Southampton Corporation 1967 AEC Regent V 3D2RA Neepsend H40/30R
KOW 909F was in the last batch of AEC Regents delivered to Southampton, in 1967. It is of the 3D2RA variety and the body was built by Neepsend, to the H70R formation. It was decorated in the early 1980s as being the Transport Department’s last rear entry bus, but then came Deregulation and it was returned to service. In this view, it is in Highfield Lane, on a special running day to mark the closure of Portswood Depot. It’s 30 May 2010.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
27/02/17 – 07:54
When all the perfect ingredients come together you get the perfect end result as in this case, having the best chassis of it’s type with elegant well balanced bodywork finished with a simple and tasteful livery, to me proves the point. All that is missing, understandably are the sound effects of the AV691 engine and the Monocontrol gearbox the thought of which brings me over all nostalgic. AAAh happy days.
Diesel Dave
27/02/17 – 16:000
Glad you liked it, Dave!
Pete Davies
27/02/17 – 16:02
I could not agree more with Diesel Dave, with one exception. Who came up with the idea of those front indicators above the mirror line. I can see the logic of not reflecting in the mirrors, but those particular light units were the same as Duple fitted on later model Super Vegas (I think) – one on the side & one on the lower front corner. They were not very efficient on the coach, & next to useless on the Regent V on a sunny day (we used to get those in Southampton, don’t know about now though!)
David Field
27/02/17 – 16:46
Those indicators worked on my Dinky VAL!
Joe
28/02/17 – 16:37
The reason I asked was that, Southampton being quite conservative (small c) in it’s view to change (Late model Arab III’s, etc), it seemed an odd thing to do when the rest of the fleet (Arab III’s, Arab UF, PD2, PD2A, Regent V) were fitted with a different type of side indicator, mounted at waist height, just behind the cab door. These lights were quite ornate in shape, and had been used since the first buses were fitted with flashers (on the front only as I recall). I think they might have been made by Rubbolite, they were the same as fitted to Dodge 500 series trucks. I can imagine the Stores having boxes of these in stock, looking up at the new buses & saying “there goes the budget”!! I think the next change must have been to the teardrop shape Lucas flashers on the Atlanteans.
David Field
01/03/17 – 06:35
Comparing this with a photo of an earlier example, I notice that an emergency window has appeared immediately aft of the cab. It could be that the relocation of the flasher from that position had something to do with that. Alternatively it might just have been a a belief that the flashers would be more noticeable on the front of the bus than at the side, possibly following some sort of incident. And of course nobody would have known that they were going to be useless on a sunny day when they ordered them from the catalogue!
Peter Williamson
01/03/17 – 06:36
The indicators were one of two versions offered by East Lancs/Neepsend at the time. The other type was fitted at the same height but on short arms protruding from the body with round orange plastic covers so the indicator could be seen from both front and rear. An exception were Reading’s East Lancs bodied Lolines which had the traditional side indicators fitted on the very front of the between decks panels.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/03/17 – 07:11
The comments about the type and positioning of the front indicators reminds me that Eastbourne Corporation’s two batches of PD2’s had different types, the 1966 batch No’s 71-80 BJK 671-680D had two a teardrop shaped fitted at lower deck window level behind the cab door and a round flat lense mounted on a shaped housing low on the front wing, the latter looking something of an afterthought. The second batch No’s 81-85 DHC 781-785E had the same type of high mounted type as the Southampton Regents I don’t recall any problems with them.
Diesel Dave
21/12/17 – 11:40
I remember the Ramsbottom East Lancs PD3s had that arrangement of flashing indicators.
Huddersfield Corporation 1960 AEC Regent V 2D2RA East Lancs. H37/28R
192 (PVH 992) was an AEC Regent V 2D2RA with East Lancs. H37/28R bodywork, one of a pair (192/3) added to the Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee fleet on 1st February 1960. They had the AV590 engine and Monocontrol semi-automatic gearboxes. The traditional exposed radiator arrangement had remained an option for the Mk. V and the JOC had taken eight Roe-bodied examples (182-189) a couple of years previously, but this pair must have been amongst the last examples before the option was withdrawn. With their sturdy and well finished East Lancs bodies they were in my opinion the most handsome of buses, so typical of the Huddersfield fleet in that period – oozing real quality. The Corporation/JOC system at Huddersfield had worked in a different way to the one at neighbouring Halifax, not being based on whether the services operated outside the borough or not, but on what type of vehicles were used. Tram and then trolleybus routes had all been run by the Corporation whilst all motorbuses were the responsibility of the JOC. However when trolleybus abandonment in favour of motorbuses began in the early 1960’s the old arrangement would have eventually meant the JOC would have operated all the routes so a new agreement was reached such that former trolleybus routes would remain in Corporation hands and a separate fleet of buses was gradually built up carrying a more streamlined trolleybus-like livery and numbered from 101 upwards. From the 1st October 1969 the Corporation took over the former railway company’s share of the JOC (by then owned by the NBC) as well as the local stage service of Hanson’s Buses, and from then until the formation of the West Yorkshire PTE in April 1974 all services were Corporation operated. 192 and 193 passed into the PTE fleet as 4192/4193 and were withdrawn shortly afterwards and scrapped. 193 is seen here in Huddersfield’s Manchester Street Bus Station in the latter all-Corporation days having just been treated to a magnificent repaint.
Photograph Peter Berry – Copy John Stringer
20/09/17 – 06:08
The exposed radiator AEC Regent V seemed to be very much a Yorkshire thing. In addition to the Huddersfield examples, Leeds, Doncaster and East Yorkshire also had them. The only non-Yorkshire examples I can recall were some for City of Oxford and Rhonda. As we’re talking Yorkshire here where the natives have a reputation for thrift, could it have been that the exposed radiator version was cheaper!
Philip Halstead
20/09/17 – 08:22
But in Sheffield we had 86 Regent III with Regent V fronts!
David Oldfield
20/09/17 – 08:24
Thrift, nowt wrong wi that lad, after all, it is easy for anyone to identify a Yorkshire man abroad; he is the one at the till saying loudly “How Much”? However, the real reason for the exposed radiators is some Yorkshireman appreciate beauty more than tin fronts (the manager in Bradford who bought hundreds of tin fronted Regents, was not, after all, a native thee knows).
Stuart Emmet
20/09/17 – 14:34
I suspect that it was more an accessibility issue. I can remember in my far off preservation days what an awkward and painful experience it was just trying to remove and refit the lift-pump on my AEC Renown, standing precariously on a step ladder slumped over the wing with the bonnet edge trying to crush my ribcage as I reached down into its innards. With the exposed radiator you just lifted the bonnet and there it all was, and if the job was a bit bigger you just unbolted the wing, lifted it off and you could get right in there and reach everything with ease.
John Stringer
20/09/17 – 14:36
Nottingham City Transport had a little matter of 65 exposed radiator Regent Vs – nos. 209-273 (UTV 209-238 and XTO 239-273). Park Royal 62 seat bodies. Delivered 1955-56.
Stephen Ford
20/09/17 – 14:37
Huddersfield also had two Guy Arab IV with exposed radiators, and nearby County Motors had four.
Don McKeown
20/09/17 – 14:42
A small correction to the caption – motorbus deliveries to the Corporation fleet were numbered 401 up, 101 being reserved (at that time) for JOC double-deckers.
David Call
22/09/17 – 07:20
Don’t forget the elegant Guy Arabs of Exeter Corporation which took delivery of 20, all with exposed radiator, between 1956 and 1960.Five had Park Royal bodies, five had MCW, but the best looking were the Massey-bodied ones – the first five and the last five. Fortunately number 50, TFJ 808, the first of the Masseys, survives in superb condition. It was chosen for preservation by Colin Shears as it was ‘the most musical’!
David Chapman
23/09/17 – 07:07
An exposed-radiator Mk.5 that is easy to overlook is the most individual one of all, Longwell Green bodied PWO783, number 9 in the fleet of Bedwas & Machen UDC. Of the fleets that have been mentioned, only Doncaster and Nottingham failed to go on to buy concealed-radiator equivalents.
David Call
25/09/17 – 13:36
True, David: Doncaster returned to Daimler in the 60’s and had to buy concealed radiator CVG6’s but amongst its last half-cabs were some exposed radiator PD3s around 1963. I used to wonder if exposed radiators were seen as more macho in the Council Chamber- like Atkinson coal lorries or even Peterbilts. There was not a lot else Macho about a PD3 and Doncaster transport seemed to be about eking out, so cost was probably the answer: although making an exposed radiator look respectable cannot have been so cheap compared to a glass fibre moulding.
Joe
27/09/17 – 06:19
As John Stringer says the exposed radiator arrangement made it much easier to access the engine and its ancillaries than with a tin (fibreglass or aluminium) front. Also the view of the nearside kerb from the driver’s seat was better. The big snag was, I suspect, the exposed radiator was deemed old fashioned in the eyes of the fashion police of the time. Plus the fact accident damage was probably easier to repair on a “tin” front with the use of plastic filler.
John Anderson
02/10/17 – 07:29
In Manchester the issues were certainly engine accessibility and driver sightlines, to the extent that, when Daimler refused to supply chassis with exposed radiators, Manchester worked with them to redesign the alternative.
Eastbourne Corporation 1961 AEC Regent V 2D3RV East Lancashire H32/28R
Having been a satisfied user of the AEC Regent III in its 9613A crash gearbox form, in 1956 Eastbourne Corporation turned to the Regent V D3RV with the dry liner A218 9.6 litre engine, synchromesh gearbox and vacuum brakes. DHC 649-655 had H30/26R bodies from the Corporation’s long favoured supplier, East Lancashire Coachbuilders, but these bodies were equipped with Auster window ventilation throughout. The next Eastbourne Regent V deliveries were of the 30 ft 2D3RV version, now with the wet liner AV590 engine. HJK 156-160 were fitted with East Lancs H32/28R bodies, and again had Auster window vents. The first of this batch, HJK 156, fleet number 56, is seen at the entrance to Eastbourne pier, and the impeccable standard of presentation of the bus ten years after its 1961 delivery is of great credit to the Corporation. This batch of five Regent Vs was withdrawn between 1978 and 1981, No.56 surviving to the end after some twenty years of service.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
28/03/21 – 17:25
Are you sure it was 30′ long? I had thought that all of Eastbourne’s Regent Vs were of the shorter variety; and the seating capacity would tend to support that assumption. Southampton also had short Regent Vs with East Lancs bodies (numbered 343-372), and these seated 66; so the Eastbourne vehicles would have provided very generous leg room if they were 30′ long!
Is the location correct – Bournemouth Pier? The adjacent vehicle also appears to have an Eastbourne registration.
Nigel Frampton
29/03/21 – 07:39
The Eastbourne Regent V’s were all 27ft long. The ‘2’ in the designation means a later model of the D3RV not necessarily 30ft long.
Philip Halstead
30/03/21 – 05:26
My mistake. I stand corrected; thank you gentlemen.
Roger Cox
30/03/21 – 05:27
I can certainly confirm that the setting of the photo is Eastbourne Pier which was the starting point of the Town Tour. As Philip says all Eastbourne’s Regent V’s were 27ft long as for the designation the number 3 indicates that they were synchromesh manual gearboxes, if the designation had a 2 in that position they would have been the semi automatic Monocontrol gearbox. The 2 in the 2D3RV indicates the later AV590 engine and other changes to update the model, the R indicates right hand drive and the V vacuum brakes.
Leigh Corporation 1953 AEC Regent III East Lancs L27/26R
As this bus has a lowbridge body the upper deck would have a side isle and 6 rows of 4 seats and a 3 seat row at the rear with lots of “mind your head” signs. It looks older than 1952 I think that may have something to do with the painted radiator. In 1969 this bus was transferred to SELNEC with a fleet no of 6941.
I used to go to school on these Leigh Corporation buses – no picture I have seen does justice to the immaculate paint job, nice site for memories.
Robert Hatton
My thanks for the following information to anonymous, I’m not surprised when you read what he used to get up to.
I also remember going to school on these lovely old buses. I have tried describing this type of bus with the long bench seats upstairs to my friends in the south of England where I now live, but nobody recognised the design. I never realised it was because the bus had a “low bridge body” you learn something every day.
Finally I must recall a somewhat disgusting trick we youngsters had of wetting (licking!) our paper bus ticket and sticking it on the roof of the bus when you peeled it off at the end of your journey you left a lovely transfer print of your ticket, which remained till the bus was re-painted!
Anonymous
That is an interesting shot in Leigh bus station,the bus is passing the number 1 bus route stand (Plank Lane) but the destination blind reads Astley which was the number two route immediately behind so the bus would be pulling away in the picture, both stands being at the rear of the Woolpack pub (Run by my Aunty Annie) and across from Kingstreet Methodist church visible in the background. I was one of those kids who used to undo every screw I sat next to by half a turn with my penknife and wind the destination blind to a new destination, as I remember the front one was changed via a drop down flap from the upstairs saloon.
Seemed great fun back then.
Berni Baxter
09/03/11 – 18:06
As a Leigh lad, born in 1953, I have ridden on many of the corporation’s buses and pulled many of the ‘stunts’ referred to by others. A favourite trick with the open rear entrances was to alight from the moving vehicle as it turned from King Street into the bus station. My most regular ride in the mid/late sixties was the number 6 service to Higher Folds, alighting at Green Lane to walk the last few hundred yards to school. This was a regular turn for the Renowns which gave a very comfortable ride on their ‘air suspension’. Occasionally a Dennis Loline would deputise and while the ride was a little more firm, they still surpassed the older buses. One of my lifelong friends has driven the preserved Renown on a number of occasions about 25 years ago. He said it was good, alas, it is now necessary to have a PCV licence!
Phil Meadows
10/03/11 – 07:38
I spent a year at Padgate College doing my PGCE teacher training. I was a regular user of the Renowns on the Warrington – Leigh services.
David Oldfield
10/03/11 – 07:39
Further to my last post, there is another ‘Corporation’ bus which has been privately preserved. It is a Lydney bodied Leyland PD2/1., fleet number 16, registration number KTD 768. I think it is currently housed in the St. Helens Transport Museum. Also, in 2006, The Leyland Society Ltd. has published ‘The Leyland Buses Of Leigh Corporation’ in its ‘Leyland Fleet Series’. It also covers the non-Leylands. I think they still have copies available.
Phil Meadows
07/02/12 – 06:57
Its great to see these pictures of Leigh buses. My father who sadly died when I was young was a conductor for Leigh in the late 60s early 70s, and I remember going to see him on the Hindley Green bus where it turned round at Thomas st / Leigh Rd. I can just remember him hanging his ticket machine up at home and being given some nearly used up rolls to play with. I started Looking for a machine some years ago as a reminder and now buy & sell and have a collection of over 120 machines and punches including 9 Leigh. Also Leigh destination blind, badge, rule book, and route/fare book. I would like to here from anyone who had connections with Leigh corporation.
Anon
16/09/12 – 06:56
The bus shown was one of a batch of six with East Lancs Bodies new in 1952 so was 17 years old in 1969 at the time of the SELNEC North takeover. I too went to school on LCT buses but left for Manchester uni. with 10 others in 1953. Though now long gone LCT is remembered as a go ahead operator. Many post war buses only ran in Leigh for around 10 years but these AEC’s and the Lydney bodied Leylands notably fleet number 16 now preserved did far better.
Frank Taylor
29/04/13 – 08:05
Re lowbridge buses and tickets ; as schoolboys on RLH’s in London a damp ceiling and a ticket that was clearly marked NOT TRANSFERABLE was too much to resist. It was surprisingly transferable, though of course , back to front.
Huddersfield Corporation 1955 AEC Regent III East Lancs L30/28R
The AEC Regent III (Provincial Type) as opposed to (RT Type) was in production from 1947-56 I’m not sure how many were built but they were extremely popular if anybody knows let me know. Like the Regent II there was only one version of the first Regent IIIs that were produced they had a 9.6 litre oil engine, air operated preselective gearbox and air brakes. It wasn’t long though before the 7.7 litre engine, crash or synchromesh gearbox and if the bus had one of these gearboxes it had triple servo vacuum brakes. The early ones also had chromium plated radiators but round about 1951 they changed to cast aluminium. The Regent III was an excellent work horse, very reliable and long lasting 20-25 years service was the norm but quite a lot did much longer than that, after main service a lot were sold off to do even more service with other operators definitely one of the best buses built.
Photograph M. J. Halstron
Vehicle sited in St. Augustine Florida Nov 2009. It’s gained a red livery and is being made to masquerade as a London bus. It’s in a very run down state and seems unlikely to ever be road worthy again. Below is a photograph of her now
J. Halston
08/12/12 – 09:33
How sad to see these lovely buses left to rot, should be sent home to us.
Samuel Ledgard 1948 AEC Regent III East Lancs H33/26R
Here is a happy picture of yours truly enjoying my work immensely with Samuel Ledgard at Otley Depot. I am returning from the Estate on one of the local town services and have just crossed the River Wharfe bridge. Before I am reprimanded for “incorrect destination” I must explain that the display was officially shown in both directions as “Weston Estate” to avoid passenger confusion with the other town service which shared the river crossing – a little local quirk which suited everyone. GDK 401 was one of a batch of five (GDK 401 – 5) which came from Rochdale in February 1962 and had most handsome and functional East Lancashire bodywork. Notable features were the superior quality blue leather seats and the spacious very safe platform and “easy” staircase. The entire batch retained gold Rochdale fleet numbers (201 – 205) in both saloons – a nice little touch I thought. The vehicles were also the first that we had with air operated brakes and gearboxes. A nice little anecdote, and a true one, goes with 401. When the batch was acquired this vehicle alone was sent to Otley depot for complete and prompt overhaul for early entry into service with the others at Armley Head depot. However its appeal and charms were instantly apparent to all, and in a very uncharacteristic “Luddite” operation the normally highly efficient overhaul process was delayed by a myriad of “difficulties” for a very considerable time. When the bus was eventually ready for certification the powers that be at mighty Armley, normally unbending in any way, for some reason capitulated and lovely 401 remained with us at Otley till the end of the Company. The initial very basic plans for the West Yorkshire Road Car Co takeover contained the allocation of WYRCC numbers for the whole Ledgard fleet – this scheme as we know was completely revised before the day, and so our Rochdale friend never became “DAW 1” (Double, AEC engine, Wide) after all.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
Such a shame that Samuel Ledgard sold out. It would be interesting to see what vehicles they would be running today.
Terry Malloy
Yes, it is a shame, Terry – the buses look fantastic in full livery – but fifty years down the line, is it not possible that we would be looking at them in Barbie colours? Lots of mistakes made in the industry, but death and other things have always enforced change!
David Oldfield
Quote: (Double, AEC engine, Wide)
I assume that the Wide means that it had an 8′ wide body. It certainly appears to have one, in a surprisingly obvious way, just like LT’s RTW class.
Nice to see a Ledgard vehicle in colour; it’s my first time of seeing one of them in all its glory!
By the way what is an ‘easy’ staircase?
Chris Hebbron
I’m sure Chris Youhill will fill us in about the easy staircase. Is it like the Roe safety staircase and the Birmingham staircase – straight, or with 90% bends, with no “dangerous” curves during its length?
David Oldfield
Yes Chris, the “W” in the West Yorkshire fleet numbering system did indeed mean 8 feet wide – just as an interesting point, they had some vehicles with 8 feet wide bodies on 7’6″ chassis – as did a good few Bristol/ECW customers.
Chris and David, the word “easy” was just my own way of describing these vehicles – the stairs were of the 90 degree pattern and were wider than usual and were situated safely well away from the edge of a generous sized platform – somewhat difficult to explain, but splendidly designed.
Chris Youhill
A query for Chris: my hazy recollection of “Exors of Samuel Ledgard” buses- as it legally proclaimed- was that the were a dark navy blue- not this jaunty colour: 1. am I wrong? 2. does the camera lie? 3. is it anything to do with its former existence in Rochdale?
Joe
Well this is indeed an interesting point, and memory does play tricks as we all know. However I have to say that the answer lies somewhere between the shades of blue in the picture of GDK 401 and that in the link for RT MXX 148. The only fair comment I can make is that, as Peter says, the colour in the picture of GDK 401 is a bit light and bright due to the sun etc. Certainly though the shade shown in the view of the RT is far darker than the actual, and I can confidently say that the Otley picture is much nearer to being spot on than the Bradford one. The Rochdale livery is not relevant at all, as every acquired bus was thoroughly rubbed down, primed and undercoated to remove any trace whatsoever of previous ownership. The attached view of newly acquired BCK 427 from Ribble in the paintshop at Armley Head Depot is as good a sample as we could wish for – despite the different light aspects the lower saloon panels are exactly as the livery was. Hope this helps clear the mists of time for those interested.
Chris Youhill
…..and there is also the splendid RLH (forget which number) which was rallying last year in full Ledgard colours. Quite a bright blue – neither royal nor navy.
David Oldfield
The purpose of the photo may well have been to clarify SL’s livery, but this is a nice photo in itself and shows off this attractive vehicle’s bodylines very well, aided by the total lack of adverts. Good to see a rear’ish view for a change. It may be a trick of the light, but has the rear lower body panel been well punched by a very cross 10 year old?
Chris Hebbron
I see what you mean – the panel seems well and truly “waffled”, but I think it is in fact just a mirror image of activity nearby in the garage what lloks like the floor can be seen, and possibly a mechanic’s overall legs. It is a strange optical effect, but please do rest assured that the panel will have been perfect before painting.
Chris Youhill
Hi David – the magnificent vehicle to which you refer is RLH 32 – MXX 232. It is part of the heritage fleet of Time Bus Travel of St. Albans and the proprietors, the Pring Family, did the Samuel Ledgard Society an immeasurable and generous kindness by having the bus professionally and immaculately painted in Samuel Ledgard colours for our 40th Anniversary Re-enactment running day on Sunday 14th October 2007. I was humbled and highly honoured to conduct it almost all the time it ran on Samuel Ledgard routes giving free rides to delighted and nostalgic passengers – I wore my original Samuel Ledgard uniform and used my Otley Depot Setright ticket machine – SL 40.
Chris Youhill
Re Chris Youhill’s latest comment about RLH 32 under the heading of AEC Regent III GDK 401, here’s a photo of the bus in question on the day in question.
Peter Williamson
Thank you Peter W for that lovely view, which captures the atmosphere of that wonderful day perfectly. Judging by the load, the RLH is about to leave for Guiseley and the driver is Mr. Ewan Pring who handles the vehicle magnificently and sympathetically, as you would expect from the owner of such a cherished gem. While you took the photo I will have been on the platform, about to issue the authentic souvenir tickets to the passengers. I can’t begin to explain my feelings on that day which was fifty years exactly since I eagerly started work for the Company – a day on which the RLH will still, of course, have been hard at work in London !!
Chris Youhill
I’ve always been fascinated by the myriad variations on the theme of how to get passengers upstairs, so Chris Youhill’s reference to the East Lancs “easy staircase” tickled my curiosity. I imagine that, as on post-war ECW highbridge bodies until about 1957, the top step will have caused a 9″x9″ protrusion into the lower saloon, above the offside transverse seat. The loss of headroom would be no more than that entailed by a lowbridge side gangway: a very small price to pay for the virtue of having the bottom step 9″ farther in from the platform edge. Until the mid-1920s it seems that body designers tried to get the bottom step as NEAR as possible to the platform edge, presumably so that passengers could leap straight up top from the street, leaving the platform free for those timid souls who preferred to travel inside. I’ve never understood why this hazardous arrangement persisted so long with some makers. Lowbridge bodies needed only 7 steps (6 treads), yet Leyland and MCW, for example, never took advantage of that, preferring their top step to stop about 9″ back from the bulkhead or (Leyland) to give the top two steps 13.5″ treads instead of 9″. Was standardisation of parts between lowbridge and highbridge a factor? I love the Roe Safety Staircase: by intruding into the lower saloon you can bring the bottom step well inboard and therefore have a seat for three right at the back upstairs with no risk of bumping your head on the underside of that seat. Perfectly logical: you lose a seat downstairs and gain one on top. Much rarer was the pattern found on Burnley, Colne and Nelson deckers: the 9″x9″ box was moved 4″ forward and the step below it protruded downstairs just enough to fill the space above your shoulder but not enough to compromise headroom. With a bit of angling of the bottom few steps the stairs still touched ground far enough from the platform edge to allow a 3-seater at the back upstairs. Do any of these survive? I fancy I came across a similar arrangement on a bus in Yorkshire (Rotherham) but my wires may be crossed. Then there was the West Bridgford arrangement, and Alan Townsin’s mention of “semi-straight”and “side” staircases in his book on Park Royal, but I’d better not get carried away…
Ian Thompson
Why not get carried away, Ian. It’s fascinating. It’s what real enthusiasm is – not just “bus spotting”! I can bore for Britain over Roe – my favourite builder – but it is interesting to discover that they weren’t the only builder doing a variation on safety staircases.
David Oldfield
wow… talk about nostalgia. When going to Leeds I would often take “Sammy’s” route through Pudsey rather than the Leeds/Bradford joint route (72) through Stanningley Bottoms. I used the route the day after the closure. It just wasn’t the same with green municipal buses and a route number (78). Do you have any images of my favourite Ledgard Regents, 1949/50 U before they assumed their West Yorkshire identities, DGW 11-12? Charles
Hello Charles – fear not, there are literally dozens of pictures around showing your two favourite vehicles at all ages – by the way with respect they became DAW 5/6. DGW 11/12 were the two Daimlers XUG 141 and SDU 711.
Chris Youhill
Thanks for putting me right on the WY fleet numbers for 1949/50-U. I lost interest in these vehicles once they donned Tilling red but I still think Roe/AEC combos were vehicles made in heaven. I marked my 57th year as a bus enthusiast when I hit the big 67 recently. Over the last 40 years I have observed the British scene from Australia so I am pleased that a young(er) member of the fraternity can take time out to refresh the ageing grey cells
Charles
Ian, I can only echo David’s wise words and there is no harm at all in being “carried away” by mature detailed discussion on any public transport topic. I have to admit that you have completely “baffled me with science” about the upper reaches of many staircases and, in all honesty I cannot remember what happened “up aloft” on GDK 401 – 405. However I am pretty certain that the top flight ended exactly at the bulkhead and that you then made use of the space behind the rear offside seat to proceed into the upper saloon – this was definitely the norm with Leyland bodies and also with the Park Royal relaxed utilities on the ex London D class Daimlers. I think the particular success of the East Lancashire formula arose from the fact that each tread seemed very generous and safe in depth and in lateral dimensions, hence my term “easy.”
Chris Youhill
I am trying to match the blue and cream colours of the Ledgard busses for somebody. Does anybody know the exact colour code? I’ve crossed checked RAl and British standard colours of the day but unfortunately cannot get it exactly right.
Kevin Harvey
Rochdale withdrew AEC Regent III’s 201-205 out of sequence as the older Weymann bodied 7ft 6in Regent III’s 31-48 were kept for several more years. It was reported that the East Lancs 4 bay body design had inherent weakness and this could have been the reason. I remember riding on one of the batch shortly before they disappeared to Yorkshire and there was evidence of severe corrosion of the window pans inside the vehicle. East Lancs standardised on 5 bay designs afterwards and this reputedly solved any problems. Rochdale’s final five Regent III’s had 5 bay bodies by East Lancs and these had full service lives. One is preserved.
Philip Halstead
You are absolutely right about the window pans Philip and in fact Samuel Ledgard had them all replaced with newly manufactured ones – my picture at the top of this feature shows GDK 401 so fitted.
Chris Youhill
25/04/11 – 17:57
Blue colour paints – you have to bear in mind that until the advent of purely chemical paints, blue was particularly prone to change of colour in its life, becoming darker and acquiring a purple sheen – this may explain the different views of the colour tone. I’m sure an expert in paint could explain this far more accurately.
Anon
26/04/11 – 07:10
Further thoughts and hazy remembrance of silk screen printing… blue is a “translucent” colour and therefore the final colour may also depend on what is underneath. The darker the primer….
Joe
27/04/11 – 07:20
It’s not only dyed-in-the-wool enthusiasts that wax lyrical over Samuel Ledgard. On Easter Day I met a Leeds man who was down here visiting his family, and when I was introduced as a bus fanatic he immediately began to reminisce about his prewar schoolboy trips on Ledgard buses. Unfortunately there wasn’t time to go into detail, but then there never is…
Ian Thompson
04/10/11 – 14:18
Just had to thank Chris Youhill for his comments regarding the book, Beer and Blue Buses, of which I have managed to track down a signed copy. Thanks again Chris, I look forward to reading it.
Roger Broughton
12/10/17 – 07:01
Wasn’t sure where to put this comment, but the pic here is a classic (and that’s just Chris) The Yorkshire Evening Post (Leeds) has a little feature to tell us that its 50 years since Ledgards closed. It is thin on detail but does mention that Saml was a publican from a family of publicans whose business developed from a pub in Armley and the practice of charabancing your lorries at weekends. The rest, I suppose is history.
Joe
20/10/17 – 06:55
Lot of coverage in local papers about Ledgard’s 50th- closure that is- anniversary. Try this link which includes a photo gallery, and guess who is in the first picture? I also saw a First bus this week in a sort of Ledgard’s livery.
Joe
24/10/17 – 06:40
Joe – The first photo, with Chris Y in it, is not what it one might surmise. HLW 159 was never an SL bus, but was sold to Bradford and seems to be in their livery, although we’ve argued about photo colours before. Other clues are that the front blind display seems to be original (SL reduced them to one smaller one) and that Bradford were the only successor who, bizarrely, went to the trouble of removing the plate on the bonnet side which originally surrounded the RT fleet number, which, in this case, was RT172. This range of buses were a bargain, for most of them were overhauled only around 12 months before disposal by LT. More silly money-wasting nonsense from the London giant!
Chris Hebbron
25/10/17 – 07:26
HLW 159 is ex Bradford and was the only one of 25 to retain its roof box throughout its time at Bradford. The other roof box-bodied buses and most of the non-roof box-bodied buses had eventually, the normal Bradford indicators fitted. A picture of 410 is on //www.sct61.org.uk/bf410c
Stuart Emmett
25/10/17 – 07:30
Chris H- quite right. How the bus and Chris Y came to be cosied together, only he can tell us. I am caught posting Fake News or Noos as the man himself says. The slip in the window doesn’t say Saml Ledgard but On Hire to… Blue can be of its nature a variable colour as we have discussed, but this is indeed Bradford- the sign written number plate? Does it live in the transport museum?
Joe
28/10/17 – 16:54
I have read the very interesting contribution that Stuart Emmett has made in ‘Buses Yearbook 2018’ telling the story of the Bradford RT buses. Credit due to him. I was unaware that some were painted in a ‘quick fix’ Bradford livery featuring less cream relief.
David Slater
27/07/19 – 09:45
Here is a 1965 shot of fellow ex Rochdale Regent GDK 405 leaving in the company of a Hebble Reliance amid the wanton destruction of historic Bradford to facilitate the encroachment of soulless architectural excrescences.
Roger Cox
29/07/19 – 06:37
Regarding this latest shot added I think you will find that the “Hebble Reliance” is actually a Ribble Leopard on service J1.
John Kaye
29/07/19 – 06:38
Roger, I may be wrong but the “Hebble Reliance” looks to be Ribble Leopard.
John Blackburn
29/07/19 – 06:39
A great action shot of two most handsome vehicles Roger, as they no doubt vie for pole position on their way to Chester Street Bus Station. I totally agree with you regarding the wanton destruction of historic Bradford. Many wonderful gems have been lost over the years and even the lovely view of Forster Square with its Victorian Post Office and Cathedral backdrop can no longer be seen from the bottom of Cheapside, as the new all-encompassing Broadway shopping complex completely blocks it. Now sorry to nitpick slightly Roger, but that Hebble Reliance looks suspiciously like a dual-purpose Ribble Leopard to me…
Brendan Smith
30/07/19 – 07:36
Thank you for the corrections, gentlemen. I should have looked more carefully at the Hebble vehicle. You can’t get away with sloppy work on OBP.
Roger Cox
Further to my previous abject apology, a very close study of the original slide reveals that the vehicle behind the Ledgard Regent is, indeed, Ribble Leyland Leopard PSU3/4R, Marshall DP49F No.831, CRN 831D.
Bradford Corporation 1952 AEC Regent III 9613E East Lancs. H35/26R
The trend for concealing the front ends of halfcab buses underneath what was to often later referred to as a ‘tin front’ was initiated in the immediate postwar period by BMMO with its homemade D5 model. Shortly afterwards, neighbouring Birmingham City Transport decided to follow suit and a different design of their own was hatched which was first fitted to a batch of Crossley DD42’s, but then also to subsequent Daimler CVG6’s and Guy Arab IV’s, giving the three different makes a totally uniform appearance. It seems likely that Crossley produced this particular design, which became known as the ‘New Look’ – a term then currently in use for the latest Christian Dior womens’ fashion styles. Daimler and Guy then adopted the design as the standard option on their models generally, but no more Crossleys were so fitted. However, Crossley had passed into the hands of the ACV Group, which owned AEC, and around 1952/53 a number of Regent III’s were fitted with the ‘New Look’ front – the customers being Devon General, Rhondda Transport South Wales, Hull and Bradford. However, clearly not wishing their products to resemble Daimlers and Guys, AEC soon got to work on producing a unique design of their own, which first appeared on the Regent V, then later graced Bridgemasters and Renowns, and even a few Regent III’s for Sheffield. Bradford City Transport 82 was one of a batch of 40 (66-105, HKW 66-105) delivered in 1952/53. Originally H33/26R, they had a couple more seats inserted upstairs in 1957. It is seen here under the trolleybus overhead in Glydegate (which no longer exists) – an extremely short street linking Little Horton Lane with Morley Street opposite the Alhambra Theatre. Just behind on the extreme right is the newly opened Museum of Photography, Film and Television. 82 was withdrawn in 1971, and after a long period in storage was acquired for preservation and magnificently restored by Darren Hunt and Jim Speed. Nowadays it is part of the Aire Valley Transport Collection.
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer
31/03/13 – 08:58
Just a historical puzzler… when was the the National Museum of Photography etc actually opened? After 1971, possibly. It stood empty for a long time, intended I think for use as a theatre. It became known as “Wardley’s Folly” after the City Engineer who planned it. Then the Museum came along, looking for premises, and the rest is history! In the early 50’s bus bodies got very smart, part possibly of a move to better design inspired by the Festival of Britain. The period piece on this one is the slopey windscreen- a Birmingham hangover?
Joe
31/03/13 – 09:23
It’s my recollection that it was South Wales, rather than Rhondda, which had ‘tin-front’ Regent IIIs. I’ll stand corrected, of course. An interesting thing about the twelve Devon General examples is that after sale three turned up in West Yorkshire (2 Ledgard, 1 Longstaff) and I believe the Ledgard ones (in their short time with Ledgard, of course) regularly worked into Bradford from Leeds via Pudsey. A further three worked into what was at the time West Yorkshire, from what was Nottinghamshire (with Leon).
David Call
31/03/13 – 12:39
The Museum, now the National Media Museum, opened on June 16 1983. I think John is correct that the tin front came out of Errwood Rd as a result of the collaboration with Birmingham. There are a very few minor changes, just as Leyland tinkered with the BMMO design for its tin front.
Phil Blinkhorn
31/03/13 – 12:40
You’re right David of course, it was South Wales and not Rhondda – I don’t know where that came from ! I remember both the Ledgard and Longstaff’s ex-Devon General AEC’s, I rode on all three and they were most wonderful buses – especially in the sound effects department as I recall. The Longstaff one’s aural delights were a little stifled though, as following a brief blast up Webster Hill out of Dewsbury it was never really able to proceed beyond a steady amble around the back lanes of Ravensthorpe and Northorpe.
John Stringer
31/03/13 – 17:45
David – sorry to be pedantic – it was not West Yorkshire (a 1974 invention) but the good old West Riding of Yorkshire – later to become (in that area) another 1974 invention – South Yorkshire. The old West Riding was vast, stretching from Goole in the East to Bentham and the outskirts of Lancaster in the West and from the area you describe in the South to Dent and Sedbergh in the North
Gordon Green
31/03/13 – 17:46
As an eleven year old schoolboy, I remember with great excitement when some of these first “new look” AEC Regent IIIs entered service on the 1 November 1952. These were the first true “Humpidge” buses after prior taste of C T Humpidge influence with the Crossley re-bodied trolleybuses that had appeared in the previous March. I can confirm that the “tin fronts” were made and fitted at Crossley Motors at Errwood Park. I do recall seeing the final 15 chassis (91 -105) with “tin fronts” stored in the Tin Sheds at Thornbury as these buses entered service later in 1953. These final 15 buses did differ in appearance to the previous 25 (66 -90) buses as these were the first to have a blue roof in place of the mid grey which was the style used by the previous General Manager C R Tattam.
Richard Fieldhouse
01/04/13 – 07:50
The ‘new look’ or tin front certainly made buses so adorned look much more modern in comparison to those fitted with traditional radiators. Rochdale had a batch of Regent III’s fitted with virtually identical East Lancs bodies dating from 1951 but they had the traditional AEC exposed radiator and looked to be from a different generation than the Bradford vehicles despite being only two years older. I always found it interesting how the two adjacent Yorkshire cities of Bradford and Leeds had markedly differing vehicle policies. Bradford went early on for tin fronts and then froward entrances on the large fleet of Regent V’s while Leeds ploughed the traditional furrow with 7’6″ wide buses until the 30 footers came, exposed radiators and rear open platforms for many years. The small batch of forward entrance Daimler CVG6’s bought by Leeds was I understand due to persuasion from Bradford to run forward entrance buses on the joint Leeds-Bradford route.
Philip Halstead
01/04/13 – 07:51
If my memory serves me correctly, Glydegate was the last road in the UK to be newly wired for trolleybuses coming after the final Teesside extension. It served to allow inbound trolleybuses from Wibsey and Buttershaw to cope with road works and lasted until later in 1971 when the services were withdrawn.
Ken Aveyard
01/04/13 – 07:53
Richard – I well remember these vehicles as from new they were the mainstay of services 79 & 80 (Heaton & Little Horton via Heaton) and I used them daily to School. (One old penny half fare from Heaton to Lister Park Gates !) I always suspected that these new vehicles were so allocated for two reasons – one being that Heaton in those days was ‘posh’ (I wasn’t) and secondly Chaceley Humpidge lived in Heaton where he was a lay preacher at my local Church. A couple of years ago I renewed my acquaintance with 82 (which each year provides a shuttle bus service in Haworth for the annual ‘Forties’ war re-enactment weekend) by taking ride. Nostalgia indeed.
Gordon Green
01/04/13 – 07:54
Liverpool had some Regent IIIs with Crossley bodies with this radiator fitted.
Jim Hepburn
01/04/13 – 07:58
An interesting sidelight arises from Richard’s post and my earlier one on this thread. He refers to Errwood Park, I refer to Errwood Rd. When Crossley originally bought the site it was referred to as Errwood Park, though its location on the Stockport side of the boundary is across what is now Crossley Rd from Errwood Park which still exists and is in Manchester. In those days Crossley Rd was an un-named thoroughfare dividing Cringle Fields from Errwood Park and crossed the boundary between Stockport and Manchester, leading from Stockport Rd at Lloyd Rd to Errwood Rd itself. The Crossley site, bounded by the railway line and Cringle Fields, which eventually became a large number of football pitches on which I played many a match on a cold Sunday morning, was originally part of Cringle Fields a piece of open grazing land between Errwood Rd and the railway, so it may be assumed that Crossley wanted to give some elegance to their address after leaving the very industrial sounding Pottery Lane, Gorton and Cringle Fields sounded too agricultural whereas Errwood Park was more reminiscent of a country park! Most people I was brought up with in the adjacent area of Heaton Moor referred to Crossley’s Errwood Rd, though there was no entrance from that thoroughfare without traversing Crossley Rd! Fairey Aviation and later Fairey Engineering which occupied the site at various times always referred to it as Heaton Chapel Works, as did Stevenson’s Box Works who moved in after Crossley closed, Heaton Chapel being the suburb of Stockport in which the works was located. I wonder if the Errwood Rd usage was actually put about by Crossley whose very existence in the bus world was so dependant on Manchester’s patronage in the 1930s as Errwood Rd was in Manchester whereas the boundary between Manchester and Stockport ran along their wall built to divide the factory from the rump of Cringle Fields, Manchester. A 1970 copy of the Manchester A-Z interestingly shows the site all within Stockport with Errwood Park Works shown as the major part of the site yet the site where most buses were built is shown still as “Motor Car Works”! Dig the bones out of that.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/04/13 – 08:17
Philip H makes a good point about the divergent vehicle policies of Bradford and Leeds. I think I’m right in saying that Leeds had Regent Vs, but with exposed radiators. Why on earth would an operator wish to remove such a graceful and well proportioned front end to revert to the ‘old fashioned’ look of an exposed AEC radiator. Nothing wrong with the exposed AEC rad, but surely it had had its day by the time the Regent Vs came along.
Petras409
02/04/13 – 08:17
The Liverpool Regent IIIs that Jim H refers to certainly had concealed radiators, but while the grille was identical, the front end design was completely different, using a full-width flat front, as seen in this view of A40. www.old-bus-photos.co.uk
Alan Murray-Rust
02/04/13 – 08:18
The Liverpool Regent III’s had a different tin front unique to Liverpool. It was virtually a full width bonnet and incorporated the front mudguards more on the lines of the Leyland BMMO front than the Birmingham design. There’s a picture of one of the Saunders-Roe bodied buses with this front under the Liverpool link on this website.
Philip Halstead
02/04/13 – 08:19
Ken, Somewhere in my mind is the idea that Glydegate was the last public highway in the UK to be wired for trolleybus operation. The road layout at this point was a gyratory: Little Horton Lane between Princess Way and Glydegate was one way from Princess Way, and Morley Street was one way from Glydegate to Princess Way. Glydegate acted as the road connecting the top of the one-way sections of Little Horton Lane and Morley Street. According to Stanley King’s book ‘Bradford Corporation Trolleybuses’ Glydegate came into use on 18 May, 1969. The shot of number 82 on service 11 to Queensbury must have been before 1 March 1971 when the services were recast and the joint services to Halifax came into operation.
Kevin Hey
02/04/13 – 12:08
Leeds stuck with exposed radiators until the manger changed in 1961 this was due in some part to ease of maintenance. After that all buses were tin fronted or rear engined Philip mentions the front entrance Daimlers these 5 buses were considered so non standard they were offered for sale in the late sixties In the event they hung on to be the only Leeds buses to be allocated to all four divisions of the PTE and the only front engined Leeds buses to wear PTE livery 574 has been restored and often appears at rallies.
Chris Hough
02/04/13 – 13:03
There is a picture on this site of a Doncaster Regent 5 looking like a 3 with exposed radiator. They stuck with them, too the last front engined Titans in the mid 60’s had exposed radiators like the recent Stockport posting. I think it was also a sort of macho thing like Atkinson lorries.
Joe
02/04/13 – 14:50
The use of exposed radiators was by no means a “macho thing”. Proponents of the exposed radiator point to easier maintenance access, better driver visibility and better cooling, so much so that when Daimler insisted it would not provide exposed radiators and Manchester was not impressed with the tin front offered, it eventually designed its own concealed radiator for its Daimlers which was all but a reversion to the dimensions of the exposed radiator and was such a success that it was adopted by the manufacturer as its standard.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/04/13 – 14:50
I stand corrected over the Liverpool Regent IIIs. Well it is over 50 years since I’ve seen one!
Jim Hepburn
02/04/13 – 16:34
I still reckon an exposed radiator was seen as a proper “man’s bus” (I’m talking in the unliberated past!) like an Atkinson or a Mack and pretty fronts went with heaters, power steering, trafficators and no climbing into the cab. (Remove tongue from cheek)
Joe
02/04/13 – 17:58
I agree with Joe – tin fronts = mutton dressed up as lamb if you ask me!
Stephen Ford
03/04/13 – 07:50
There doesn’t seem to be that much (anything?) on Glydegate at the time the photograph was taken! For the past few years I’ve driven past a similar street in Bradford, which amounted to no more than a left-turn slip road at a set of traffic lights – no buildings on either side – but retained its street name. I think Chester Street (of WYRCC bus station fame) may still exist in this sort of vestigial format – though I’m not certain that the name remains. From the first time I saw one I always thought that there was “something” about the Manchester-fronted CVGs of Bradford and Huddersfield (Leeds was unexplored territory in those days!): as much as I tried to stay loyal to AEC/Hebble I still have to admit that – much like Clodagh Rogers – those Manchester-fronted CVGs looked classy. Halifax? Sorry, your exposed-radiator PD2/3s didn’t even get a look in . . . you should have stuck with Regent Vs – attractive enough in the Susan George mold, but not a patch on Clodagh! And I still can’t work out whether the St Helens front on Bradford’s PD3s was “industrial” or just plain ugly – like, like . . . Anyway, for Glydegate to be able to claim that it was last road to be wired for trolleybus operation seems to be stretching things for was by then just part of a gyratory system.
Philip Rushworth
I have very fond memories of conducting 82 even though I never had the pleasure of working for BCT. “Well then what’s he talking about” you may understandably ask !! This superb vehicle played a welcome and major part in the 40th anniversary commemoration running day on 14th October 2007 marking the sad end of the Samuel Ledgard era. The fifteen hour running extravaganza culminated in a simulation of the 23:00 hours departure from Leeds to Ilkley via Guiseley – a journey performed very appropriately by the preserved Bradford RT – the real thing forty years earlier featured HLX 157, a Ledgard RT, which ran out of fuel a mile short of the Ilkley terminus. That circumstance, unheard of normally in Ledgard days, remains a mystery to this day. The Bradford RT was made to simulate a similar failure at the same spot. In 1967 the RT was replaced by Ledgard’s own 1953 U, a Mark V Regent, but in 2007 Bradford 82 played the part having “been summoned from Otley depot.” So there we have it, 82 completed the journey to Ilkley and then operated the late running 2355 from Ilkley to Otley. I had been conducting all day from 09:00, mainly on the superbly restored MXX 232 (RLH 32) so very kindly provided in perfect Samuel Ledgard livery by Timebus of St. Alban’s. The feeling of “deja vu” in that last couple of hours was almost unbearable, but nevertheless I felt very honoured to be asked to do it, wearing my genuine Ledgard uniform and using an actual Otley depot Setright which I own.
Chris Youhill
03/04/13 – 11:43
I always considered Hull’s “tin-fronted” Weymann bodied AEC Regent IIIs (336-341) to be the city’s best looking buses until the dual door Atlanteans came along in 1969. The overall body profile combined with the typical upswept bottom panels and the front end resulted in a very handsome bus one of which can be seen here.
Malcolm Wells
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
05/04/13 – 05:48
This discussion makes me wonder if there would ever have been such a thing as a tin front if it hadn’t been for Midland Red uniquely combining the roles of chassis designer, body designer and operator. Being in the vanguard of underfloor-engined development, which revolutionised the appearance of single deckers, it was probably inevitable that they would do something with their double deckers as well. Then I suppose BCT, seeing all these modern apparitions coming in and out of their city, felt obliged to keep their end up by doing something similar, and it all took off from there. I remember being very impressed as a youngster with the tin-fronted PD2s of Oldham and Southport. But ultimately, as so often happens, something which was designed specifically to create an appearance of modernity in its own time ends up rapidly becoming very dated.
Huddersfield Corporation 1955 AEC Regent III East Lancs H33/28R
Arriving at the Piece Hall, Halifax, for the Heart of the Pennines Rally of October 2011 is Huddersfield 178. This is AEC Regent III 9613E 4927, bearing East Lancs body number 5107. This bus was new to Huddersfield in June 1955.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
25/07/15 – 06:15
Lovely picture. This style of East Lancs body was much more common on the Leyland PD2 and was especially popular with a host of Lancashire municipalities usually with exposed radiator. Rochdale had five virtually identical Regent III’s and Bradford had some similar but with the Birmingham style tin fronts. The Huddersfield livery just exudes class with such a splendid shade of red.
Philip Halstead
26/07/15 – 06:38
Thanks Phil, Given the level of loyalty of many West Riding area operators to Roe, I wonder what caused Huddersfield to go to ‘the dark side’ for these? I think these exposed-rad Regents looked so much better than those with the ‘Birmingham style’ fronts.
Les Dickinson
27/07/15 – 06:45
On the subject of exposed radiators, I think most of us nowadays prefer them to “tin fronts” on buses of this era, but at the time, I’m not so sure. Personally I was very impressed with all things enclosed, but then, I was just coming up to my ninth birthday when 178 was delivered, so my views probably wouldn’t count for much. I think the point is that because of the total revolution in the appearance of single-deckers and coaches which had recently occurred, there would be a widespread feeling that exposed radiators belonged on yesterday’s buses, and today’s buses needed a different look. Now of course we look on old buses with reverence, so an exposed radiator denotes a thoroughbred, and any attempt to disguise it detracts from its appeal.
Peter Williamson
28/07/15 – 05:48
A couple of items to note about 178, firstly we reactivated it (along with a couple of similar buses with valid CoFs) in September 1973 to allow the loan of some PD3As to Sheffield to help out in one of their vehicle crises. Secondly, shortly after the PTE was formed in April 1974 my ex boss, by then in Engineering charge at Bradford borrowed 178 and similar to help with a vehicle crisis there. I don’t recall 178 returning to Huddersfield and may have stayed with Bradford until withdrawal.
Eastbourne Corporation 1950 AEC Regal III 6821A East Lancs DP30R
Eastbourne Corporation purchased this single Regal III 6821A with East Lancs. DP30R body in 1950 and numbered it 11. Though they also owned a small number of other single deckers it is said that this one was intended to provide a better class of vehicle for private hire work, though it did perform its share of service work if the need arose. In the late 1960’s it was repainted from the much admired, traditional blue, yellow and white livery into the latest cream and blue version recently introduced on the Roadliners and Panthers and gradually being applied to some double deckers. Although to most this was a regrettable move, the new livery still looked very smart and their buses were always immaculately turned out. It is seen here outside the original depot in Churchdale Road in July 1970, having just been renumbered 93. Sold to the London Bus Preservation Group in 1978, it was later repurchased by the Corporation, and has since been restored to full PSV status by them and into its original livery as no. 11 once more. It has attended many rallies, but is still also available for private hire work and even puts in the occasional appearance on service work.
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer
16/12/13 – 07:39
Here is another shot of Eastbourne Regal 11 in the original blue primrose and white livery. This was taken in 2006 at the Worthing and Adur Rally
Roy Nicholson
23/12/13 – 06:59
Wonderful in either livery, but I do prefer the original one, as seen in the lower picture. Everything about this bus looks right: the glass louvres add style, the swoop doesn’t detract from the horizontal flow of the body, and the rear end has prewar dignity to it. Would that all coach bodies had this service-bus integrity of design.
Ian Thompson
23/12/13 – 11:22
Much as I usually prefer the original livery, Ian, in this case, I think the upper photo gives a much lighter look to the vehicle. Maybe the omission of the yellow swoop would help.
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Rotherham Corporation 1941 Bristol L5G East Lancs B32C
Here’s a nice old one, probable one of the oldest buses in my collection. I obviously didn’t take this picture as the bus was withdrawn in 1957 I did not start taking bus photos till 1965. This bus has a center entrance, can somebody tell me what advantage there was in having a center entrance. They would have to lose two pairs of seats to make way for the entrance but then they could put in a 5 seat bench seat at the back of the bus so they gain one seat. But if the only gain is one seat was it worth it. Another query I have which maybe you can help me with is what is the purpose of the box under the front window on the opposite side to the cab it looks as if it contains oil could it be an automatic oiling system or something.
The box on the nearside, below the saloon window in an “Autovac” they were used on early Leyland and Bristol half cabs. They were to do with the braking system I believe.
Paul Ellender
Re the “Autovac” query this is a form of fuel supply, the square tank holding a reservoir of fuel drawn up from the main tank by vacuum.
Trevor Haigh
Many vehicles in this area were of the centre entrance configuration, in addition to several batches of Bristols Rotherham also had centre entrance single deck trolleybuses as did Mexborough and Swinton (who ran jointly with Rotherham on some routes). West Riding had large numbers of centre door Regent double decks on Wakefield routes. The advantage of this layout was quicker boarding and alighting times with both ends of the bus able to leave at the same time. It should be remembered that this was long before a large scale move to one man operation and the necessary front entrance position so these buses were conductor operated. The last similar vehicles were withdrawn by Rotherham in the late ’60s. There were some withdrawn ones there at the same time that their first Fleetline chassis were delivered before despatch to Roe
Andrew
Darlington Corporation had centre-entrance single-deck Guy Arabs right through the ’60s and before that, centre-entrance S/D trolley buses. Sunderland Corporation and, I believe, Hartlepool, too, had centre-entrance double-deckers.
Bill Taylor
Leeds had centre entrance saloons in the Fifties on underfloor engined chassis they had 2 Tiger Cubs 2 Guy Arab LUFs and 5 Reliances all with Roe bodywork seating 34 + up to 20 standees. They had the steepest steps I’ve ever seen on a bus. The stair well was inside the bus with the doors flush with the side panelling
Chris Hough
The Leeds vehicles were regarded as an experiment and were built on a mix of AEC Reliance, Leyland Tiger Cub and Guy Arab UF chassis. Three of the vehicles survive in a scrapyard – if you google ‘the wakefield files’ you’ll find them.
Andrew
Grimsby Corporation had quite a number of centre-entrance AEC/Roe double-deckers in the 1930s, as well as a unique fleet of ten 6-wheel AEC/Roe centre-entrance trolleybuses. They also had one of the very few AEC “Q” double-deckers with a Roe centre-entrance body, built in 1933 and still running in 1956. Since the engine was at the side, under the central staircase, there were lower deck seats beside the driver. I remember seeing this vehicle in service. The biggest disadvantage of the centre-entrance design was the split staircase which took up a lot of space on the top deck, giving fewer seats on the top deck than the bottom. “Provincial Bus and Tram Album” by J. Joyce (1968) shows a 1931 Grimsby example as having only 48 seats, while the “Q” is listed as having 56 seats (H29/27C); the side engine didn’t take up passenger space. Wakey Models makes resin kits of several variants of this type of vehicle, which can be seen atthis link.
Martin S
The centre-entrance layout was greatly favoured by the Rotherham general manager who was in charge of the municipal transport department for many years, the redoubtable Tom Percy Sykes. The bus shown in the picture happens to be one of the wartime Bristol chassis that was fitted with a post-war body removed from one of nine Bristol L6B’s that were rebodied as double-deckers not long after being delivered as 32-seat centre-entrance saloons. In the photo, although still in Rotherham livery, the bus is in second-owner service; I don’t have the information directly in front of me, but believe this was one of several similar ex-Rotherham single-deckers that ended their lives with Cosy Coaches, an independent operating in Meadowfield, County Durham. The blinds it is fitted with in the picture are not Rotherham ones, and the legal lettering on the nearside is not that of Rotherham Corporation.
