in terms of performance and dependability. The location of the timing train at the rear of an engine permits more accurate timing and allows the entire engine unit to be more compact. The rear location of the timing gears does reduce accessibility, but this only becomes an issue if the engine is of dubious reliability. Dennis adopted rear timing gears in the mid 1930s, and reliability was never an issue with Guildford power plants, unlike those of Daimler and Meadows. Daimler’s engines were of exceedingly variable quality, ranging from appalling to excellent, and London Transport quickly gave up on them. Daimler soon limited the fitment of its own CD6 diesel to single deck versions of the CVD6, where the unit was subject to rather less stress. The Freeline underfloor engined model used the larger 10.6 litre CD650.

Roger Cox

03/10/16 – 06:33

EWM 358 update; The engine has now been rebuilt and should be test run this week, prior to cleaning and refurbing the engine bay. The bearings in the fluid flywheel are at present trying to be sourced as they are the original Hoffman type 325/340 and have so I believe been obsolete for some years, There are however possible alternatives.
The intention being is to refit the engine so the vehicle can be moved under its own power to facilitate restoration.

John P

18/11/16 – 07:08

EWM 358 update. The replacement engine has now been test run and is in good working order, the engine bay is currently being refurbed in preparation for the engine fitting hopefully before Christmas.
A question for all you bus people out there,The Original engine does NOT appear to have a dynamo fitting anywhere on the block. I maybe clutching at straws here but were these fitted with Dynostart units, as all the main battery leads are on the starter side only.
The replacement engine is from a AEC Matador Ex service vehicle and was fitted with the Dynamo unit on the LHS Driven off the vacuum pump, which we are having trouble sourcing as we need the star drive and shaft with it.
More updates to follow

John P

19/11/16 – 08:07

The dynamo on postwar Daimlers was driven by belts from the input to the gearbox, which was mounted half-way down the bus, so there would be no dynamo on the engine. I can only assume that wartime Daimlers were the same.

David Beilby

20/11/16 – 05:46

Thanks for your info David, I will put the boiler suit on and have look.
As usual I will keep you posted and will put some pictures on soon.

John P

20/11/16 – 14:28

The subject of early timber framing deterioration in utility bodies is indeed true in the large majority of cases, but there were certain very commendable exceptions. Samuel Ledgard was very fortunate in this respect and seemed to have reasonably minimum trouble with theirs, new or second hand, whether built by Duple, Roe, Park Royal or Brush. One minor manufacturer though really did “let the side down” – Pickerings, and the two that the Ministry “treated” Ledgard’s to were so ugly and they looked like falling apart very early on. The Duple and Roe ones mostly gave approaching twenty years top line service with little attention other than the “in vogue” fitting of sliding windows to replace the half drop originals. Even the “Sutton depot” ex London Park Royals appeared to escape major timber rot. As with many other folks I find the subject of the utilities to be endlessly fascinating and I greatly enjoyed conducting and driving them.

Chris Youhill

21/11/16 – 07:48

To be fair, Chris Y. most of LTE’s 1946 Park Royal CWA6’s that Samuel Ledgard acquired in 1954 were overhauled in both 1949 and 1952, so most of the green wood was probably replaced by the time of sale! I’d say that SL got a bargain with them. Those of this batch which went to Belfast Corporation were re-bodied immediately by Harkness, which seems a little unnecessary at that point in time. Since Morden accommodated both Sutton and Merton vehicles, it’s certain that some of these buses had both you and me travelling on them at some point in time, Chris Y! The Guys Arab I’s might well have more robust chassis, but the Daimlers were more sophisticated: a classier act, IMHO. My joy was when they were used on the Morden to Epsom Raceday specials. I used to save up much of my pocket money and bunk off school for these rides. The conductors would often not take my fares, bless ’em! It is right to say that the CWD-engined ones performed better, but, if memory serves, there were only 12 of them!.

Chris Hebbron

24/11/16 – 07:26

EWM 358 update, I have now found the dynamo located underneath the bus as advised by David, While I was under there I was amazed at the condition of the lower timber floors and the body out riggers, certainly they are black, but they appear in general rot free, it is intended when the engine is soon to be installed, to remove some of the side panels for inspection, but if the ones that cant be seen are in the same condition as the lower ones the restoration maybe a lot less involved.

John P

29/11/16 – 08:46

EWM 358

EWM 358 update, The engine is now fitted back in the bus, However nothing is yet connected to it so it has not yet warmed the exhaust. Its nice to see it in its rightful place after all the years.

John P

30/11/16 – 07:01

This is all very interesting, John P. Do keep us informed of progress. Glad that the body condition seems to be positive.

Chris Hebbron

02/12/16 – 07:11

As a member of the above museum, I have been helping John with some of the engine replacement in the bus, as he says we ran the engine on a ‘dolly’ outside the museum a couple of weeks ago and it ran ok.
Will be nice to see it move under it’s own power after over 30 years as a static – albeit – somewhat derelict exhibit!
Cannot wait to see it move under it’s own power in the future!

Norman Johnstone

12/01/17 – 06:42

As promised update on EWM358, after changing the oil and conneecting the fuel system, Batterys were connected and after a few seconds on the starter the engine fired for the first time in the bus.
It smoked a bit then settled to a nice tickover.
However we do have a leak problem with the radiator it appears to have rusted some of the tubes out, but we will see what can be done.
OK now for the I need help bit. I know that this bus was supplied new to Southport in 27/02/1945 Fleet No 62 and was in service with them till 1953/4 and then sold to Wilf Blundell Circa 1957, it then went to Aintree race course as a mobile grandstand where presumably it threw the con rod through the block,it was later bought by a soliciter which is how it came to be in our museum. Can anyone fill in the gaps with the history, or even have photos especially when it was at Aintree.
More updates will follow.

John P

01/02/17 – 17:15

Belfast were aware of the issues with the utility bodies so having refurbished the chassis and fitted a new body these vehicles were a lesser cost route for a brand new vehicle effectively. They weren’t rebodied immediately – they were acquired in 1953 and rebodying did not commence until 1955/6. All gave 15 year lives so BCT got good value out of their vehicles. One example 476 (GYE 98) former LT D93 is preserved.

Bill Headley

London Transport – Daimler CWA6 – GXV 785 – D 54


Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

London Transport
1945
Daimler CWA6
Brush H5?R

An Austin 12/4 Low Loader taxi fronts this Regent Street evocative scene. Many of these were commandeered by the London Fire Brigade to haul portable pumps during the Blitz, a task for which they were greatly under-powered!
The bus to the left is STL 2345 of November 1937, an AEC Regent I chassis with LT-designed Park Royal bodywork, which was withdrawn from service on 13th March 1951. Note the downstairs rear window is now in two parts, a common modification when glass was in short supply during the war.
The centre bus is D 54, a Merton-based Daimler CWA6 chassis with Brush utility bodywork delivered in Spring 1945 and withdrawn on 7th September 1953, one of 100 to be sold to Belfast Corporation and re-bodied with an attractive Harkness body. It lasted until 1970.
The bus on the far right is STL 2077, delivered May 1937 and withdrawn on 22nd March 1950.
There is another STL in front of it on the right edge of the photo, in post-war livery.
Were it not for the Daimler, this could easily be a pre-war scene!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

20/03/11 – 15:51

A wonderful picture, taken at a time of great hope and unity when everyone was pulling together in the recovery from The War. In front of STL 2345 (rather nice run of consecutive digits) is a suitably humble new RT which seems to say “I’ll keep out of the way and let the old ‘uns have their day in this picture.”
The Daimler is interestingly on a short working of service 88 to Clapham Common – the normal southern terminus of this route being the lovely rustic sounding “Mitcham – Cricketers” – I can smell the new mown pitch and the cucumber sandwiches already.

Chris Youhill

23/03/11 – 17:35

It was interesting that, of all the utility buses London Transport possessed, only the Daimlers penetrated into the very heart of London and you can’t get more central than Piccadilly Circus!
The Cricketers Arms was a very attractive pub which overlooked a cricket green which had its own cricket pavilion, too. It was an little oasis of green in an otherwise built-up area. Sadly, the pub closed last year.
Not too far away was another bus blind terminus Mitcham Fair Green, where an annual fair took place every year. Again, a more rural event taking place in a built-up area, but sadly, since 1996, just a memory.

Chris Hebbron

Samuel Ledgard – Daimler CWA6 – HGF 948


Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Samuel Ledgard
1946
Daimler CWA6
Brush C36C

Life for an enthusiast working for Samuel Ledgard was always full of intriguing surprises and developments, some of which are enigmas to this very day and will almost certainly now remain so. The saga of HGF 948 is a fascinating one indeed which involves two Daimler CWA6 chassis, a prewar Maudslay SF40 coach chassis, a Park Royal “relaxed utility” double deck body, and a prewar (1935) Brush luxury coach body. The starting point of the scheme involved the first major overhaul for Ledgard’s own Daimler CWA6/Duple utility JUB 649, this routine procedure being completed in 1963 but alas, most uncharacteristically, the bodywork condition was not to the Ministry Man’s satisfaction and the vehicle was held in abeyance for later consideration. However, also in 1963, the Sutton Depot “HGF”s were being acquired and many arrived with worthwhile current Certificates of Fitness – HGF 948 was one such and the mysterious decision was taken to mount its sound body on the satisfactorily overhauled and certified chassis of JUB 649, producing a unique vehicle which could be put into service almost immediately after minor body attention and repainting. The Duple body of JUB 647, the only Ledgard utility of that make to deteriorate prematurely, was scrapped, as was the Maudslay SF40 chassis. We were now left with a Daimler CWA6 chassis with Certificate of Fitness and a prewar Brush centre entrance full front luxury coach body – “virtually impossible to match the two” you might reasonably say, but never underestimate the quiet modest expertise of those immortal Armley workshops – in no time at all the mongrel subject of this little exercise was ready to start several years of valuable service on all classes of coach duties, and was not too proud to cover the occasional conductor operated service journey when asked. Earlier I used the term “enigma” and here is one if ever there was one. Why, we wonder still, wasn’t HGF 948 left in one piece like its twenty one siblings which joined our fleet?? – and why wasn’t the Brush coach body simply mounted on Ledgard’s own Daimler JUB 649?? Here is a picture of the “new” HGF 948 at Elland Road Football Ground on a supporters’ pilgrimage – the vehicle bears a pensive expression, as if there must surely be more prestigious assignments even on a Winter Saturday !!
I’m very happy to have been able to show Chris Hebron, as requested, another of the many fascinating sides of the Ledgard operation.

JUB 649_lr

This other view is of JUB 649, newly in service with the London body from HGF 948, in Otley Road, Headingley – proudly sporting its own pair of small headlamps incorporated into the original large frames from HGF 948 – only just now, while uploading this picture, have I noticed this “one off” anomaly.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.

17/04/11 – 05:00

A fascinating story, Chris, all the more so because of the seeming illogicality of it all! And the headlamp modification is bizarre, the small one inside the large one. In fact, the standard LT Daimlers also had the tiny headlamps, until some of the last went for overhaul, when they were fitted with larger ones, However, HGF 948 was not one of the few overhauled in 1952, being so treated in 1949, maybe why the body was not considered entirely sound. Incidentally, I never saw an overhauled Merton one with large headlamps. Samuel Ledgard were clearly worthy successors in maintaining LT’s high standards of painting and maintenance. And it looks the ‘bees knees’ in blue, with silver-painted radiator and minus adverts! Did they all keep their LT three-piece blind displays throughout their tenure with SL? When was it finally withdrawn?

Chris Hebbron

17/04/11 – 05:10

JUB 649 brings back many fond memories as I rode on this bus on many occasions and always thought it ran smoother than its HGF London cousins. Regarding the reason for this body transfer, I wonder whether the issue was “brass.” The Executors of Samuel Ledgard were struggling to keep solvent in late 1953 and having spent a lot of “brass” on the overhaul of the chassis of JUB 649, they wanted to get this bus back in service, so a quick fix would be to transfer an ex London Park Royal body with some Certificate of Fitness and HGF 948 fitted the bill. The time to sort the Brush coach body transfer on to a Daimler CWA6 chassis would take a longer time to do. Many thanks Chris for a wonderful posting.

Richard Fieldhouse

20/04/11 – 07:49

Many thanks Chris H for even more fascinating local London information about the fabulous “HGF”s. You may be amazed to hear that not one of these valiant motors retained the three piece London displays throughout their time with us. Its true to say that every single bus had the front arrangements altered many times to various differing styles – in fact if one’s memory would allow it a sizeable booklet could be written on this aspect alone – and its possible that a study of the vast number of photographs available would allow an accurate and detailed account to be assembled. Most entered service initially with the London displays masked in a variety of individual ways and often with the tiny “mean” destination blinds from prewar Titan TDs and the like. Four, however, were comprehensively overhauled from the start and were fitted with very professional platform doors and a freshly designed single front aperture, with new large size roll, and the Company name in an illuminated glass above. By contrast every one of the twenty two buses had the platform destination window fitted with paper advertisements, with a variety of advertisements for the Company’s activities. Likewise all the rear London displays were removed and impeccably panelled over. JUB 649 gave stirling front line service on extremely arduous and busy routes until withdrawal on 31st March 1960.
Richard, you are quite right in that “brass” was critically short for a couple of years after Sammy passed away – in fact its nothing short of a miracle that the Firm survived that spell to recover and eventually become smarter and finer than ever before the end loomed. We are still baffled, however, as to why HGF 948 wasn’t left alone – and the chassis of JUB 649 mated with the coach body of CUB 1 – we shall never know now shall we ??

Chris Youhill

21/04/11 – 06:08

I would imagine that transferring the coach body to the Daimler would not have been without difficulties.
I believe the Maudslay SF40 was an underfloor engine chassis with a set back front axle and would have had a straight floorline throughout and as it was centre entrance, would have had two seats beside the driver. Presumably, a hole would have been cut for engine intrusion and a bonnet would have been required to cover it and then a bulkhead added where there hadn”t been one previously.
I guess the wheelbase of the two vehicles would have differed also.
Certainly one of the most fascinating creations I’ve ever seen!

Chris Barker

21/04/11 – 11:45

A bit of confusion here Chris B I’m afraid. The Maudslay SF40 was a front engined chassis, with prominent and ugly starting handle to prove it. The transfer of the body to a Daimler CWA6 chassis was indeed a difficult – outlandish even – performance, but this was achieved by Rhodes of Bingley (a coachbuilder and repairer) who made the necessary modifications to the Brush coach body. The procedure could have been carried out in exactly the same manner though if JUB 649 had been chosen (having a chassis identical to HGF 948) and so the mystery of why the Londoner was interfered with in this interesting saga remains unanswered and I fear always will. The upside of the strange affair is a bonus though, as enthusiasts were treated to two literally unique vehicles.

Chris Youhill

21/04/11 – 11:56

Look at the relationship between the steering position/wheel and the front: we are surely looking at quite a space in front of the where the front should be: was the driver barbequed, or was the coach like one of today’s “luxury” service bus rattlecans where the driver does not seem to know how to regulate the heating?

Joe

22/04/11 – 06:44

Chris Y, yes of course the SF40 had a front engine, the number of times I’ve looked at pictures and seen the starting handle as you say, and the large grille but its one of those rarities which gives a false sort of impression, I think its because the entrance was (usually) ahead of the front wheel!
With regard to Joe’s comment, I hadn’t noticed the steering wheel does seem quite a way back from the windscreen, would the conversion have involved alteration of the driving position?

Chris Barker

22/04/11 – 11:44

Joe and Chris B have raised an amazing issue which I had never noticed before – shame on me as one of the most avid of Ledgard devotees !! Firstly, I’m quite confident that no alteration whatever was made to the Daimler chassis of HGF 948. This being the case, comparison of the Brush body in Maudslay and Daimler days reveals some far more dramatic coachwork alterations than I’d ever noticed.
On the Maudslay the front axle occupied the first two bays ahead of the centre exit, but not the front section – on the Daimler the bay ahead of the exit has become uninterrupted while the CWA6 front axle occupies most of the front section. Whether or not the length of the front/windscreen section has been slightly increased is debatable – possibly it has a little, and this would account for the quite unusually large distance between the driver and the windscreens. It seems likely that the Daimler chassis members have been lengthened slightly, possibly to allow the radiator to be mounted immediately behind the front panels, explaining why the driver is so far back. One thing I’m sure about – if Sir Edward Elgar had been around he would certainly have written an extra “Enigma variation” in honour of this fascinating vehicle, and I wonder what the Sutton commuters would have thought if they could have seen the unique career which awaited their motive power in its later years !!

Chris Youhill

23/04/11 – 08:13

It seems to me that the front end of the chassis was left unaltered and I would expect to find the original Daimler fluted radiator under there, with all that was used of the SF40 chassis front end being the grille. What has happened is that the body overhangs the front of the chassis after modification, giving the effect that the steering wheel has been set back. To change the geometry of the steering would be a very complex job and easy to get wrong.
I need to swot up on my maximum legal vehicle lengths. Although the chassis proportions have been altered, there is no issue with overall length as single-deckers had a longer maximum permitted length than double-deckers and by the time this had been modified thirty foot long single-deckers were legal.

David Beilby

23/04/11 – 08:14

As you’ve already alluded to, what a lot of effort to go to, especially as the body alterations were out-sourced! I’d love to have ridden on this mongrel, or maybe hybrid would be a better word!

Chris Hebbron

23/04/11 – 08:15

The camera angle can be deceptive, but if you look at JUB you can see the difference: the driver is no longer sitting “on” the front axle. This is not, I think, unusual in a coach of that vintage. My idea was that you had a hot Daimler engine, reeking of diesel cooped up in the passenger “saloon” but of course it’s not, it’s an AEC! Yes- it looks as if the radiator could have been brought forward to the front of the (extended) chassis.
Who, by the way, installed that “Bentley” radiator grille on JUB?!

Joe

23/04/11 – 08:16

Clearly Ledgards could have selected a doner vehicle for the coach which would have made for a much simpler conversion – and a newer one too, the decision to rehabilitate a seventeen year old coach body was astonishing to say the least but perhaps the Maudslay was chosen because they wanted the end product to have a full front.
As for HGF 948, if as you say Chris Y, the body was sound and it had a current Certificate of Fitness, this is pure speculation but is it possible the CofF would have expired in a relatively short time and the need for serviceable deckers was desperate? The coach appears to have been fitted with a half bulkhead behind the driver, just up to waist level, is there a photo of the Maudslay before the conversion?
It occurred to me how wonderful it is that Ledgards unwittingly provided two creations which are a source of interest and fascination to us nearly sixty years later, something which will never happen in future!

Chris Barker

23/04/11 – 16:39

I’m surprised at how much interest this matter has aroused, and so many theories also. So here is a photo of the Maudslay CUB 1 when new (source unknown but presumably Brush Works). Also the original posting shot is with it for comparison.

Chris Youhill

CUB 1_lr
HGF 948_lr

24/04/11 – 07:21

Thought for the day. Why did AEC buy Maudsley and Crossley in 1948? They were both lame ducks and financial disasters. [Yes, I know, they were also innovative engineers but they never followed through with practical or commercial successes.] What was in it for AEC? They derived far more benefit from Park Royal – Roe a year later in 1949.

David Oldfield

24/04/11 – 07:25

Thx for the ‘before’ photo, Chris Y. I have to say that the original product looked better and surprisingly modern for 1935. It would have passed muster as new in 1948, IMHO. The starting handle slightly mars the sleek effect, though! Interesting that the quarter bumpers survived the rebuild!

Chris Hebbron

25/04/11 – 06:52

Yes thanks indeed, even more interest! The rebuild appears to be even more substantial than I imagined.
Just like those ‘spot the difference’ competitions, I notice that the outward flare of the skirt panels was removed, BOTH wheelarches were re-positioned and altered, the nearside front window appears to be the same length but droops more at the corner and the front dome seems to be different also, all this and the considerable alteration to mouldings, amazing!

Chris Barker

25/04/11 – 13:18

As you say Chris B, this saga gets ever more fascinating. While I was aware that the outward flare of the skirt had disappeared I hadn’t noticed until you pointed it out that the Daimler rear axle caused the rear half of the body to be “adjusted forward” by about one bay width. Without detracting from the many fascinating operations embarked upon by my grand old Firm it has to be said that the scope of this particular scheme becomes ever more astonishing, and no doubt expensive ?? – for a result which went directly against the “modern look” craze which was all the rage at the time.

Chris Youhill

25/04/11 – 17:57

I can guess at the Maudslay/Crossley takeover- AEC wanted more capacity for anticipated post war orders which could not be provided in austerity Britain- so buy it in and use the best of the resources you have acquired, plus factory capacity.
As for the “new” coach, do you think the coachbuilders wanted some practice, again with a view to post war expansion & had no chassis to work on? It’s the sort of job you set the apprentices on!

Joe

27/04/11 – 07:41

One further comment then I’ll cease! The original vehicle (the Maudslay) was a very handsome coach of which Ledgards were no doubt justifiably proud. It achieved a very creditable sixteen or seventeen years service (including a world war!) and as Chris H says, it would have stood up well against many an early underfloor engined coach of the early fifties.
I hadn’t realised that there is a photo of it in the ‘Prestige’ volume, which tells us that it was fitted with a Leyland 8.6 litre diesel unit in 1948. Presumably, by 1952, the Maudslay chassis was beyond redemption mechanically, especially as that company had sold out by then. It made me wonder if it would have been a cheaper option to transfer the Daimler running units into the Maudslay chassis but I know little about such matters.
Perhaps Ledgards went into the venture thinking that the fine looks of the original would be retained but as we see, the rebuild, whilst being something to marvel at, rather lost the gracefulness of CUB 1.

Chris Barker

28/04/11 – 06:34

Please Chris B , no need to cease commenting at all!! I had completely forgotten about CUB 1 having its Maudslay engine replaced by an 8.6 litre Leyland unit and, while there’s a year or so discrepancy in various accounts, I imagine that it would be the engine removed from 1936 TS7 Tiger/English Electric CUG 844 which was prematurely and very surprisingly withdrawn with a cracked chassis.

Chris Youhill

29/04/11 – 06:55

Well ok! No doubt the Maudslay engine was life-expired by 1948 but could it have been that after fitting the Leyland 8.6 unit, problems arose with massive engine overhanging the front axle? (does that remind you of anything?) There was something I just couldn’t put my finger on when looking at the two pictures, then I realised. Erase the grille and starting handle from CUB 1 for a moment and like I said, it could easily be taken for an underfloor engined coach of the early fifties. In its second incarnation, it was very obviously a front engined vehicle with full front.

Chris Barker

30/04/11 – 06:53

Bearing in mind that this was a bus built as a decker, as a coach, it must have had quite a lively performance.

Chris Hebbron

30/04/11 – 06:55

Yes Chris B, I daresay the Leyland engine was much heavier and, although I never heard of any difficulty arising from that, its quite feasible that it was a problem. I chuckled when you asked if that reminded me of anything – only a few weeks ago I was privileged to be allowed to sit in the cab of the preserved West Riding Guy Wulfrunian, and even though it was safely in a depot shed with the engine off, I almost reached for the travel sickness tablets on remembering that four way swaying and hissing of air valves from all those years ago !! As is widely known the excess weight on the front was ultimately partly relieved by removing eight upper saloon seats – that’s the end of this diversion from the topic.

Chris Youhill

30/04/11 – 15:27

Amazing, Chris Y. I suggest that someone posts a photo of a Guy Wulfrunian, which would probably generate a record number of posts! I believe it would just qualify on age grounds!

Chris Hebbron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

20/01/17 – 14:13

I was wondering if anyone knew why some of the fleet had green roofs?

Jeff Lawton

21/01/17 – 07:25

No problem at all there Jeff – the saga of the green roofs is a delightful one. When Mr. Ledgard’s first double deckers arrived in 1930, all Leyland petrol Titan TD1s, they had wooden roofs covered in green canvas. This appealed to Samuel who immediatlely decreed that all future double deckers would have green roofs and indeed they did, right up to the 1957 AEC Regent Vs with Roe bodies. Also possibly for a short while after that second hand vehicles did so as well – ex Bury Daimler/Roe EN 8408 was certainly one.

Chris Youhill