Leyland Titan PD2 – Old bus photos

Todmorden Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – JWY 824 – 5

Copyright John Stringer

Todmorden Corporation and Joint Transport Committee
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland L27/26R

Scanning through the OBP Operators Index I just noticed a glaring omission. What – No Todmorden?
How could this possibly be ?
So here to immediately rectify the situation is their 1950 Leyland-bodied PD2/1 No. 5 departing Hebden Bridge for Burnley via Todmorden, in the Summer of 1969.
It has just left its dismal terminus in Cheetham Street – behind the Hope Chapel in the background – where it will have connected with the inbound Halifax J.O.C. route 48/49 from Brighouse. It has then turned left into Crown Street, and it is here seen completing its next turn right into New Road, ready for a spirited run along the Calder Valley to ‘Tod’, then on through Cornholme, Portsmouth and the Cliviger Gorge and into the County of the Red Rose.
Todmorden Joint Omnibus Committee was a staunch devotee of the Leyland marque, and for a period their fleet consisted solely of 38 PD2’s dating from between 1947 and 1951 – surely a fleet engineer’s dream?
This one passed to the Calderdale J.O.C. in 1971 becoming their 352, but it was withdrawn shortly afterwards and passed to Mulley’s of Ixworth. They withdrew it in 1977 and sold it to Bickers of Coddenham – acting as dealers – from whom it passed to the Stella Artois brewery in Belgium (who I trust paid a Reassuringly Expensive price for it).
Similar 1948 bus no. 2 survives in preservation, but does anyone know if No. 5 survived?

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

19/04/12 – 06:31

Beautiful picture of a beautiful bus in beautiful condition. 19 years old? What are the chances of a Dennis or Volvo lasting that long, let alone in that condition?

David Oldfield

19/04/12 – 06:31

Superb photograph of a classic municipal bus. ‘Tod’ buses did a fair bit of moorland hill climbing as well as serving the valley bottom roads by the River Calder. They ran on the Burnley to Bacup route which climbed to a fair height at Weir, they then usually continued from Bacup back to ‘Tod’ over another mooorland summit by Temperley’s brickworks at Sharneyford. If that wasn’t enough for the venerable PD2’s they went over to Keighley via a bleak moorland run over Cock Hill. In later years Leopard saloons replaced the PD2’s and some of the routes were given up as being uneconomical.

Philip Halstead

19/04/12 – 06:32

Can I say what a super pic: in the usual Todmorden sunshine. Makes you wonder why anyone ran anything else, especially with the longevity of these bodies- and look how smart on 20 years. Is it true- have I read it here- that the low bridge in Todmorden was the depot entrance?

Joe

19/04/12 – 07:27

Joe, you’re right about the low bridge. Originally there was a bridge on the Burnley Road but that was rebuilt in the 1930s and it was the depot that remained the restriction.
I liked Todmorden a lot and spent quite some time there riding and photographing in 1971 when it was Calderdale-owned but still of Todmorden character, with seven PD2s active. Given that the newest was twenty years old to say it was a surprise when two of them were repainted in Calderdale livery is something of an understatement.
However, when you say the bus connected at Hebden Bridge with the Halifax 48/49 you highlight one of the problems with the Todmorden network which turned back at the “boundaries”. At both Hebden Bridge and Littleborough Summit, where Todmorden’s buses met those of Rochdale (later SELNEC), the twenty-minute frequency Todmorden service met a fifteen-minute frequency services, so good connections were not always assured.
Todmorden had some good destinations, from the confusing Portsmouth to Mankinholes and Lumbutts, the latter being very scenic services. They were so keen on Leylands they even ran them to the Cross Lee estate!

The attached photograph shows six of the seven PD2s in the centre of Todmorden on 4th August 1971, a very fortunate combination. To think that the reason I was there was to publicise a vintage vehicle rally, namely the third Trans-Pennine Run! I’d rather just get on a service bus!

David Beilby

19/04/12 – 10:25

Oh, if only present day operators would realise that dignified liveries of this kind, whether tastefully restrained like Todmorden or rather brighter but equally “rich” like many others, do more to reinforce the owners’ stability and pride than all the expensive and totally meaningless “fairground or nursery school” offerings we have to endure today – one could hardly imagine the PD2s disguised as furniture vans and with virtually every window covered with a certain “stuff” which purports to allow perfect vision from within !!
As regards the incredible longevity of the Leyland bodies I have happy personal experience of working on many such fine vehicles. When I was with Samuel Ledgard we had a dozen such vehicles from new and a greater number second hand, most of which had simply “nipped over the Pennines” to join us in their later years. We had four highbridge PD1s from Ribble and seven from Preston Corporation, all around fifteen years old when acquired and in incredibly superb order and requiring virtually no attention. A further four lowbridge PD2s from Ribble followed, along with one from West Wales. Other bargains of the same reliable chassis included three PD1s with ECW bodies (a fascinating and pleasing combination to me) and three with BBW bodies – those six all from Bristol. Then there was a lone PD2/MCW from Tynemouth, and there were two more Ribble PD1s from the same batch as those first mentioned above – but these had been upgraded to PD2 form and rebodied by Burlingham.
It may be thought that such vehicles, purchased by a private operator while well in their dotage, would enjoy a quiet easy time but not a bit of it. The Ledgard services were intense, heavily patronised, often hilly, and tightly timed. nevertheless the fine Leyland vehicles performed like heroes under all conditions – a tribute indeed to the maintenance standards of their original owners and to the excellent attention practised by Samuel Ledgard.
An illustration of the intensity of the services can be given in the 5.30pm weekday departure from Leeds (King Street) to Ilkley via Guiseley, which required no less than four double deckers – two “part journey” buses left at 5.27 and 5.28 while the two Ilkley machines left at 5.29 and 5.30. Very occasionally the short distance riders could find themselves luxuriantly carried home in a nice coach if a vehicle shortage dictated this.
Perhaps the very finest of the second hand arrivals (no disrespect to the other splendid purchases) were the four Ribble PD1s 2471/2/8/9 BCK 414/415/421/422.
These retained above the windscreens in the cabs (undoubtedly a bit of lovely mischief by our Ledgard painters) a notice warning “BOOTLE DEPOT – NOT TO BE DRIVEN UNDER ***** BRIDGE.”
Well, I must apologise to the historians of the splendid Todmorden undertaking for “drifting off”, but these recollections do, to be fair, reflect some of the wonderful story and magic of Leyland and Lancashire “real” bus operation.

Chris Youhill

19/04/12 – 13:55

A very interesting and colourful post, Chris Y – drift off course as much as you like.

Chris Hebbron

19/04/12 – 16:15

Todmorden – a delightful Leyland print. How many people remember these somewhat unique coloured buses at the Yeadon Air Displays in the 1950s on hire to West Yorkshire Road Car alongside the Ledgard, West Riding, Leeds and Bradford Corporation hired in buses of the day at this annual event.

David Allen

19/04/12 – 16:17

With todays buses its a hard job to make them look smart, these are the exact opposite and it would be a hard job to make them look bad, no matter how hard some ‘Corporate image consultants’ may try.

Ronnie Hoye

19/04/12 – 17:51

I think Mulleys bought a total of four of these PD2s, I used to see one of them on a daily basis still in original livery working out of Mulleys ex Corona depot at Acton (near Sudbury, not London). It was said that Mulleys came to acquire them because the very enthusiastic Jack Mulley was fond of personally driving excursion coaches to Great Yarmouth in the 1960s when G. G Hilditch (later at Halifax/Todmorden) was General Manager at Great Yarmouth Corporation and so they came to know each other.

Nigel Turner

20/04/12 – 07:18

I feel the hand of Geoffrey Hilditch must have been behind the painting of the two PD2’s in Calderdale (Halifax) livery. Being an enthusiast as well as the manger must have been too much of a temptation to resist. In fairness though the two were of the newer PD2/12 batch and I used to see them on service around Todmorden when I lived there in the mid-1970’s. Needless to say they looked superb.
Just to point out to Chris regarding his reference to Lancashire, Todmorden is in Yorkshire despite having a Lancashire postal address and in BR days the station was in the London Midland Region with maroon signs. It’s a bit of a mixed up sort of place with its geography.

Philip Halstead

20/04/12 – 07:19

I imagine that every contributor to these pages, myself included, would give almost anything to be able to ride on and even more to drive such a superb bus as the Todmorden PD2 or any vehicles of that era.
The obvious care given to both the appearance of body work after such long and hard service and the equal care that must have been given to the mechanical side are of huge credit to it’s late lamented owners.
Care such as that will never be given to todays guady, over-decorated and uncomfortable offerings to which no real thought seems to have been given, perhaps that will mean they won’t last as long and who would want or be able to preserve one of those electronic “marvels”.

Diesel Dave

20/04/12 – 07:20

It has always amused me that Todmorden Bus Station was always referred to as The Bus Departure Place. If the city fathers had not been economical with the stone work at the depot then there would have been no need for low bridge deckers.

Philip Carlton

20/04/12 – 07:21

Todmorden seems to have purchased a large number of all-Leyland double deckers over the years and one thing that surprises me is that some had very long lives with them and yet some were sold after twelve or thirteen years. Barton Transport bought two TD5’s from them in 1951 and got a further ten years service out of them. Later, in 1962, Barton’s purchased three PD2/1’s and again got long service from them. I think they knew that ex-Todmorden vehicles were very good purchases!
David’s comment about the PD2’s being re-painted when Calderdale took over the fleet made me smile. I think that as good as they undoubtedly were, any other engineer would have retired them on acquisition but good old Mr Hilditch couldn’t resist the temptation to have them in his fleet!

Chris Barker

20/04/12 – 13:45

Wasn’t Todmordens town hall half in Lancashire and half in Yorkshire?

Roger Broughton

20/04/12 – 13:44

Philip Halstead’s comment on the ambiguous county status of Todmorden reminds me of the fact that, until 1888, the boundary ran right through the town. Between 1875 and 1888, dancers in the Town Hall ballroom were able to waltz across the boundary on each circuit! I used to do business with a cotton mill in Walsden (2 miles south-east) and they were definitely Lancastrian in accent, attitude and cricket persuasion! Indeed, the current Yorkshire-based Walsden and Todmorden cricket teams all still play for the Lancashire League.
Reverting to a transport theme, had it not been for a delay in implementing the 1902 Todmorden Corporation Tramways Order, and the early introduction of pioneer motor buses in 1907, I doubt that we would now be discussing an all-lowbridge fleet. Todmorden was always a “missing link” in the Lancashire/Yorkshire tram network. Had their system been built, through-services may have been possible to Rochdale via Summit (assuming Todmorden adopted Rochdale’s standard gauge) but this would have precluded through running to Halifax via Hebden Bridge, as theirs was a 4ft system. Interestingly, in 1920, Halifax was actually authorised to extend their Hebden Bridge tram service to the Todmorden boundary but, of course, it was never built.

Paul Haywood

20/04/12 – 16:26

The original depot is still in existence and still in use by First. The ability of Daimler to provide a genuine low height Fleetline was one of the factors which meant they became the standard rear engined Halifax bus as they could enter the Millwood depot.

Chris Hough

20/04/12 – 16:27

It has often been said that Todmorden’s livery was dark and sombre – especially by those from ‘up the valley’ more used to Halifax’s colourful scheme. Although when newly painted the green shade appeared a kind of rich, dark olive, a combination of period paint technology and industrial pollution quickly turned the green very dark – almost black with a hint of green. Despite this – maybe even because of it – I personally thought they looked classy and dignified.
TJOC buses always gave the impression of being extremely well maintained, both mechanically and bodily, and were always spotlessly clean inside. Though in its last years it was struggling to make ends meet financially, these standards of presentation never dropped, and the tradition continued under Calderdale JOC, and right into the WYPTE and Yorkshire Rider periods. Even in those times Tod’s workshops were very well equipped and their staff very capable of carrying out quite major work – including serious accident repairs – and Halifax would sometimes send their buses ‘down the valley’ to get them sorted.
Sometimes Tod’ buses would be sent up to Halifax’s Elmwood workshops for servicing and repairs, and having been released for service by mid-afternoon would be used there for the rest of the day before been returned to their proper home. Halifax drivers appreciated this and would frequently comment how much better they ‘motored’ and above all how well their heaters and demisters always worked compared to their own.

John Stringer

21/04/12 – 08:30

Some excellent comments – I live in Walsden and we still have a good bus service, the Millwood depot is still in use and the route over the top from Hebden Bridge to Keighley is one of England’s most scenic.
Yes the Town Hall was half in Lancashire and half in Yorkshire until 1889, when, under the 1888 Local Government Act I think, the boundary was moved westwards. We still have the OL (Oldham) postcode and 01706 (Rochdale) phone numbers. I think Portsmouth remained in Lancashire for a bit longer.

Geoff Kerr

21/04/12 – 08:31

With reference to Philip Carlton’s comment I have never heard the term “Bus Departure Place” used officially. The official name was “Bus Starting Centre” (or so I always understood) although I believe it’s now officially Todmorden Bus Station. How sad: why make it the same as everywhere else in stead of retaining something unique?
Regardless of that, though, what a fabulous photo as many have already said, capturing not only the beautiful Leyland but also the essence of Hebden Bridge with the lovely, solid, stone buildings in the foreground and the precariously built terrace atop the hill behind.
Can I also “cast a vote” in favour of the low depot roof? I’ve always had a soft spot for sunken gangways (not that they’re ideal for people of my height!) and for the proportions of most lowbridge buses.
By the way, is Hebden Bridge Railway Station still maintained in a traditional style? It must be at least 10 years since I was last in it but it was beautifully preserved like a station on the K&WVR or similar.

Alan Hall

21/04/12 – 08:32

Many thanks to Philip for highlighting the fascinating and long standing saga of Todmorden’s eternal dilemma of allegiance. I actually worded my final comment somewhat misleadingly, and my reference to “Leyland and Lancashire real bus operation” was simply a commendation of the splendid standards of Preston Corporation and of Ribble.

Chris Youhill

22/04/12 – 07:31

In the mid sixties, I was working in Melling and travelled daily on Ribble route 301 from Liverpool, usually on a PD3, either the early Burlingham or the later MCW ones. All these buses seemed to be governed the top speed between 25 and 30 mph.
If a bus was running late for any reason it ran late for the whole journey as the driver was unable to make up the lost time.

Jim Hepburn

21/05/12 – 08:10

Thanks guys for your very interesting and colourful comments about Todmorden J.O.C.s buses, the 2nd Municipal Corporation to run motor buses. The first picture is particularly interesting to myself since I passed my PSV test on Number 5 the previous year and, (who knows) it could even be me driving it? Todmorden was operated like a happy ‘Family’ concern under a gentleman of a manager, William Edward Metcalfe, (or ‘Teddy’). The livery was Brunswick Green & Cream and when buses required painting they were done so by Jim Hoyle who travelled from Bacup over Sharnyford to get to his work on a motor bike. Despite some terrible winters, especially over Deerplay Moor, Sharneyford or Oxenhope Moor, I don’t recall our services ever being stopped, Snow, Fog or Ice were no obstacle for us due to a terrific team of Todmorden Council workers who kept the roads open for us, whereas Rochdale could stop if the wind changed direction and Halifax were often not much better. The reason for low bridge type deckers was the height of the original eastern end of Millwood Depot but the following three extensions were built higher. Also, as is said, the Hungrtwood Arch at Portsmouth required a delicate approach at an angle, when the early upper saloon passengers were warned not to stand up. The replacement iron railway bridge removed that problem.
The boundary always causes arguments but yes, Todmorden is in Yorkshire, for administrative purposes but the physical boundary cannot be removed, ie; the river ‘Walsden Water’ runs under and from one corner of the town hall to exit at the opposite corner of the round end and as has already been pointed out, ballroom dancers continually and unknowingly changed from Yorkshire into Lancashire and back again. That actually placed the Depot in Yorkshire with the Bus Station in Lancashire. To many residents the town is still half and half and the discussion will continue but to many of us it will always be Red Rose Lancashire. Sorry about the last bit but it keeps everyone interested.

Ken Lobley

22/05/12 – 07:40

A little late in the day, but I’ve just come across this postcard of a scene taken in Hebden Bridge. It shows (left) one of Todmorden’s 1928 piano-fronted TD1’s, (centre) a Halifax tram returning on the 8-mile route back to the city, and (right) a Halifax AEC Regal (JX 1955) about to set off for Heptonstall (presumably before the extension into the notoriously narrow village?). This photo is also shown in the excellent “Halifax Corporation Tramways” (Thornton/King) publication and has a date of 1932. However, my postcard gives a precise date of 9th August 1931 and is credited to a Mr S.L. Smith. The Todmorden bus is, of course, just about to make the same turn out of Cheetham Street as our PD2 posting above. Note the pre-steam cleaned bank building on the older view. Remarkably, most of these buildings are still extant, apart from the mill bridge in the far distance.

Paul Haywood

06/07/12 – 14:37

What a cracking posting with some superb period ‘atmos pics’ as they were once called.

Roger Broughton

14/09/12 – 06:47

Being a Tod lad I spent many happy hours riding on the ‘PD2s’ my favourite being number 2. Does anyone know who restored her and where she is now or did any of the other PD2s survive because if so, I would be very interested in acquiring one!

Paul Stothart

18/09/12 – 07:31

I sincerely hope that they sandblasted the bank building – had they steam cleaned it, it might not now be standing..
Incidentally, could someone perhaps confirm why there were apparently two power wires for the tramway – was it to avoid a frog at the diverging points which I presume were located not far up the road? Would the conductor have had to manually move the trolleypole to the opposite wire?

David Call

5 minutes later

Ignore the above dopey comment – as it was a terminus, the conductor would have had to move the trolleypole anyway!

David Call

19/09/12 – 07:06

…but why are there two tram wires for one track? Don’t tell me- the electricity went the other way! This is presumably just before the river bridge, and the single tram track just stops: did the tram always do so too?

Joe

10/10/12 – 09:14

In reply to Paul Stothart. (14.09.12), Todmorden PD2/1 Fleet number 2 was a terrible bus to drive when it was in service because it had a very poor lock in one direction. It was preserved simply because it was bus No2 which did the inaugural run in 1907 due to No1 having frozen to the ground. No2 was in the care of Todmorden Antiquarian Society for some years but unable to finance the upkeep, it went into the care of David Powell who had a wonderful restoration done on it, correcting the poor steering lock in the process. The bus was resident down south the last I heard of it. Another PD2/1 was partly restored on a farm in south midlands some years ago but I lost track of it. A TJOC PD2/12 was destined for restoration after Halifax decommissioned it but I think that one has been scrapped? Leopard/Willowbrook No9 is still doing the rallies in West Yorkshire with John Flowers at the helm and No15, (ex=Tow Bus) is currently under restoration to its original single deck bus form by Mike Sutcliffe, ‘The Leyland Man’, who also owns the famous open top Leyland G2 No14. One of the Leopard/Seddon-Pennine buses from TJOC was offered to me when Blue Bus sold it but I lost track of that one also. The one’s that did have a possible future in restoration were usually purchased from Mulley’s but I guess they have all long gone now?

Ken Lobley (ex-TJOC)

05/12/12 – 17:59

Hi there, I have enjoyed reading the messages on your page & seeing a dear old Tod bus. Happy days when my late father Ted Silby drove for them from around 1940/41 until 1955 when we as a family moved south into East Anglia where he became a driver for Eastern National. Dad always loved those Leyland buses with their powerful engines that could tackle the steep hills. Many were the stories of digging out a bus with a shovel in the winter snows, or even having to walk down to get help. Wearing a heavy great-coat & flying boots to keep out the freezing cold through the cab floor. Memories of Todmorden & those buses went hand in hand. I remember the name Teddy Metcalfe, & also Alver Brown who I think was Dad’s conductor. I still have some bus tickets from my childhood. Also my Dad was the first person to drive a Tod bus up Haworth High Street unofficially. A treat for the locals, but as he was new to the route he forgot to stop at the bottom. It’s a long time since this tale was told so I can’t recall how he turned around at the top, except carefully! Happy days to be sure, remembered fondly.

Jean Wilson

06/12/12 – 07:02

Nice to hear the tales of your father, Jean. Greatcoat and flying boots – more a case of ‘Are you flying tonight’ rather than driving!

Chris Hebbron

06/12/12 – 11:50

Just by coincidence, Tod. 2 was spotted parked in First Halifax’s Skircoat Garage last week.

John Stringer

06/12/12 – 17:33

I hear the owner of Tod 2 has good connections with First and is staying at Skircoat

Geoff S

08/12/12 – 15:29

This is the splendid TJOC coats of arms device still carried by their equally splendid 1934 Leyland TS6 towing wagon (formerly bus no. 15 – YG 7831) until its withdrawal in 1971. Note how it still bears the London, Midland and Scottish Railway device, despite this having been swallowed up into British Railways as far back as 1948. Several of the bus fleet carried this version also well into the 1960’s. That was (and in many ways still is) Todmorden for you – always caught in a wonderful time warp !

John Stringer

09/12/12 – 07:52

I understand in modern times certain Volvo double deckers allocated to Todmorden carried the council crest on the radiator grille.

Philip Carlton

09/12/12 – 11:49

There was always a fierce local pride amongst the Todmorden staff, most of whom never really accepted that they were still anything other than Todmorden JOC. ‘Interference’ by Halifax in any of their affairs was strongly resented and opposed, and visitors from ‘up the valley’ were usually treated with superficial politeness but regarded with deep suspicion ! “Tell ’em nowt” was the rule.
An R-registered Fleetline (7006) was repainted into full TJOC livery in the 1980’s, and it kept this until withdrawal. Then an R-registered PSU4/Plaxton (8534) that had been at Todmorden since new was put into TJOC livery, though towards the end it was transferred to Halifax – but still retaining the livery.
A number of the F-prefix Cummins-engined Olympian/NCME’s allocated to Tod’ were also fitted with small plates with the town’s coat of arms on their grilles.
Finally after all these had gone, and after a great deal of pressure had been brought to bear, a Volvo Olympian/NCME (31737) was put into the TJOC livery.
After its withdrawal 31737 was stored for quite a while pending a decision what was to happen to it, then just when everyone suspected that it had gone for scrap it was reported that it had been secured for preservation.
Nowadays Tod’ does not have its own permanent allocation, and buses are simply sent ‘down there’ from Halifax as required. When they return to Halifax for servicing they are replaced by whatever is available at the time, so the chance of there ever being a bus in a dedicated livery again is very unlikely.

John Stringer

10/12/12 – 07:34

As a postscript to the picture of the emblem with the LMS coat of arms, here is a view of the final style, incorporating the BR double arrow logo – although using traditional gold transfers rather than the “official” red and white. It would be interesting to know whether the double arrow ever appeared as part of the livery – e.g. on a feeder service – on any other buses.
I have always assumed that the continued use of the LMS version was simply a question of using up the existing stock of transfers until they ran out. Did the BR lion and wheel logo (in either version) ever make an appearance?

Also attached a view of No.5 with its three siblings in Mulley’s yard at Ixworth. This was taken in October 1971, and the lack of blinds suggests that this was shortly after their arrival and before entering service.

Alan Murray-Rust

14/01/13 – 13:32

Joe on 19/4/2012 said the depot was the reason for the lowbridge buses. Well here it is with Titan 18 departing to do some midday extra short workings that were a feature of TJOC operations.
Some great comments and this is one operator I do miss. Pity I was never exploratory enough to go to Mankinholes, it was always a case of the bus might not come back.

Ian Lynas

12/02/13 – 17:04

Let me add my own thoughts to this fascinating stream of memories. I was born in Orkney but moved down to the Summit/Littleborough Area so lived in the Rochdale Corporation Passenger Transport Dept area. We actually lived about 100 yards from the Summit Inn which was the joint meeting place of Rochdale and Tod, so we are virtually on the edge of Rochdale latterly Selnec and Greater Manchester operating area. The oldest bus I remember seeing was one of the FWT batch. I always thought the livery was drab but they were remarkably long lived a testament to the fleet engineers. I mind seeing a Todmorden bus on frequent occasions in the evening picking up workers at Fothergill and Harveys Mill at Factory End in Summit. To my young eyes the buses never were well patronised so was not entirely surprised that there was a merger at the end. The only times I ever saw them quite busy was on Good Friday when there was a popular Fair held in Todmorden. I also remember seeing 3 Todmorden buses in the evening at the terminus at Summit which I thought a bit peculiar. I remember the 20 service on Saturdays which was express run to Rochdale latterly by single deckers of the 1961/2/4 batches, Leyland/East Lancashire.. My father and I visited the depot and saw the Leyland breakdown truck. It would be interesting to think what the buses would have been like if the bus depot entrance had been built higher. In my childhood and youth I regularly went to Sunday school and on this occasion I think we must have combined with other Sunday Schools and for our outing we were going to Fleetwood and the weather forecast on the Saturday was for torrential rain and it rained and rained. I will never forget the journey on the way home. Every stanchion, pole etc had items of wet clothing hanging up to dry. The buses were tough an rugged as I remember buses going up over Sharneyford to Bacup which was a big test of endurance. I wonder how many Volvos would last as long as Todmorden buses.

Andrew Wylie

Post script which is really a question. Did some withdrawn Todmorden buses end up in the fleet of W Alexanders fleet up in Scotland. I know that they had lowbridge Leylands in Montrose and elsewhere. If they did I wonder if some photos survive

13/02/13 – 04:32

Five prewar Todmorden buses did go to Alexander’s in 1938 via the dealer Millburn Motors of Glasgow. They were Leyland TD1’s of 1928/29 numbered 3, 7, 13, 14 & 18 (WW 6759, 6797, 6800, 6801 & 8958). 13 & 14 were not used and were returned to the dealer. 3, 7 & 18 were taken into stock but did not last long, being withdrawn in 1939/40. Another Scottish operator – Baxter’s of Airdrie – also took five Tiger TS8’s and two Titan TD5’s in 1950/51. No postwar Todmorden buses crossed the border.

John Stringer

14/02/13 – 07:07

Just to amplify the point made by Andrew, Todmorden Bus Depot had low roof trusses throughout the later extension at the western end. The original depot would accept highbridge buses but once in, they had to be reversed out!
Eh, we had one or two normal height Halifax buses with damaged roofs when they had called in at Todmorden for some assistance!

Ian Wild

31/05/13 – 17:43

The BR Lion and Wheel logo was never used on Todmorden buses. The LMS crest lasted until at least 1961 (!) and was eventually replaced by the plain words “British Railways”, to which the double arrow was later added.
Some coaches in the Halifax JOC fleet had the BR double arrow on the rear.

Geoff Kerr

30/01/14 – 15:45

When Calderdale JOC came into existence one of the TJOC Titans received full Halifax livery One day in 1971 I was walking along Stanningley Road in Leeds when the 4.10pm Halifax bus came roaring up the dual carriageway. It was none other than the aforementioned Titan which had made its break for freedom and got to Leeds. It was in amazingly good fettle for such a vintage machine it certainly showed a number of Leeds two door Atlanteans a clean pair of heels. Its rasping exhaust could be heard echoing of buildings for several minutes after it passed.

Chris Hough

30/01/14 – 18:00

The bus painted in full Halifax colours was Halifax fleet number 356 and lasted for quite a while after withdrawal behind Elmwood Depot potentially for preservation. Eventually it deteriorated to such a degree that the scrapyard was the only option.

Ian Wild

31/01/14 – 07:09

355 and 356 both received the Halifax livery, 355 in August 1971 but 356 a little later – it was still in Todmorden livery in early September. My photo of the Bus Starting Centre just below the top of this extensive posting was taken on the day I first saw 355 – it’s just visible amongst the others all still in Todmorden livery.

David Beilby

31/01/14 – 10:09

Ian Wild mentions a former Tod’ PD2 being parked up behind Elmwood Garage after withdrawal. Here is what was by then WYPTE’s 3355 so parked, along with withdrawn 1962 Leopard/Weymann 3033 and 1963 PD3/4/Weymann 3053, some time in early 1976.

John Stringer

28/03/14 – 07:03

Hi Chris Youhill, to endorse Chris Hebbrons comments I must add my own, it’s always a treat to read your “driftings”, nostalgia in great bucket loads, especially your mention of the 6 Leyland PD1s that were acquired by Ledgards from Bristol Omnibus Co. I always felt that Leyland Motors repute and the esteem in which they were held throughout the world was a classic example of the ‘way that it used to be’, and rarely matched today,sadly. As a footnote to my driftings, I will be staying in the Hebden Bridge area later this year, it’s a pity that the streets will be empty of PD1s, that’s a fact. I will watch for more of your driftings Chris, thanks.

Dave Knapp

28/03/14 – 09:10

Dave K – I’m afraid that the streets of Hebden Bridge have always been empty of PD1s, Todmorden went from TD7s to PD2s and Halifax didn’t buy any Leyland double-decks at all until their own PD2s.
Now this is something I should really have more sense than to try and do, i.e. ‘correct’ Chris Youhill, but there are a couple of statements on which I’d like to comment. First of all, the one that the two ex-Ribble rebodied PD1As were from the same batch as the four Leyland-bodied ones. In 1947 Ribble bought 48 PD1As, 10 with Leyland highbridge bodies (2470-9) and 38 with Brush lowbridge (2480-2517), and it was, of course, 22 of the Brush lowbridges which were rebodied by Burlingham – I make the Ledgard ones ex-Ribble 2484 and 2498. As to whether all 48 were from the same ‘batch’, they did have identical chassis, they all came in the same year, and the registrations did follow on from the highbridges to the lowbridges, so – er, okay then.
Regarding the source of the fifth lowbridge PD2, it actually came to Ledgards from Eynons of Trimsaran, but had been new, not to West Wales (the independent), but to Western Welsh (the BET company).
I have always been a bit suspicious about EUH959, since Eynons were the sort of operator who bought their double-deckers second hand and usually used them to the end of their useful life. Perhaps the fact of EUH959 being lowbridge went against it, since I’m not aware that Eynons had any requirement for lowbridge vehicles.

David Call

28/03/14 – 09:14

Many thanks David for that very humbling response, and I do indeed take great pleasure from keeping alive accurate “atmosphere” of what were undoubtedly the good old days of service provision – days which were sensibly regulated and free of excessive profiteering rather than sensible returns on investment.
Just to add to the discussion on the “all Leyland” aspect, I passed my PSV test on one of the six PD1s which Ledgard bought new in 1946 at the start of a whole new era after the gloom of WW2 – the Ministry examiner was a sombre but fair man with no idea how much that hour on unfamiliar roads in West Leeds meant to me. As I descended, for the first time in my life, a long hill in Armley in third gear a voice through the cab window sighed “There are four gears on this vehicle.” I’m sure this was a trick as I approached a T junction with poor visibility – I stayed in third gear and would no doubt have been failed for changing up to fourth. JUM 378 must have “known” how anxious I was to pass – it was freshly arrived from a morning peak journey and everything was “just right” and it behaved like a dream.
When I returned to Otley depot the “No nonsense Brummie” manager emerged from his office and asked “Have you passed Kid ?” I replied “yes”, but that I’d had to endure a skit from the examiner to the effect that I needed a lot more practice before being let loose on the Public. Our boss repeated “I said have you passed Kid?” So again I said “Well, yes.” With a smile he simply said “Number 14 tomorrow Kid” and returned to his office to fill another gap with a name.
“Number 14” was a very taxing late turn on the incredibly busy Leeds – Guiseley – Ilkley service which was sixteen miles in 53 minutes and steep hills and full loads galore. The bus was the glorious PD1/ECW LAE 12, a former native of Bristol, and like the test vehicle of the previous day, JUM 378, it behaved like a dream, pulling well and with a fair turn of speed and a clutch and gearbox like silk. That was a Friday evening, and I was given the same duty (but two hours longer, an extra round trip) on the Saturday when I found myself in the seemingly enormous 1952 U, one of the six AEC Regent V/Roe beauties. I say “seemingly enormous” – it just shows what a difference can be made by one foot longer and six inches wider, oh and that huge bonnet.
How I’d love to turn the clock back to 1961 and do it all again.

Chris Youhill

28/03/14 – 17:39

Dave K, You may see a PD1a/Leyland in Hebden Bridge when you visit. as Wigan 34 may be out on a few weddings this summer.

Geoff S

08/04/14 – 16:54

Thanks for the tip Geoff S. A lookout will be maintained ! As an afterthought Chris Youhill, your remarks about well behaved PD1s,we used to have a route in Bristol with a sharp left hand turn just as the gradient steepened from medium to bloody steep, and with practice, one could change down from 3rd to 2nd then 2nd to 1st (if needed),without using the clutch pedal,of course,perfectly matching all the revolving parts was a definite prerequisite,and as you say it was quietly satisfying once mastered ! Oh, and It was not quite the same experience if done with a Bristol or Gardner, what good days they were in spite of the long hours.

Dave Knapp

09/04/14 – 08:16

A little misunderstanding and friendly disagreement here Dave – I can honestly say that I have never changed gear without using the clutch on any vehicle in my life. While I admit that seemingly perfect changes can be achieved by “matching” the necessary speeds I’m quite sure that hidden damage and/or wear is imposed upon transmission couplings and differentials etc by this practice. Just another point of view I accept, and I have insufficient detailed mechanical knowledge to back up my theory, but that’s just the way I’ve always felt about it. As you say though silent smooth changes on the PS1s/PD1s were very satisfying indeed, reinforced I always felt by a definite hint of prewar TS/TD dulcet gearbox tones.

Chris Youhill

30/03/15 – 08:30

I had the pleasure of driving every TJOC bus in the early 1960s. Very reliable and easy to drive. I have fond memories of driving a bus to Old Town and, at the Pecket Well right turn, getting stuck in deep snow and having to call for breakdown assistance. The breakdown crew arrived and decided it was to risky to free the double decker bus so a decision was made to leave the bus stuck in the snow and ice. The bus was left, with the engine running overnight, and recovered next morning (engine still running!). The weather was atrocious but bus services were resumed very quickly, a testament to the ethos of the TJOC.

Eric Nothard

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

28/01/19 – 09:32

Reading through the comments, there was very little about the people who drove the Tod buses. My mum was the first woman to pass her test and get her PSV licence in a Tod bus in the early days of WW2. There were a couple of women drivers then as well as conductors or “clippies”. She had some interesting tales to tell about driving conditions then. She described driving up to Old Town and Pecket Well in deep snow, because the buses “kept running” regardless. We used to play a game in the car where mum closed her eyes and told us where all the bus stops were. She was usually spot on!

Janet

30/01/19 – 06:47

Janet, was your mum driving at the time??!!!!! That would have been a feat!

Michael Hampton

Isle of Man Road Services – Leyland Titan – KMN 513 – 63

Copyright M Bishop

Isle of Man Road Services Ltd
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

I received the above two photographs along with a shot of a Tiger Cub from Michael Bishop with the following:-

“I was on the Isle of Man to explore the railways, but found the IOMR had just closed! Lord Ailsa came along the following year, which is why there is still something left. Another reason for going everywhere by bus. So I’m afraid I know nothing about buses, although I remember the bus I took the interior shot of made a lovely noise. It seems to have LEYLAND on the gearbox(?) casing. So I cannot tell you more about them. The bus was at Peel and taken on 28.5.66.”

“Not knowing anything about buses” in my opinion isn’t a good enough reason for not showing an internal shot of such a classic vehicle.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Michael Bishop

15/05/12 – 18:06

Don’t come much better than all Leyland PD2s, but can anyone explain why Isle of Man always had these peculiar off balance upper deck ventilators (ONLY on the near-side)?

David Oldfield

16/05/12 – 07:51

I never understood that either, but it did make the IOMRS fleet rather distinctive. (I have a feeling I have seen a photo of a similarly equipped PD2 with another operator, but I can’t remember where or with whom). Very nice to see that tidy interior shot too. It reminds me of Barton’s second hand no. 754 (GUT 455) ex-Allens, Mountsorrel, which operated regularly in the early 60s on our route 15 (Ilkeston – Long Eaton – Sawley).

Stephen Ford

16/05/12 – 07:52

Not sure why this style was followed but Widnes also did the same thing on their vehicles

Chris Hough

16/05/12 – 07:52

Widnes Corporation used the same arrangement which I can only assume was to give upper-deck passengers a choice of the fresh-air treatment by sitting on the nearside or for the more delicate a chance to keep out of the draught by sitting on the offside.
I don’t recall the arrangement being used by any other operators and it certainly spoiled the appearance of the vehicles.
I would be interested to learn if my assumption is correct.

Philip Halstead

16/05/12 – 08:58

Just clutching at straws, but I wonder if the odd window arrangement could possibly be to avoid a direct “wind tunnel” effect from the offside windscreen and down the staircase, to escape from the platform.

Chris Youhill

17/05/12 – 08:40

Having lived in Widnes in the 70s, Widnes Corporation were not doing their passengers any favours with all the chemical factories in the area!

Jim Hepburn

30/06/12 – 11:26

As far as I know it was to do with cost – IoMRS were not known for spending anymore than was absolutely necessary, the same window arrangement continued right through until the last new d/d purchases in 1964, a one pane window was cheaper than an opening hopper or slider. Equally saloon heaters were largely not provided, nor were grabrails. Whilst I can’t just recall the grabrail specification on the PD2 shown, other than what is visible on the image, the 1964 batch of PD3s had head height rails only installed above the two lower deck side seats, whilst the sole upright rail, other than on the platform area, was at the top of the stairs. No other grabrails were fitted, which meant conducting – or alighting – the bus whilst on the move err…interesting.

busbus

21/08/12 – 07:37

I remember the arrival of this and its 17 sisters in 1949, and worked on them as a seasonal conductor 1958-61. I can confirm the Company sought economy in everything; none of its buses had direction indicators, relying instead on a white band on the right sleeve of drivers’ uniforms when stuck out of the cab window. Drivers claimed that when Leyland staff received an order for buses “without this, without that or the other” they would say “It’s that b***** IOM Road Services again”. Due to lack of grab rails, on a lively journey I used to press the flat of my hand against the ceiling to keep upright.

Mike Jones

03/01/13 – 06:34

Nice to see this pic. I’m currently working on similar bus KMN 501 but will restoring it as Liverpool L428 JKB 580.

Rob

03/01/13 – 10:45

North Western was another all Leyland PD2 operator with the same ventilation arrangement. The standard Colin Bailey body throughout its life and various modifications was offered as standard with solid front upper deck windows, the opening vents could be specified as an extra. Many operators bought the standard package but some quickly received complaints of lack of ventilation, especially in the summer when tobacco smoke would add to warmth and the side window ventilators removed little of the fug. They then retrofitted one or two vents.
North Western’s examples were lowbridge bodies which made the problem worse and they quickly fitted a nearside vent window, in their case the reason for the location being the offside was occupied by the gangway.

Phil Blinkhorn

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

Newcastle Corporation – Leyland Titan – LVK 11 – 359

Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Newcastle Corporation
1949
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland L27/26R

Yet again another shot from the job lot of shots I bought at the market I’m afraid there is no information on the photo. But staying on the low bridge theme of Newcastle Corporation that I have been posting, here is a line up of three Newcastle low bridge double deckers. Between 1948/9 Newcastle took delivery of quite a number of all Leyland Titans, among them were 6 low bridge variants – LVK 6/11, fleet numbers 354/9 – 359 pictured. They replaced 4 pre war Daimlers BTN 100/3 (fleet numbers unknown) and for a while they ran alongside these utility Guy Arabs, the two in the photo are still in the blue wartime livery. Unfortunately I cant find any information about the Guy’s as regards fleet numbers, Registrations or bodybuilder etc.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

27/07/12 – 08:37

The two Guy Arabs appear to be of the Mark 1 type with the short bonnet. The bodywork seems to be the standard Brush utility L27/28. Unfortunately, I do not have access to a Newcastle fleetlist to confirm.

Roger Cox

27/07/12 – 08:38

Unlike many of our number, I cannot whip up any enthusiasm for utility bodywork. On the other hand, I have boundless enthusiasm for the all Leyland PD2 – especially the earlier examples and the final version. The true Faringtons, with their separate ventilators, did nothing for me. Sheffield had going on for 150 of the early all Leyland PD2s (but all Highbridge) as well as numerous Faringtons and 12 of the superb last version.
As an AEC man from an early age, I always loved these PD2s with an almost silent tick-over (and a distinctive beat) and superbly finished bodywork. Luckily when Leyland gave up on coachwork in 1954, Sheffield continued to buy these wonderful beasts with top quality bodywork by Roe and Weymann (pre Orion). Similar Roe and Weymann bodywork also sat atop Regent IIIs and Regent Vs – the old dual sourcing in action.

David Oldfield

27/07/12 – 08:41

Well, our anonymous photographer has produced another gem. I, for one, never knew Newcastle had blue buses. Equally, I once photographed a red Bury bus at a rally. When I reported this to my father, he said he remembered them in red, and they had changed to green post-war.

Pete Davies

27/07/12 – 15:42

Pete, I’m pleased to say that a preserved example of Newcastle’s all Leyland PD2’s ‘LVK 123’ is still alive and well and is part of the N.E.B.P.T. Ltd collection, it’s a 1948 highbridge example and has been restored to it’s original blue and cream livery, as per the Guy’s in the picture. At the beginning of 1949 ‘half way through production of the order’ the livery was changed to the yellow and cream with maroon line out and red wheels which most of us will be more familiar with. I’m not sure if the low bridge vehicle in the picture pre dates that, but it wasn’t unusual for some block batch registrations to be held back and issued to later vehicles, I suspect that’s the case here and this is from the 1949 batch, I think it took about two or three years to change the whole fleet and being the newest I would think the blue PD’s would have been at the back of the queue

Ronnie Hoye

27/07/12 – 15:42

Newcastle had blue buses until the nineteen fifties the Northern Coachbuilders bodied AEC Regents being the first yellow buses delivered new One of the LVK batch of PD2s has been restored to the blue. In contrast Newcastles trolleys were yellow from the start.

Chris Hough

27/07/12 – 15:43

The photograph is a real gem and illustrates the difference between wartime utility bodywork and the standards on the return to peace.
In 1942 Newcastle Corporation received 2 Guy Arab I with Massey H30/26R bodywork numbered 245-46 JTN 505-6. They were withdrawn in 1950. Another 2 Arab I with bodywork by Strachans L27/28R were received in 1943, numbered 247-48, JTN 607-8. These are recorded as being withdrawn in 1950, with 247 going to Darlington Corporation as a driver training vehicle.
The Leyland Titans 6-11, LVK 6-11, were new in late 1949 and would have been among the first motorbuses delivered in cadmium yellow livery, which hitherto had been applied to trolleybuses only.
I hope this information is helpful and thank you for posting some wonderful photographs.

Kevin Hey

28/07/12 – 08:53

As mentioned elsewhere and by others in these pages, it really is amazing what previously unknown (or forgotten) information surfaces in response to the publication of a photograph. Keep up the good work, gents!

Pete Davies

28/07/12 – 12:11

As Kevin points out, Newcastle had two fleet colours, Trolley buses were yellow and motor buses blue, that all changed in 1949 when all vehicles adopted the trolleybus livery, still with me?. Some time later all the fleet numbers were changed, existing trolley buses up to 99 were renumbered starting with a 3 in front, 100 became 400, and any new vehicles carried on from their with 628 being the last, this meant that motorbuses were also renumbered and 359 pictured above became 11. Confusing isn’t it?

Ronnie Hoye

28/07/12 – 12:19

The lowbridge Arab 1s with Strachan bodies supplied to Newcastle were part of a batch originally intended for London Transport, before they successfully switched the requirement to CWA6 Daimlers D1-6. Bradford got one too, No.467. Not sure where the others went without looking the details up.

John Whitaker

28/07/12 – 15:54

Ronnie, I think that the pre-war and wartime trolleybus fleet was renumbered in 1946 and the fleet number for the beginning of the postwar trolleybuses began at 443 – although the first trolleybuses to be received after the war were the 20 BUT Q1s starting at fleet number 479.
The motorbus fleet was not re-numbered enbloc, although some renumbering of batches occurred. In March 1963 6-11, LVK 6-11 became 354-9 in order to vacate numbers for the impending delivery of 25 Leyland Atlanteans that became 1-25, 1-25 JVK, with bodywork split between Alexander and Weymann as was customary practice with Newcastle Atlanteans until 1966.
Similarly,in March 1966 Leyland Titans 115-36, LVK 115-36 were renumbered to 415-36 to create space for a batch of 28 Weymann bodied Leyland Atlanteans 106-33, KBB 106-33D. The remainder of the 1966 delivery was 26 Alexander bodied Atlanteans which became 239-66, KBB 239-66D. I believe that these batches were originally to have been numbered in a single series 401-56, JVK 401-56D.
I hope this clarifies things. As you say, it was confusing!
John’s comment about the Strachans bodied Guys being part of a batch originally intended for London is very interesting. The topic of wartime deliveries and the role of the Regional Traffic Commissioners and Ministry of War Transport is one that is ripe for studying.

Kevin Hey

28/07/12 – 19:10

Expanding on John W’s comments, LT was allocated eleven unbuilt lowbridge Guys from Strachans and four from Northern Counties. It only needed thirteen. Strachans bodies did not impress them, from LGOC days, and NC were an unknown quantity. LT found that they were three inches too high than their preferred height. Strachan offered to build the bodies to LT’s required height, but this would have entailed eliminating one step from the staircase, making one of the remainder too high for comfort. LT then wanted to build thirteen of its own lowbridge STL bodies for the Guy chassis (like the earlier, unfrozen ones) but was forbidden to. It was the two surplus Guy/Strachans to LT’s needs which went to Newcastle, in May 1943, fleet numbers 247/248 (JTN 607/608). Both vehicles were reconditioned after the war, but were disposed of in 1950.

Chris Hebbron

28/07/12 – 19:12

I agree Kevin; wartime allocations were fascinating!
This is another complicated story, well told in Ken Blacker`s book, “London`s Utility Buses”. London managed to persuade the powers that be, to allow them to build some STL pattern lowbridge bodies, and this enabled them to avoid the 13 Guys mentioned. Some were actually bodied by NCME, but the Strachan variety were disposed of as follows:-
Potteries. JEH 472/3
Aldershot & Dist. EHO 695
Red & White EWO 484
Skills (Nottingham). GTU 427
Bradford Corporation. DKY 467
South Shields Corporation. CU 4549
Newcastle C.T. JTN 607/608.
The Bradford bus finished up as a “school bus” (tuition vehicle), and thus lasted well into the 1950s, and consequently into my memories.

John Whitaker

29/07/12 – 11:03

Sorry, Kevin, I got it the wrong way round, but why make it so complicated when the whole thing could have been done by adding a letter to the beginning or end of the existing number. A simple system could use F – R – S – T. ‘F’ could be either front entrance or front engine, the same would apply to ‘R’ – ‘S; would be single deck and ‘T’ Trolleybus, but I’ve just seen a flaw in that idea, you don’t need a university degree to work it out, or am I just being cynical?

Ronnie Hoye

30/07/12 – 10:58

Ronnie, an interesting idea. Most municipal fleets used a pure numeric system for fleet numbering rather than alphabet-numeric. Two fleets that used the latter were Glasgow and Liverpool, although Liverpool began the process of moving to pure numeric a short while before being transferred to Merseyside PTE. Stockton-on-Tees began using alphabet-numeric some years before being merged with Middlesbrough and TRTB to form Teesside Municipal Transport. There may well have been others but I can’t think of any. Still, if I have missed some then I’m sure that someone will add a comment or two to complete the picture.
The renumbering of some of the Newcastle motorbus fleet in the mid-1960s was a consequence of the very large numbers of motorbuses that were delivered in a very short period of time for converting the trolleybus system to motorbus operation. By 1954 the motorbus numbers had reached 354 and the next deliveries in 1956 began at 137 (after the 1948 high-bridge Leyland Titans that ended at 136). As an aside, in 1957 this necessitated renumbering the Daimler CVD single-deckers 164-73 to 364-73 so that new deliveries of motorbuses could continue to be numbered in sequence. By 1962 this sequence had reached 238 and there was a gap of 12 numbers vacant to the start of the 1949 batch of AEC Regents that started at 251.
The undertaking had ordered 25 Leyland Atlanteans for delivery in 1963 and these were numbered from 1 upwards. By 1965 this sequence had reached 105 and was encroaching on the 1948 high-bridge Titans that began at 115. Of course, even renumbering the Titans to be 415-36 was insufficient to accommodate the entire batch of 56 Atlanteans due in 1966 and half of them was numbered 106-33, and the other half 239-66. I would be interested to hear of the reason for the original plan to number these 401-56 not proceeding.
Finally, a word for John. When I joined Bradford City Transport immediately prior to the formation of the West Yorkshire PTE, the driving school was in the capable hands of Inspector Harold Gobby, although for the life of me I cannot remember where it was based. The conducting school, which was based in the basement of the Forster Square offices, was in the hands of Inspector Joseph (Joe) Straughton. Ah, happy days!

Kevin Hey

30/07/12 – 16:02

You should be able to tell us a tale or two, Kevin.
I suppose it was Leylands in Inspector Gobby’s day, although one of the Crossleys replaced 467 for a time in 1958. Was the trolleybus driving department under the same control?
I left Bradford in 1968, but it will always be my favourite fleet!

John Whitaker

31/07/12 – 05:50

During my time as an Instructor at Yorkshire Rider/First Halifax, the earlier pages of the PSV Test Results Book showed several tests conducted for WYPTE/Metro Calderdale in the mid-seventies by an examiner called H. Gobi.

John Stringer

23/12/12 – 08:05

Further to the discussion on Newcastle Corporation Leyland bodied PD 2/3s here are two photographs I took of LVK 123 at the 1977 Dunbar Rally.

Gerald Walker

23/12/12 – 13:44

Kevin is more of an authority on this subject than I am, but if my information is correct, LVK 123 is actually older than LVK 11. Newcastle Corporation placed an order for these Leyland’s to be delivered in 1948/9. Most of them were the high bridge type, but the order also included 6 of the low bridge variants. Registration numbers were issued as a block, but as is often the case with large orders the vehicles are not necessarily delivered in numerical order. Up to 1949 Newcastle had two liveries, motor buses were blue and trolley buses yellow. Whilst these vehicles were being built it was decided to standardise the whole fleet in the trolleybus livery, but by that time part of this order had been completed and among others, 123 was delivered in blue, the remainder, including LVK 11, were delivered in yellow. Unless the normal repaint process was accelerated to speed up the livery change, 123 would have been blue for about three years

Ronnie Hoye

26/12/12 – 07:16

A question for Ronnie – and others! – about an anomaly in Newcastle post-war panel numberings, triggered by Ronnie’s comments about allocation of registrations. Newcastle ‘started again at 1’ with panel numberings after the war, with a batch of five CWA6s taking numbers 1-5 (albeit delivered over a three-year period, 1, 2 and 5 in 1945, 4 in 1946 and 3 in 1947, all with second-hand pre-war MCCW or PR bodies). Another batch of fourteen CWA6s with Massey bodies came next, in 1945 and 1946, but numbered 13-26. The numerical gap between these batches wasn’t filled until 1949, by the low-bridge Leylands 6-11. By this time other deliveries had taken numbering in the new series beyond the 100 mark. Does anyone know the background to this? It’s often puzzled me.

Tony Fox

26/12/12 – 15:42

Never having seen anything on paper I cant answer that one, Tony. It must have made sense to someone, but Newcastle seemed to make a simple system of numbers based on the registration far more complicated than it need be, some vehicles retained their number the whole time they were part of the fleet whilst others were renumbered at least once, and in the end some fleet numbers bore no relation to the registration. Speaking for myself, I would have used a simple pre or suffix system of letters to denote either vehicle type or the year they joined the fleet, that way you could still use the registration numbers as part of the fleet number and never need to change it, regardless of how many vehicles you had. London Transport for example

Ronnie Hoye

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

09/09/14 – 18:00

I remember the so called “Blue Buses” Daimlers very well.
They had preselector gearboxes which must have been a boon for the drivers and low down on the inside left a Notek Fog lamp – very famed and desirable by many! – which was very necessary in the old days of coal fires and heavy industry which caused very extreme smog on Tyneside/North of England.
Another unique feature of the older Daimler buses with registrations from FVK 197 on was they had next to the front destination screen a 5 inch blue light!
No other Newcastle bus photos? I remember so well the Haymarket bus station with a real mixture of buses/coaches from Northern – United Automobile Services and of course Newcastle Corporation Transport!

Stuart Beveridge

10/09/14 – 07:00

Kevin H, John W, John S – I recall that when the Bradford trolleys finished in 1972 it was reported that the last trainee to pass his trolleybus driving test did so a few weeks earlier, and the examiner was an Inspector Gobbi – at least, that’s how I think his name was recorded at the time. Gobby, Gobbi, or Gobi, I presume it’s the same gentleman being referred to.

David Call

10/09/14 – 18:00

In WYPTE days this gentleman had carried out a number of PSV Tests for Calderdale-based trainees, and his name was recorded in the Driving School’s Test Results record book as H. Gobi.

John Stringer

10/09/14 – 18:00

In his original post Ronnie mentions he can’t identify the body builder of the Guy utilities and, though Kevin Hey lists the two Strachens bodied vehicles Newcastle had, there is no direct tie up to the photo though it is obvious that the bodies are not by Massey, who built the first two delivered. To state the B******g obvious, to quote Monty Python, the Arabs in the photo are the Strachans bodied examples, JTN 607 and JTN 608, close examination shows JTN 608 is on the left.

Phil Blinkhorn

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – NWE 561 – 361

From the Tom Robinson Collection

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Mann Egerton H30/26R

There have been many previous references to Sheffield PD2s including those bodied by Leyland, Weymann/MCW, Roe and ECW but as far as I know, the small but rare order for two buses from Mann Egerton hasn’t been mentioned. These buses enjoyed the usual thirteen year life with Sheffield prior to selling on. Tom Robinson of the Sheffield Transport Study Group comments and I quote “362 went via a Barnsley scrapman to Paton’s of Renfrew. Paton was so pleased with the bus he immediately tried to buy 361 which was at the same scrapyard. Alas it was in the course of being scrapped. In time ex 362 was cut down to single deck. The result of a fire, I think, and used as a tow wagon. They really were impressive and heavy vehicles. The saloon woodwork was especially opulent.”
Keith Beeden advises that although the original contract called for H30/26R, steps were taken shortly after delivery to change this to H32/26R possibly because Roe were seating H33/25R on their deliveries at the time

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Darwent

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

The Roe PD2s were the first of many bodies from the Crossgate works. They were NWE 586-594 but were delivered earlier, in 1951. I suspect the reason for both bodies being higher seating capacity was that they were (Sheffield’s) earliest vehicles to 27′ rather 26′ length.
Despite many comments to the contrary, even by eminent experts, there was a standard – but not standardised – Sheffield bus. [During most of the ‘fifties it was either a Regent or Titan with either a Weymann or Roe body.] It changed with time and the demise of certain companies but a lot of the post war interest was with the “distress purchases” when, especially Weymann, could not meet demand. Occasionally the distress purchases turned out to be gems – true of these two Mann Egertons. There are two magnificent green London Transport Ts on the Rally Circuit (9.6 powered Regal III – a single deck RT) which attest to the beauty and quality of Mann Egerton’s work.
Mann Egerton were better known as the Norwich Austin dealer and they bodied many early post war Austins as small coaches, but the London Transport work did no harm to their reputation and their balance sheet.

David Oldfield

13/09/12 – 07:05

Here is a picture of 362 with Patons: www.flickr.com

Stephen Bloomfield

13/09/12 – 08:33

Very handsome vehicle, especially in that fine livery. Had no idea that Mann Egerton had ever built d/deckers. Sad that 361 was broken up after such a short life: if they were heavy then they must have been pretty robust too.

Ian Thompson

14/09/12 – 06:29

Ian, they are supposed to be the only deckers they ever built. They did get as far as building underfloor coaches as well – including a pair of AEC Regal IVs for Creamline of Bordon Hants.

Stephen. Can’t find 362 on flickr.

David Oldfield

14/09/12 – 06:32

They were certainly unusual looking, and stood out, especially with that slightly recessed panel at the front where the destination boxes were, which was unique in the fleet. But to my mind, they weren’t nearly as handsome as the OWB-registered PD2/10’s (656-667) alongside which they ran regularly on the 69 service joint with Rotherham Corporation. I seem to recall the two Mann Egerton’s sat down at the back end quite noticeably, especially when they had a good load on, but perhaps that was just a perception.
Ironically, one of the PD2/10’s, 666, was cut down to a gritter/towing vehicle by STD, just like Paton’s ended up doing with the former 362, and in its sheared off form, G56, as it became, was kept busy for many years, considerably longer than the fourteen years it served as a bus, towing all kinds of disgraced rear-engined machines back to Central Works from wherever they’d decided to expire. And it always looked quite happy doing it!

Dave Careless

14/09/12 – 06:34

A smart bus, indeed – but does anyone know why these had the sunken destination screen box? I know some pre-war and early post-war Sheffield buses had this feature, but it was by no means universal. It would be interesting to speculate that, had Mann Egerton ever tried to sell d/d’s to LT following on from their successful PS1s, then this large screen box area would be almost the same proportions as that used for the roof-box RT!

Paul Haywood

14/09/12 – 06:35

A quicker link to the ex- 362 picture Stephen.
Debateable whether the Patons livery does the bus any favours though. www.flickr.com/

John Darwent

14/09/12 – 06:37

Is it just me, or can anyone else see a distinct resemblance to Roberts bodywork (also very heavy!) sct61.org.uk/da86 ?

Peter Williamson

14/09/12 – 06:14

Apparently Glasgow Corporation FYS 494 fleet number D66 was a Daimler CVD6 with a Mann Egerton H30/26R body, new in 1951, scrapped 1960 and rebodied with an Alexander body from FYS 488 fleet number D60 which was a Daimler CD650, (10.6 litre with power steering) but chassis scrapped, not a very popular bus that one.

Spencer

14/09/12 – 06:39

Glasgow Corporation received a Mann Egerton bodied Daimler CVD6 double-decker in 1951 – D66 (FYS 494).

David Call

15/09/12 – 07:08

You’ll be hard pressed to find many of today’s featherweight Eurobuses fit to be preserved in future years and yet in the fifties the professionals were complaining about buses being too heavy. [Please compare fuel mpg of a fifties half-cab with a Euro 5 diesel.]
Why do people eulogise the Mann Egertons and their contemporary Roberts Regent IIIs – let alone their mainstream Weymann and Roe cousins? They were beautifully made, well made and looked good. The lightweight Orion and similar PRV/Roe offerings were the reaction to these heavy bodies. I ask you, what would you prefer?

The recessed destination display was, indeed, a pre-war Sheffield feature. There are echoes in the 1949/50 Cravens/Regent IIIs – featured on this site earlier this year. The most interesting manifestation was on the immediate pre-war all Leyland TD5cs, which had to have non-standard small upper deck screens to accommodate it. It was also a feature of the 1936 Cravens/TD4cs and “broke” the blue line under the upper deck windows. Weymanns managed to get the display in without either recessing the display or breaking the line.
Some post-war bodies managed to “avoid the line” in the Weymann manner but most encroached into the line surrounding the number display without breaking it. Significantly, the 1953/4 PD2/Weymanns avoided the line, like their predecessors, but the subsequent 1954 Regent III/Weymanns “encroached” in the normal post war fashion. Hours of scrutinising photographs has not yielded a satisfactory answer to the question, Why?

Dave. Couldn’t agree more. 656-667 were my favourite PD2s.

David Oldfield

15/09/12 – 07:09

In Classic Bus 110 I asked if Sheffield was the only order for M.E doubledeckers. The reply, and a follow-up in Classic Bus 112 will probably interest those who have responded above.

Les Dickinson

15/09/12 – 07:11

The reason that Sheffield ordered the two Mann Egerton bodies is quite interesting.
In November 1949 a tender was advertised for 30 double deck buses, complete chassis and bodies or chassis only or bodies only.
At the time, all the STD PD2/1’s delivered since 1947, carried Leyland bodywork. The Leyland management advised the transport committee to “look elsewhere for bodywork”
In consequence, an intended order for 30 buses to the forthcoming new regulations of 27′ x 7’6″ was varied. The result was that an order for 10 NCB, 2 Roe and 2 Mann Egerton bodies were contracted.
Surprisingly, Leyland offered to supply 16 complete vehicles to the existing 26’x 7’6″ PD2/1 standard. Unfortunately, NCB ceased trading, and Roe were awarded another seven bodies. The balance of the outstanding 11 (9 Roe 2 Mann Egerton) were built on the PD2/12 27’x 8′ chassis, authorised in 1950. This batch of 11 replaced 13 trams for the City to Fulwood tramway abandonment. Therefore the original 30 require was reduced to 27. Quite a complicated situation!

Keith Beeden

15/09/12 – 07:13

I understood that Newcastle Corporation also had some Daimler CW’s rebodied by Mann Egerton

Stephen Bloomfield

16/09/12 – 06:50

So, Keith, Leyland were anticipating pulling out of coach-building that early and at the same time were already showing signs of their later take it or leave it attitude. Thanks for the insight.

David Oldfield

16/09/12 – 06:52

Stephen
You may or may not remember me from our time together at BCT, but that’s another story.

Newcastle Corporation had a batch of 5 Daimler CWA6 vehicles delivered between 1945-47 that received new Mann Egerton bodies in October 1950. They had been delivered new with second-hand bodies transferred from 1931 vehicles.

Kevin Hey

14/12/12 – 16:17

It is true that Newcastle had Mann Egerton Deckers , there were I believe three on Daimler chassis, possibly rebodies of chassis that had originally been fitted with pre war Metro Cammel bodies taken from scrapped earlier chassis, and also Glasgow had one Mann Egerton bodied Daimler, D66 I believe

Mr Anon

05/07/14 – 17:34

Mr Anon, Newcastle had 5 Mann Egerton bodied Daimlers, they were fleet numbers 1 to 5, JVK 421 to 425.

Peter Stobart

Preston Corporation – Leyland Titan PD – BCK 367C – 61

Copyright Pete Davies

Preston Corporation
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/10 – PD3
Leyland – Preston Corporation H38/32F

BCK 367C started life as FRN 740 a 1954 PD2/10 with a Leyland H32/29R body which has been rebuilt to a PD3 format. She now resides in the North West Museum of Road Transport in St Helens, but was in need of some attention when I saw her during the summer. She has retained the Leyland outline to her bodywork, though some of the panels may have been relocated in the conversion and others have been added in order to lengthen her. Some visitors to the site may be thinking, “This isn’t in Preston!” Correct. She’s a long way from home, on Itchen Bridge in Southampton. The occasion was a rally to celebrate Southampton Corporation Transport Centenary, and the date was 6 May 1979. The ‘Union Flag on wheels’ following her is an Ipswich Fleetline in overall advertising livery.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

09/10/12 – 18:02

There were three distinctive types of conversions carried out by Preston between 1959 and 1967.
Eight 7’6″ PD2/10s were converted and all bore the Preston devised chassis designation of PD3/6 – a designation that Leyland Motors accepted. All eight vehicles received new PD3 chassis frames, Forward entrances replaced rear platforms and much of the original outline and coachwork was retained.
Between 1959 and 1963 four lowbridge bodies were converted. “The Leyland Bus” suggests that they were converted to highbridge layout at the same time as the road under the railway bridge that had necessitated their purchase had been lowered.
In 1963 two highbridge vehicles were converted followed by two more, one in 1965 as illustrated above and a final conversion in 1967. The last two were widened to 8′.
The classic Colin Bailey body outline is unmistakable – the only jarring note being the insertion of the short bay immediately behind the first window on the top deck rather than amidships. The original bodies had the more attractive version of Leyland’s final double deck design with recessed window pans and radiused corners top and bottom which were retained and which make the bus look as modern as anything else produced in the 1960s.
Preston thus ended up with the only 7’6″ PD3s, the only forward entrance Leyland double deck bodies and the only 30′ Leyland double deck bodies.

Phil Blinkhorn

09/10/12 – 18:05

I submitted a view of DRN 308 in “more or less” original form, as a companion to this, seen while on training duties in Fleetwood in 1975. Unfortunately, Peter found it too dark to be used.

Pete Davies

10/10/12 – 09:40

I believe that Dreadnought Coaches of Alnwick has one. I once saw it in the dark returning from Wedding duties.

Philip Carlton

10/10/12 – 09:41

I wonder what one of the 7’6″ PD3s would have looked like with a St. Helens style PD3A front on as these were 7’6″ wide and most body builders had to taper the front of their 8ft wide bodies to accommodate them.

Eric Bawden

10/10/12 – 12:08

An interesting prospect, Eric, which would have qualified this class for an additional “unique” feature over those Phil B mentions above!

Pete Davies

10/10/12 – 12:09

Eric, A quick look through “The Leyland Bus” photos of St Helens front vehicles shows that some, rather than most, bodybuilders tapered their front to fit.
The more traditional builders (such as Massey) only offered a taper but with other builders the width was at the discretion of the operator.

Phil Blinkhorn

11/10/12 – 07:31

I remember the Southampton Centenary Weekend in May 1979 very well.
I was working at Derby City Transport at the time and myself and the late Gerald Truran, the Chief Engineer, (and Author of ‘Brown Bombers’ the History of Neath and Cardiff Luxury Coaches) entered Derby’s Foden Double Decker Fleet No. 101 in the event. Sorry but the Foden does not qualify for this site.
The drive down was slow but uneventful until just before Winchester when she started giving cause for concern. Don’t ask me what, it is a long time ago and I am no mechanic.
So a detour was made off the A34 in to Sutton Scotney where a visit was made to the long gone Taylor’s Coaches premises. The staff and management were most accommodating as is usually the case when Bus men need help from other Bus men, and a repair was made (NO charge) and we were soon on our way.
One thing I remember about the visit was an old Bedford lurking in one of the many buildings.
I made inquiries and was told it was a Bedford with a Plaxton Consort body and had come from Comfy Coaches of Farnham.
Unfortunately, and much to my regret, I never took a photograph but I have found an image of it at this link. By the way, we did not win anything at the Rally but it was a great weekend, and the trip back was uneventful.

Stephen Howarth

11/10/12 – 08:58

With regard to Stephen’s visit to Sutton Scotney, Taylor’s had their Bedford OB HAA 874 in this same rally. It must have been a rare outing for her, as she was using the company’s trade plate.

Pete Davies

14/10/12 – 08:00

This is the ex Preston 2 (PRN 761) rebuild currently with Dreadnaught Coaches of Alnwick, referred to by Philip Carlton.
It is seen at their depot in June of this year, on a typical (!) summer’s day.

Bob Gell

21/05/14 – 12:29

The PD2 version of No.61 was H30/28R when new. It was reseated to H32/29R in 11/1958 as part of a rolling programme to increase the seating capacity on all the PD2/10s. All four highbridge conversions were done to the same width of 8ft. There were no 7ft 6ins wide conversions. The four lowbridge buses were increased in height fom 13ft 6ins to 14ft 2ins. As previously said they were used alongside the lowbridge PD1s on the Ashton A service which passed under the height/width restricted railway bridge on Fylde Road. The road surface was lowered in 1957 thereafter permitting highbridge buses to pass underneath in the centre of the road.

Mike Rhodes

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

05/09/14 – 07:30

I was the owner and driver of 61 on the Southampton Centenary event, having driven it down from Somerset through Dorset and via zig-zag hill ! Lovely to see this picture, and it shows what good condition the bus was in at that time. Unfortunately it now languishes in the N W Transport Museum in St’Helens, looking rather unloved – no-one seems interested in it anymore, despite my offers to help fund its restoration.
Any other Preston fans out there who would be keen to see it restored ? If so, leave a name and e-mail address, please.

Nick Sommer

Your email address will not be posted on site to avoid spammers, but I will pass it on to Nick.

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – NWE 591 – 391

Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Roe H33/25R

The recent posting of a Sheffield Mann Egerton bodied PD2 fleet number 362 provided some interesting information on new bus orders about that time and here is one of the Roe bodied PD2/12 ordered at the same time as the Mann Egerton pair. These were very elegant looking vehicles with deep windows in both saloons and I think looked especially handsome in the C T Humpidge era livery with three blue bands. Interesting to note how Roe incorporated a variation of the standard Sheffield destination layout â€“ probably necessary because of the reduced depth available because of the afore mentioned deep windows. I well recall these buses replacing the Fulwood via Hunters Bar trams as the first programmed tram replacement scheme in January 1952. The new 88 bus route ran between the City and Fulwood with the City terminus being uniquely located in Eyre Street outside the Motor Vehicle Licensing Office (near the Central Library). This continued I believe until March 1954 when the 88 became a cross City service between Fulwood and Malin Bridge at the same time as the 81/82 bus routes replaced trams between Ecclesall and Middlewood.
Here is 391 in later life about to turn into Herries Road Depot on a summer evening in July 1967. The batch of nine were withdrawn the following year and 391 ended up inevitably with a Barnsley breaker.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

14/10/12 – 10:47

I am, of course, predisposed and prejudiced in this post. Magnificent body, excellent operator – and pretty good chassis!!! I never quite got to terms with the “heavy on blue” livery that all Roes were delivered in and generally preferred this scheme – which was always on repaint. Nevertheless, I also felt that these PD2s looked slightly bald in this scheme. Never actually rode on one and didn’t realise it was originally a City only service from Eyre Street. Only used the 60 to Crimicar Lane in my childhood – the 88 didn’t go up the hill!

David Oldfield

14/10/12 – 10:41

What I could never understand about the Sheffield fleet is this: all the views I have, bought ones or my own work relating to the bus fleet, show this style of livery. With the trams, however, and there are several preserved at Crich, if it was delivered in livery “A” it retained that livery throughout. If it was delivered in “B”, it retained “B” throughout. Only the 1953 ‘Roberts’ trams had this style. Can anyone explain the apparent reluctance to modernise the livery on the trams, when it seems to have been done on the buses?

Pete Davies

15/10/12 – 07:32

Pete, you seem to have an inaccurate memory – or information – about Sheffield livery. This scheme was introduced in about 1936 for the Domed Standard (tram) Cars and extended to AEC Regent/Weymann buses. It was extended to all buses eventually, pre-war, including Craven and Leyland bodied TD5 Titans. The livery was perpetuated after the war on the Roberts trams – the only trams bought after the Domed Standards and, of course, the last “first generation” trams. It was also the standard bus livery except, for some inexplicable reason, all Roe deckers, Leyland Farington deckers and the final “not” Farington Leyland body (which were delivered in the short-lived and disastrous green experimental livery). The Roe and Leyland bodies had far more blue paint but most, if not all, Roes were painted in the scheme shown at first overhaul. Yet another superb colour shot by Ian.

David Oldfield

15/10/12 – 10:00

Thank you, David. The source of my information seems to be incorrect!

Pete Davies

15/10/12 – 17:22

The whole vehicle is pure and classic Roe, except for the front upper deck windows which look a little odd, the way that the top edge looks lower than the side windows. No doubt it’s just the evening sun shining on the white dome but it made me look twice, I thought some alteration had been done. Still a superb bus though!

Chris Barker

15/10/12 – 17:23

And don’t forget the variant of the grey roof, David, which buses tended to acquire on first repaint. I’ve heard it said that the grey was made up in Queens Road by mixing the dregs of the cream and blue paint tins, but I’m not sure how correct that is. I think the practice ended after Chaceley Humpidge became GM in 1961, as he wasn’t a fan of the grey roof. Personally, I think the ‘Farington’ PD2’s in their ‘Roe’ style livery looked better than ever with the roof painted grey.
Oddly enough, the domed roof trams that inaugurated the ‘new’ livery had a variation of the grey roof, or at least acquired one eventually; perhaps in wartime in an effort to make the cars less visible from the air? If the grey was in fact a combination of the blue and cream, perhaps it was a conscious effort on the part of the paint shop to not waste a drop!!

Dave Careless

16/10/12 – 05:29

Dave, you are absolutely correct about the grey paint – actually called “smudge”. It gave a certain dignity to an already super livery. I do not know, and to my shame have not as yet bothered to find out, whether there was a policy about the smudge. My feeling is that it was applied before entry into service (whether or not by the coachbuilder or by STD) and lost on overhaul/repaint. I certainly feel that all the Weymanns (classic and Orion alike) on 26′ and 27′ chassis entered service with smudge roofs. The Domed cars probably likewise.

David Oldfield

16/10/12 – 11:45

I don’t know whether there was a wartime edict to paint bus roofs a less obtrusive colour . LPTB went from silver to grey to brown quickly. However, the dirt falling onto tram and trolleybus roofs from poles and wiring might well have been a consideration not to change back later.

Chris Hebbron

16/10/12 – 16:52

Grey roof painting was widely adopted on the outbreak of WW2. It was kept by many operations for a long time afterwards. For instance Manchester had its 1946 deliveries painted in this manner. When it converted its orders to 8′ wide vehicles they appeared with red roofs, the 7′ 6″ vehicles retained the grey so the bus washers knew how to set washer width. Few 7’6″ vehicles appeared in the “overall” red scheme but by that time the washers set themselves automatically.
Stockport cut back its grey from 1946 but retained the centre of the roof in grey for all deliveries up to and including the first batch of St Helen’s fronted PD2s in 1962. Frank Brimelow specified translucent roofs thereafter but all re-sprays of grey roofed vehicles received the grey until SELNEC took over.

Phil Blinkhorn

17/10/12 – 08:30

On the subject of grey or other colour for the roof, one of my former colleagues was a descendent of B C Baker of Birmingham City Transport. Birmingham had a sandy colour for their bus roofs, apparently as camouflage. My colleague suggested it was to confuse the Afrika Corps!

Pete Davies

17/10/12 – 08:31

This bus and its windows is reminiscent of Roe’s 8ft Doncaster 121 and 122 which were sold to Blue Ensign after 4 years because either they didn’t fit the streets (official) or the washer (Tony Peart). Did they also have the cranked seats and “high level” rear platform? It seems that Roe had a sudden urge to innovate…?

Joe

17/10/12 – 11:24

No, Joe, that was a Doncaster thing. The vehicles you mention are closer to STD 18/19; 113-119 – the 1952 four bay bodied Regent IIIs (my equal favourite with 1325 – 1349). Incidentally, Charles Halls has these PD2s (386 – 394) as 1951 and 361/2 (the Mann Egertons) as 1952. I always took this to be correct and that the Roes were late ’51 and the Mann Egertons early ’52.

David Oldfield

17/10/12 – 18:04

One further thought with respect to Sheffield’s penchant for grey roofs, a style that became a thing of the past after C.T. Humpidge took over. It occurs to me that it must have seemed a bit like deja vu to the new General Manager when he got settled into the chair at Sheffield in 1961.
Bradford’s fleet had grey roofs into the early 1950’s, when he took over the top job in that city, after which the roofs on the buses eventually became blue on his watch. When he took over the reins at Sheffield, and saw the tins of “smudge” on the shelves at Queens Road, he must have felt he was starting all over again!

Dave Careless

18/10/12 – 07:46

The Fulwood via Hunters Bar tram route that these buses took over from was converted to bus operation (service 88) on 5th January 1952 so this batch would almost certainly have been delivered in late 1951. I can only recall one Sheffield bus with cranked seats and this was all Leyland 651 of the 1949 batch (and then I think the lower deck only). Can the Sheffield people out there confirm this and what was the reason?

Ian Wild

18/10/12 – 10:44

Chieftain Buses of Hamilton acquired a second-hand ex-Sheffield TD5 Craven in the late 40s. BWB ###. The engine in this bus sounded different to any other TD5 I had come across. It surely could not have been a petrol engine? Any enlightenment?

Jim Hepburn

18/10/12 – 14:37

Leeds had one AEC Regent with staggered seats 700 NUM 700 a 1950 show exhibit which was LCTs second 8ft wide bus I have a vague feeling that these were removed and replaced with normal seating towards the end of its LCT life.

Chris Hough

19/10/12 – 06:32

The Sheffield livery variation on the Roe bodied vehicles has long been a talking point. The whole process was caused by the changes to the Leyland Farington PD2/1’s delivered in 1949. The mouldings below the lower deck windows were discontinued, along with upper beading. Leyland asked for a simplified livery in lieu of cream and three blue bands, for the high cost of lining out would be excessive.
AEC Regent Weymann FWJ 808 was used to trial a simpler paint style.
With a slight modification,this livery was adopted for the large intake of Farington PD2’s.
When the Roe order for PD2/12’s was placed, a similar situation resulted. The narrow lower deck waist rail would have unbalanced the lower deck blue band proportions, therefore a decision was made to adopt the Farington style. The new GM C.T.Humpidge took a dislike to the Roe livery in 1962 and repaints received the standard livery in due course. Remarkably, none of the Farington fleet were so changed in livery style.

Keith Beeden

24/11/12 – 06:50

Referring to Jim Hepburn’s post of 18th October, as the BWA to BWE range of registrations was limited to 1935, I would imagine that the vehicle he refers to would be a Leyland TD4C/Cravens which used the torque converter rather than a convention gearbox and was commonly known as ‘Gearless Bus’. The sound produced, as I remember, from like vehicles surviving into the 50’s resembled a long monotonous droning noise especially from a standing start.

Just to add to David Oldfield’s response to Pete Davies on the subject of liveries. For Pete to understand that trams delivered in Liveries A or B would retain that livery throughout is erroneous. Following the standardisation of Azure Blue and Cream circa 1936, numerous older trams previously wearing the Prussian Blue and Cream were repainted into the Azure Blue livery. In fact, one such tram, namely 150, delivered in Prussian Blue in 1930 was repainted into the ill-fated Green livery in 1952 and then Azure Blue shortly afterwards.

As regards the subject of the post, PD2 No. 391, my humble opinion is that it looks absolutely dreadful in the Humpidge interpretation of the standard livery. As Keith Beedon has explained, the Farrington style livery was applied to the Roe designs for good reason and looked nicely balanced on these elegant vehicles. The painting out of the dividing bar on the front destination box just added to the desecration but credit is due for restoring the cream roof. I would refer all to C.C.Hall’s ‘Sheffield Transport’ Page 263 to see just how superb 389 of the same batch looked when new. (I’m sure many of you will have this book but if not and you are ‘Up North’, there is a copy in the splendid ‘Search Engine’ Reference Library at the National Railway Museum at York)

John Darwent

18/12/12 – 17:37

Referring to Ian Wild’s post of 18-10-2012, Keith Beeden advises that Sheffield all Leyland 651 was fitted with cranked seats on both decks. These were supplied by Siddall and Hilton. Here is an extract from Commercial Motor of 8th December 1950- Article titled Innovation Components and Accessories
“More room with less seat” is the object of the new Sidhil-Morseat, manufactured by Siddall and Hilton, Ltd.. Sowerby Bridge, Yorks. Employing a cleverly cranked frame, this service-bus seat enables two passengers to sit comfortably side by side without encroaching on each other or on the gangway.
The outer half of the seat, apart from being set back, as in a normal cranked seat, is also turned slightly inward, so that the “gangway” passenger’s elbows are out of the way of the inside” passenger. A recess in the centre of the seat provides additional elbow-room, enabling both passengers to get at pockets for their fares without the usual difficulty.
Further, each person enjoys the full width of backrest and the “inner” passenger can more easily leave his seat without disturbing his neighbour. With this design, the conductor can move more easily about the bus, and is able, with less difficulty, to collect the fares from the window-side passenger.

John Darwent

19/12/12 – 07:29

Siddall & Hilton are still in business today in Halifax producing wire products, hospital beds and other ancillary equipment for the healthcare industry.

Eric Bawden

03/08/13 – 14:25

Long time since I visited this site , but thanks to John Darwent for info. on BWB Craven. By this time, it had a conventional gearbox but still sounded unusual.
Now another ex. Sheffield bus was WJ 9094. Any info.?

Jim Hepburn

04/08/13 – 10:40

WJ 9094 was a Leyland TD3c, fleet number 94, Cravens H31/24R. Arrived 1934, withdrawn 1941. Think chassis number was 3606.

Les Dickinson

06/08/13 – 06:05

Thanks Les about info. on TD3c WJ 9094. This bus was converted to a conventional gearbox and served with J. Laurie`s of Hamilton`s “Chieftain” buses plying between Hamilton and East Kilbride, and was not withdrawn till 1954.

Jim Hepburn

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

14/10/13 – 08:09

Referring to my post of 18-12-12 about the cranked seats in Sheffield PD2 No. 651, I have now had the opportunity to photograph probably the last pair of ‘Sidhil’ Morseats in captivity which are currently in Sheffield AEC/MCW ex 255, now preserved as ex-gritter G55 in the South Yorkshire Transport Museum at Aldwarke, Rotherham.These seats were the spare pair supplied with 651 and retained by Sheffield Transport Department after the bus was sold on.

John Darwent

15/10/13 – 07:08

Not quite the last set in captivity!. Doncaster 122, the beautiful AEC Regent 111/Roe restored by the late Tony Peart has these seats as well.

Andrew Charles

15/10/13 – 18:03

Splendid news Andrew, thank you for posting. Has 122 a full set, upstairs and downstairs, do you know? I wonder if any more are lurking in preservation.

John Darwent

Bradford Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – EKY 569 – 34

Copyright Ian Wild

Bradford Corporation
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/3
Leyland H33/27R

This Driver Training bus is seen shining in the sunshine outside Thornbury Depot at an open day in September 1973 a few months prior to the formation of West Yorkshire PTE. It appears to be in splendid condition for its age. Records show its withdrawal from normal service (as fleet number 569) in 1965 so it had a long innings as a driver trainer.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

16/11/12 – 09:00

These Leyland PD2/3s were a batch of 20 bought in 1949/50. The last ones were 20 years old when they were withdrawn in 1970. A mere 2 years before the 1961 AEC Regents.
Somehow I don’t think todays replacements will be around in twenty years time!

Chris Hough

16/11/12 – 11:24

558 from the same batch is preserved. Last time I saw it, it was undergoing major body restoration at Sandtoft but was in running order.
It spent it’s early preservation years taking members of the West Riding Transport Society to rallies and towing the society’s preserved trolleybuses around, a duty shared with Guy Arab II ex County 70.

Eric Bawden

16/11/12 – 11:38

I may upset a few people here, but I’d like to venture to suggest that Bradford Regent Vs 121-5 were withdrawn in 1972 not because they were worn out, so to speak, but simply because Bradford had a surplus of vehicles at the time – Fleetlines 336-55 being more than enough to see off the last Regent IIIs. The earlier Regent Vs, 106-20, would have been past their second recertification at the time.
It has been inferred elsewhere that AV590-engined Regent Vs were a disaster, but AV590 engines continued to be fitted, almost to the end of production, and I’m not aware that Regent Vs generally had a short life – they seemed to last just as long as contemporary PD3s, Arab Vs, and CVG6LXs.
One thing which does seem untoward is the quoting of EKY 569’s lower deck seating capacity as 27, rather than the more usual 26. Yes, this is consistent with the Peter Gould site, which asserts that all of the batch (554-73) were upseated to H33/27R in the mid-fifties. Most or all of Bradford’s post-war motorbuses were upseated in the mid-1950s, but no other batch apparently had the lower deck capacity increased to more than 26. This includes the 41-65 batch of PD2s, which must have been virtually identical to 554-73. A lower deck seating capacity of 27 implies a rearward-facing seat for five behind the bulkhead, and I can’t recall this as being a feature of any Bradford buses.

David Call

16/11/12 – 13:49

David. As one of AECs biggest fans, I would concur that all wet-liner AECs (470 and 590) were not as good as the A2** that preceded them nor the 691/760 that followed. I have long been puzzled, along with folk such as you, as to the vilification of Bradford Regent Vs. Sheffield’s terrain is as bad as, if not worse than, Bradford’s. Over a 100 590 Regent Vs gave sterling service – and a full service life – in and around the city and were quite frankly superior to the (very good) PD Titans let alone the typically iffy PDR1 Atlanteans. Was there something in the Bradford air that disagreed with the Southall fuel system?

David Oldfield

16/11/12 – 13:50

No David, none of Bradford`s buses had a rearwards facing seat, even after “upseating” I also believe that 121 – 125 were withdrawn due to their extra high fuel consumption.
The Titan PD2/3s came in 2 batches, 554-573, and 41 – 65, the later batch not having the front upper deck rain shields, and thus having a more up to date look. Both batches of Titans looked absolutely superb in their original “Tattam” livery, with yellow lining, cream bands, and grey roofs, the livery to which the preserved example is, I believe, returning. Bradford`s operating and maintenance staff highly praised the Titans, and rightly so, BCPT was never really a “Leyland” fleet, the previous Titans being of the TD1 type, and subsequent ones, in 1967, of the PD3A variety, and consequently, they always had something of a “separate” feel about them amongst the more numerous Mark 111 Regents.
This photo brings the memories flooding back! I always preferred a downstairs ride on a PD2, as the tickover “gurgle” used to fascinate me along with the other magnificent sounds, and the sight of the “Leyland metal framed body” badge is something else etched into my memory! Wonderful, high quality vehicles!

John Whitaker

16/11/12 – 15:35

It is the very essence of informed transport enthusiasm for each of us to have especial fondness for a particular marque or model, and this site thrives upon the diversity of discussion that arises from individual preferences. I personally felt that the Mark V Regent, particularly the noisy synchromesh version, did not measure up to the standards of the older Mark III in a number of respects – sacrilegious, I know, but my favourite Regent Vs were the preselective Gardner powered Rochdale examples – but the views of others offering a different opinion are equally valid. Whatever its shortcomings, real or imagined, the Regent V was not a commercial or operating disaster, and it served many operators faithfully for several years. David Call’s explanation for the seemingly early withdrawals of the Bradford examples seems a little strange to me. No properly run operation would wake up to find itself holding an unplanned surfeit of vehicles, thereby necessitating the early withdrawal of entirely serviceable stock. The earlier than expected demise of buses such as these, by no means only in Bradford, surely arose from the introduction of the New Bus Grant Scheme in the 1968 Transport Act. The opportunity of buying a new bus at half cost was seized upon by all operators throughout the bus industry, and perfectly sound Leyland Titans, Guy Arabs, Daimler CVGs as well as Regent Vs, were pensioned off early. Certainly, the Regent V could probably give most of the modern, tinny, lurching buzz boxes a good run for their money, and probably achieve that result at a lower cost in maintenance and fuel.

Roger Cox

16/11/12 – 16:45

Here pictured in April 1970, again on training duties, is one of the later batch of Leyland H30/26R bodied PD2/3s, GKU 61, delivered in 1950. This bus presents a bit of a puzzle. According to Peter Gould, the fleet numbers and registrations matched, which should make this bus No. 61, but the fleet number 60 is clearly displayed. Do our experts have an answer, please?

Roger Cox

16/11/12 – 17:14

Hi Roger,
Bradford’s “0” series numbers were specifically for what they called service vehicles, such as tuition buses, grit wagons, tower wagons etc, and had no connection whatever with the fleet numbers of passenger stock.

John Whitaker

17/11/12 – 06:47

Many thanks, John. That explains it. This site is a goldmine.

Roger Cox

17/11/12 – 06:48

The AEC engine types that David Oldfield refers to as predecessors of the AV470/AV590 were the A208 and A218.
The A208 was the original engine fitted to 9612E/9612A which was found to run hot when driven ‘hard’ and the A218 had an external water pipe feeding coolant to the rearmost cylinders to overcome this.
The engine fitted to the Regent RT was the A204, which also received the external water pipe modification but without any change to the type number, which remained A204.

Michael Elliott

17/11/12 – 06:49

Bradford borrowed some AEC Regents from Huddersfield in the final months before the formation of the PTE. This may have been in part due to vehicle shortages as Bradford decided to buy no more new vehicles after 1972 as they were not in favour of the PTE and did not wish to furnish it with new stock. Certainly in the early years of the PTE a number of Leeds Daimlers saw service in Bradford to cover shortages.

Chris Hough

17/11/12 – 06:50

There are comments elsewhere on the BRADFORD thread about changes to the livery. Some apparent changes are caused by the lighting conditions, the film or the way it was processed – for example, I have a Royal Blue coach next to a Birmingham PS2 in one photo, and they both look alike, whether they were or not in reality. In the views above, are they really different shades of blue, or is there an outside factor?
Nice views, by the way!

Pete Davies

17/11/12 – 06:53

Are the colours of these two buses supposed to be the same or is it a photo thing? If the same, which of the two is the more realistic?

Chris Hebbron

17/11/12 – 06:53

Both of these beautiful vehicles are presented in a way that would disgrace many modern operator – and they were only for driver training at the time! Well done, Bradford.

David Oldfield

17/11/12 – 06:54

I said I might upset people – I probably have, but I’ll probably upset a few more yet. AEC’s 470/590 engines may well have been widely criticised, but they must have had something going for them, or they wouldn’t have been introduced, and operators wouldn’t have bought them by the thousand.
I don’t think Bradford’s Regent Vs were universally disliked – Stanley King may have disliked them, and he was inclined to make his views known.
As for Bradford 121-5 having excessively high fuel consumption, I’ve heard this one before – but why would they be any more thirsty than 126-225, which had the same engines? The two-pedal control wouldn’t have made any great difference.
I’m now going to take Roger Cox to task for his criticism of my suggestion as to why 121-5 were withdrawn when they were. At the height of the bus-buying boom (prompted by the ‘bus grant’) there was a two-year waiting list for new buses – any operator who could accurately predict how many vehicles would be coming due for replacement in two years time would need not only good business sense but a degree in clairvoyance. To have predicted within five, for a fleet of over three hundred, doesn’t seem bad to me. Don’t forget that operators were more likely to err on the side of underestimation – and finished up keeping vehicles they had been planning to dispose of.

David Call

17/11/12 – 08:39

As Chris says, the Bradford Blue has come up before. Years ago, I had problems trying to obtain a consistent blue in silk screen work, and eventually those who knew told us that blue was a translucent colour (or somesuch) and it depended on the colour of the primer. On the other hand, 35mm colour film did vary: I think Fuji was bluish and Kodak reddish- perhaps!

Joe

17/11/12 – 08:39

Another picture of a PD2 in the Bradford Training fleet. I took this hurriedly composed shot around 1969/70 but can’t quite make out the registration number. It looks like EKY 55?
Can anybody positively identify it?

Eric Bawden

17/11/12 – 13:29

Re film colour. I’ve been shooting aircraft on AGFA, Fuji and a much smaller amount on Kodak slide stock since the early 1970s. I also have a fair number of prints/negatives from various film types.
I’m currently scanning around 14,000 aircraft slides, 2,000 prints plus all the family photos using an Epson V700.
Colour rendering and quality varies. The Epson tends to scan to a blue bias whilst Fuji slide stock of the period has an inherent green tinge. Agfa tends to a slight red and, if the slides have suffered from age, those tendencies are amplified.
Kodak is a nightmare to scan and, thankfully, forms the minority of my shots by a long way.
I find that I have to do some colour work in Photoshop with most slides older than 15 -20 years.
Blue as a colour does have inherent pigment problems. I was a regular visitor to Bradford from a young age and there was always some difference in shades between their buses in the same way as the off white of Stockport’s scheme changed with not very great age.
Am I right in thinking that the shade of blue in later years was deliberately darker than in the early – mid 1950s possibly to overcome fading?
Going back to the comparison between the two photos I’d say, looking at the sky, that Ian’s photo is slightly overexposed either in the original or in scanning but the blue, were the colour temperature and exposure corrected, would approximate to an 1950s blue.
Roger’s photo also has the sky over exposed, presumably to have enough exposure for the bus, but the green of the grass is more accurate. Having said that the blue red balance is out (look at the road surface and the various windows) so the blue of the bus will also be out.
This: www.flickr.com/photos/1 illustrates how the colour is affected by light and shade and is closer to Ian’s shot.
Here is the same bus on a grey day: www.flickr.com/photos/2 which is how I remember the colour (perhaps it was always grey when I went to Bradford (!) but again shows variation and is closer to Roger’s shot. Also look how much richer the cream is in the first of the Flickr shots compared to the second and the shots in this thread.
Unfortunately the variation in film stock, exposure, processing and scanning is not going to help either justify or correct our memories where such issues arise. The only way to know for sure is to obtain the colour number used for the paint and then try to find a colour chart.

Phil Blinkhorn

17/11/12 – 14:37

The last six months of BCT was not a period of great glory. Last week I met some friends in Leeds from my days in the bus industry at that time including Brian Eastwood, who was then Assistant Traffic Superintendent at BCT.
Brian reminded me of the day that the Chief Engineer, Bernard Barrington Brown [who was known as ‘B-cubed’] announced that there was a vehicle crisis. John Hodgson Hill, the Traffic Superintendent, then set Brian and Chief Inspector Fred Wilkinson the task of selecting running boards (vehicle schedules) that could be dropped.
I seem to remember that eventually a list of boards that could be dropped was agreed upon and Arthur Wheet, who operated the address-o-graph and printing machine on the 6th floor of the Head Office at Forster Square, produced the necessary passenger notices of journeys that would no longer be operating.
As I recall the problem came in part from a large number of vehicles requiring re-certification and I seem to remember that a great many of the first batch of 15 Leyland Atlanteans delivered in 1967 were out of service during the period immediately prior to the PTE taking-over.

Kevin Hey

17/11/12 – 17:26

Some interesting comments about colour rendering! It may seem a silly question – but I’m from British West Bradford, not the Yorkshire one, so I think I have an excuse! – is the 0 series a number or a letter?

Pete Davies

18/11/12 – 08:13

I think the “0” is a number, Pete, not a letter, but I do not really know, and does it have any significance anyway? !!.
Regarding the shade of blue. This was adopted in 1942, inspired by the loaned Southend trolleybuses, and never as far as I know, altered until the demise of BCT in 1974, although it is possible that changes occurred as paint ranges changed, evolved, or improved over the years. There always seemed to be a pigment problem, with great shade variations, some buses taking on a distinctive turquoise hue as the paint aged between repaints. This was particularly apparent with certain vehicles, 611 being notoriously remembered. It must also be remembered that the industrial atmosphere changed for the better in later post war years, with less acid based colour deterioration.
I also well remember the BCPT practice of “TUV” , where little black letters above the platform exit referred to the date of the last “touch up and varnish”.
There was nothing smarter than a Bradford bus straight out of the paint shops, but, unfortunately, they never retained this shiny smartness for long!
Strange too, that the “new blue” was adopted in wartime, when many motorbuses were decked out in khaki, but I believe that trolleybuses were not subject to quite the same WW2 restrictions as were motorbuses.

John Whitaker

18/11/12 – 08:13

It will be difficult to answer that one! I have a typed and duplicated official Bradford fleet list from the period and this shows the vehicles as “O.60”, but unfortunately that particular typewriter used the same character for the number and the letter, so you just can’t be sure. However, a letter would make more sense if you put the full stop in. As far as I can make out though, it never appeared on the vehicles themselves.

David Beilby

18/11/12 – 08:15

The subject of Eric Bawden’s photo is EKY 556. This was formerly fleet number 556. It was transferred to driver training duties as 067 in December 1970, was renumbered 033 in April 1972 and was sold for scrap to Hartwood Exports in February 1974.

Michael Elliott

18/11/12 – 08:16

Pete, does that mean you are really the Clitheroe Kid?

Phil Blinkhorn

18/11/12 – 12:11

No, Phil, but a former boss (the one who told me the Geoff Hilditch version of the advent of the Dennis Dominator, having worked with GH at one time) was. He looked too much like Eric Morecambe for his own good and was rather accident prone, but that’s another story altogether!

Pete Davies

18/11/12 – 12:12

Thank you for that information, Michael. If you look carefully you can just make out the fleet number 067, something that doesn’t show up on the original!
From what you say I think I must have taken it in 1971, whilst on trolleybus photography ‘duty’.

Eric Bawden

11/01/13 – 14:28

In the early 1960s I attended school in Harrogate Road Bradford. One school special was provided by Bankfoot depot, usually an EKY PD2 or now and then a PKY Mark V. Normal services from Ludlam Street depot were RTs/HKW Mark 111/GKU PD2s.
One bus which seemed to perform the best was PD2 573 even with a full load it seemed to power up the hills.
Does anyone know if any modifications were made to the O.600 engine to improve performance. I think 573 was the last PD2 to be withdrawn in 1969.
With regard the school special, what duty did the bus do on reaching Bradford City Centre

Geoff S

12/01/13 – 13:51

Nothing special about 573 that I am aware of Geoff.
I often rode on this batch in their later years, sometimes as duplicates on the 80 route in the Mk V era, and I was, like you, always amazed at their performance. They could all, both batches, have soldiered on for another 20 years or so! In their earlier years, they absolutely “flew” up Manchester Road, so that you thought, apart from that superb “gurgling ” sound, that they were trolleys! Wonderful buses.

John Whitaker

13/01/13 – 07:22

Phil has given an excellent resume on colour, but Bradford blue and similar were prone to shade changes due to weather and also what base coat was being used under the blue. Although the blue would have been specified to the Paint suppliers whose tolerances would have been slightly different, the base coats could vary enormously – sometimes referred to as batch to batch variation, but often due to using a cheaper less opaque filler.After university I worked 4 years in surface coatings and was given the job to match the white from an artist impression of the new Hartley’s jam jar. Despite us having hundreds of shades of white I had to start from scratch and can remember adding some yellow and then a drop of black to make it look cleaner. Later I would work 8 years for Bayer who at the time owned Agfa so nearly all my slides used Agfa film as we got them at staff prices. These days as a modeller Bradford blue still causes problems – manufactures saying the model is finished in Bradford Blue. There is no modelling paint which is a direct match for these vehicles – you are advised to make up your own colour blend, or like me don’t chose to paint your bus Bradford blue – stick to Tilling Green which is much easier and readily available.
Why did the New Hartleys Jam Jar fail – well not for the work we did on the paint, but although the sides were slanted inwards for customers to grab them easier from the shelves, the supermarkets found they could get less of these jars on the shelf than conventional ones with vertical sides. – sorry for going ‘Off Piste’

Ken Jones

13/01/13 – 14:09

Some paint colours are unstable. I moved into a house with a bluey colour on the window frames which needed repainting. The garage had a couple of old tins of Ripolin turquoise and I decided to repaint the frames, which finished up an accurate turquoise colour. After about two years, however, it had returned to the colour I first saw. Part weathering, but perhaps part salty air, being half a mile from the beach. However, the latter was not an influence in Bradford!
My recollection of the Hartleys’ jars were that the new shape only held 12ozs rather than the earlier one pound jars, but costing the same. But maybe that was on another occasion.

Chris Hebbron

13/01/13 – 15:14

Following on the question of colour, particularly Phil’s earlier comments, this montage photo shows just how dependent we are on our subjective assessment. The two views are consecutive, taken just a short time apart, at the same location, in the same lighting conditions and of course on the same film. The two slides have been stored in identical conditions, but in separate boxes. The film is one of my rare forays away from Agfa, being Fujicolor, and has survived reasonably well in terms of colour casts. The originals look a bit brownish in the shadows.
The difference in the outcome is due to the fact that they were scanned at very different times, although with the same scanner. The trolleybus was scanned in 2003, the PD2 4 years later. The trolleybus was one of my early scans, before I had become fully versed in what could be done in photoshop. It is definitely over-saturated when I now look at it, but it must have seemed OK at the time.
Scanners do have a tendency to increase contrast relative to the original. The PD2 is perhaps a bit undersaturated, but looks fairly true-to life in terms of colour balance. The shade of blue doesn’t look to bad.
The photo’s were taken on the last day of normal trolleybus service, 24 March 1972. The PD2 as well must have been close to the end of its working life, being already 23 years old.

Alan Murray-Rust

13/01/13 – 17:23

Quick comment on Hartley Jam Jars as I spent so long working on them – they were 12oz at request of shoppers who complained about having to buy 1 pound jars of things like Robertsons Jam, although some shops sold half pound jars of their marmalade. Initial pricing reflected that the Hartleys jars were smaller, then supermarkets moved prices to be same as lb jars, so Chris is right in remembering prices but other supermarkets just gave up and reduced the price of the Hartleys jars to clear space. He’s definitely right about paint being unstable both in settling out and application. Our back faces south and the colours are never the same as the front although black & white has worked best – we have had blue & white and currently red & white – think we might just go for white only next time.

Ken Jones

14/01/13 – 07:08

There are so many variables with paint colour. Memory doesn’t help nor, I understand, do some of the modern pigments which have different chemical properties to those of 40-60 years ago.
I’m told that even using the same colour numbers to the same mixture cannot guarantee a match and then, of course, there is the absence of lead which would have been used in the white base, certainly prior to the 1960s.
As far as Alan’s pics go, to my eye neither is spot on and they illustrate the problem with scanners as the trolley is over saturated, the PD2 is about right for its age but the grass and houses look too pale.
It wasn’t any simpler in the days of black and white. Red, for instance, could be rendered on film in good lighting conditions as anything from light grey to the deepest black depending on the film used.

Phil Blinkhorn

14/01/13 – 13:14

Well, what a range of colours when one looks down these posts! The original photo may not be accurate, but is probably my favourite, albeit allowing for my colour-blindness. But then, after red, my favourite colour is among the greys and I mean this most sincerely, folks. Now you’ll tell me it’s green! And that gloss on the lower deck panels – very impressive!

Chris Hebbron

14/01/13 – 14:22

I was born about half a mile away from this location, and both blues look pretty good to me! In reality, as has been stated before, BCT buses demonstrated great variations when it came to shade and gloss, as the colour did not wear well. However, there was no finer sight than a BCT vehicle straight out of the paint shops!
I firmly believe that such speedy deterioration was worsened after the appointment of Mr Humpidge, in late 1951. He sought to reduce costs, and rightly so, but his elimination of cream bands, yellow lining, and later, grey roofs, seemed to emphasise this deterioration.
The full glory of the earlier “Tattam” livery is a sight to behold, as can be witnessed on 746 at Sandtoft, but the irony is that the pre-war Prussian Blue was not so prone to deterioration. I was brought up though, with Tattam`s “New Blue” as inspired by the Southend loans, and I have this livery etched on my psyche from childhood! To me, the perfect example of a classic livery.

John Whitaker

06/07/13 – 07:02

Catching up with the threads on Bradford City Transport, I am not the only one to have heard the reasons for the early withdrawal of Regent Vs 121-125 and do believe it was because of higher fuel consumption caused by Monocontrol gearbox, which is the old Automatic v Manual car argument. Bradford Regent Vs received very bad reports mainly because the injector pipe clips were not replaced at overhaul, and the subsequent vibration caused pipes to fracture. I am told by someone in the know that a fitter was stationed in the city centre on a full time basis. The problem was later solved by re-designing the pipe ends so they were more akin to Gardner injector pipes. Having had the problem occur on preserved example 6220 KW, for the same reasons, I can assure readers that it still happens!!!. Most wet liner engines are suspect as the seal between cylinder block and cylinder liner is of vital importance in not allowing water into the sump. AV470 and 590 are no different to Bristol BVWs in this respect and they suffered from similar problems. On the subject of fuel consumption, BCT 224 and 225 were experimentally fitted with AV690 engines. Needless to say the experiment did not last long and no other vehicles were converted.

David Hudson

06/07/13 – 18:11

The Dennis O4 and O6 engines were of wet liner configuration, and reputedly gave very little trouble, despite being of advanced design with four valves per cylinder and having the timing gears located at the rear of the block. The post war smooth running O6 in particular proved very reliable, and became popular with independent operators who had only basic workshop facilities for maintenance, so it would seem that the engineering skills at Guildford were not matched by manufacturers elsewhere in Britain.

Roger Cox

01/05/18 – 06:12

From what I can remember from the 60s and 70s BCT brought in Scania’s to be used as the first O.M.O. bus and was viewed at Duckworth lane depot, they tried to incorporate a self pay right coinage machine on the front platform…

Mr Anon

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

18/12/18 – 07:22

Mr Anon mentions the Scania which ran in Bradford These were originally ordered by Leeds but all were diverted to Bradford by the PTE Like all Scania Metropolitans they were very prone to corrosion and had quite short lives with the PTE.

Chris Hough

Hunter’s – Leyland Titan – ETY 912 – 18

Copyright John Kaye

H W Hunter and Sons
1951/2
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland H32/28RD

Standing at it’s terminus in Northumberland Square North Shields, this is one of two Leyland Titans (DJR 681 being the other) from the small independent of H W Hunter and Sons who were based in the Northumberland mining village of Seaton Delaval. The one in the shot above had a closed platform, I’m not sure if doors were fitted, whereas the other Titan DJR 681 was the more common open platform type.
At the same time they had the Titans I’m pretty sure they also had two Leyland single deckers, but I can only trace JR 6600. That started life in 1937 with a Burlingham B35F, but was rebodied by ROE in 1954 as a B39C. Hunters had one route that ran from Seaton Delaval to North Shields via Holywell, Earsdon, Monkseaton, Whitley Bay and Preston Village. From Monday to Saturday it was an hourly service, but rather strangely it was every half hour on Sundays. As well as the service vehicles they also had coaches but I don’t know the exact number, but to the best of my knowledge I don’t think the fleet ever exceeded about twelve vehicles in total. The appearance of this one is nothing special by Hunters standards, they were always immaculately turned out and meticulously maintained, when running, they didn’t tick over, they purred.

DJR 681 – Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

ETY 912 – Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

DJR 681 was about 1948/9 vintage and was defiantly all Leyland, so presumably it was a H30/26R Titan PD2/1 (Edit from a Michael Elliott comment 03/12 it was a PD2/3). The registration for ETY 912 dates it at about 1951/2, it could be an all Leyland as well, but if you compare the two photos there are several differences so I cant say for certain that it is. The window surrounds are rounded off in the corners and have an altogether much softer line about them and the slide vents are totally different. As you can see the platform was enclosed on ETY 912 but I can’t quite make out if doors were fitted.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

02/12/12 – 11:10

ETY 912 is an example of the definitive Leyland Farington body which was the the refinement of Colin Bailey’s 1930s design that had already been updated as exemplified by DJR 681.
The Farington first appeared in 1948 but wasn’t greeted with great enthusiasm so Leyland went away, thought again and produced a classic design.

Phil Blinkhorn

02/12/12 – 11:11

It’s unfortunate, Ronnie, that you don’t know who built the body on ETY. If someone else had posted the views, with the same uncertainty, I’d have suggested seeking your opinion! Leyland were still building bus bodies when ETY was built – I have gathered from other sources over the years that they stopped in about 1953 or 1954, so it could just be a very late one, with updated details. On the other hand, it could be a clone from Alexander or “Psalmsbury”: someone will tell us.

Pete Davies

02/12/12 – 11:15

A bit of digging shows that ETY 912 is a PD2/12 with 27ft 6in length fitted with synchromesh gear box and vacuum brakes.
DJR 681 was delivered, according to “The Leyland Bus” in which it is pictured, in 1950. Unfortunately the caption doesn’t state the sub type.

Phil Blinkhorn

02/12/12 – 12:01

Among the original quartet of lady drivers at West Yorkshire’s Harrogate depot was a girl called Eileen Hunter who had a North Eastern accent – it might be my imagination, its around forty years ago, but I seem to recall hearing that she was some family relation of Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval. I wonder if anyone knows ??

Chris Youhill

02/12/12 – 14:16

It’s interesting, Chris, that you describe the young lady’s accent as North Eastern. I don’t know how true this is, but I have been told that a true “Geordie” is someone who hails from Newcastle Upon Tyne, while others are not “Geordies”. Someone from Gateshead, for example, is just someone from Gateshead . . .

Pete Davies

02/12/12 – 16:20

Lets not go down that road, Pete, Newcastle was in the County of Northumberland, whilst Gateshead was in Co. Durham, and its a bit like a true cockney being born within the sound of Bow Bells. However, amongst the older generation, people from Seaton Delaval have a very pronounced Northumbrian accent and they roll the letter ‘R’.

Ronnie Hoye

02/12/12 – 17:05

Okay, Ronnie. “R” as in Retreat, then!
A Londoner by birth, but definitely not Cockney !!!!

Pete Davies

03/12/12 – 08:04

Looking at these glorious photos of the two Hunter’s PD2’s and their Leyland bodies, that on ETY having the characteristic Leyland taper to the front bay of what was to me the ultimate front engine rear entrance body style. I was in raptures over the superb livery of both buses and the obvious care and attention that must have been given to them. Their traditional (outside of this site that is an unacceptable word) style and appearance make today’s garish and seemingly uncoordinated liveries of the big groups look even more as though, as was said of the camel, they were designed by a committee.

Diesel Dave

03/12/12 – 08:06

DJR 681 was a Leyland Titan PD2/3, new in 1950 with a Leyland H30/26R body. It was built to the then permitted maximum dimensions for a two axle double deck bus of 26 feet long by 8 feet wide (the PD2/1 was 26 feet long by 7 feet 6 inches wide).
During 1950 the Construction and Use regulations changed and the maximum length for a two axle double deck bus increased to 27 feet with the option of 7 feet 6 inch or 8 feet widths. The designations for the Titan incorporating these changes were PD2/10 (7’6″ wide) or PD2/12 (8’0″ wide). Triple servo vacuum brakes were fitted but it was around this time that Leyland was experiencing problems with its synchromesh gearbox and many PD2s were fitted with the constant mesh gearbox as used in the PD1.

Michael Elliott

03/12/12 – 08:08

A true Geordie is someone from the North East but north of the River Tyne. Back to ETY 912, this is definitely a Leyland body but from the design which was the last flowering of the classic Leyland body before Leyland pulled out of the bodybuilding business around 1954. A very attractive final development with inset rubber mounted windows that could have no doubt taken Leyland into the 1960’s if they had not stopped production. It always seemed a strange decision to me to quit while you are well ahead of the game with such a quality design with a strong market following. I did read somewhere that the decision was made because at that time Leyland needed the body shop floor space for lorry production.

Philip Halstead

03/12/12 – 10:41

Diesel Dave – Oh how I agree wholeheartedly with you – most of today’s totally meaningless and expensive “liveries” go totally un-noticed by the travelling public and its incomprehensible that the “marketing” fraternity have managed to gain such a stranglehold on common sense – and the railway companies are no better either !!
Michael – I know just what you mean about the PD2 and PD3 “synchromesh” gearboxes having wrestled many a time with their unpredictable “rubbery clunking” – a sad comparison with the “Swiss watch precision” of the glorious PD1 (yes, I’m unashamedly biased as a lover and admirer of the PD1).
Philip – Yes indeed the 27’0″ x 8’0″ final version of the Leyland body was indeed “the last flowering” and Mr. Samuel Ledgard must have felt a real glow of pride when, less than two months before he died, the arrival of PNW 91/2/3 took our operating area by storm.

Chris Youhill

03/12/12 – 13:59

Philip, the reason Leyland stopped bus body building was to concentrate on the production of lorry cabs which were quicker to build than a bus body and thus generated faster cash flow for the company which could both invoice for bus chassis as soon as they were complete and finish trucks more quickly.
In my view it was a great loss to the industry.

Phil Blinkhorn

03/12/12 – 14:00

Having spoken to a couple of my former colleagues who ‘like me’ can remember ETY, I still cant say for certain whether or not it had doors. However, the general opinion seems to be that it did, but rather than the conventional 2×2 powered concertina type, they were similar to the two piece manually operated folding version fitted to some of the early Lodekka’s

Ronnie Hoye

04/12/12 – 07:12

Leyland probably did need greater capacity for lorry cab production, but I have heard that part of the reason for the cessation of bus bodybuilding was strained industrial relations, bus construction involving more inter craft disputes than cab work.

Roger Cox

04/12/12 – 07:13

My favourite Sheffield PD2s were the OWBs with this sort of Leyland bodywork – a true classis despite its slightly anachronistic five bay layout. For many years it was proclaimed as the ultimate Farington but some years ago more knowledgeable folk than I pointed out that, whatever it may be called, it isn’t a Farington. Nonetheless, as Phil said, a great loss to the industry when Leyland gave up on bodywork – especially of this calibre.

David Oldfield

04/12/12 – 08:14

I imagine this is the type you mean, David: www.flickr.com/
Very handsome.

Chris Hebbron

04/12/12 – 09:14

Certainly is, Chris. Thanks for that. It is the publicity shot made by Leyland, pre-delivery, and is in the experimental green livery which lasted less than 18 months. These were the only buses delivered in green – the whole batch – but many buses and trams were repainted in green (some with darker green bands). There was such an outcry that they were all repainted into cream and blue as soon as possible – the Leylands into the Farington/Roe scheme with more blue than usual. [The Roe Regent IIIs and Roberts trams, also delivered in 1952, were cream and blue.] There is a story, unsubstantiated, that there was so much green paint left over that lamp standards in Sheffield were painted green for many years. [That they were so painted is fact.]

David Oldfield

04/12/12 – 11:35

Good story, David, and these stories are often true. Interchangibility is one of the advantages of being a municipal enterprise, although the reverse situation wouldn’t have worked – Striped cream/blue lamp standards; I think not!

Chris Hebbron

04/12/12 – 11:37

Roger, there were some disputes as there were at many body builders at the time. Doug Jack, in “The Leyland Bus” states that the decision was to increase space for cab construction and, I understand, years ago when he when he was Director of BL Heritage he always maintained that demarcation disputes were not critical to the decision.
With the de-nationalisation of road haulage under the Tories in 1954, the Leyland and AEC truck building received large numbers of orders and pressure for short delivery.
Apart from the necessity of meeting those orders, bus body building was slowing at the same time as was Leyland’s commitment to what was a slow and more complex process, compared to truck cab building.
No new coach design had emerged since 1950 and the single deck underfloor body of 1951 on the Royal Tiger had not been a success, so much so that the prototype/demonstrator Tiger Cubs of 1952 were bodied by Saunders Roe and Weymann, the integral Olympian had not been bodied in house and neither were the experimental Lowloaders, the contracts going to Saunders Roe and MCW.
Colin Bailey’s classic double decker body had been refined but there is no evidence of a replacement being moved any further than a few sketches.
As a company, Leyland was more interested in engine, drive train and chassis development and no doubt the faster cash flow generated by truck building helped fund the development of the Atlantean and more refined truck and bus gearboxes.

David, the use of the Farington name has long been a matter of debate. The 1948 refinement of Colin Bailey’s design brought in rounded window pan corners, flush glazing on rubber inserts and a number of other refinements, including the elimination of the external belt rails and mouldings below the windows, giving a much plainer and more modern look. This was called the Farington to distinguish it from the immediate post war version of the body which remained on the catalogue.
Production was very limited, partly due to a backlog of orders for the original post war model and partly because reaction to the body was unenthusiastic.
Manchester received some of the last in 1951/2 (3265-3299) which had sliding ventilators in some bays, separately mounted to the rest of the glazing, the lower glazing resembling the shape of the tins a famous brand of processed fish.
That, plus the substitution of metal interior finish for Leyland’s and Manchester’s previous wooden interiors and not least that the ventilators and some panels rattled soon after delivery, gained them the epithet of “Salmon Cans” .
The next incarnation appeared at the 1950 Commercial Motor Show with an example for Leicester based on the newly permitted 27ft vehicle length. This formed the basis of all future Leyland double deck bodies. The rounded windows pans and rubber inserts were retained but the flush mounting, which had received much criticism, was replace by a mounting slightly recessed which found greater favour with the industry and added to the looks of the design.
Double skinning of the roof, all side panels and all metal interior finish completed the changes. This was the true Farington and the Hunter’s bus above exemplifies the breed which most have agreed over the years is a classic.
There was one last version as supplied to amongst others, Manchester, BMMO, Plymouth and the final vehicles which went to Trent. Minor interior changes were made but the the most visible external change was the reduction in depth of the rear upper deck emergency exit windows. These were not officially Faringtons as the name seems to have been dropped from 1952.
Regarding your comment on the “anachronistic” five bay layout, there are proponents on both sides of the debate in both the professional and enthusiast camps.
Six bay construction certainly was anachronistic but the arguments for five bay have more than a degree of sense.
My most detailed information and knowledge comes from three operators, Manchester, Stockport and North Western.
Manchester never bought four bay designs for its traditional double deckers. The reasons I was given many years ago was that five bays gave more rigidity, replacement of glass and damaged body panels was cheaper and one engineer told me that the thinking in the Department was that five bay vehicles looked more “balanced” (tell that to fans of the London RT!). Certainly MCTD went out of their way with their Northern Counties orders to avoid that company’s standard four bay product.
North Western, having had just one batch of four bay Weymann bodied PD2s, quickly returned to five bays with its next PD2 order and Stockport, which could have ordered a five bay version of the Crossley built Park Royal design for its 1958 PD2 deliveries, decided on the standard four bay design but quickly reverted to suppliers offering five bays for all future deliveries.

Phil Blinkhorn

04/12/12 – 15:41

Chris, I’m sure those who visited Hillsborough on a Saturday afternoon would have been happy to see blue and cream striped lamp standards in that part of Sheffield

Andrew

05/12/12 – 07:20

Good point, Andrew!

Chris Hebbron

05/12/12 – 08:05

Continuing the deviation onto Sheffield’s OWB-series PD2/10s, four of these were bought by Oldham Corporation. I thought these looked particularly splendid in their crimson and white colour scheme as seen on 477 at the front. Two of them were repainted (actually in the early days of SELNEC) into the later pommard and cream and still looked good as seen on 475 in the background. This is the vehicle seen in green in the official Leyland photograph linked to earlier and therefore carried four very different liveries in its life.
Taken on 14th February 1970 I can readily identify all the buses in the row behind 475 and what a good rally contingent they would make. The first is an earlier ex-Sheffield PD2/1, almost certainly Oldham’s 465 (LWE 110). Next is the sole remaining PD1/3 246 (DBU 246), then PD2/3 342 (EBU 872) identifiable by its vestigial offside number blind, the last one to retain this. Both of these had Roe bodies. Last and just visible is ex-Bolton PD2/4 472 (DBN 330), meaning that all three principal styles of post-war Leyland DD body are represented in this line-up.

David Beilby

05/12/12 – 09:14

Andrew,
with OWLS as the decorative finial, no doubt!!!

Pete Davies

05/12/12 – 09:16

Another memory jogged by David B’s Oldham photo. How many Leyland bodies had sliding cab doors? I’d forgotten about that on 656-667 and I’m sure no other Sheffield Leyland bodies had sliding cab doors.

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 11:04

Pity WL was not a Sheffield mark eh Pete?

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 11:58

David, The mark which was really required in Sheffield was LS, then any number ending in 0 in front of WLS reversed, if that could have been reached would have been cherished.

Andrew

05/12/12 – 12:00

500 London RTWs had sliding cab doors but, other than the Sheffield PD2s I can’t bring any too mind.

Phil Blinkhorn

05/12/12 – 13:54

Certainly would, Andrew – and we all know how much support the OWLS need…..

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 17:35

I cant say that I’ve ever seen one of this type with a sliding cab door. The first to have them in the NGT Group were the Weymann bodied GUY Arab 111’s of 1952, they were also the first 8ft wide vehicles, but the first Orion bodied PD2’s delivered to both Newcastle Corporation and Sunderland District both had hinge mounted doors.

Ronnie Hoye

06/12/12 – 07:04

Yorkshire Woollen Guy Arab 1 fleet number 483 was new in 1943 with a Massey utility body was rebodied in 1948 with a Brush body. This bus had a sliding cab door. It has never been explained why this bus gained this body when the rest of the wartime Guys were rebodied by Roe.

Philip Carlton

07/12/12 – 06:50

Strange how fallible the memory is isn’t it? I well remember travelling on the two Hunter’s double deckers [I lived in Preston Village] but can’t remember the door arrangement.
The original comment about the Sunday service is not so very surprising when you know that Whitley was a very popular holiday resort in those days, both in and out of season. The buses and trains were well used at the weekends.
I too am sure Hunters had single deckers at the time but sadly do not remember any details.

John Thompson

10/12/12 – 08:00

I thought you may find this interesting. Apart from the information on the front the only addition on the back is a Northumberland County Council Archives stamp. Hunters were established in 1926 so the picture was taken the following year, it gives no information as to who the two people actually are, but its not unlikely that its H W Hunter himself standing next to his first bus?

Ronnie Hoye

09/01/13 – 10:35

I am certain that ETY 912 did not have doors, and I am certain that there was another single-decker identical to JR 6600.
It was quite common in the area in the 1950s for bus services to be more frequent at the weekend. United service 40, for example, from Blyth to Whitley Bay via Seaton Delaval was every two hours Monday to Friday and every hour Saturday and Sunday. In mining settlements like Seaton Delaval the men would walk or cycle to work in the colliery Monday to Friday, and women would be at home or walk to the Co-op for shopping. Saturdays and Sundays were the days for travelling further afield to visit relatives, go to the cinema, hospital visiting and the like. Hunter’s coped with the extra weekend work by employing part-time staff who worked for NCB during the week. Sometimes on a Saturday the garage would be empty as all four buses and four coaches would be out on the road. Monday to Friday only one or two of the buses would be out.

Paul Robson

07/07/13 – 13:57

I used to travel regularly on Hunter’s bus when I lived in Preston Village. It was the only bus to actually run down Front Street.
I can confirm that ETY 912 did not have doors.
The weekday service was every hour from North Shields to Seaton Delaval (departing Northumberland Square at -45 each hour), but for most of the day there was an additional bus between Delaval and Whitley Bay giving a half-hourly service on that part of the route.
The half-hourly through service from Shields ran on Saturdays and Sundays, but I seem to remember on Sundays it only started in the middle of the day. I remember being told the more frequent service was to serve visitors to Preston Hospital.
Hunter’s used hand-written Bell Punch tickets which seemed very odd.

Percy Trimmer

20/05/14 – 10:37

Some months ago someone asked if was connection between Hunters of Tantobie in Durham and that of Hunters of Seaton Delaval Northumberland.
Available on ebay is a photo of a Hunters coach of Seaton Delaval showing Flint Hill. I took it that Flint Hill is Durham not Northumberland. Unless the information with ebay photo is incorrect. Anyone know the answer, separate companies?
A photo appears on Leylandleopard ebay listing showing OUP 425D a Vam to Hunters of Seaton Delaval.

Alan Coulson

20/05/14 – 16:29

The vehicle depicted in the photo advertised on eBay is OPT 425D, a Strachans bodied Bedford VAM new to Hunter’s of Tantobie in August 1966. It certainly isn’t depicted in Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval livery, so it would appear that the photograph seller simply assumed the wrong operator. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hunters-Seaton-Delaval

David Call

21/05/14 – 08:11

David Call. Thank you for your reply. Sorry about incorrect registration detail.

Alan Coulson

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

13/11/21 – 06:19

Pete Davies (02/12/12): ETY 912 had a Leyland body, and, according to BLOTW, was new in 12/51. The last traditional Leyland bodies (i.e. not including those built at Workington many years later) were on PD2s for Trent, the last of which entered service in 1/55. Leyland stopped taking orders a couple of years or so earlier, but ETY 912 easily made the cut.
The bodies built by Alexander and Samlesbury under contract to Leyland were, with one exception I believe, on PD1 chassis, and dated from 1946-8.

David Call

South Notts – Leyland Titan PD2 – MRR 338 – 48

Copyright John Stringer

South Notts Bus Co Ltd
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland L53R

A fine array of Leyland Titans caught in Loughborough Bus Station in early 1970. On the left is South Notts. 48 (MRR 338) a PD2/12 with Leyland L27/26R body new in 1951. Behind it is one of their PD3’s with unusual Northern Counties forward entrance lowbridge bodies. To the right is Barton 834 (DJF 349), a venerable PD1 with Leyland H30/26R body, new to Leicester City Transport as its 248 in 1946, and purchased by Barton in 1959.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

27/01/13 – 11:49

That’s a lovely surprise on a Sunday morning! Loughborough was one of my regular haunts in the early 1970s and your photograph made me feel that I’d travelled back in time. South Notts were a classy act and one of my favourite independents. By 1973 I was living in Nottingham, got married there (on a very low budget) and travelled from the registry office to the reception aboard a South Notts Lowlander from Broadmarsh to Clifton. Fond memories.
If I ever get round to writing “Independent Buses in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire” (should be around 2015 if I’m still compus menti by then!), I’d love to use this image on the front cover.

Neville Mercer

27/01/13 – 12:36

No problem Neville.

John Stringer

27/01/13 – 12:37

Neville, I didn’t know such a thing was in the pipeline. That’s a lovely surprise for me on a Sunday morning! Having been born and bred on the Derbys/Notts border, I have memories of some of the operators and a great fascination for the ones which were before my time. I wish you the best of luck with it and look forward to it very eagerly indeed!

Chris Barker

27/01/13 – 16:32

One of my favourite independents too, Neville, having lived in Loughborough and surrounds since 1968! I do vaguely remember riding on this bus, and, more vividly, the later Weymann bodied ones.
A truly fascinating and well run fleet, and a garage at Gotham which I could never drive past.
I do have a full fleet list for South Notts, should anyone be interested, and I would love to know of any progress on the (LT2?) Lion at Ruddington.

John Whitaker

28/01/13 – 13:35

The PD2 was almost certainly operating as a duplicate to the PD3. South Notts always operated a duplicates policy, rather than improving the basic frequency, with the result that at busy times one advertised journey could consist of five buses. The two from Loughborough would be joined by a further one from East Leake, yet another from Gotham and a final one from Clifton. When Nottingham City Transport took over the business, the frequency was increased to a regular 15 minute interval between Nottingham and Loughborough with no increase in the vehicle output required. What this view also shows is how attractive the final Leyland body design was even in lowbridge format. With other manufacturers, the lowbridge version looked too much like a squeezed version of the highbridge original.

Alan Murray-Rust

29/01/13 – 06:44

I wonder if the duplication policy was due to fact that in those regulated days they probably would have had any application to increase frequencies refused. Three different operators ran three different routes and although it’s unlikely that Barton, being a close associate, would have objected, perhaps Trent would have raised an objection on the grounds that increased frequency could have abstracted end to end users. I’m sure British Rail would have objected too. Nevertheless, for anyone wishing to travel from Loughborough to Nottingham, what a fabulous choice of vehicles!

Chris Barker

29/01/13 – 10:05

My word Alan, FIVE vehicles on one scheduled departure !! I thought we probably held the record at Samuel Ledgard’s with four (all double deckers as a rule) on the 5.30 pm weekday departure from Leeds (King Street) to Ilkley. First in line was the 5.27pm to Rawdon (app 8 miles) followed by the 5.28pm to Guiseley White Cross (app 10 miles) and 5.29pm and 5.30pm to Ilkley (16 miles), the latter being the normal service vehicle. All were very well loaded at the terminus stop and, once on the road, virtually a full load was carried on each. These were the days when, other than monthly contract tickets, almost every passenger paid the full fare, or used the homeward journey on Workman Returns, and operators knew where they stood as far as revenue and outgoings stood.

Chris Youhill

29/01/13 – 15:18

You’re so right, Chris B. They were not such halcyon days for small operators, with the Traffic Commissioners to contend with and protectionism reigning supreme, not always in the passengers’ interest. You only have to read the book about Basil Williams (Hants & Sussex) fights to see the difficulties. I know some folk dislike/despise deregulation, but the previous system was far from perfect. In modern parlance, we need a ‘middle way’!

Chris Hebbron

29/01/13 – 15:19

Chris B may well be right. I certainly don’t think Barton would have objected – their Nottingham to Loughborough 10 was too long and circuitous, and probably little used for through journeys.(The ex-Leicester PD1 is a Kegworth short working – the through service was invariably a coach). From Nottingham the route was Beeston, Chilwell, Long Eaton, Kegworth, Sutton Bonington and Hathern (with some journeys also diverting to serve Lockington, Hemington and/or Kingston on Soar). Overall journey time was about 1 hour 20. Trent with their route 66 (straight down the A60) was the competitor for direct journeys.

Stephen Ford

29/01/13 – 18:05

Chris H, we had a middle way. The Fowler Transport Act of 1980 was trumpeted for its deregulation of coach services, but this much publicised feature masked a much more important change – the presumption in favour of applicants for Road Service Licences, which replaced the often insurmountable bias towards existing licence holders. The old stranglehold of the big companies was removed at a stroke. Deregulation had nothing to do with improving the state of the bus industry. It was driven by Ridley’s rabid hatred of state enterprise, and his determination to inflict damage upon the large Transport and General Workers’ Union, and thus Labour Party funding. His motivation was totally political. Deregulation has been a disaster. Remember Darlington Corporation and similar instances of bullying by the big boys. We now have powerful regional monopolies that can do exactly as they please and charge the public whatever they wish.

Roger Cox

30/01/13 – 06:19

If I recall correctly, Roger, the Fowler Act did introduce limited de-regulation and with it introduced government subsidies for services for which reasonable fares were being charged, but which were unprofitable. However, certain very Left-Wing Labour authorities (GLC, Merseyside and South Yorkshire are three that come to mind) cynically ‘milked ‘ the subsidy system by charging unreasonably low fares and producing loss-making situations and would not respond to government edicts to put the fares up again. The drain on the public purse was such that a government reaction was inevitable. And the rest, as they say, is history!

Chris Hebbron

30/01/13 – 06:20

I understand that under Road Service Licensing duplicate journeys could be operated up to five minutes in advance of a scheduled departure and up to five minutes after a scheduled departure without the need to register the additional journeys. This arrangement was used by Barton Transport in the late forties and early fifties, I further understand, on their Nottingham to Derby service thus turning a 15 minute service into a five minute service at various times on a Saturday.

Michael Elliott

30/01/13 – 11:29

As a regular on the Nottingham to Loughborough service in 1972-74 I can assure you that South Notts received very little “end to end” competition from the Trent operation – the fares at that time were almost double those of South Notts and the journey time almost the same. And people still wonder why I prefer independents!

Neville Mercer

30/01/13 – 11:30

I believe there was a legal requirement that vehicles operating duplicate journeys had to display a sign indicating such. Many operators simply displayed DUPLICATE on the destination screen, in the case of Trent, most of their half cab vehicles had a small hinged cast plate under the canopy which could be folded down when required. By the time of John’s photograph, does anyone know if this requirement had been rescinded?

Chris Barker

30/01/13 – 13:55

I was also going to mention Trent’s duplicate plates. Many operators just used the destination blind, which was fine as long as the bus was immediately behind the vehicle it was shadowing, but that didn’t always happen. I remember my mum having a row with the conductress after boarding a bus so destined at Ollerton, when returning to Nottingham. After presenting her (Trent) return ticket, the conductress asked “Can’t you read? This is the Mansfield bus.” “Well that’s not what it says on the front.” “Oh yes it is.” “Oh no it isn’t” “Oh yes it is.” “Well stop the bus and go and look for yourself then!”

Stephen Ford

30/01/13 – 17:34

Chris, there is nothing wrong in principle with the support of public transport with public funds. The rail system receives enormous sums in support, and Transport for London receives a hugely disproportionate subsidy in comparison with the provinces. The effect of deregulation upon bus patronage in metropolitan areas has been devastating, and having wreaked their damage in the cause of profiteering, several of the big groups are now withdrawing from major provincial conurbations and smaller urban concentrations. It isn’t that these areas cannot be run profitably. It is because the operators seek excessive margins to show eye watering profits in their annual reports to keep the City financiers happy and hence the share price high.

Roger Cox

31/01/13 – 06:01

Some of the half cab saloons of Yorkshire Woollen notably the large batch of Brush bodied Leyland PS1s had a pull down plate proclaiming Duplicate Car.

Philip Carlton

31/01/13 – 06:02

Well said, Roger! In addition to the demands of the shareholders, there’s the small matter of clowns like the OFT who object to a sale of depot from firm A to firm B because A isn’t making enough there to satisfy said shareholders. They say it’s uncompetitive, and A shuts depot anyway, thus saving firm B the agreed several £££££££. Can someone give me the date and time of the revolution?

Pete Davies

31/01/13 – 06:03

When Trent bought Barton’s “buses business” why didn’t they purchase Barton’s shareholding in South Notts? And then later, why did Trent allow South Notts to fall into the hands of NCT? Their actions with regard to the recent disposal by the Felix company of its stage-carriage service were completely different – and from what I’ve read above the South Notts operation must have been quite a money-spinner. Why did Trent (feel able to?) let this slip their grasp?

Philip Rushworth

01/02/13 – 06:14

By the time NCT acquired the assets, services and good will of the South Notts Bus Company but not the Company itself in March 1991, South Notts had been subject to severe and sustained competition, since May 1990, on its East Leake – Nottingham service and its Clifton Estate services from Kinch-Line. This competition caused both Arthur Dabell, the South Notts MD, and the Board of Barton Transport plc (Barton Transport plc having retained its shareholding in South Notts when it sold its own bus business to Wellglade Ltd in 1989) to say that action was needed to resolve the financial losses that South Notts was now suffering. The action was to sell out to NCT, with whom South Notts had maintained good relations since October 1986.
I’ve often wondered why support for South Notts on its service between East Leake and Nottingham gave way when Kinch-Line started to compete. As a former resident of Clifton, but way before Kinch-Line arrived, I can say that there was a tendency to catch the first bus that came along whether it was NCT, West Bridgford or South Notts so there was not the same brand ‘loyalty’ there. Maybe the money South Notts made on its Clifton services, always charged at NCT fares, which were not excessive, had for many years given it a financial cushion allowing support of its cheap fare policy on the main line service. Since the 1985 re-organisation of the Clifton services (allowing NCT to introduce 100% driver only operation on its Clifton services) South Notts had 100% operation of the 67 and 68 via Trent Bridge, and its was these two services that were subject to Kinch-Line competition. There was talk of privately expressed surprise by South Notts ‘management’ back in 1968, when West Bridgford sold out to NCT, that West Bridgford couldn’t make money on ‘Cliftons’.
We shall probably now never know why South Notts didn’t trade on its ‘good name’ and long tradition of serving the East Leake – Nottingham corridor to counter Kinch-Line back in 1990. Did Barton Transport plc want their money out while there was something left to sell?

Michael Elliott

01/02/13 – 06:14

Philip, An interesting question which I’m unable to answer but a perfect illustration of the old saying ‘What goes around comes around’ occurred this week. Trent abandoned their old Nottingham to Loughborough service many years ago but when Premiere Buses of Nottingham collapsed last Friday, Kinchbus, which belongs to Wellglade, who own Trent, stepped in and have now taken over operation of the No.9 service which was partly the old Trent service and partly the old BMMO X99. The difference is that the old Trent 65/66 used to deviate via Wymeswold and was basically every two hours between Nottingham and Loughborough, todays service which retains No.9 with Kinchbus is half-hourly and by operating direct between Rempstone and Loughborough, about twenty minutes has been lopped off the running time. So you could say the service has come back to Trent’s parent group and in response to Neville’s comment, I don’t think Wellglade will be charging the fares that Premiere charged for very long!

Chris Barker

20/05/13 – 16:52

Kinch (under its Wellglade ownership) was already running a Loughborough to Nottingham service via the A60 before Premiere travel came along. So although they took over the Premiere no. 9 service, they were already there.
The BMMO X99 service did not run through Loughborough but followed the route of the old A453 –
Birmingham/Sutton/Tamworth/Ashby/Nottingham.
This route number was later revived by Arriva on a service from Shepshed to Nottingham via Loughborough but was discontinued some years ago

Brian Binns

21/05/13 – 12:06

Brian, The Kinch service 9 which competed with Premiere was withdrawn in March 2012; Premiere then had the route to themselves, until they ceased trading on 25 January 2013. Kinch reappeared on the route the following day.

Bob Gell

10/09/14 – 07:00

Digressing along the late, lamented X99 route for a moment, the diversion via Loughborough predated Arriva.
A basic summary is that when Midland Red was split in 1981, the X99 continued to be operated by Tamworth and Coalville garages, which were allocated to MR (North) and MR (East) respectively and thus the X99 became a joint operation.
Some time between around deregulation, possibly during the 1987 “Night of the Long Knives” MR (North) pulled off the X99, leaving what was by then Midland Fox in sole charge. Fox retrenched in turn, pulling the X99 out of Birmingham and reduced the service to Ashby to Nottingham, which it extended at one end to Coalville and diverted via Loughborough, pulling off the traditional route via Castle Donington.
I lost track of it by the 1990s, losing interest in buses for a decade or two, but I seem to recall the route ended up running as the 99 and didn’t last too long once Fox was Arriva-d and the money-men took over, turning the whole Arriva bus operation nationwide into First-with-a-prettier-livery.

Ross

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

31/01/17 – 07:22

Thanks for the memories.
My Mother was a friend of Chris Dabell’s wife and they often travelled together on the South Notts bus to Loughborough or Nottingham. Mrs Dabell would remark that “Chris would sooner see a bus filled with happy passengers enjoying the trip than putting up fares and having a lesser number of passengers.
I often booked South Notts for the Sunday School outings and sometimes got alternative quotes. The South Notts were always the best price, and obligingly picked up people in the village and dropped them of at different points on the return to East Leake.
South Notts also supplied buses to Skills on their Scarborough and Bridlington Saturday runs also a Yorkshire firm(?) Boddy’s would help on that run.
South Notts were always the last buses to stop running in bad weather (fog, smog, snow amd floods.) Other companies withdrew services early in the day which meant that the school passengers were allowed to leave school early. South Notts just kept running …… no early school leaving for us.
Duplicate busses, always on Saturdays. South Notts also “delivered” newspapers to villages on the Nottm to Lougborough route!. (and parcels collected at the various bus stops).
South Notts did have a rival during and after the war. A bus came from Nottingham to East Leake every morning and evening. This bus brought staff to the “Control Centre” at East Leake Station. This bus (can’t remember the operator) was some times a double decker and made the journey via Ruddington and Wilford Hill. A real treat for us as children to travel on a “foreign route”.
I recall the first Double decker. Which had been repaired on the top half using a panel from a Wigan Corporation bus. The panel had been painted South Notts blue, but the Wigan Corporation logo was visible through the paint.
Happy memories

DaveM

Todmorden Corporation and Joint Transport Committee1950Leyland Titan PD2/1Leyland L27/26R

Isle of Man Road Services Ltd1950Leyland Titan PD2/1Leyland H30/26R

Leeds City Transport1950Leyland Titan PD2/1Leyland H30/26R

Newcastle Corporation1949Leyland Titan PD2/1Leyland L27/26R

Sheffield Corporation1952Leyland Titan PD2/12Mann Egerton H30/26R

Preston Corporation1954Leyland Titan PD2/10 – PD3Leyland – Preston Corporation H38/32F

Sheffield Corporation1952Leyland Titan PD2/12Roe H33/25R

Bradford Corporation1950Leyland Titan PD2/3Leyland H33/27R

H W Hunter and Sons1951/2Leyland Titan PD2/12Leyland H32/28RD

South Notts Bus Co Ltd1951Leyland Titan PD2/12Leyland L53R

Todmorden Corporation and Joint Transport Committee
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland L27/26R

Isle of Man Road Services Ltd
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

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

Newcastle Corporation
1949
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland L27/26R

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Mann Egerton H30/26R

Preston Corporation
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/10 – PD3
Leyland – Preston Corporation H38/32F

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Roe H33/25R

Bradford Corporation
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/3
Leyland H33/27R

H W Hunter and Sons
1951/2
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland H32/28RD

South Notts Bus Co Ltd
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland L53R