Leeds City Transport – Leyland Titan – 5221 NW – 221


Copyright Chris Hough

Leeds City Transport
1958
Leyland Titan PD3/5
Roe H38/32R

This handsome Leyland Titan PD3/5 was the Roe exhibit at the 1958 Earls Court Show It was one of 70 bought by Leeds for tramway replacement The batch were used extensively on the Moortown – Middleton group of former tram routes and most of them lasted into the mid seventies. They were Leeds last exposed radiator Leylands and also the last Roe bodied Titans to enter service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough


18/05/12 – 07:46

I remember visiting the 1958 Earls Court Show and seeing the Leeds PD3 and admiring the Roe body a maker hardly known in the south of England where I lived at the time although by the time of the show, being in the RAF stationed near Lincoln I had become familiar with the City transport fleet of Leylands and Guys with handsome Roe bodies. One particular Roe bodied PD3 I took a few trips on belonged to Hudsons of Horncastle the journey between Lincoln and it’s home town was through very rural country the bus gave a very comfortable ride and was resplendent in a cream and blue livery.
There was a tradition of having a Roe bodied Leeds City Transport bus at Earls Court when the show was held there every two years the last one I can remember was a 33ft panoramic windowed Fleetline, in 1966 I think, another very attractive bus, the Earls Court shows were enjoyable as you could get in or onto nearly all of the exhibits.

Diesel Dave


18/05/12 – 07:47

A true classic but in my opinion spoiled by the Leeds practice of having the unpainted engine cover. Anybody know why they did that? But on the other hand wasn’t it such features together with the illuminated ‘Limited’ sign, another Leeds feature, that made our hobby so interesting. We can all doubtless name little features that made our cherished operators just that bit special.

Philip Halstead


18/05/12 – 07:48

As well as the lining out this bus carried initially, like most show exhibits, I recall it having one other distinctive feature from the show. The kick plates on the staircase all had the Roe “toffee” emblem embossed on them. A neat touch.

David Beilby


18/05/12 – 10:25

The unpainted bonnets were to stop possible scratches whilst under going routine maintenance etc which would have made them look untidy.

Roger Broughton


18/05/12 – 12:17

Surprisingly Leeds’s last AEC Regent Vs with enclosed radiators dating from 1966 also carried polished bonnets although enclosed radiator Daimlers and Leylands did not.

Chris Hough


18/05/12 – 12:19

What can I do but agree about the beauty of the classic Roe design – although I feel the Leeds (non-standard) window pans didn’t do it justice.

David Oldfield


18/05/12 – 15:59

I see the Titan codes list of PD2 models omits the “Blackpool Special” PD2/5. I may be wrong, but I’ve always understood that the PD2/4 was supplied either only to Bolton or only to Bolton and Bury.

Pete Davies


18/05/12 – 16:57

I always thought the idea of the unpainted hatch was to help show/clean off all the oil and fluids that spray off the engine…

Joe


18/05/12 – 16:57

Chris, I think the PD3a’s and Daimlers bonnets would be painted because they were fibreglass the Regent V still being metal.

Eric Bawden


19/05/12 – 07:41

Were the pan-glazed windows unique to Leeds? All other Roe bodies of this style that I’ve seen had rubber gasket mounted windows

Chris Barker


19/05/12 – 07:42

A large batch of PD2s sold to CIE were unofficially known as Boltons by Irish enthusiasts as they were identical to the Bolton examples. One Bolton example survives as a tow car in the Manchester Museum of Transport.

Chris Hough


21/05/12 – 08:04

The Leyland PD2/4 was the air braked version of the more common PD2/3 which had vacuum brakes. It was only supplied to Bolton (with Leyland bodies) and Bury (with Weymann bodies). The Blackpool only PD2/5 also had air brakes and I think must have had some special features in the chassis design to suit Blackpool’s full-fronted centre-entrance Burlingham bodies to render it having a separate designation to the PD2/4.

Philip Halstead


21/05/12 – 17:16

Buses Annual 1964 – the very first one – gives Leyland Home Market Passenger Models 1945-date: It lists the difference between PD2/4 with a drop rear frame extension (for the platform) and PD2/5 without a drop rear frame extension (for Blackpool’s centre entrance). Otherwise the two chassis are identical.

Ian Wild


02/07/12 – 18:03

I always felt these tram replacements vehicles were the proverbial ship spoiled for the sake of an ha’porth of tar, the single skinned roof domes, the abolition of the staircase window and the lack of bodywork over the mud guard all of which are so prominent on earlier vehicles.

Ken Greaves


03/07/12 – 07:24

These PD3s like their stablemates the CVG6LX/30s were originally 71 seaters but they were blacked by the unions and so a single seat was placed at the top of the stairs.
The single skin domes etc were an attempt at weight reduction as all previous deliveries of buses since 1954 had been lightweight apart from the 15 Roe bodied PD2s delivered in 1955.

Chris Hough


21/01/13 – 17:25

I was a guard at the time of introduction of the 30ft PD3s and an active member of the TGW at TRG. I always understood that the removal of the seat on the top deck was due to some local by-law re buses with 70 plus seats not being allowed to carry standing passengers. As half of one of the 150 regular crews on Dewsbury Rd. – Moortown – Middleton (for which these buses were originally bought as tram replacements) I certainly never blacked it and I don’t know of anyone who did. We welcomed them with open arms because of the sheer space available on them and the lovely steady ride they gave to both crew & passengers.

Bill Midgley


22/01/13 – 06:48

A rather fascinating piece of “trivial pursuit” here, considering the matter of the 70/71 seats which these vehicles created. While the seating was soon reduced from 71 to 70, the widely held belief that the batch comprised 70 vehicles (a logical number to order one would have thought), but it was actually 71, numbers 221 – 291.

Chris Youhill


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


25/07/16 – 09:51

I wonder if there’s a lot of rose-coloured spectacles being worn in these reminiscences. Like most Roe-bodied buses of the period, the PD3s were good looking and nicely proportioned on the outside, but in the incessant quest for economy, light weight etc, they were almost unbelievably austere on the inside, with thin seating squabs, bare bulbs etc. However, one massive step forward was the provision of a heater for the passengers, which sometimes did take the edge off a cold day. Smooth and steady ride? I must have been riding a different batch of buses than other people; even on March 28 1959 when most went into service, they shook and banged about on the poor road surfaces. This march day was the last day of the Moortown/Roundhay trams-and those to Middleton and Belle Isle. Even they, run-down as they were, and traversing their hopelessly neglected tracks, gave a better ride than the new buses. Not that there was much else wrong with them. They took a hammering in their 15-plus years of Leeds service and many went on to have a few extra years in second-hand service elsewhere.

David A. Young


25/07/16 – 15:13

I’m sorry David that you experienced such rough rides on the PD3s and, to be fair, I’m sure that they were quite OK on decent roads. They were certainly most comfortable indeed to drive with very well designed and proportioned cabs. Their big drawback however was their very poor brakes, especially on very busy routes with heavy loads. Brake fade was prevalent and was something you had to be very aware of and “ready for.” My old friend Keith Peacock (sadly deceased at a very young age) had his own patent way of dealing with this when he was on the former tram “figure of eight” ex tram routes that you mention. On approaching every stop he would change down into third perfectly and imperceptibly but with maximum revs – this of course took much of the work off the brakes, and due to his skill caused no discomfort to anybody. I have to say that ALL those column type heaters with a little dash mounted outlet on the top deck were pretty useless regardless of the make of chassis. You couldn’t beat the good old Clayton Dewandre circular ones with large fans, or even better those KL box types beneath the seats – the latter being fitted retrospectively to nearly all Samuel Ledgard buses. In fact on a couple of the former Exeter Daimler CVD6s (JFJ 52/55) at Otley depot I’ve known passengers plead for them to be turned off even in Winter as their powerful fans distributed the enormous heat from the hot running Daimler engines.

Chris Youhill


28/07/16 – 08:48

Chris, I was never privileged enough to drive any bus, but in the summer of 1964 I was one of 25 students taken on for the summer by LCT and did a lot of conducting on the PD3s. They may well have been comfortable for the driver, but for the conductor, they were anything but, stuck out as he normally was on the unstable, thumping back platform. As a passenger the extra width was appreciated, but they were overall not nearly as comfortable to ride in or conduct (just like their slightly younger Daimler equivalents), nor as nicely trimmed as the earlier 8′ wide Regent 3s. But they were a rugged vehicle, externally good looking and capable of some very hard work.

David A. Young


29/07/16 – 08:50

Chris will know that cars of the same era had drum brakes and you did not rely on them alone: the gearbox and downward changes provided more braking. Even preselector gearboxes were used in this way and stopping for passengers was quite a long exercise: that’s why you didn’t need any flashing stopping lights- passengers just knew by the noise from the brakes. On the other hand you were not sent flying down the aisle by this more sedate process and could dare stand up before the stop: you had to stand up because the stop button was the conductor’s. If you were late doing this you would be carried beyond your stop: best, to make a noisy descent of the stairs. These posts recall a bit of transport or social history. In 1950 neglected trams could be replaced by well upholstered flexible diesel buses running at a very few bob a gallon: then came Suez and costs spiralled: so then the drive for economy- cut down weight with spartan fittings- back to trams- and sometimes underpowered buses. Now buses are gridlocked and away from Boris land we have austerity: Leeds has spent fortunes proposing guided buses, trams, trolleybuses… all rejected: but in 1950 it had many miles of segregated tram tracks. Hey ho.

Joe


29/07/16 – 16:26

Times change Chris, when I passed my PSV test in 1967, as you quite rightly point out, brakes were not as efficient as they are now and brake fade was common. In order to try and avoid this, even in a car you were taught to use the gearbox as a brake. This is a practice that seems to have fallen out of favour, and would be impossible in most buses as most of them seem to be automatics.

Ronnie Hoye


30/07/16 – 08:39

This subject of using the engine as a brake has turned up on OBP before. A one time regular contributor maintained that the engine was for propulsion only and never for braking, overlooking the fact that every time you take your foot off the accelerator the engine then acts as a brake. Anyone who has driven a PD3 in service will know that the use of the gearbox to assist the stopping power with engine braking was absolutely essential. The model had truly appalling brakes.

Roger Cox


31/07/16 – 07:08

Quite right Ronnie and Roger, the PD3s had wickedly inadequate brakes when faced with heavy work, and the PD2s weren’t much better. Very strangely though the PD1s, which I would have thought had similar braking components to the PD2s at least, never seemed to give the slightest cause for alarm, ever. Its quite remarkable that such a leading and highly respected manufacturer could fall down on such a vital issue. The Leopards, the 36 foot ones certainly, were similarly alarming. I have heard fitters commenting that the problem lay in inadequate brake lining area and ventilation. I believe also that some kind of “anti squeal” bands could be fitted to the drums to minimise or eliminate that infuriating noise which many Leylands were prone to emit. A more disturbing aspect is that, when cold and after servicing, satisfactory test meter readings were achieved, of little use when you were trying to stop a heavily laden vehicle at busy times.

Chris Youhill


01/08/16 – 07:01

In a way, the blame equally lies with management of bus undertakings purchasing vehicles lacking in such an essential requirement. Driving Halifax’s huge PD3/4’s must have been a nightmare! Hill-climbing seemed variable, too. I recall reading of Southdown’s Queen Mary’s having variable ability to climb hills, too, with conductors wondering at times if they would be called upon by the driver to help push from behind!

Chris Hebbron


01/08/16 – 07:03

I know that at some point in the past on a different thread the subject of PD3 brakes has been discussed before before, but since it’s cropped up again…..
I drove both PD2’s and PD3’s at Halifax on an almost daily basis throughout the 1970’s, frequently on heavily loaded journeys on arduous, steeply graded routes. It was certainly second nature to me to change down into appropriately lower gears when descending hills – it was the way I was taught and for the period was considered to be correct driving practice in all types of vehicle. As far as Halifax’s ‘own’ Titans were concerned, though they may not have been as good as a Regent V or CVG6LX/30 brakewise, I don’t ever recall having any particularly anxious moments in the braking department – and believe me at times they were driven quite vigorously!
However, when in the early days of the WYPTE we received twelve pneumocyclic PD3A/2’s from Huddersfield, they were different altogether. Their brakes squealed excruciatingly and even when using lower gears to descend even the slightest gradient they would fade away to nothing and cause some heart stopping experiences. Despite their ‘easy’ gearchanges – compared with the often heavy, clumsy and cantankerous manual boxes of the Halifax examples – our drivers hated them at first and rang them in at every opportunity. Over time the Halifax engineers seemed to cure the squealing, but their fading tendencies persisted as long as we had them. So in my experience the braking inadequacies were confined to those with Pneumocyclic gearboxes.
In more recent times I have partaken of a few rides on the free bus service connected with the former Heart of the Pennines Rally – usually up and down the long, steep gradient to the Sportsman at Ploughcroft. I have been amazed, and on certain occasions deeply worried, at the driving methods and standards employed by some of the drivers in some of the older vehicles. Maybe it’s just because so many hail from more level regions that the concept of engine braking on descents is an alien one, or also that so many of the younger drivers have been brought up on modern automatics with huge brakes and powerful integral retarders. So many of them however would race down the long, steep descent into the heavily built up area of Boothtown with a full load of oblivious enthusiasts, in top gear braking all the way. In many cases the brake linings would be seriously overheating and emitting that dreadful stink, but their drivers never seemed to appreciate the danger.
Recently I was talking with a well known local enthusiast who operates a ‘heritage’ fleet of older buses for hire. He is perhaps not surprisingly finding it increasingly difficult to recruit suitable drivers with experience (and the appropriate licence) of older buses. One of the problems that the ‘newer lads’ – or those who are primarily car drivers – all seem to have is that they want to change up through the gears and into top at the earliest opportunity and end up flogging the poor vehicle to death to the point where one can almost hear each individual cylinder firing. Climbing hills they then leave it so late to change down that by the time they do so they almost come to a stop and then replicate the same flogging all over again. Similarly then staying in top down hills and relying on the brakes. We both came to the conclusion that in either case the drivers were simply frightened of the noise of the engine working at higher revs in the confined space of the half cab, beleiving that they were going to do it damage, whereas in fact the engines (if properly maintained) were designed to work at those revs, and that they were doing far more damage to the rest of the vehicle by driving that manner.
Back to Leylands though. My general feeling about them – PD2’s, PD3’s and earlier Leopards – was that they were capable, but rather unremarkable and characterless models that tended to be heavy, awkward, rather clumsy and usually hard work. In deference to Chris Youhill, I did drive both a PD1 and PS1 in preservation on a number of occasions years ago and found them to be a far more pleasant and characterful vehicle, despite being very much an AEC man myself.

John Stringer


01/08/16 – 16:17

John, I’m able to be brief here and say simply that I agree with every word you’ve written above, and I most certainly share your alarms about inexperienced drivers unwittingly taking huge safety risks. Once some years ago I was at a well known bus rally in Surrey and had a long ride on the top deck of a full laden preserved London AEC RT. The driver drove like a lunatic and, from the constant pronounced “list to port” it was patently obvious that it had either a broken nearside rear spring, or two very soft tyres. On one right hand bend we were, perversely, only spared from going in the ditch by the speed which carried it through to a more level stretch of road – its the truth to say that during that few yards some of us were thrown off the seats into the gangway. On alighting we mentioned in no uncertain terms to the conductor our serious concerns – he appeared quite unaffected. This is not to detract from the good and much appreciated work done by competent volunteers in helping us to enjoy delightful vintage vehicles, but its an extremely worrying situation.
I’m so glad that you found the “Swiss watch” appeal of the PD1s/PS1s as appealing as I did over many happy years “for real.”

Chris Youhill


02/08/16 – 06:51

John, it’s over half a century since I drove a PD2 on the Queensbury route, which was something I chose to do quite frequently on my Traffic Clerk extra curricular overtime stints. As both we and, indeed, our webmaster Peter know, the route is fundamentally on a significant falling gradient all the way down from Queensbury through Boothtown into Halifax. Even at this distance in time, the notion of a bus driver descending the steepest parts in top gear and relying wholly upon the brakes chills my blood. It is a reflection upon an utter ignorance of and lack of sympathy for the mechanical workings of the vehicle. Sadly this attitude of isolation from mechanical understanding and roadway conditions is blatantly apparent as normal driving behaviour nowadays. To many, a car has two pedals, one for go and another for stop, and one or the other has always to be firmly pressed down throughout a journey. Following behind such people is akin to witnessing a display of Christmas lights – the brake lights flash on and off constantly. Unfortunately also, this style of driving is all too apparent in the present day bus industry. I cannot recall when I last experienced a smooth stop as a passenger in a bus. The art of feathering the brakes to bring the vehicle to a jerk free halt seems to have vanished for ever.

Roger Cox


02/08/16 – 17:19

Glasgow Vintage Vehicle Trust run as many as four pneumocylcic Titans in contemporary traffic on a number of days during the year and I can not recall any problems with the brakes, although SGD65 did have a re-line a couple of years ago and does occasionally squeal. I was grateful of its air brakes whilst conducting this year’s West End Festival as a driver of a modern private car cut across in front of my driver and an emergency stop was required.
Granted that Glasgow has no hills to match the Pennines and as all GCT Titans were pneumocyclic they all had air brakes. I would also point out that all our drivers get a half-day assessment on L446 before they are passed to drive of our Glasgow City owned buses.
A question for any fellow contributor to OBP who might know, were the later Titans (PD3/11 etc) with dual-circuit brakes any better?

Stephen Allcroft

Leeds City Transport – Leyland Titan PD2/1 – NNW 380 – 380

Leeds City Transport - Leyland Titan PD2/1 - NNW 380 - 380

Leeds City Transport
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

This Leeds City Transport bus is at the Rivelin Dams, Norfolk Arms terminus of Sheffield service 54 whilst on a tour of Sheffield routes on 19th June 1966 organised by The Leeds and District Transport News (still in production today as Metro Transport News). Sheffield 545 which appeared on this site some months ago accompanied the Leeds bus on the tour. The notes provided with the tour suggest that 380 was one of the last of its batch in service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild


24/07/11 – 10:53

A vehicle very dear to me – NNW 380 was to become number 13 in the Learner Fleet and was used to weigh up job applicants as it had, of course, a “live” gearbox and clutch. In October 1969 I applied for a job as a “direct driver” and reported to the Swinegate Headquarters at 5.00pm one weekday rush hour. The strict but kindly chap in charge of the Driving School, Senior Inspector Albert Bradley, directed me to 380 in the yard, settled himself in the front passenger seat behind the “missing” window, and off we went into the thick of it. The bus behaved impeccably, like a dream, as we went to Beeston, reversing into an awkward side street on the notoriously steep Beeston Hill (air brakes on the trams) and performing a hill start as well. Then into the long flat Old Lane – by now I was very comfortable indeed and enjoying the trip – where Mr. Bradley said “That’s OK, just go straight down Dewsbury Road back to the yard.” I said that I was really enjoying the vehicle and so he said “Oh, well then, go up the Ring Road and through Middleton and Belle Isle and Hunslet.” That shows what a genuine and respected gentleman he was, in allowing me to spend an extra few of the Department’s shillings in fuel on a pleasure jaunt !! I suppose in a way I was cheating a little, as I had quite a lot of experience in driving PD2s elsewhere, but I got the job and that involved being a “driver/conductor” for six months – although a chronic shortage of willing drivers and the need to accelerate the One Man Operated conversion programme meant that I did slightly less before qualifying for those.

Chris Youhill


24/07/11 – 17:48

The only Leyland bodies bought by Leeds 340-399 entered service in 1949-1950 Mainly allocated to Bramley these were stalwart performers on such routes as the 54 Halton Moor-Rodley and 23 Leeds -Intake for most of their lives. My dad was a conductor for LCT for almost thirty years and always maintained that these were the best buses he ever worked on.
Does any other Leeds bus fan remember the coin tester in the lower saloon ceiling and the huge circulation area at the top of the stairs.
Like a number of AEC Regents these buses retained the old style Leeds blind with via points to the end

Chris Hough


25/07/11 – 08:48

AEC man agrees that there is little to compare with an all-Leyland PD2 and I remember coin testers on Sheffield buses – but I had forgotten about them until you jogged my memory!

David Oldfield


25/07/11 – 09:03

From personal experience I don’t know much about LCT buses but Chris’s mention of the coin tester reminds me of a similar device that Huddersfield Corporation/JOC used. It was a metal bar about an inch and a half long with various sized slots cut into it for testing the authenticity of coins. It was usually located (on rear entrance buses) on the bulkhead underneath the staircase along with a wood and glass holder which contained (if I remember rightly) a booklet with the Corporation/JOC byelaws and regulations. Strangely, I can’t remember either the coin tester or booklet holder being fitted to front entrance half cab buses. However,this may be due to the fact that on rear entrance buses my favourite seat was the long inward facing seat over the rear near side wheel-arch, thus I was facing the staircase bulkhead and its fittings on most journeys, whereas on front entrance half cabs I would sit anywhere in the lower saloon so wouldn’t always be facing the staircase bulkhead to make the same observations. Has anybody else any memories of riding on “proper” buses.

Eric


25/07/11 – 09:04

Well Chris H you certainly have me there !! Having worked on many Leyland bodied PD1s/2s over the years I’ve no idea what a “coin tester” was in the lower saloon ceiling – please let us know. The Bramley vehicles also figured prominently on the 65 Bus Station to Pudsey route, including the days when that service terminated in Rockingham Street. I do, though, well remember the large circulating area upstairs – this was indeed excessive and some operators took advantage of this by putting an extra seat on the offside, thereby increasing the seating capacity to H32/26R. Samuel Ledgard treated most, if not all, of their large fleet of these bodies – new and second hand – in this manner. Even after this the step top area remained adequate for passenger flow. The retention of the original destination blinds caused a wonderful anomaly in later years – Torre Road Depot had a handful of the PD2s and often used them on a teatime peak journey on the 36 route which by then was a different service altogether and went from the Bus Station to Tinshill – still displaying “36 Harehills Oakwood” from the original itinerary in North East Leeds. By the way, although I was at Headingley as a driver and later a “bookman” I did quite frequently work at Bramley and I’m sure I remember your Dad very well indeed – Happy days !!

Chris Youhill


25/07/11 – 15:32

The “coin tester” was a small protuberance in the lower deck ceiling at the front of the bus shaped like half an orange split in two and around the size of a large grape I’ve only ever seen this on the Leeds Titans and was told it was a coin tester as a child Leeds were never lavish with bell provision on their buses until the advent of strip bells in the sixties I’ve seen a full bus started away from stops by a sharp rap from a coin on the driver’s bulkhead window on many occasions! One other LCT idiosyncrasy was the provision of a curtain blind on the passenger front bulkhead window for night time running was this unique to Leeds? The one on the drivers bulkhead window often had a small aperture in the top corner for the driver to see the inside of the lower deck.

Chris Hough


25/07/11 – 20:57

A blind on the passenger front bulkhead? I remember those in Nottingham in the early 1960s. Always annoyed me because I wanted to look out of the window and pretend to be a driver

A Non


25/07/11 – 20:58

Chris, Sheffield had coin testers and the blinds – inside the cab for the driver (with hole) and in the saloon on the nearside.

David Oldfield


25/07/11 – 20:59

As far as I’m aware Chris H, night curtains were legally obligatory on both front windows of the old style vehicles.

Chris Youhill


27/07/11 – 08:00

I am sure that London Transport RT / RM buses had nearside front window blinds – the ones on RMs didn’t go quite the full width of the window – see photo here //www.ltmcollection.org/images/webmax/xs/i00000xs.jpg
I can’t remember them being used in the 70s or later

Jon


27/07/11 – 12:07

This batch of LCT Titans always fascinated me as we drove through the Bramley area from Bradford on a frequent basis, and they always seemed to be concentrated in that area of Leeds.
As a Bradford lad, I was always fascinated by the differences compared to our own BCPT Titans.
The NNW series were almost to Farington style, with flush mounted fully radiused windows, and no rain shields, giving an ultra modern look which seemed enhanced by the 7ft.6ins. width. Most contemporary Titans at that time did not have this modernised “cleaned up” look, and I am wondering if LCT played some part in the development programme which led up to the Farington style which became more common with the advent of the post 1951 longer chassis.
Or did Leyland offer this style at this early date, and, if so, which other fleets received them on PD2/1 or PD2/3 chassis in 1949/50?
They were certainly very handsome vehicles, and, like all Leyland bodies, had a good life span.

John Whitaker


28/07/11 – 06:16

There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the so-called “Farington style” Leyland bodies. The latest thinking is that the name refers to this version rather than the later one. I do agree that it is visually enhanced by the 7’6″ width when compared to, say Manchester’s “salmon tins”, one of which is seen here //www.sct61.org.uk/mn3290.htm  Southport also had some, see //www.sct61.org.uk/sp106a.htm and Sheffield //www.sct61.org.uk/sh621.htm  and I’m sure there were others.

Peter Williamson


28/07/11 – 15:20

This style IS the Farington – experts now tell us that the final version is NOT. There does not, however seem to be a name for it. Sheffield had two batches of true Faringtons, like these Leeds examples, in 1949 – so they were not an exclusive, nor an experimental model.

David Oldfield


28/07/11 – 15:22

I’ve always understood that this version was known as the ‘Farington style’ Perhaps the reason that many people applied the same name (incorrectly) to the later and final version was simply because no one ever gave it a name of it’s own. I must say that the Southport example looks particularly fine!

Chris Barker


28/07/11 – 15:24

John W mentions he always saw lots of Leyland bodied Titans in the Bramley area. This was definitely home ground to these buses as most of them spent their entire working lives at Bramley depot which for most of its postwar existence was 100% Leyland. It got its first 30ft long vehicles (PD3A/2) in 1962/63
Bramley was a former tram depot which presented some operating problems the main being the fact that being built on a hill the ground sloped away from the original entrance on Henconneer Lane To ease access and manoeuvrability problems a second exit was made but this needed a ramp to ground level.
The original depot was closed and demolished in 1969 being replaced by a large purpose built one a few hundred yards away this is still in use by First.

Chris Hough


30/07/11 – 07:57

Sheffield had 64 ‘Farington’ style Leyland bodies in all, spread over all three fleets, 52 in the ‘A’, 10 sprinkled throughout the jointly owned ‘B’, and 2 in the ‘C’ fleet which was wholly owned by British Railways. Interestingly they were all painted in a variation of the standard Sheffield livery, which for many years came to be reserved for ‘Farington’ bodied Titans and anything with a body from Charles H. Roe!
Ironically, when LCT 380 came to town on its enthusiast’s excursion, it was one of the the first batch of Sheffield PD2’s, dating from 1947, that accompanied it around the city! Despite the body on STD 545 KWA545 being only two years older than the first ‘Farington’s,’ the contrast between it and the very elegant Leeds machine was stark, to say the least.

Dave Careless


08/08/11 – 10:20

MEMORIES !!
I was a “Bramley Lad” in the 60s and these bus’s were VERY close to my heart as my Dad drove for the Bramley Depot!
I have fond and vivid memories of the move to the new Towns End Depot, there was a very exciting open day where we got to ride the new one man bus’s through the Bus Wash !!! We lost Dad 3 years ago, I wish we had found this forum before he went he would have filled this sight with Facts and Figures.

Graham Morton


02/08/12 – 07:22

I’m surprised no one mentioned that some members of the 340-399 batch of Leylands were fixtures on the 38 Moortown-Whitkirk from many years between 1949 and at least 1956; I rode the route fairly frequently, waited for buses and trams at Moortown corner at least twice daily and remember seeing nothing else on that route, though I know other types did show up occasionally.

Andrew Young


02/08/12 – 11:25

There were in fact only a very small handful of the batch allocated to Torre Road Depot – a strange situation really, as you would have thought an “all at Bramley” allocation would have better suited their manual transmission specification. The 38 service, on a half hourly frequency and one hour a round trip, required only two vehicles and so its not really surprising that the “NNW”s gave the impression of being the universal type.

Chris Youhill


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


15/11/15 – 16:14

I worked at Bramley depot and drove on the 54, 65 and 77 routes. It was these routes that helped me learn how to do “snatch” gear changes, especially on Kirkstall Hill. The only problem with these buses was brake fade, after two applications of the footbrake (no air brakes) the vacuum brakes were useless. I can recall having a brand new Mini brake suddenly in front of me, and I hit it from the rear making it a “short wheelbase” Mini. I will always remember the PD2/1s as being a sturdy vehicle.

David Thorpe


16/11/15 – 05:37

I agree with you wholeheartedly David regarding the vacuum brakes on the PD2s – and believe me the brakes on the 30 foot elegant PD3s were even worse. As local folks will know, The Leeds PD3s in their time bore the brunt of the extremely busy Moortown/Roundhay/Middleton/Belle Isle former tram routes and I’ve had some alarming near misses with them when fully laden, and I think I can honestly claim not have been a “nutter” putting timekeeping above all else like some ill advised chaps did. I’ve driven PD2s/PD3s for several operators and the same problem has arisen with them all, and I’m sure that this was n reflection on maintenance – it was simply a characteristic of the Leyland design. In fact a very good friend of mine, a conscientious driver, had his own method of ensuring that the PD3s would stop safely – on approaching every stop he would apply maximum revs and execute a faultless change down from top to third – I doubt if this reflected favourably on fuel consumption but I’m sure that LCT could stand that due to their well known “run ’em on fresh air” policy. Now very oddly, I’ve driven a heck of lot of PD1s – one of my very favourite models and very appealing too – but their brakes always seemed far more up to the job. This is most strange because in size, weight and passenger capacity they were virtually the same as the PD2 and no doubt had similar or identical braking systems. Despite the enormous and widespread success and popularity of the PD2s/PD3s this aspect will no doubt remain a mystery for ever.

Chris Youhill


16/11/15 – 15:22

I paid a visit to the excellent Dewsbury Bus Museum open day yesterday. The highlight for me was a trip on the superbly restored West Riding lowbridge all Leyland PD2/1. What a tribute to Leyland quality – and I’d forgotten that Leyland pre dated the lightweight Orion with no interior panels below the upper deck waist rail. David comments on the all Leylands being a sturdy vehicle, this is borne out by my experience of the Sheffield buses of this type, especially the 1947/8 builds with the polished interior wood finish. Chris Y comments on brake performance on PD2s and PD3s. My experience is that the air braked PD2 was ok, the air braked PD3 less so. Spare a thought for drivers with the sole vacuum braked PD3/3 with PMT (see elsewhere on this site for H811) whilst all its brethren were air braked.

Ian Wild


17/11/15 – 11:01

Most interesting views Ian, and to be honest I’ve never driven an air braked PD2, all mine have been vacuum – apart perhaps for the one “RTL” that I drove, that being one of the ten Leeds City Transport preselector models 301 – 310. I had booked overtime at a different garage to my own in order to enjoy such a drive when the class of ten was down to two of three. I was so delighted by the experience that I don’t recall any issue with the brakes on the three hour piece of rather “gentle” work, consisting of dead mileage and duplicates.

Chris Youhill


17/11/15 – 13:40

I recall a photo of an impeccable SL “RT” on the roof of a garage, some time ago, Chris Y. You’ve also driven an “RTL”. What characteristics were different between the two? Or maybe you don’t remember, so relaxing was the experience with the RTL!

Could someone explain what the little white oblong box under the canopy, centre-front was all about?

Chris Hebbron


18/11/15 – 07:18

Chris H – well in simple terms Chris “everything was different” as with any AEC/Leyland comparison. The Leyland steering was far more positive and the AEC steady tickover produced a totally different effect from the flywheel/gearbox than did the delightful “hunting and gentle wobbling” of the Leyland. I don’t know if there was much difference in top speed but perhaps the Leyland might have just had the edge, and certainly had less tendency to alarming leaning when loaded. Both vehicles of course wonderful and highly successful in their different ways, such is the delight of variety. The rooftop garage that you mention would of course be Armley – the rooftop park was exactly the same size as the garage beneath and must have been capable of carrying an unbelievable weight. When Samuel Ledgard died in 1952 practically every withdrawn vehicle from Day One was up there – yes, including the original charabancs from 1912 – if only the preservation funds and movement had been as prolific then !!
Regarding the picture of NNW 380 in this topic, the little white box is the illuminated “Limited” sign – a moderately successful device for discouraging passengers from boarding on certain peak services where boarding and alighting stops were “limited” for the benefit of longer distance passengers. Quite a number of the blighters though were adept at taking a calculated risk by paying the minimum fare applicable but baling out in the heavy traffic which they knew was to be expected – they considered that the dearer fare was worth it for a quicker journey home. This was really anti social in perhaps the same way as people nowadays who operate pelican crossings and then cross against the red man causing traffic to halt for nothing later.

Chris Youhill


18/11/15 – 07:20

I asked this in another forum a couple of weeks ago Chris, and was informed it was to display ‘LIMITED STOP’.

Stephen Howarth


18/11/15 – 07:27

Even I can tell you that the little white oblong box could be illuminated to say “Limited”, Chris.
My memories of LCT were certainly these and those bare metal engine covers, which seemed to appear about the time of the tram replacement scheme in the 1950’s. That’s why that similarly treated “classic” Crossley is a mystery: as well as a few cranked seats, did other 50’s Leeds buses have rearward facing front bulkhead seats?
Did you notice, too, that the 1952 Regent III in the Gallery is from Roe’s big window period, whilst the Daimler/Orion shows, by contrast, what a miserable looking design these were. Good Pics though.
What a smart livery, anywhere, any bus. Progress is not inevitable…pink and puce?

Joe

Leeds City Transport – Leyland Titan PD2/1 – NNW 379 – 379


Copyright Chris Hough

Leeds City Transport
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

This batch of sixty Leyland bodied Leyland Titans were delivered to Leeds in 1949-1950. Most of the batch were allocated to the Bramley depot for most of their careers providing most of the duties on the 54, 77 and 23 services as well as the Bramley contribution to the 11, 15 and 16 services. All were withdrawn in the late sixties. They along with the 1949-1950 AEC Regent IIIs were the last Leeds City Transport buses to carry via blinds as standard retaining them to the end of their careers. One 356 NNW 356 later ran for Saltburn Motor Services at Saltburn-by-the-Sea near Redcar. Seen here is 379 NNW 379 parked in the depot yard at the old Bramley depot which was originally a tram depot converting to buses in the early fifties.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough


01/06/12 – 07:16

Great to see this view, Chris. Fond memories, as this was my “home” depot and these PD2s were the workhorses on my local 23, 54, 65 and 77 routes. Even when my family moved to Moortown in the early sixties, two of them followed me (377/378?) to operate Torre Road depot services to Moortown and Primley Park (69/70). Small point but, Bramley depot converted from trams in 1949. In those earlier days of “common sense” the friendly depot staff used to allow us lads to wander round the depot collecting numbers, even letting us sit in one of the PD1 cabs so we could pretend to drive it. The most dodgy thing we ever got up to was the occasional destination “twiddle” to try to show obsolete destinations like Guiseley.

Paul Haywood


01/06/12 – 07:17

These are the true “Farringtons” – the final, and definitive Leyland bodywork of 1951 – 1954 not strictly being so. Sheffield and Manchester had substantial numbers of Farringtons as well. They were only built on PD2/1 chassis and are distinctive with their separate sliders. [The ultimate “not Farringtons” were mostly PD2/12 and had ventilator sliders integrated into the window pans.]

David Oldfield


01/06/12 – 12:02

Thanks for the compliment Paul. As a lad I was also allowed in the depot often accompanying my dad when he went for his wages as he was a guard for LCT. To see the bus washer in action was the highlight of any visit! The two exits were both odd. The original tram exit was angled and narrow not a problem with a tram but a bus could easily suffer damage if the driver approached at the wrong angle. The “back door” was I think put in when the buses took over and had a steep ramp to ground level as the depot was on a hill The ramp wall is visible in the photo.

Chris Hough


02/06/12 – 07:15

Manchester’s Farringtons were on PD2/3 chassis. I’m pretty sure Southport’s were too. The same sliding window design then turned up with Duple, following the migration of an engineer from Leyland.

Peter Williamson


02/06/12 – 11:55

Leeds may have had the only PD2/1s with this style of body as they only bought 7ft 6ins wide buses apart from one batch of 8ft AECs until the advent of thirty foot long chassis. This was due to limited clearance between platforms in the bus station.

Chris Hough


07/06/12 – 10:34

Number 380 was transferred into the Driver training fleet after normal withdrawal, and I was given my job after taking my LCT application test in it one busy teatime in October 1969. It behaved like a dream and the true gentleman in charge of the School, Senior Inspector Albert Bradley, allowed me a few extra miles on top of the normal test route when I told him how much I was enjoying it – so instead of turning towards Town at the end of Old Lane we went up the Ring Road, through Middleton, and down Belle Isle Road. My only real criticism of these vehicles was the incessant rattling of the sliding windows which was really annoying to passengers. Also I’m sorry to say that many of the drivers NEVER used first gear – the bottom stop in Eastgate was the worst place, and some would nearly burn out the clutch when pulling away with a heavy load – the rattling windows had their own extra special “concerto” at this location !!

Chris Youhill


08/06/12 – 17:26

Back in 1949 whilst working on a neon sign for a well known Leeds grocery chain in York Road directly opposite Torre Road garage,(Long before the present road system was built including the M1 & M62) I witnessed the whole of this fleet in convoy heading towards the city centre…I have often wondered why, assuming these vehicles were Lancashire built, why were they entering the city from an easterly direction and not from the west. I assume that they would have had to take whatever route avoiding low bridges on their journey to Leeds. Also why did they by pass the main LCT garage? I would have thought this is where all new vehicles were vetted before being allocated to their respected depots….As a passenger I did travel regularly on these vehicles, and were super when flying up Burley Hill,and the internal body work was comparable to those “attractive” Roe bodies of the same era.
Interestingly though, two years later I was sent to Leyland’s Farington Foundry to sort out some electrical problem, and more concerned with the task in hand I didn’t show much interest of the activities that went on in this huge complex….but that’s another story.

Ken Greaves


Ken I can’t throw any light on the buses travelling from the east into Leeds. But I would hazard a guess that they were heading to the bus works on Donnisthorpe Street for checking prior to entering service. The wheel has now turned full circle in Leeds as Donnisthorpe Street in Hunslet is now the site of the First West Yorkshire head office The former had office in Swinegate is now a Malmaison hotel.

Chris Hough


09/06/12 – 07:55

Great memories there Ken, and I may have been “on board” at the same time as you on many occasions as I lived at the top of Burley Hill in the early “70s.” The PD2s were very spritely indeed, especially in the hands of drivers who correctly changed down into third, and occasionally second if heavily laden, with maximum engine revs so as not to lose momentum. Passengers in the habit of “baling out” at speed had to be very skilled and careful in those days if they were to avoid coming a cropper. In later half cab times, when I was driving the little AEC Mark V Regents on the same route but service 50 folks could step off easily half way up the hill as the anaemic asthmatic little blighters (the buses not the clients) were so gutless that Burley Hill had them licked. Coming the other way one morning peak up Kirkstall Hill towards the Merry Monk number 908 (1908 NW) – one of the final 8 foot wide batch – gave up the struggle and ground to a halt on the worst bend. This embarrassing predicament was partially explained by the inability of the conductress to manage even basic arithmetic – 60 plus 8 – the clients were standing almost everywhere apart from the roof, and there may have been one or two up there even but they will have slipped off due to the lack of hand grips !!

Chris Youhill


10/06/12 – 17:04

Yes Chris this part of York Road was more conducive to seeing Roe built vehicles travelling on it, after all the Roe factory was only just a couple of miles up the road at Crossgates. I wondered if this batch had been built at some other plant within the Leyland network but outside of Lancashire, or maybe held in some holding centre so delivery of the whole fleet could be made in bulk….We will probably never know.
During my five day stint at Farrington foundry, the official we (my apprentice and me) were to contact, was more insistent on giving us the grand tour of the place rather than giving us the lowdown on our reasons for being there…..However Farrington was not just another foundry, it assembled trucks and wagons of all shapes and sizes, including bus and trolley bus chassis. The trolley bus workshops were behind two large doors which were big enough to admit large vehicles such as a double decker bus unfortunately the doors were locked so we were unable to go in….The tour of the place finished at about three in the afternoon after which I was then taken to see the job I had come to do. I would have been over the moon if the grand tour had occurred after I had completed the job in hand instead of before…
Nevertheless it was grand experience for a 22year old…..But if trolleys buses were made at Farrington then coach building was done too! So could it be that the so called “Farrington” bus was so called for no other reason than it was made at Farrington as opposed to being made at some other plant within the Leyland framework, whatever design reference it might be.

Ken Greaves


11/06/12 – 08:37

Fascinating puzzle, Ken, regarding their eastern approach to Torre Road in 1949. Could the explanation be something as simple as them using the west/north Ring Road to avoid the congested Leeds city centre?
In 1949 I presume the route from Leyland would have been Blackburn, Burnley, Todmorden, Halifax and then possibly round the south of Bradford via Odsal and Stanningley (the Hebble route), or along the A58 to Wortley (on the YWD route). In this way, they could have then used (much of) the existing A6120 Ring Road around the west and north of the city as far as Seacroft, then eastward into Leeds along York Road to Torre Road. Pure speculation, of course, but assuming they were being driven by Leyland trade-plate drivers, perhaps the extra mileage was justified to avoid them being stuck in the centre of a strange city (full of trams, of course).

Paul Haywood


11/06/12 – 08:38

Chris Youhill, my in laws lived on the Sandford Estate and I lived at Hawksworth round the circus no doubt you will be very familiar with the No 50/51 route. Whilst I personally have no connections with the bus industry only as a passenger, I knew several people that did work on the buses. My brother was a conductor at Headingley during the sixties and seventies and two schoolmates who started as parcel boys worked their up to bus drivers George Kennedy was an upholsterer for LCT and George Brogden the keenest inspector of all, he was one of the drivers who drove the Leeds buses down to London during the war….. I also have lived in Little London (born there) Harehills, and Pontefract and back to Little London and now in the Carr Manors and are familiar with both trams and buses that operated in that particular area. I loved your tale of conking out on Kirkstall Hill god knows how many times this has happened whilst I have been a passenger on the number 50 bus, it always happened when an enthusiastic driver tries to change up a gear after crossing over Kirkstall Lane and then tries to engage first gear after the vehicle has ground to a halt. The thrill of this journey was the descent of Burley Hill after getting started again, to make up for lost time the driver would speed up (providing George Brogden the inspector wasn’t about) and one would wonder whether the brakes would hold or not, or would the bus topple over, it was certainly exciting….Most days the 50 bus and the 77 bus ran together and usually it became a race to see which bus reached the top or bottom of Burley Hill first. depending of course which direction the buses were travelling.

Ken Greaves


13/06/12 – 09:51

Ken, you paint a most evocative and accurate picture of the Leeds bus scene of fifty years ago. !! I may well have worked with your brother as I too was at Headingley from 1969 to 1986.
My own initiation into the 50 service has me blushing still – it was a Saturday afternoon in November 1969 and the bus was one of the aforementioned anaemic small Mark V Regents, and having persuaded it with difficulty while fully loaded to reach Hawksworth Circus I crossed the roundabout. I was pretty sure that the second right turn should then be taken, until I entered a narrow street where several worthies were washing their cars – foamy water and sponges flew everywhere as they ran for cover – I should have taken the first right turn !!
For the work shy element at Headingley and Bramley depots Morris Lane and Leeds & Bradford Road provided ample views to see over the Abbey fields what eastbound progress the opposition were making – this was the reason for much deliberate “bunching” of vehicles on the 50/77 between Kirkstall and Leeds. The poor old 23 was largely unable to participate in this contest as it was a very fast busy twenty eight minute run with only two minutes at each terminus.
When I came to a halt with 908 that morning I had remained in first gear all the way up from the Kirkstall Lane junction but still couldn’t prevent the lamentable and notorious thing from giving up, the last straw of course being the conductress’s record breaking load !!
Away from all this Brand’s Hatch and Le Mans nonsense I spent my last fourteen years (1987 – 01) at the Pontefract depot of South Yorkshire Road Transport (and successors) so once again may well have encountered you there. My best friend lives also now in the Carr Manors so once again “What a small world” eh ??

Chris Youhill


13/06/12 – 16:52

Chris Youhill…I lived at Pontefract from 1950 to 1953 and travelled each day to Leeds from Willow Park trying to avoid West Riding services whenever I could. South Yorkshire service was superb in every way,prompt warm fast clean cheerful, it was an almost personal service that you got. Those single decker Albions could certainly move. What a delight to board the Strachan bodied double decker on the return journey at night and fall asleep with your feet on the heater and not wake up until you had arrived back in Pontefract, after working all day in the frozen wastes of Ireland Wood and Cookridge on the new council housing estates.

Ken Greaves


14/06/12 – 07:42

You are right Ken about the superb service provided by South Yorkshire (Motors Ltd in that period). You may be surprised to hear that Albion/Roe double decker TWY 8 (which was still a single decker coach in 1950/3) is now in advanced preservation and appears at rallies. When I started work with the Firm in 1987 I was just astounded to find that the Atlantean, Fleetline and Olympian double deckers were fitted by the Company with water squirters on each driving mirror, allowing clear vision in the worst of weather on muddy roads.

Chris Youhill


14/06/12 – 07:45

Chris Y – I really think you should write a book of your experiences in the bus industry of yesteryear – all good stuff and generating a chuckle or two: maybe not for you at the time, however!

Chris Hebbron


14/06/2012 14:17:46

Couldn’t agree more with Chris H about Chris Y.

David Oldfield


14/06/12 – 14:18

Chris Hebbron…I totally agree, Chris Y should write a book, then we could all contribute something.

Ken Greaves


14/06/12 – 14:19

Chris Y- was there a video of TWY 8 here on Bus Sounds running up Dewsbury cutting on a running day presumably….?, but it was taken down from You-tube… anyone know where it is?
In the old mining areas ample water was essential on all glass, as you collected a film of grey/black greasy slurry off the roads. My first Morris Minor initially had no screenwasher- frightening. Good on them!

Joe


15/06/12 – 05:51

Thanks to Chris H, David and Ken for that literary vote of confidence – I should have written such a book years ago and would still love to do so, but am now very “senior” for that sort of venture.
Off to Norfolk now with two friends to sample the preserved railways – no doubt drenched if the forecasters are correct – but will catch up with everything on Monday hopefully.

Chris Youhill


15/06/12 – 12:19

How about someone getting you a digital recorder for you to speak your recollections into, Chris? That way you don’t have to tax the senior brain but just chat, as to a friend – rather as you do here in cyber-space.

David Oldfield


01/07/12 – 10:31

Just stumbled across the photo of the LCT PD2 379 at the old Bramley Town End Depot and spent the last 30 minutes enthralled by the comments of Chris Youhill et al. These NNW’s plus the XUM small Regent V’s with their well proportioned exposed radiator 7ft 6ins Roe bodies represented my very early introduction to the industry, a precursor to a life long career, thankfully still continuing over 45 years later !
Although born in Nottinghamshire, my Grandparents lived on Kirkstall Hill in Leeds and from an early age various weekends and school holidays would be spent sat at a bedroom window watching the 23’s, 50’s and 77’s travelling up and down the hill. Long before awareness of BBF Books (Yorkshire Municipal Edition) or Busses Illustrated I had worked out that regular performers on the 23/77’s were PD2’s 350-399 and the Regents 863-894 with allocation split between Bramley and Headingley Depots. Trips into Leeds with Grandma always offered a choice to/from Eastgate with the AEC’s winning the day (perhaps it was the struggle up Burley Hill with the throaty but underpowered 470). This would have been the period 1963-1968 when my family moved to Burley in Wharfedale but what memories! Even before that time, the old NNW’s were being replaced with newer versions (1953 built 301-310 and 1955 201-220 and even further XUM’s from the batch 840-862) so for me, the end of an era and happy childhood memories bus watching. I do remember that four of the NNW’s (394, 396, 397, 398) remained for sometime after the rest had disappeared, I believe to the end of 1968 and of course as mentioned by your other contributors 380 found itself on Driver Training Duties.
Move forward 30 years as Operations Manager at Bramley Garage (what coincidence!) and responsibility for those same Kirkstall Hill services, although the 23 long consigned to history, the 77 now the 49 to and from Bramley Garage but still the 50, the latter routes now operated by Olympian Royales. Plenty more memories, although on occasion the memory may play tricks and I thank you for helping jog them. I will be happy to share on line if of value.

Keith Roebuck


02/07/12 – 07:23

I’m sure we’d like to hear of your experiences in the industry, humorous or otherwise, Keith – they can always be posted under “Articles”

Chris Hebbron


07/07/15 – 06:33

I lived in Newcastle from 1961-66. During that time PD2 NNW 345 appeared regularly outside Newgate House, where I worked, running for a local operator.

Colin Milner


17/07/15 – 12:39

I can remember going to School by Leeds City Transport on routes 50.51&77 which went via Burley Hill Leeds and were operated by Leyland Buses with a Charles Roe body I think they were classed as PD1 and had a crash gearbox and always had to stop on the hill to select the appropriate lower gear. before moving to Leeds I lived at Yeadon and travelled on Samuel Ledgard buses which ran between Otley & Horsforth via Yeadon they were Bedfords with wooden plank seats and there registration numbers were JNW 347&348, I would like to see a photograph of one of these if.possible.

Howard Clayton


17/07/15 – 12:42

I’m afraid our expert on Samuel Ledgard has been taken poorly a couple of days ago, but he will be back with us shortly.

Peter


18/07/15 – 06:18

Colin M, the Newcastle operator of whom you speak was Armstrong of Westerhope. They ran a service from Newcastle to Stanfordham. The Newcastle terminus was outside what was the Co-op department store in Newgate Street. When T&W PTE were created, the route came under their control, and Armstongs, along with Galleys coaches became Armstrong Galley, the coaching division of T&W PTE

Ronnie Hoye


25/07/16 – 09:48

Seemingly forgotten in this talk of the Bramley vehicles is the operation of the PD2/1s on the 38 Moortown-Whitkirk from about the time of their entry into Leeds service throughout most of the 1950s. Where were these buses stationed? Torre Road presumably but does anyone know for sure?

David A. Young


25/07/16 – 15:11

No trouble David in confirming that the 38 route was operated by Torre Road depot – two buses were required to maintain the half hourly frequency, a round trip being one hour. Crew (later OPO) changes took place at the Melbourne roundabout, the staff using other bus services to and from.

Chris Youhill


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


17/01/17 – 15:15

Depends what period Howard Clayton (17/07/15 – 12:39) is talking about. I don’t ever remember PD1s doing the 77 route, certainly not during my time at Bramley garage (late ’58’to end of ’59) – the PD1s were always on the 46. The PD2s had a crash 1st gear and synchro on 2nd 3rd &4th. 1st would be engaged to pull away after stopping at the bus stop after turning right off Kirkstall Hill, where the 77 then joined the same route as 50/51 (Daimlers from Headingley Depot). Were these Daimlers Charles Roe war time utility bodies, I’m not sure?
On the opposite corner to the bus stop, in that small parade of shops, was a fish & chip shop owned by Albert Hardisty – his brother was Inspector Cyril Hardisty!, who twice caught me not wearing my hat – a hanging offence. Albert was my wife’s uncle- small world, eh?

Richard Watson

Leeds City Transport – Leeds Titan – UUA 207 – 207

Leeds City Transport - Leeds Titan - UUA 207 - 207

Leeds City Transport
1955
Leeds Titan PD2/11
Roe H33/25R

This looks like a typical view from Yorkshire but these Leeds City Transport buses are interloping in Lancashire. Taken around 1970 the two Leyland Titans are seen in Rochdale climbing up from Sudden on Manchester Road heading for the town centre. The occasion was the Trans Pennine Rally from Manchester to Harrogate. Leading is 207 (UUA 207) a PD2/11 from a batch which were reputed to be the first Titans with Pneumo-cyclic transmission. Following up is 260 (5260 NW) a later PD3/5 30-footer. Both have Roe bodies.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Philip Halstead


28/10/16 – 07:41

Philip, I can’t make out the registration of the PD3, but I’d have thought it would be 5280 NW, ex Leeds 280, which is preserved (currently by Ensign, I believe, but probably with the Mile Cross Transport Collection at the time of your photo), rather than 5260 NW, which I don’t think survived.

Trevor Leach


28/10/16 – 16:55

They may have been the first batch of Pneumocyclic Titans but the very first is Leyland bodied demonstrator NTF 9 still owned by Edward Docherty who bought it from the manufacturer for A1 service work around 1955.

Stephen Allcroft


29/10/16 – 06:16

Is the date on the photo correct? The parts of the cars that we can see look to be more 1990 than 1970.

David Hick


31/10/16 – 08:18

This post is from a print and I regret I kept no notes of when it was taken. On reflection the date is more likely late 1980’s. After enlarging the scan the PD3/5 does look the be 5260. Apologies for any confusion but relying on memory with age is a tricky business.

Philip Halstead


31/10/16 – 15:11

I wondered about the date as I remember UUA 207 being stored on Pocklington Airfield in the 1980s alongside another ex-Leeds Leyland which was being used as a mobile control room/mess room by the gliding club.

David Hick

Leeds City Transport – Daimler Fleetline – 101 LNW – 101

Leeds City Transport - Daimler Fleetline - 101 LNW - 101

Leeds City Transport (West Yorkshire PTE)
1964
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
Roe H41/29F

In June 1978 West Yorkshire PTE transferred five Fleetlines 101 – 105 from Leeds to Calderdale. 101 was a 1964 Commercial Vehicle Motor Show exhibit which was unique amongst the batch with a single piece curved windscreen and twin headlamps. It is shown here at Skircoat Moor in Halifax shortly before entering service there. One or two points to note, a relatively low seating capacity of 70 when 77 was more normal for this size and layout; note apparently no opening windows in the lower deck (can’t remember this). I do remember the heavy steering and abysmal demisters – this could also affect many other early Fleetlines. The transfer was in the interests of standardisation but this batch had the original “heavyweight” chassis whereas the Halifax buses had the later simplified rear sub frame hence different rear engine mountings – another problem area in early Fleetlines.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild


14/01/16 – 16:30

The various early attempts made to ‘prettify’ the boxy shape of the Orion inspired body designs on the first generation Fleetlines and Atlanteans never seemed to come off. Here on this attempt by Roe the lower front panel and curved windscreen seem totally out of context to the remainder which is totally angular. Of the early rear-engined body designs only the Glasgow Alexander version seemed to be designed as a whole and didn’t look like a botch-up. The Bolton East Lancs Atlanteans were pretty good too where the body design seemed to be geared to suit the very attractive livery. It will certainly not be remembered as a high point in British bus bodywork design.

Philip Halstead


14/01/16 – 17:50

I remember 101 well, Ian. My work records show me as having driven it on three occasions at Halifax during 1979. The first was on the 5th January when my conductor Dave Maude and I had it for the first half of a split duty. It is recorded as having been booked off for “No Heaters, No Demisters, Heavy Steering and Slipping Flywheel”.
I well remember this occasion as we had struggled to operate a trip to Sowerby with a full standing load of school children for Ryburn Valley High School who unfortunately all insisted on breathing throughout the journey, misting then frosting up our windscreen, Dave having to constantly reach over with bits of paper towel in a vain attempt to provide visibility ahead. Then on the next trip around the 517 Queens Road Circular it became so cold inside that the windscreen froze over on both sides and any attempts to scrape off the ice were thwarted by it immediately freezing over again. We had to finally stop and abandon any hope of continuing the journey for quite a while until I think eventually we were causing such an obstruction that a sympathetic motorist lent us the remains of his de-icer spray and we were just about able to find our way back to Garage in a series of starts and stops.
We also had four more of the batch (102-105), but these had the more conventional flat fronts. They too – like all early Fleetlines – had very heavy steering, but the bodies seemed to be very solid and rattle-free in comparison with the ex-Halifax Northern Counties-bodied Fleetlines, which I thoroughly disliked.

John Stringer


15/01/16 – 06:28

Reading the comments above, I am surprised that no one thought of specifying heated windscreens. I seem to recall them on Hants & Dorset Bristol MWs in the early sixties, which certainly did not have to cope with the more severe weather found in Yorkshire.

David Wragg


15/01/16 – 06:30

101 was the Roe exhibit at the 1964 Earls Court show. Originally finished in traditional Leeds livery plus gold lining out. It was originally fitted with forced ventilation on both decks but following complaints from the public opening windows were fitted in the upper deck.
Like many of LCTs rear engined fleet 101 wore at least three liveries The original the later one man reversed livery and the Metro livery seen here.

On the subject of seating capacity Leeds had no thirty footers with more than 70 seats the largest 33ft deckers only seated 78 The first 30ft types with more than 70 seats were ordered and delivered to the PTE.

Chris Hough


15/01/16 – 14:44

It is not strictly true to say that the first 30ft deckers delivered to Leeds with more than 70 seats were ordered by the P.T.E.
Leylands 221-291, 5221-5291 NW, Daimlers 502-531, 7502-7531 UA and A.E.C.s 910-923, 3910-3923 UB delivered between 1958 and 1960 seated H39/32R when they entered service.
They were altered to H38/32R between August and October 1960 following a National Agreement on standing capacity which meant that buses with more than 70 seats were restricted to a maximum of 5 standing passengers whilst those with not more than 70 could carry 8 standing passengers.

John Kaye


15/01/16 – 17:06

David, the earliest buses I came across with heated windscreens were the final (1969) batch of Plaxton/Roadliners at PMT where we certainly had problems with heaters and demisters (tell me an undertaking that didn’t). You can’t believe the difficulties in getting hot water to flow round 60 feet of pipework.

Ian Wild


16/01/16 – 06:07

Ian. Thought on Roadliners screens were prone to jumping out which only makes demisters the preferred option

Roger Burdett


16/01/16 – 06:12

In that case, Ian, I must have made a mistake. Certainly the Marshall-bodied AEC Reliances of Aldershot & District had such screens around that time, but as regards the Hants & Dorset MWs, put that down to old age!
I can imagine the difficulties in getting heat around vehicles as they grew longer and engines moved from end to the other. More a case of needing a plumber than a mechanic.

David Wragg


16/01/16 – 06:12

Roe never seemed to quite get the “hang of” being able (or could be bothered?) to match-up the top and side profiles of curved windscreens with adjacent body-work, whether single or double-beck – the impression, to me, is of something just cut into bodywork designed for something else. I hope the near-side windscreen wiper was re-fitted before it entered service. And, John, a double-deck on the 517/8 – that was a bit optimistic as regards loadings wasn’t it? with a conductor you must have outnumbered the passenger.

Philip Rushworth


17/01/16 – 06:33

Yes Philip, if I remember rightly there were occasions when we carried nobody at all for the whole round trip, and if not then there were never more than two or three. The service by then was interworked with other routes and this particular AM trip just happened to slot in nicely to a crew operated double-deck working.
Commencing on 9th November,1925 this fairly short circular route served a densely populated area and in its heyday(as the 25 Inner Circle – same number both ways)had been operated by double deckers on a 20 minute (three peaks)or 30 minute (off-peak) frequency, and running throughout the evening. Renumbered 7 (clockwise) or 8 (anti-clocwise) on 24th October 1955 the timetable remained pretty much the same throughout the 1950’s and 60’s. On 29th September 1968 it was combined with the Beechwood Road route becoming cross-town routes 17/18) and converted to OMO single deck operation. The evening service was withdrawn on 27th May 1970. From 20th November 1972 the Beechwood Road section was incorporated into the 3 Hungerhill Estate service, so the 17/18 now reverted to just a Queens Road circular again. On 4th December 1972 it was diverted to also serve Richmond Road, by which time it ran hourly each way. Renumbered 517/518 by WYPTE it was reduced to just four trips per weekday from 12th January 1981, and was withdrawn altogether from 26th October 1986 when the newly created Yorkshire Rider diverted alternate Wainstalls journeys via Queens Road as route 524.

John Stringer


17/01/16 – 06:34

Notably the first C H Roe customer to ask for an Alexander type double curvature windscreen was the then General Manger at Great Yarmouth.
By the time this bus was transferred to Halifax the same man was Engineering Director of the PTE and prior to that he had been General Manager of Halifax and Todmorden.

This shot shows how Roe didn’t put a taper in the front end, unlike Alexander who did: www.flickr.com/photos/johnmightycat/

Stephen Allcroft


17/01/16 – 12:22

That would be the late Geoffrey Hilditch then. A Bus Engineer through and through, the likes of which the Bus Industry will never see again.

Stephen Howarth


17/01/16 – 17:12

Lincoln also bought a batch of Atlanteans with this style of bodywork.

Chris Hough


28/09/20 – 05:33

Reading through all the comments its clear there are some very serious and knowledgeable people that know which brake pads go on which buses.
I am an enthusiast in my own way. I used to be a conductor for Leeds City Transport from 1967 to 1969. Mainly rear loaders (layman’s term) but during that time I remember OMO (one man operated) buses arriving which I was told had been on trial in Leicester I think. At the time these buses were absolute luxury and I remember going to various depots looking for overtime and being thrilled on the front loaders and being a conductor on them. Equally brilliant were the single decker’s which did the inner ring road route. I’m now approaching 70 and can tell anyone and everyone that even after spending 22 years in the Royal Navy and seeing most of the world, being a bus conductor was the proudest job I ever had.

Mike Booth

Leeds City Transport – Daimler Fleetline – UNW 174H – 174

>
UNW 174H

Leeds City Transport
1969
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LXB
Roe H45/33D

Representative of the concurrent Leeds double deck orders in 1969/70 are these two buses photographed in Leeds in April 1970. On the left is Roe H45/33D bodied Daimler Fleetline CRG6LXB UNW 174H, No.174 delivered in September 1969. Standing alongside is similarly bodied Leyland Atlantean PDR2/1 UNW 404H, No.404 which arrived in January 1970. Though seemingly identical to the man on the Leeds, rather than the Clapham omnibus, I wonder how these two types compared in terms of road performance and mechanical reliability.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox


01/12/21 – 07:22

Sheffield had similarly contemporaneous batches of vehicles. Whatever the comparative merits, or otherwise, of the competing marques, the Sheffield PDR2/1 Atlanteans were mountain goats whereas the CRG6LXB Fleetlines struggled up the many steep hills. I saw it regularly with Atlanteans on the Outer Circle and Fleetlines on the Hemsworths going up Scarsdale Road.

David Oldfield


03/12/21 – 06:08

What a smart pair of buses! Handsome designs and elegant livery. I only knew the southern fleets, save for the high speed Scotland-London coaches which thundered down the A1 through Stevenage, through the night, which were black and white, if memory serves. Circa 1952-3 (Western Scottish?)
What a platform these pages provide for us all!

Victor Brumby

Leeds City Transport – Daimler CVG6 – YNW 555 – 555

Leeds City Transport - Daimler CVG6 - YNW 555 - 555Leeds City Transport - Daimler CVG6 - YNW 555 - 555

Leeds City Transport
1957
Daimler CVG6
Weymann H33/27R

Photographed in April 1970 in the dignified livery of Leeds City Transport is Daimler CVG6, Weymann H33/27R, YNW 555, No. 555, one of a batch of twenty delivered in September 1957. This bus remained in service to pass to WYPTE on 1 April 1974.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox


10/10/18 – 05:21

Like many municipalities, Leeds Corporation got full value out of its vehicles, in this case, at least 17 years. Of course, with the impending threat of having to hand over its vehicles to the WYPTE, it might well have just decided not to replace the older ones at that stage!
Do we know when it was finally withdrawn?
One of my two trips to Leeds was to travel its tram system, with its Felthams, in 1957/58, I think. I was shocked at its closure soon afterwards, which seemed illogical with so much of it on reserved track and no employee mentioned impending doom on my visit. Does anyone know what changed to shut it down in such a short timescale?

Chris Hebbron


11/10/18 – 05:32

Volume 4 of “Leeds Transport” actually reports that 555 was withdrawn on 30/09/1971 and went to a Barnsley dealer for scrapping November 1972.

Dave Towers


12/10/18 – 06:50

Thanks for that correction, Dave, which I entirely accept. Not possessing a historic Leeds fleetlist, I did find a site that listed this batch of Daimlers as passing to the PTE, but now cannot find it. I understand that these Daimlers had air operated brakes and gearchange, which mercifully shielded unwary drivers from the decidedly painful (I speak from experience with the Halifax examples) affliction known as “Daimler knee”.

Roger Cox


23/10/18 – 05:48

The Leeds Tramway was earmarked for closure from the very early fifties. This was despite a good deal of pro tram sentiments among the public.
These and a similar batch bought a year earlier were Leeds fist buses with tin front.

Chris Hough


06/06/21 – 06:39

Yes as Chris said the Leeds system was earmarked for closure in the 1960’s but events brought the sad end earlier than expected on the 7th November 1959. Its quite amazing the number of photographs, both black and white and colour, of the system that are still around. It must be said that a great debit is owed to the National Tramway Museum and the LTHS and collectors such as Robert Mack, Keith Terry and Jim Soper and no doubt countless others.

David Walton


01/09/22 – 07:19

Recently I have been looking at the Leeds and District Transport News back issues for the 1950’s and Daimler CVG6 and CVD6 are both referred to at different times as having the name Victory. I think this could be a mistake, the CVD6 could be rightly given this term, but not the CVG6. What does your readership know about this.

David Patrick Walton


04/09/22 – 06:52

Why not the CVG6…please explain, David? Surely the chassis was what mattered, not the engine. Incidentally, there were CVA6’s, too, although not in Leeds.

Chris Hebbron


05/09/22 – 07:04

Does David not understand the Daimler naming system?
COG Coventry Oil engine Gardner. Pre-war. AEC engines also available.
CWG Coventry Wartime Gardner. Wartime. AEC engines available.
CVG Coventry Victory Gardner. Post-war. AEC/Daimler available

David Oldfield


06/09/22 – 05:26

I would suggest that the “naming” suggested by David Oldfield referred to the model coding system rather than the naming of the chassis as such.
The Daimler CWA6, CWD6 and CWG5 models were all known as “Wartime Daimlers”.
Thus the Daimler CVD6, CVG5, CVG6 and CVA6 became known as “Victory Daimlers” in the early post-war years to reflect the new Daimler chassis introduced after the war, irrespective of the engine fitted, but I have not heard the name Victory being applied to anything new after about 1948/9.

John Kaye

Leeds City Transport – AEC Swift – JNW 952E – 52

Leeds City Transport - AEC Swift - JNW 952E - 52

Leeds City Transport
1967
AEC Swift MP2R
Roe B48D

Leeds bought several batches of AEC Swifts between 1967 and 1971. Prior to these appearing the fleet was 90% double deck with around 15 saloons most of which were AEC Reliances some with centre entrance bodies with the later ones being dual door for one man operation.
Seen here are a quartet of the first two batches of Swifts parked outside the old Bramley depot which was a former tram depot.
Three of the Swifts have Roe bodywork of an attractive style while the fourth carries an MCW body which had forward sloping window pillars and a slightly stepped waistrail. Further saloons in the shape of both Swifts and single deck Fleetlines would appear before the last Roe bodied Swifts entered service in 1971. All of the buses seen here carry their original dark green with light green windows livery that was basically reversed when it was decided to paint one man operated buses in a different style to the rear entrance fleet. All of the Swifts passed to the PTE and had a largely normal life span. From the left they are 52 JNW 952E, 74 MNW 174F the solitary MCW example seen here and 54 and 56 from the same batch as 52.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough


05/09/13 – 14:30

Leeds City Transport plus Roe bodywork is pretty much as one might expect, since the factory was within the boundary. MCW? However did that idea get past Committee???

Pete Davies


05/09/13 – 14:30

A matter of personal preference I know Chris, but I thought that the traditional Leeds City Transport livery as shown here was the very best – corporate and completely dignified, inside and out. The various batches of Swifts each had fascinating characteristics, often considerably different and interesting (challenging even) in their own ways. The first fifty as shown in the picture had semi automatic transmission while the final batches of fifty and twenty had the option of fully automatic or, if drivers like me preferred, manual override so as to allow “normal” gearchanging of a sort. In fairness though the fully automatic mode on these was normally very predictable and well behaved. All things considered, the final twenty (1051 – 1070) with luxury seats were the best of the lot and were a delight to drive and to ride in. Passenger flow in the last seventy was really excellent and they were ideal for one person operation. Rumour had it, we shall never know on what foundation, when the last twenty were on order that they would be of 12 metres length – its a good job that they weren’t, as some of the corners on the inner city routes would have been literally impossible – the turn from the nearside lane of East Parade into Park Lane (Headrow) being one certainty. Thanks again for a really nostalgic picture Chris.

Chris Youhill


06/09/13 – 08:21

Peter Leeds had a long history of dual sourcing bodywork between Roe and MCW although the Swifts were the first saloons.
Chris I too preferred the original liveries seen here although the doors were a little eccentric since the exit door was half the width of the entrance. The Park Royal examples were much better in having both doors of normal width. The Roe 1971 batch had fronts derived from the Leeds two door decker design and as you say were a joy to ride on. I recall that they were replaced on the Ring Road service with Duple bodied Tigers which were also a pleasant ride. One thing that has always struck me about the MCW bodied Swifts was their apparent narrowness at the front compared to the Roe examples.

Chris Hough


06/09/13 – 08:22

By 1967/8 MCW had been Leeds’ ‘backup’ supplier of bodywork for the best part of two decades. It was widely believed that it was possible to get more advantageous quotes from suppliers by multi-sourcing.

David Call


10/09/13 – 06:33

You are right Chris, and the MCW do appear narrower and even allowing for slightly different camera angle its very strange indeed – but must somehow be just an illusion ??
The Tigers were truly superb vehicles, mechanically and bodily, and the luxurious brown patterned moquette seats were the finest. They did indeed replace the Swifts on the Ring Road service entirely, and I think on most other single deck routes from Headingley Depot – memory not clear, although it should be, on the last point but its getting now to be a long time ago – I eagerly took redundancy from the forthcoming “circus” on October 25th 1986. On joining South Yorkshire Road Transport after that I encountered daily more Tigers but with OPO adapted Plaxton luxury coachwork – these really were the bees knees for stage carriage work, and one of them still enjoyed a working radio – the others having been silenced because of arguments arising on private hires and excursions – and whenever I had number 22 on bus services (often) the passengers were able to enjoy Radio Two.

Chris Youhill


10/09/13 – 16:30

Like Chris, I have a great deal of affection for the TRCTL11 Tigers. [A shame there were no TRCTL12s – AEC men will know what I mean.]

David Oldfield


10/09/13 – 16:30

Going off at a bit of a tangent here, but at Halifax we had some of the Tigers to which Chris refers. They became regular performers on the ex-Hebble Rochdale service, along with its later alternative variant via the incredibly narrow and tortuous lanes around Mill Bank and Soyland. They certainly romped along compared with ex-West Yorkshire Leopard coaches which we also had at the time, though they always gave me the impression of not being quite so durable. They were also without any doubt the worst buses I have ever had to drive in snow and ice.
However, I would question Chris’s views on their bodywork. They had Duple Dominant Bus bodies, and were apparently built in stages, the works giving priority to coach production and fitting ours in as and when they had a bit of spare time. Our chap whose job it was to monitor the construction of the PTE’s buses paid a visit to the works and found their basic steel frameworks had been assembled and then dumped outside in the yard with inadequate (or possibly no) rustproofing to suffer the worst of the salty Blackpool sea air. They were already rusting away and a strong request was made (in no uncertain broad Yorkshire terms I can well imagine !) to get them treated straight away. This was apparently carried out, but apparently not very well, and they began to suffer corrosion problems from quite an early stage in their lives. There were two batches, and I think it was the first batch of seven Y-reg ones (which went to Leeds) which suffered the worst, but one of our A-prefix ones was subject to quite a major rebuild later and became the only one to carry the white, blue and yellow First Calderline livery, and the last to survive.

John Stringer


11/09/13 – 08:30

But John, they were Duples. The reason that the firm folded was because of the appalling quality and finish. Your story helps explain why the metal frames were so prone to rust and corrosion. The fit and finish left a lot to be desired on the 320/340 bodies at the end (1989). I know of at least one Western National 340/Tiger where the panels were coming adrift after a few months and I drove a 320/Scania where I thought that the engine cover had counterbalancing until I was told it was rusted metal “sloshing” about in the cavity. How are the mighty fallen. Duple were at the top of their game when they moved to Blackpool and had an honourable history with the Continental and Commander but seemed to lose the plot after that. The Dominant was an Elite rip off – but with a metal frame. Somehow it never worked – despite the Continental being a successful metal-framed model. MCW had exactly the same corrosion problems despite the MCCW metal frames being the best of their time.

David Oldfield


11/09/13 – 16:30

Following on from Davids comments. It is interesting that the PTE/Yorkshire Rider never went for the National (one batch only) and Calderdales last pre low floor saloon were Plaxton bodied Volvos.

Chris Hough


12/09/13 – 08:30

John and David – I can only say that I amazed to hear of such structural inferiority in the Duple Dominant bodies, but naturally don’t doubt it for a minute on hearing such reliable reports. All I can say is that, in their “youth”, the Headingley PTE Tiger ones were superbly comfortable and free of any rattling or body noise and movement – as the saying goes “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” !!

Chris Youhill

Leeds City Transport – AEC Swift – MUB 193F – 93

MUB 193F

Leeds City Transport
1968
AEC Swift MP2R
MCW B48D

Pictured in Leeds in April 1970 is Leeds City Transport No.93, MUB 193F, an AEC Swift MP2R bought in May 1968 with MCW B48D bodywork that emulated the forward sloping side pillars of contemporary Alexander designs. A curious feature was the narrow width of the centre exit door. I believe that here was a total of thirty such buses, which were intermixed with deliveries of Swifts with Roe bodywork, also of B48D pattern, some of which arrived in 1967. Swifts continued to feature in the Leeds purchasing programme until 1971. The Swift MP2R was powered by the AH505 8.2 litre engine, and the first Leeds batches, of which No.93 is an example, had the semi automatic Monocontrol transmission. Later examples were fitted with fully auto gearboxes. I am sure that other correspondents with much a greater knowledge than mine of the Leeds system can give details of these buses in service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox


26/06/19 – 09:48

The narrow exit door was also a feature of the Roe bodied Swifts delivered in 1967/68.
The biggest batch of Swifts were the 50 delivered in 1969 were bodied by Park Royal and had full size centre doors The last Swifts came in 1971 and had Roe bodywork. In addition to the Swifts Leeds also bought thirty single deck Fleetlines with Park Royal bodywork these were identical to the fifty Park Royal bodied Swifts

Chris Hough


28/10/20 – 05:36

I think there were 5 variants of these.
51 – ? were AEC Swifts with MCW bodywork, vertical window pillars, lights in the roof line and narrow doors, bus seats MUG 4xxF reg.
? – 100 were AEC Swifts with Roe bodywork, they were the slanting window ones as the pic above, coach seats, narrow rear door MUG 1xxF reg.
Not sure of the split I think 51 – 85 were MCW, 86 – 100 were Roe 1966-8.
1001 – 1050 AEC Swift, Park Royal bodies, wide rear doors, dest display at side. bus seats SUB 4xxG 1969.
1201 – 1230 Daimler Fleetline Roe bodies, wide rear doors, bus seats, dest and route no at side, reg UNW 2xxH introduced 1970.
1051 – 1070 AEC Swift Roe body wide rear doors, only route number at side. coach seats AUB 1xxJ introduces 1971.
Please let me know if I have any of this wrong.

Ken


01/11/20 – 06:07

According to buslistsontheweb.co.uk the 51-100 split was rather more complicated than that:
51 (GUM 451D): Roe body, 1966 (exhibited at Earl’s Court).
52-60 (JNW 9xxE): Roe body, 1967.
61-75 (MNW 1xxF): MCW body, 1968.
76-85 (MUG 4xxF): Roe body, 1968.
86-99 (MUB 1xxF): MCW body, 1968.
100 (MUG 100F): same as 86-99.

Peter Williamson

Leeds City Transport – AEC Reliance – KUA 46 – 46

Leeds City Transport - AEC Reliance - KUA 46 - 46

Leeds City Transport
1964
AEC Reliance 2MU2RA
Roe B41D

Seen in April 1970 is Leeds City Transport No. 46, 46 KUA, an AEC Reliance 2MU2RA with Roe B41D bodywork, one of four, Nos. 44 – 47, 44 – 47 KUA delivered in 1964. These followed an earlier order for six similar vehicles in 1962, Nos 39 – 43, 839 – 843 CUM. I understand that all these Reliances had quite a short life of around 8 years or so with Leeds.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox


03/12/18 – 07:13

I can’t comment on the others, but 45 and 47 went to Aberdeen. I have a view of each from the late Arnold Richardson’s collection.

Pete Davies


04/12/18 – 06:33

All four were new in August 1964 and withdrawn in December 1970.
44 and 45 went to Aberdeen on 30th June 1971, being followed on 7th July by 46 and 47, retaining the same fleet numbers.

John Kaye


05/12/18 – 07:46

Oh dear, that destination box doesn’t look comfortable, balanced up there.

Petras409


11/12/18 – 07:43

These Reliances really came too late. They were in effect an update of the standee single deckers 29-38, to the same 30ft. length when 36 ft. had become available. Getting 41 seats into the shorter length, with dual doors meant they had poor access/exit and tight seat spacing. As with many AECs of that design they were not comfortable, or liked by passengers or drivers. Just two years later, the first 36 ft. Swifts with wider doors, easier steps and 48 better spaced seats arrived. They may not have been great, but they were better. In a year or so there were 50 Swifts in operation and 39 to 46 were consigned to relief work and then sale.

Andy Buckland


13/12/18 – 05:53

Several of these also ended up in Scotland with Greyhound of Arbroath.

Chris Hough


07/01/19 – 07:12

I’ve sometimes wondered what was so wrong with the AEC Swift and the Leyland Panther that caused many operators to not get on with them, prematurely retire them (especially London’s AECs) and overall have bad experiences, while the conceptually similar Bristol RE seems to have commonly led a full life with its original operators.
It’s not as if they did not incorporate standard components in use elsewhere.

Bill


12/01/19 – 08:23

In the absence of a more comprehensive reply from someone who knows more, I will say that one of the differences between Bristol’s approach and the Panther/Swift approach was the position of the driveline and its effect on weight distribution. In the Panther and Swift the engine and gearbox were at the extreme rear of the overhang, whereas the RE had the engine further forward, with the gearbox in front of the rear axle.

Peter Williamson


16/01/19 – 07:27

The Panther also had a much weaker frame causing bending and breaking. Even in preservation I can think of a couple where following you can see the curve.

Roger Burdett


17/01/19 – 07:09

The radiator for the Swift was not at the front, as in the Panther or the RE, but tucked away behind a panel in the bodywork behind the offside back wheels.
Although this arrangement probably insured against air locks in the cooling system, it restricted the flow of cooling air over the surface of the radiator and could result in the engine overheating.

John B


18/01/19 – 06:30

My Foden which has the Rad in the same position still airlocks so concur John B comment.

Roger Burdett


18/01/19 – 06:32

In the Bristol RE the drive went forward from the engine to the gearbox located in front of the rear axle, and then back again to the differential. This gave a prop shaft of decent length to accommodate the suspension travel of the rear axle, something that competitive designs (the worst being the Seddon RU) lacked. Contrary to popular belief, the RE did not pioneer this layout. The Rutland Clipper of 1954 used a similar arrangement.

Roger Cox