Tag: Leyland Titan PD2

Birmingham City – Leyland Titan PD2 – HOV 685 – 1685

Birmingham City - Leyland Titan PD2 - HOV 685 - 1685

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

22/02/16 – 13:28

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

Phil Blinkhorn

22/02/16 – 16:14

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

Pete Davies

22/02/16 – 16:15

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

Roger Cox

23/02/16 – 05:37

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

Pete Davies

23/02/16 – 05:38

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

Chris Youhill

23/02/16 – 10:48

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

Chris Hebbron

23/02/16 – 13:11

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

Chris Youhill

23/02/16 – 16:46

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

Chris Youhill

24/02/16 – 05:48

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

David Beilby

24/02/16 – 05:49

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

Phil Blinkhorn

24/02/16 – 05:52

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

Philip Halstead

24/02/16 – 05:53

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

David Chapman

24/02/16 – 08:16

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

Chris Youhill

24/02/16 – 08:51

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

Nigel Edwards

24/02/16 – 09:55

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

Phil Blinkhorn

24/02/16 – 16:52

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

Dave Careless

25/02/16 – 05:44

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

Richard Slater

25/02/16 – 16:25

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

John Stringer

25/02/16 – 17:03

Some wonderfully interesting comments here, folks. Thank you!

Pete Davies

26/02/16 – 16:53

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

Chris Hebbron

27/02/16 – 05:54

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

Ronnie Hoye

28/02/16 – 06:05

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

Richard Slater

02/03/16 – 06:24

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

Peter Williamson

02/03/16 – 10:21

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

Phil Blinkhorn

16/03/16 – 05:05

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

David Jones

16/03/16 – 08:17

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

Pete Davies

Ribble – Leyland Titan PD2 – DCK 219 – 1248

Ribble - Leyland Titan - DCK 219 - 1248

Ribble Motor Services
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/3
East Lancs FCL27/22RD

This vehicle is easily recognisable as one of Ribble’s famous ‘White Ladies’. She has a Leyland Titan PD2/3 chassis, with East Lancs FCL49RD body. She dates from 1951 and, at the time of this photograph, she was with Quantock. I understand she has now passed to Sir Brian Souter. We see her outside the Guildhall, but Prestonians will know that this is not Preston Guildhall. The date of 1st January 2005 gives a clue – she’s in Winchester for a King Alfred running day.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

26/02/16 – 05:32

Back in the spring of 1972 I had read in “Buses” magazine that Premier Travel were about to withdraw the last of their ex Ribble White Ladies, so I decided take a day trip to Cambridge to sample one while I had the chance. I rode from Cambridge to Royston and the youthful conductor (who I now suspect was Paul Carter, later to write the history of Premier) told me that I could catch a bus from Royston to the depot at Chrishall and then another back to Cambridge. I did as suggested and at the depot I found the chief engineer in the process of handing over this very bus to a group of enthusiasts for preservation. It was to be 43 years before I saw it again at the Scottish Bus Museum at Lathlalmond in 2015.

Nigel Turner

26/02/16 – 08:43

Thanks for that, Nigel. I still can’t reconcile the lowbridge seating with coach designation, but there we are!

Pete Davies

27/02/16 – 08:36

These vehicles were often used on service X4 from Manchester to Burnley via Todmorden, which passed under a low bridge at Portsmouth (a suburb of Todmorden.)

Don McKeown

27/02/16 – 09:22

I’m pretty sure that the bridge which barred full-height double-deckers from services X4/X14 was on the A646 between Walk Mill and Towneley. There isn’t a bridge at Portsmouth, but there is one just down the road at Cornholme. This is passable for full-height double-deckers (Yorkshire Rider used highbridge Atlanteans on Halifax depot’s share of service 592, Halifax-Burnley), but, being an arched bridge, it’s still ‘risky’.

David Call

27/02/16 – 12:55

I drove this vehicle a few times for Stephen Morris before he sold it to Brian Souter. It certainly was a lively performer but rolled a lot upstairs.
Great vehicle and lovely to see it.

Roger Burdett

28/02/16 – 06:11

The bridge between Walk Mill and Towneley had a maximum permissible height of 14ft 6in and was passable for full-height double deckers up to and including that height. I remember passing under it on an enthusiasts’ outing with Halifax JOC 377 (BCP 671) and we stopped to photograph it doing so. The bridge was a straight steel one – not arched – so it was not a case of getting the position right. I think in the days before WYPTE diverted the Halifax-Todmorden Burnley route via Mereclough and Pike Hill it was not unknown for full-height double decks to pass under the bridge, though low-heights were the normal allocation. I know Burnley & Pendle had to be careful when their coaching unit received some Volvo CityBus double deckers, as they were 14 ft 9in and had to avoid the bridge.

John Stringer

28/02/16 – 15:22

Bridge heights always a problem as there seems to be some debate regarding this particular vehicle and the necessity for using it here is a suggestion. I seem to recall London Transport Country having problems with RCL Routemasters some where in I think Hertfordshire where the road had been lowered so that the warning sign indicated enough clearance for said vehicle but upon exiting from under the bridge hit the back end of the vehicle.
This is probably more common with HGVs particularly artics where the front of the vehicle rises up before the back and levels out earlier.

Patrick Armstrong

18/11/16 – 11:40

I used to “spot” these beautiful buses as they made their way through Prestwich, north of Manchester. I have also tried hard to interest someone in a die cast model but to no avail as they were only used by Ribble and Premier. What a shame!

Peter Worsley

Birmingham City – Leyland Titan – HOV 685 – 1685

Birmingham City - Leyland Titan - HOV 685 - 1685

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/06/16 – 09:22

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

Phil Blinkhorn

07/06/16 – 11:43

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

Pat Jennings

07/06/16 – 18:48

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

Pete Davies

09/06/16 – 06:45

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

Phil Blinkhorn

09/06/16 – 19:08

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

Pete Davies

10/06/16 – 05:33

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

Michael Hampton

10/06/16 – 10:21

Thank you, Michael . . .

Pete Davies

10/06/16 – 10:21

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

Phil Blinkhorn

Leeds City Transport – Leeds Titan – UUA 207 – 207

Leeds City Transport - Leeds Titan - UUA 207 - 207

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Philip Halstead

28/10/16 – 07:41

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

Trevor Leach

28/10/16 – 16:55

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

Stephen Allcroft

29/10/16 – 06:16

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

David Hick

31/10/16 – 08:18

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

Philip Halstead

31/10/16 – 15:11

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

David Hick

Portsmouth Corporation – Leyland Titan – ORV 989 – 112

ORV 989

Portsmouth Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/40
MCCW H30/26R

ORV 989 is another in the long line of Portsmouth buses with the registration numbers in the ‘high 900’ series. It dates from 1958 and is a Leyland Titan PD2/40 with Metropolitan Cammell H56R body. It is seen in the St Catherine’s park and ride car park during the King Alfred running day on 1 January 2009.

ORV 989_2

This second view shows the Municipal Crest.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

25/12/16 – 10:22

What a nice Christmas Day sight! This bus is a superb example of restoration as not only does it look smart but it looks “real”, in other words like a Portsmouth bus would have done at the time. I think the adverts play no small part in this and of course they are not appropriate for every restoration.

David Beilby

26/12/16 – 06:54

Thank you, David. I must say, having seen other versions of Portsmouth’s livery, the others were nowhere near in the “elegance” department.

Pete Davies

26/12/16 – 06:55

Drop windows on an Orion, was this a design feature unique to Portsmouth?

Ronnie Hoye

28/12/16 – 06:39.

All our PD2s with Orion bodies had half drops.

Dave French

28/12/16 – 16:29

More details are given on //www.cpptd.co.uk/vehicles-cpptd.htm

Andy Hemming

24/04/19 – 06:57

I’m researching the production of Spitfires after the Woolston factories were bombed and have just met an 80+ gent who remembers a bus garage turned lorry garage in Twyford Avenue/ Alexandra Park area of Portsmouth where he saw plain metal Spitfire wings going in through big front doors and camouflage painted ones coming out. He said it reverted to be a lorry garage after the war. Anyone with info on where this garage might have been and anything about the wartime use of it would be great.

Alan Matlock

25/04/19 – 05:37

In 1933 and 1947 There was a Hants and Dorset depot on Villiers Rd, which is only half a mile away from Twyford Ave, and a Corporation depot was opposite it. https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/440401

John Lomas

25/04/19 – 08:15

Sorry, John, but the section of map shows Twyford Avenue in Southampton. The Corporation depot opposite the H&D one in Villiers Road was behind the Police Station. We are talking about Portsmouth’s Twyford Avenue if we are dealing with Alan Matlock’s enquiry.
The H&D depot in Villiers Road was one of two “central works” type places, the other being in Winchester Road. One had the body works and the other had the chassis works. This was before the firm grew tired of waiting for planning consent to merge the two and went to Barton Park (now home of Solent Blue Line and Xelabus) in the early 1980s.

Pete Davies

26/04/19 – 07:41

Silly me.
1949 old-map shows National Garage on Twyford Ave., Portsmouth; opposite Jervis Rd https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/464590/

John Lomas

Ideal Service – Leyland Titan – CCK 668 – 16


Copyright Unknown

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Brian Lunn

26/09/17 – 06:45

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

Chris Barker

26/09/17 – 14:23

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

Philip Halstead

27/09/17 – 06:22

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

Roger Cox

Southdown – Leyland Titan – RUF 189/5 – 783/5

Southdown - Leyland Titan - RUF 189/5 - 783/5
Southdown - Leyland Titan - RUF 189/5 - 783/5

Southdown Motor Services
1956
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Beadle H59RD

There have been comments over the years about the last Beadle double deck bodies to be built delivered to Southdown in Nov/Dec 1956 but few photos. To try and rectify this I attach two photos of this batch No’s 777-788 Reg No’s RUF 177-188, That of 783 was taken outside Pevensey Road bus station, whilst not a very good photo I included it as this bus was later converted into a tree lopper after an accident at I believe Jarvis Brook railway bridge which was near Southdown’s Crowborough garage, I heard that the unfortunate driver was an Maidstone & District man trying to reach the garage. That of 785 was taken in Pool Valley Brighton when being reversed on to the stand for the Brighton local service 38 which later became the regular haunt of the RESL/6L’s the route had a significant amount of hill work. Believed to have been built by Beadle on Park Royal frames, the easy way to tell these near identical batches apart was the Beadle’s had sliding ventilators and the Park Royal’s had half drops.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

30/01/18 – 16:33

In 1956/7, both NGT and Newcastle Corporation took delivery of batches of very similar Park Royal bodied vehicles.
Those of NCT were all AEC Regent V.
The 1956 NGT group vehicles were GUY Arab IV, and the intake for 1957 were R/D versions on a Leyland PD2/12 chassis.
Although they looked very similar to these, one notable difference was that both NCT & NGT were all four bay construction, whereas these are five.
Was that Southdown spec?

Ronnie Hoye

01/02/18 – 07:10

guy

Further to Ronnie Hoye’s post, Northern took 28 Guy Arabs with Park Royal bodies in 1956, 20 for the main fleet and 8 for Tynemouth. There were 10 PD2s in 1957 for Northern. All were 63 seaters.

regent

Newcastle took 20 high bridge examples in 1956, 137-156 (XVK 137-156) and 20 in 1957, 157-176 (157-176 AVK) ten of which were low bridge. The high bridge vehicles seated 62 and the low bridge vehicles 58.

Living north of the Tyne, I was more familiar with the Tynemouth and Newcastle buses. I thought they were well proportioned buses, but the interior finish on the Newcastle vehicles left a lot to be desired, red painted lining panels, narrow seats and a distinct lack of ventilation. Tynemouth’s vehicles were far better finished in my view.
A couple of photos are attached illustrating a Northern vehicle and one of Newcastle’s 1957 high bridge buses.

R Slater

02/02/18 – 05:37

Your not wrong, the NCT vehicles were positively spartan in comparison to those of the NGT Group.
It was the same story with the Orion bodied Leyland PD’s that followed these. Every expense seems to have been spared on the NCT vehicles, with their painted metal interiors, whereas the NGT were covered.
Those of Tynemouth & Wakefields were finished to an even higher standard with moquette upholstered seats.
Getting back to the Park Royal GUY Arab IV’s. As you say, Tynemouth & District had eight of them, FT 9408/15 208/15 I started as a driver at Percy Main in 1967, so by now they were nearly 11 years old, but they were VERY reliable, and for all their age they were a delight to drive, but how much better would they have been if they ha been fitted with a G6LW rather than a 5?
214 was written off after an accident, and dismantled for spares, and the remainder were transferred to Northern in 1968.
By this time we had quite a number of the superb Alexander bodied CRG6LX Daimler Fleetlines, so I was probably in a minority, but I for one was sorry to see them go.

Ronnie Hoye

08/02/18 – 14:46

I could go on a real nostalgia fest here, Ronnie. Tynemouth was my local fleet. My memories date from the mid 1950s when I can just about remember the ECW rebodied Leyland TD5s and the trio of AEC Regents rebodied by Pickering. Wallsend locals were largely in the hands of successive batches of Guy Arabs. I used these services to go the the Buddle school and later the grammar school. I recall end of school day transport at the Buddle was provided by four vehicles, two for High Farm and two for Sunholme, usually older vehicles but sometimes newly overhauled vehicles doing what I assume were running in turns. The Guys gave way to Leyland PD2s and PD3s, Atlanteans and Fleetlines. I’ll shut up now!

Richard Slater

11/02/18 – 06:23

Like you Richard, our school bus was either one of the Pickering rebodied pre war Regents or, occasionally, one of the Weymann bodied, early post war variety. As the bus came off an earlier “Workmen”s service it was usually late,a source of delight to we pupils, but consternation to the school.
In 1957, I started to attend Tynemouth High School, where it was decided we lived near enough to walk to school. 4X4s were rare and mostly restricted to the farming community in those days!
I remember the ECW rebodied TD5s also largely because they were quite fast and refined mechanically, for a bus of that era.They seemed to spend a lot of their time on the 5 Whitley Bay (St. Mary’s Lighthouse) to Newcastle (Haymarket)until about 1955, when they I think (its all a long time ago now) they were largely replaced on that route by the 1955 Orion bodied Guys.

William Mill

Halifax Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – KWX 19 – 356

Halifax Corporation - Leyland Titan PD2 - KWX 19 - 356

Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland L27/26R

On the left of this photo taken in PTE days in December 1977 is the last operational ex Todmorden JOC PD2, as Halifax 356 which had been a Driver Training bus since withdrawal from passenger service. On the right is its replacement – ex Halifax 279, a 1965 Roe bodied Leyland PD2/37. This is in its new guise as Driver Training bus T7. By this date the PTE had introduced a dedicated training bus livery.
T7 was later sold to a driving school in the West Midlands. 356 was put on one side for preservation but was eventually scrapped as a lost cause, a sad loss considering what can be achieved nowadays.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

14/05/18 – 07:18

The heaters on Halifax MCW PD2s were very good for about a year. Being under the seats at floor level they sucked in lots of dust which blocked the warm air flow. It was a long job to clean them out. Just blowing the dust out with an air line covered the saloons in dust. The cleaning job was also unhealthy so nobody would do it. The old round Clayton heaters being fitted well above floor level didn’t gather much dust and remained in working order much longer. At Blackburn we used to place wet sacks over the heater unit to catch the dust when blowing it out with an airline, this was not ideal but kept some heat in the saloon during winter!

Mr Anon

17/05/18 – 07:56

The 1965 Roe bodied Leyland PD2s & the CCP registered Park Royal bodied Regent IIIs are my all time favourite Halifax D/Ds, its a great pity that no examples of either type are in running order in the UK. I did see a former Halifax Roe bodied PD2 still in its Metro training bus guise at Winkleigh a few years ago, but I could not tell which one it was.
Another of the Roe bodied PD2s number 62 was put back in full Halifax green, orange & cream attire, but it did not spend long in preservation & it was exported to either the USA or Canada in the early 1980s. Does it still exist?

Andrew Spriggs

02/07/18 – 07:12

In 1974 my wife worked in the personnel dept. of the then newly formed West Yorkshire Metropolitan Transport Executive. She, they had to send a memo out to Ex Tod crews that taking their buses home at lunchtime was no longer permissible.

Geoff Bragg

05/07/18 – 06:21

Wonderful story, Geoff. Big business versus small business destroying the personal touch, as ever!

Chris Hebbron

11/07/18 – 07:17

The 1965 Roe bodied Leyland PD2s of Halifax were wonderful buses, very solid in the best Roe tradition. It is interesting to relate that a very similar batch of buses were supplied to Ashton Under Lyne in the same year & two years later Lincoln received a batch. Lincoln had received two batches of Roe bodied Atlanteans in 1964/5 & then reverted to PDs in 1967. I would say these Roe bodied PD2s were my favourite double deckers, the longer HBU registered Oldham Corporation Roe bodied PD3s of 1964 were also firm favourites, sadly one was lost when it turned over on a roundabout in Rochdale in 1967.

Andrew Spriggs

12/07/18 – 07:18

The Oldham bus which turned over was 108 HBU.
It turned over in Oldham, at the bottom of West Street, after being hit by a tanker, not in Rochdale.
It was operating the Rochdale to Ashton service 9.

Stephen Howarth

13/07/18 – 07:37

I drove a number of these Roe bodied PD2s whilst at Halifax when they were new, and I agree that they were in a greatly superior class to their Weymann contemporaries, except in one particular. Being a quite long legged specimen, I found that the drivers’ seats on the Roe bodies did not go back as far as those on the Weymann examples, making them less comfortable to drive.

Roger Cox

14/07/18 – 07:01

I know that Mr. Hilditch was, shall we say, a traditionalist in his views and requirements but why did he specify holes in the bonnet sides on these vehicles? It seems like a throwback to the 1940s, did they serve any practical purpose?

Chris Barker

GGH inherited this order from the previous (Leyland besotted) GM, Richard le Fevre, who, despite being on the verge of retirement, chose to saddle his successor with his Leyland legacy. Because of the extended strike at Weymann, where some of these PD2s were heled up for months, Geoffrey Hilditch managed to divert those chassis that were still accessible to Roe for bodying. The apertures in the bonnet were for access to the oil filler cap and dipstick, and this was a Leyland option that appeared on all the Halifax PD2s and PD3s.

Roger Cox

17/07/18 – 06:29

Believe me those holes are invaluable for oil checking. I have a couple of vehicles with solid sides and they are a pain. In service you needed conscientious mechanics to avoid engine seizures.

Roger Burdett

Manchester Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – JND 619 – 3218

Manchester Corporation - Leyland Titan PD2 - JND 619 - 3218

Manchester Corporation
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/3
Metro-Cammell H32/26R

Seen in Piccadilly in August 1969 in the final months of Manchester Corporation ownership is No 3218, JND 619, one of a batch of Leyland PD2/3 buses purchased in 1951. Despite appearances, the bodywork is not by Crossley, being instead of the then standard Manchester design built by Metro-Cammell. Having given some eighteen years of service to Manchester, this bus survived to pass into the SELNEC era, though not, I suspect, for long.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

23/07/18 – 06:58

This would be on a rush hour full service length extra on which these and the similar looking PD1/3s, which were withdrawn between 1967 and 1968, were regular performers. According to the official SELNEC fleet allocation these PD2/3s were not taken into stock, although Eyre and Heaps in the Manchester Bus have all but 3224, withdrawn in April 1969, transferred to SELNEC. What I suspect happened was that the vehicles were deemed withdrawn at midnight, MCTD having ceased at 23.59 on October 31 1969, SELNEC coming into being at 00.01 on November 1 – such are the legal niceties!

Further to my previous comments, the SELNEC operational fleet allocation on formation has 300 PD2s from Manchester and 103 from Salford in the Central Area fleet listing. No Manchester and Salford PD2s were allocated to other divisions on formation. The SELNEC stock allocation i.e vehicle assets taken over in whatever state, lists 501 PD2s in the Central area. Taking Eyre and Heaps listings in the Manchester Bus and in the Salford lists available, the number of PD2s owned by those undertakings on October 31 1969 was 387 in Manchester and 103 in Salford giving a total of 490. The situation would seem to have been that 67 PD2s from the MCW and Leyland bodied JND registered batch in the sequence 3200-3299 were transferred as assets but immediately deleted from the available fleet along with 1 from the Northern Counties batch 3300-3329 and 19 from the Leyland bodied batch 3330-3369. There is photographic evidence of one or more of these batches pressed into SELNEC service. There is however a discrepancy of 11 PD2s between the 501 listed as assets and the total of 403 operational and 87 midnight withdrawals. If anyone can find the missing 11, given that as far as I can ascertain, the assets of the Central division did not include any transfers in from elsewhere at the time of formation on November 1 1969 I would be grateful.

Phil Blinkhorn

24/07/18 – 07:25

I regularly travelled to and from school on these buses between 1964 and 1967. I understand that the shallower windows on each side at the rear were to support the platform which was not supported underneath as on most buses. I have read that Metro Cammell came up with this design, although Crossley adopted it as standard for a while.

Don McKeown

25/07/18 – 06:11

Manchester certainly got its moneys worth out of these buses and although quite elderly they were used on many lengthy prestige routes until the end of MCTD. They regularly appeared on the 17, 24 and 90 in Rochdale by which time the joint operating partners, Rochdale and Oldham on the 24 and 90 were using more modern stock. I always found them rather drab buses to travel in with lots of dark woodwork and a fairly depressing moquete pattern for the seats. And of course like most buses of that time the upper deck reeked of stale tobacco smoke. I think the experience of 1950’s upper deck travel so Mum could have a fag made me a life-long non-smoker!

Philip Halstead

26/07/18 – 06:45

I was living on Barlow Moor Road in Didsbury in 1969 and 1970, and I remember 3218 as being the only one of these at Parrs Wood garage – very much the odd one out; always slightly surprised when it turned up, which it often did on rush hour extras.

Steve Owen

27/07/18 – 06:45

I have slides of 3237, 3246 and 3255 taken in Manchester on October 29 1970. They did not sport the green SELNEC Central S.
They were showing the following route numbers 64X, 63X, and 62X respectively.

Stephen Bloomfield

29/07/18 – 07:36

Stephen, the Central flash was Blue.
Green was for the Southern Division, Magenta was the Northern Division, and the Orange was for the Coaches, Parcels, and Central activities. Brown was later used for the Cheshire Division, the ex North Western Road Car Company.

Stephen Howarth

05/08/18 – 07:52

I was using rush-hour limited-stop services along the Hyde Road corridorout of Chorlton Street bus station for a time between 1970 and ’71 and several of these “32xx” PD2s turned up regularly on routes such as the “124” and “207/208/209”. The buses were run-down inside (torn-rexine) and were probably living outside the Hyde Road depot in the yard,awaiting the chop.

John Hardman

05/08/18 – 09:41

John, you are most likely correct in your assumption as to the source of the rush hour extras. SELNEC would have preferred not to have taken any vehicle assets over fifteen years old but the legislation demanded that the undertakings absorbed were absorbed lock, stock and barrel. The distinction that was made between the operational fleet and the total vehicle assets was quickly blurred due to the need to move vehicles around the divisions to introduce OMO and the need for extra vehicles caused by delays in deliveries. It would seem that the best runners from the withdrawn stock that still had valid certificates of fitness were temporarily relicensed to fill rush hour gaps. It was estimated that in 1965 one third of the Manchester fleet was retained for rush hour duties, generally vehicles over fifteen years old and apart from the 1953/1954 Daimlers which SELNEC took into the operational fleet, all those older vehicles in the Manchester fleet in 1969 were originally listed as non-operational. In passing it is worth commenting that the MCW PD2s outlived the newer Northern Counties bodied batch from 1953.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/08/18 – 06:06

I moved to Manchester to become a student in October 1970 and I am absolutely certain that MCTD 32xx series buses were in service then and at least for a few months afterwards. I do not recall seeing any 33xx series fleet numbers and I assumed that they had been withdrawn previously although at that stage of my university career I admit that I did not go far off the Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road axis.

Peter Cook

08/08/18 – 06:06

I became a Manchester student a year after Peter, and didn’t move far off the Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road axis either. My abiding memory is of the 1953/4 Daimlers on the 44/46. I do not remember the PD2s at all.

David Oldfield

09/08/18 – 07:21

Regarding Phil’s comment about a third of the Manchester fleet, I must admit I’ve always understood it to be the other way round – i.e. that Manchester’s peak problem was so severe that only one third of the fleet was out all day, with the majority being confined to rush-hour extras, rush-hour services, works services, works variants and works contracts. But I’ve believed that for so long now that I’ve no idea where I got it from.

Peter Williamson

10/08/18 – 07:12

Regarding Peter Williamson’s comments on the proportions of the Manchester fleet, the situation as he has it was certainly the case up until the late 1950s. From then things started to change. Rapidly increasing car ownership was the main factor but there were others. New vehicles delivered from 1957 had around 17% more seats than those they replaced and the eventual inclusion of reasonable numbers of Fleetlines and Atlanteans saw this figure rise to over a third more seats per bus. Diesel trains replacing steam on commuter lines and the electrification of lines to Crewe saw faster, cleaner and competitively cheap trains and the decimation of the Crossley fleet ahead of normal life expectancy were all factors which changed the the fleet use proportions. By 1969 the use of private cars had massively increased over that of 1960 and with far further large capacity vehicles in service, including the Mancunians, the need for a large rush hour fleet had diminished further.

Phil Blinkhorn

12/08/18 – 07:18

I’ve spent some time trying to reconcile the number of PD2s the SELNEC Central Division inherited and operated given the confusing numbers published in Eyre and Heaps The Manchester Bus, Manchester and Salford – One Hundred Years of Municipal Transport, Stewart Brown’s Greater Manchester Buses and my own sources from MCTD, Salford and SELNEC from 1968 through 1970. My own notes show that SELNEC intended to reduce its fleet of traditional front engined vehicles in short order and introduce OMO as soon as possible – an aspiration repeatedly delayed by late deliveries, the need to write down assets and union negotiations. It is a fact backed by written information from SELNEC, that SELNEC Central Division required an Operational Fleet for daytime running of 400 PD2s to cover services, maintenance, reserve vehicles for breakdowns and education departments’ needs. The Operational Fleet as far as PD2s were concerned was restricted to vehicles of less than 15 years old, in fact the oldest vehicles were the 1956 3400 series PND registered ex Manchester PD2s. Manchester contributed 300 PD2s, Salford 103. No vehicles to the best of my knowledge were imported to Central from other divisions. In addition to the Operational Fleet it appears Central had a fleet of licenced, driver training and withdrawn PD2s, all transferred from MCTD. The Manchester Bus in its vehicle listings at the back of the book infers the PD2s older than 15 years old that were transferred to SELNEC were fully licenced vehicles. Manchester and Salford a Century of Municipal Transport breaks down the transfer into driving school and withdrawn vehicles, as can be found on page 301 of The Manchester Bus, leading to the conclusion that the withdrawn vehicles were delicenced at midnight on 31 October/1 November 1969. However, the Eyre and Heaps publications disagree with each other in terms of numbers and because Manchester and Salford a Century of Municipal Transport was published much later than the last edition of The Manchester Bus, I have taken the latter’s figures. Central still required a reasonable number of rush hour extras and the older PD2s that were licenced, were thus employed. Most were withdrawn during 1970, the last of the pre 1956 PD2s in early 1971. The next discrepancy is that Greater Manchester Buses states that 501 PD2s were inherited in total and does not break down the numbers.
MCW Manchester Standard bodied PD2s 3200-3223 and 3225-3264 were transferred as licenced – total 64.
Leyland bodied PD2s 3287/94/99 transferred as licenced – total 3
3266/71/75/78/88/90 transferred as driving school – total 6
3265/67/69/70/72/77-79/82/89/92-95/97 transferred as withdrawn assets – total 15
Northern Counties bodied PD2s 3323 transferred as licenced – total 1
3324/25 transferred as driving school – total 2
Leyland bodied PD2s 3331/32/34/37/39/40/42/45-47/50-52/54/56-60/64 transferred as licenced – total 20
The overall PD2 assets transferred, if the later figures compared to the previous figures I had are to be believed number 514, now 13 more than noted in Greater Manchester Buses. Anyone else want to have a shot at sorting this?

Phil Blinkhorn

13/08/18 – 05:57

I’m surprised to read that there was a requirement specifically for 400 PD2s. What about the contemporary Daimler CVG6s (and CCG6s? Surely there would be some overlap between these two types?

Don McKeown

14/08/18 – 06:00

Unlike the situation with the PD2s, there was no cut off for Daimlers older than 15 years as the total of front engined Daimlers required for the Operational Fleet was 368 vehicles and to achieve this 48 CVG6s from Salford dating from between 1950 and 1952, 67 CVG6s from Manchester dating from 1950-1951 and all 110 of the 4400 batch of CVG6s and CVG5s from 1953 to 1955 were taken into all day service, though almost all of the 1950-1952 CVG6s from both city’s fleets had gone by the end of 1970, penny numbers of the Salford examples provided rush hour extras in early 1971. Again there are discrepancies in the published information. Greater Manchester Buses has it that 368 CVGs in total were taken by the Central Division but adding the requirement of 368 vehicles to the withdrawn and driving school assets taken over, the total is 407. the breakdown is as follows:-
Salford CVG6 415/16/18/25/28/29/33/39/57/61/63/65/70/73/78/83/84/85/88/98/506/07/11/21/22/24/25/27-29/31/33/35-41/43-45/47/48/52-54/60 Total 48 to Operational Fleet.
419/22/58/64/66/67/69/77/502/08-10/12/13/15/26/49/50 Total 18 taken over as withdrawn
Manchester CVG6/CVG5 4111/18/22-37/39-48/50-74/76-89/4400-4509 Total 177 to Operational Fleet
4101 Total 1 to driving school
4106-4108/4112-4116/19/21 Total 20 to driving school.
Post 1955 Daimlers CVG5 and CVG6s taken over were:
ex Salford 111-146/189-190 Total 38
ex Manchester 4510-4654 Total 105
It would seem the Greater Manchester Bus, unlike with the PD2s, only listed the number of CVGs in the Operational Fleet

Phil Blinkhorn

Portsmouth Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – GTP 976 – 59

GTP 976

Portsmouth Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/10
Leyland H30/26R

Seen on 13 August 1967 beside the superb gardens at Southsea seafront is Portsmouth Corporation No.59, GTP 976, one of a batch of twenty five Leyland PD2/10 buses with Leyland H30/26R bodywork delivered in 1952. No.59 was withdrawn in 1969, and the last of this batch went in 1971. My childhood trips to Southsea in the late 1940s/early 1950s were always undertaken by trolleybus, a memory to savour, and it is a matter of personal regret that I didn’t manage to capture a picture of one of the trolleys before the system closed in July 1963.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

17/10/18 – 07:58

International Progressive Coachline bought some of these for use on contract work in the early 70’s . Their yard was at Waterbeach near Cambridge. There are a few photos of their buses and coaches on this web site already.
The owner was ‘Paddy’Harris, and the manager was Barry Parsisson. I worked for them briefly in 1972, but after a few months went back to ECOC for an easier life, and less stress !

Norman Long

18/10/18 – 07:35

After many years, the sole survivor of this batch, GTP 975, has turned up safe and reasonable well.
As a schoolboy it was always nice to have one of these beauties turn up as a school relief.

Dave French

19/10/18 – 07:18

As this is a warm sunny day, without a need for a covered-top bus, I imagine that it was an extra covering the busiest part of the route between Clarence Pier and South Parade Pier, rather that going on to Hayling Ferry. The Farington body was very handsome and looked good in Portsmouth’s livery, especially with the white rather than the earlier grey roof. You may have missed snapping a Pompey trolleybus, Roger, but at least you can console yourself with the colour one I posted on this website, long ago.

Chris Hebbron

06/09/20 – 17:09

These were really attractive buses- the windows were opened with a lever- as were later Portsmouth Titans up to those last 1959 PD3s with the sliding windows. The internal panels were covered in some kind of hard-wearing cloth material and not just painted and there was a big plate where the conductor stood with Leyland on it. I am pleased to here that one of these buses still exists. Portsmouth seemed to like to keep one of its older bus types for training but that never happened with these.

Nick Ratnieks

08/09/20 – 06:25

Actually, Nick, two of this batch did become trainers for the Corporation. These were Nos 58-59, transferred to these duties in August / September 1969. They lasted until January 1973, and were sold to Amos (dealer), of Ludlow in October 1973, with no further mention, so presumably scrapped afterwards. [Details from PSV Circle fleet history, though I do remember these two becoming trainers].

Michael Hampton