Premier Travel (Cambridge) 1950 Leyland Titan PD2/3 East Lancs. FL27/26RD
Photographed in Drummer Street, Cambridge in 1970, this was one of eleven former Ribble ‘White Lady’ PD2’s, new in 1950 and purchased by Premier Travel in 1962. Around the same time that Ribble were taking delivery of these, Premier Travel had taken into its fleet three Daimler CVD6’s with uncommon Wilkes & Meade full-fronted double-deck coach type bodies with front ends and other styling features clearly influenced by the Ribble vehicles. The Daimlers were not a success and did not have long lives, but clearly still impressed with the White Lady styling PT’s management seem to have jumped at the chance of grabbing as many as possible when they came onto the second hand market. This one was withdrawn in 1972.
Thanks for posting, John. I have photos of others of this batch and find it to be an unusual – if not unique – way of using the Ribble ‘square triangle’ indicator display.
Pete Davies
24/02/13 – 12:39
Here is a photo of one of the Daimler CVD6/Wilkes & Meade vehicles. See: this link.
Chris Hebbron
25/02/13 – 07:19
The three Wilks and Meade (there is no ‘e’ in Wilks) bodied Daimler CVD6 “County” class double deck coaches, were delivered in 1950 and withdrawn in 1964 (HVE 401) and 1966 (HVE 402/3). The Ribble White Ladies arrived in January 1962, and thus ran alongside the CVDs only for a maximum of four years. The Wilks and Meade bodies on the Daimlers were of very poor quality, and had to be extensively rebuilt using new framing by Premier Travel in its own workshops. The Leylands and their East Lancs bodies were much better buses, and lasted with Premier for eight to eleven years. Paul Carter’s book on Premier Travel (Capital Transport) is the comprehensive history for anyone interested in this operator.
Roger Cox
25/02/13 – 07:22
As Roger Cox has correctly pointed out on the page on this very forum devoted to the bodybuilder Wilks & Meade, that is the correct spelling, rather than the much more frequently quoted Wilkes & Meade. If in doubt, refer to the OBP page devoted to Wallace Arnold – the evidence is there for all to see, in glorious black & white!
David Call
28/07/14 – 07:53
In the background can be seen one of Primitive Travel’s, sorry – Premier Travel’s, ex Devon General AEC Reliance buses (VDV xxx). These were acquired during 1970, so this and the presence of the ECOC LKH dates the picture to no earlier then the summer (note the leafy trees) of 1970 and no later than 1972* when DCK 212 went to Wally Smith’s scrapyard at Thriplow. *The LKH is almost certainly 168 as by this time it was one of just two surviving K’s in Cambridge; the other, 269, bore adverts between decks whereas 168 didn’t towards the end. But whether 168 or 269, the final demise of the Cambridge K’s narrows the date of the picture down to 1970-71. On the Wilks & Meade bodies, the problem was the use of unseasoned timber in their construction. This was a common problem in the early postwar years and by no means confined to PT’s Daimlers. One of the three PT Daimlers, HVE 401 “County of Cambridge” spent many years after withdrawal quietly decomposing at the rear of PT’s Godmanchester depot. It was later kept company by one of the ex LT RF’s and a Burlingham Seagull coach. The nameplate from HVE 401 (these were small ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ things mounted above the radiator grille) ended up in the late Mr Lainson’s then office at 15 Market Hill; maybe the other two also ended up there but I don’t know.
Darren Kitson
14/07/18 – 07:09
I worked at Premier Travel, Chrishall for approx., 12 years. First as a conductor, then a bus driver. Working for a small company was a pleasure, and I made a lot of good lifetime friends, in fact it was more like a family.I am still interested in old photo’s or books, and would willingly help anyone wishing to fill in about routes run by them. A Mr. Grice ran the Chrishall depot for the whole of my time, and a more dedicated man you would not wish to meet, working far more than the normal hours today, and 7 days a week.
Mention has been made elsewhere on this site of Manchester 3494 getting beheaded at the Bridgewater Canal and gaining the body from 3363, the chassis of which had been damaged in an accident. The above photo is a photo of 3494 with its original Burlingham body shown at the top of Kenyon Lane, Moston at the Ben Brierley in 1966.
This next photo was taken when Keith Walker, Peter Thompson and I were visiting Parrs Wood depot in March 1969 and shows 3494 with its Leyland Farringdon body from 3363. It was good to see the name of Malcolm Crowe on the Old Bus Photos site. Malcolm was one of the people who introduced me to buses outside Britain and although his photos of Portugal were a revelation, I have unfortunately never been able to get there. I’ve been to a lot of other places but still want to get to Portugal. Peter Dorricott mentioned that when he was driving at Birchfields Rd depot he was told that bus restoration took place in one of the disused entrances. My former English Teacher at Plant Hill Comprehensive, Miss Bates had a boyfriend who was involved in the restoration of Manchester tram 765 and through her, Geoff Guinn and I were invited to Birchfields Rd one evening to see work on 765. It was a fantastic piece of restoration work. Later of course 765 ran at Heaton Park and Crich. Mention of old coach operators and going on tours from newsagents brought to mind some of the usual operators used to get from New Moston to Scarborough, Blackpool, Morecambe and Southport. Wilsons Coaches of Failsworth had a Maudslay half-cab which I remember well but of course by the time I was old enough to understand how rare and beautiful it was, it had gone, although I was later told it was lying in a corner of the their garage. The other local operator was Threlfall’s, evidently related to the beer concern.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Lynas
15/03/13 – 08:40
Ian, I presume you are in possession of a higher-resolution photo of the bus passing the Ben Brierley and therefore in a position to state with confidence that it is actually 3494 which is depicted. Looking at the above pic I would have guessed at other than 3494, but one of my ‘alternatives’ wouldn’t have been a TNA so that would obviously be out. ‘Farringdon’ should of course be ‘Farington’ – and yes, I am not going to let myself be roped in to the perennial debate regarding which Leyland bodies were genuine ‘Faringtons’! Talking of Leyland bodies, does anyone know (I suspect that I should really know the answer to this one myself) if a Leyland body was ever fitted to other than a Leyland chassis? I’m pretty sure that Leyland never put one of their bodies on anyone else’s chassis, but did any operators do any transferring?
David Call
15/03/13 – 08:41
The photograph of 3494 was taken on the occasion of a visit to Parr’s Wood garage on 15th March 1969 by a PSV Circle tour to commemorate the last Manchester PD1/3s. There were plenty of people travelling as there were two PD1/3s and also Daimler CVG6 4127 (now preserved)! I have a similar photograph, but not very good as it was taken with an Instamatic camera. After the closure of Parr’s Wood garage 3494 moved to Hyde Road and I find I noted it working on the express services to Saddleworth on occasions. I wish I’d made the effort to photograph it! To the right of the bus is the former Midland Railway route to London from Manchester which closed about that time. It has since been converted to a Metrolink route, but has not yet opened (that’s a few months away). Parr’s Wood garage itself closed in 1970 and is now a Tesco supermarket – all that’s left of the original is the clock tower.
David Beilby
15/03/13 – 11:13
Ian, thanks for posting those shots. Have you a date, at least to the month, of the shot of the Burlingham body? The reason I ask is that 3494 was, as far as I remember, a Parrs Wood vehicle for a good deal of its life in both guises. The accident took place in October 1966 on route 22, a Parrs Wood route, so what is 3494 doing very much in Rochdale Rd depot territory, sans offside nut guard ring anathema at Parrs Wood at the time)? Another point of interest is the position of the registration plate. As far back as March 1958 MCTD wrote to Burlingham pointing out that, as radiator shells were sometimes exchanged, plates should be placed on the body and this was done from the July 1958 onwards deliveries (3495 – delayed from February – and 3503 onwards). There’s a picture in The Manchester Bus of Orion bodied PD2 3611 carrying its correct plate UNB 611) on the front cab panel at the same time as it has TNA 480 on a plate on an obviously swapped radiator shell from Burlingham bodied PD2 3480. Given all of that it’s odd that 3494 still has its plate on the radiator after eight years and a visit for major overhaul and total respray. Indeed preserved 3496 which is preserved as it was after respray into the all red scheme still has its plate on the radiator as it was after withdrawal.
In the light of David Call’s comment and my suspicions, I’ve played around with the photo and used a magnifying glass and the shot with the Burlingham body looks like 3484, which would make sense as it was allocated to either Rochdale Rd or Queens Rd – I think it was the former.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/03/13 – 12:15
I’ve long had the idea – without any substantiation – that the Burlingham bodies supplied to Manchester were rather more upright (Orion fashion) than those they supplied to Ribble. How far adrift from reality am I this time
Pete Davies
15/03/13 – 14:50
Interesting question from David Call. I wonder what the response from Leyland would have been if someone had asked them to body a chassis other than one of their own! But yes, the wonderful Green Bus Company of Rugeley, Staffs created one when they rebodied a Foden which had been a coach with a Leyland d/d body, both of which were pre-war. So there you are, a Leyland bodied Foden, if only a picture existed!
Chris Barker
15/03/13 – 14:51
Pete, you are absolutely correct. The front profile was to Manchester’s own upright design, the window radii were slightly reduced and the rear profile was also more upright.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/03/13 – 16:35
Referring to David Call’s question about non-Leyland chassis carrying Leyland bodies, Bamber Bridge Motor Service created such a vehicle. In 1950, they acquired BRD 755, a 1943 Guy Arab I 5LW/Strachans L27/28R ex Reading Corporation. In 1953, they rebodied it with the Leyland L27/26R body from Leyland TD4 ATD 596, which they had bought new in 1935. That Leyland chassis and the discarded Strachans body were scrapped. The Guy gave a couple of years more service to BBMS before passing to Leak, Preston in 1955, and going for scrap in 1956.
David Williamson
15/03/13 – 17:55
To the best of my knowledge no new Leyland body went on other makes of chassis. CIE built their own version of the standard Leyland body with three screens upstairs at the front – including on PD3s. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there were also examples of this body built new on to AEC and Daimler chassis.
David Oldfield
16/03/13 – 07:31
CIE had a great mixture of their own versions of Leyland’s Colin Bailey designed body, all most all of which retained the original 1930s single pane upper deck rear emergency exit window see: www.busesinireland.com/1 and www.busesinireland.com/2 There were a number of two and three pane front upper deck window variants as well as five, six and SEVEN bay body construction. Some were totally anachronistic such as the SEVEN bay, three pane OPD3s see: www.busesinireland.com/3 Some AR class Regents did not have Leyland style bodies see: www.busesinireland.com/4 These were delivered ckd for GNR(I) but I can’t definitively confirm the bodybuilder though I suspect Park Royal. Half of these were subsumed into the CIE fleet when GNR(I) was split between CIE and Ulsterbus. Those imported in 1946/7 for CIE did have a Leyland style body see: www.nationaltransportmuseum.org I haven’t found a picture of any of the six DR class Daimler CWD6s but as the chassis and bodies were supposedly delivered ckd from the UK I very much doubt they would have had anything resembling a Leyland body though I’d love to see a photo if they did!.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/03/13 – 08:49
CIE’s three AA-class Regent Vs had Leyland-style bodies, and they were seven-bay (like the RA-class PD3s). Here’s a pic www.busweb.co.uk/
David Call
16/03/13 – 14:50
Nice find David. I assume the lack of lower deck windows towards the rear was because the space on the lower deck offside was used for luggage – not to mention the assorted livestock and parcel deliveries CIE used to handle, even in the cities.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/03/13 – 18:47
In the early postwar period, Alexander built some bodies of Leyland design under licence and Cardiff had a batch of Crossley DD42’s delivered new with this style of bodywork. Although not strictly Leyland bodies they were Leyland in appearance and gave a good impression of what a Leyland body looks like on a non-Leyland chassis.
Philip Halstead
17/03/13 – 05:54
One thing I didn’t think to mention about the CIE AAs was that their initial use was to replace passenger trains between Waterford and Tramore, and they were known to have increased luggage capacity. The extra panelling is unusual, though. The Cardiff Crossleys are more often than not quoted as having Scottish Commercial, rather than Alexander bodies, although several versions of the story seem to exist, e.g. the bodywork was subcontracted from Alexander, or that Scottish Commercial panelled the Alexander frames. One of the batch, 46 (EBO 900), was preserved and is apparently still in storage, but hasn’t been used for many years. There are several photos of it on the net (both before and during preservation), and this is about the best www.flickr.com/
David Call
17/03/13 – 05:56
Interesting Philip since Alexander made such bodies on Titans for Leyland – under licence and with official sanction.
David Oldfield
17/03/13 – 09:54
A better photo from the point of view of seeing just how Leyland the body is can be found on here: www.mikestreet.webplus.net/ The side view is totally Leyland, as is the rear upper deck emergency exit but the driver’s dash panel, the Crossley headlamps and mudguards change the look of the vehicle even more than the Crossley radiator.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/03/13 – 11:38
The attached photograph should materially assist the confusion regarding the bodywork on Cardiff 46!
In fact I believe it is the cause the confusion, as the Scottish Commercial plate is of them acting in the capacity of dealers rather than coachbuilders. They were Crossley agents and had apparently sub-contracted the coachwork to Alexander. The confusion is probably also helped by the fact Cardiff already had some Crossleys with Scottish Commercial bodies. These, like the lowbridge examples were bought through Almondsbury Engineering and two even had Gloucestershire registrations. They had the more traditional Scottish Commercial appearance, which was a squared-off Manchester style. Western SMT created an unusual hybrid when they rebodied wartime Guy Y191 (ASD 253) with the Leyland body off TD5 D138 (CS 7037). There is a picture of it in Buses Annual 1970, but the effect was lost as the front was flattened and looked more like a rebuilt utility body. You had to look further back to see the Leyland lineage.
David Beilby
17/03/13 – 15:39
Neither Leyland nor Alexander had 4-bay bodies during this period. (re Cardiff buses) I seem to remember seeing some exposed radiator Regents with Park Royal built Leyland lookalike bodies, but I can`t remember where.
Jim Hepburn
17/03/13 – 15:40
I’m sure I picked it up on the net once that Almondsbury Engineering were a company which ordered the three highbridge Crossleys for their own staff transport, but very quickly decided they weren’t required, or perhaps Almondsbury went out of business, I’m not certain now. This does seem basically consistent with the wording on the Mike Street site, linked to above. I haven’t previously encountered the notion that Almondsbury were agents for the manufacturer(s). My apologies, of course, David, if they were. Perhaps some Cardiff-area contributors could settle this one?
David Call
17/03/13 – 15:41
In 1936 and 37 East Midland received 16 Leyland TS7’s with Leyland B35R bodies. These were re-bodied in 1939 with new ECW DP35R bodies. The Leyland bodies were then fitted to some 1930-1 AEC Regals whose bodies were scrapped. Then in 1947-8 a batch of new AEC Regal I’s were delivered for which bodies were not immediately available, so 14 of the Leyland bodies were transferred from the pre-war Regals onto these new chassis, the remaining 2 being sold on. The new Regals were then re-bodied by Willowbrook (B35R) in 1951.
John Bunting
17/03/13 – 17:18
David, my reference to Almondbury’s involvement in the lowbridge Crossleys came from the Crossley book and was something I was unfamiliar with until I looked it up for my reply. Your interpretation of the history of the three highbridge examples is pretty much the story as I understand it as well.
David Beilby
18/03/13 – 12:20
Alexander bodied some AEC Regents for Scottish Omnibuses after the war which were based on the pre-war Leyland design There is a shot of one on www.sct61.org.uk
Chris Hough
18/03/13 – 15:42
I remember these buses Chris. They were Regent 3s with preselect gears. They came into service in 1948. They looked very much like a Leyland at the front but had more of a utility look at the rear. Alexanders later refined this body to look more like a Leyland lowbridge body and used it for their own PD1s.
Jim Hepburn
06/09/13 – 16:30
Coras Iompair Eireann (CIE) owned 150 Leyland bodied buses delivered to them in the years 1948/9. One hundred complete Leyland double deckers of the standard Titan chassis and body design then in production for British operators Numbered, R291-390 were delivered between 1948 and 1949. These buses soon became known a ‘Boltons’ due to there similarity to those buses also being operated by Bolton Corporation. A further 50 complete Leyland buses, R391-440 were bought to complete the tram conversion programme in 1949. This batch were known as the ‘Capetown’ class. They differed from the earlier ‘Bolton’ type in having a number of CIE design features and so resembled pre-war Leyland bodies. Twenty nine of this class, R411-440 were PD2/1 chassis of 7ft6in width.
David J. White
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
18/02/14 – 11:38
Sorry to be away from the site for so long, but the intervening period since 15th March 2013 has been taken up with visiting Japan, organising and getting married, visiting the U.S.A., a myriad of jobs at a new house and further work on Australian buses histories. So my apologies to David Call, Phil Blinkhorn and David Beilby. To David Call, unfortunately I don’t have the negative of 3484 (that I thought was 3494 – although I must admit to not remembering that 3494 was a Southern bus, not a Rochdale Rd bus). Before leaving U.K. I “gave” away a lot of negatives, not understanding the value of them. In Australia I have sorted all my prints and finally sorted which ones still had negatives and which didn’t. I’ve then scanned those prints without negs (of which 3484 was one because I gave most of my Manchester negs away – bright boy – not). The negs from my Bencini camera are actually reasonably good and its surprising how many rolls sent to a company in Brighton for printing all those years ago, which came back “unable to be printed – too dark” now print up beautifully and I include in those a “Metalcraft” bodied Foden taken on a PSV Circle Tour and a rare Daimler with one of the Doncaster operators on another PSV Circle Tour (sorry I cant be any more precise because I’m at work and don’t have access to my photo folders). Just looking at a photo of Ashton 67 and Oldham 408 in Wallshaw St – I was on that tour also and have a similar photo to the one posted. I don’t have a neg of that photo either. Regards to all the fans in the Manchester area and I’m still working on the history of the Panthers and Panthers Cubs that came to Australia. One or two have survived as motor homes.
The scene on the parking area at Pond Street bus station in Sheffield, in August, 1959, featuring a line-up of Sheffield vehicles, including one of the NCB bodied Crossley DD42/5’s, put to work as a driver trainer after withdrawal, and painted in the reversed livery of the service fleet. Nearest the camera is ‘A’ fleet (Corporation owned) 623 (LWE 123) a 1949 all-Leyland PD2/1, in the ‘Farington’ style livery with dark blue window surrounds, at the time operating from Greenland Road garage, and next to it is ‘B’ fleet (ownership shared by the Corporation and British Railways) 178 (SWE 278), an MCW bodied Regent III dating from 1954, and working from Bramall Lane garage, seen here resting after working in from the delightful Derbyshire hamlet of Castleton, famous for its limestone caves, on service 72.
The other two are both ‘A’ fleet buses, next to 178 being one of the 1948 Roberts bodied AEC Regent III’s, 327 (KWB 927) working from yet another of the Sheffield garages at the time, this one on the roster of Herries Road depot. Between 327 and the Crossley trainer is an unidentified FWA-registered Regent I dating from 1938, one of the eleven of a batch of fifteen vehicles (395-409) that were rebodied by Roe in 1952. These rebodied AEC’s somehow managed to retain their rugged pre-war appearance despite the much newer, stylish bodywork from the Crossgates works. On the radiators of the three Regents can be seen the sheet metal tabs that were often noted attached to the grilles of Sheffield buses, reading, as I recall, “STD – Do Not Drain.” !
This photo was taken as my mother and I were hurrying through the bus station on our way to the Midland Station to catch a train to London, on our way back to Canada after a summer holiday, having emigrated there the year before. I was just eleven years old at the time, and noting the magnificent line-up, implored my mother to take out the family Agfa and snap a quick shot! Not always quite so eager to please, she obliged on this occasion, and in so doing provided me with what was undoubtedly the first colour photo in my Sheffield collection, which has grown significantly since then! However, due to the circumstances in which it was taken, not one of the other views stirs the same poignant memories for me as this one does.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Dave Careless
19/03/13 – 14:31
A very nice addition to the “Sheffield” page, Dave. Thanks for posting.
Pete Davies
19/03/13 – 14:47
Incredible Sheffield line up and, as usual, your comprehensive knowledge fleshes out the detail. [Two small points: Regent IIs were post war and Castleton is a village – hamlets have no church.] Do you ever get back these days?
David Oldfield
19/03/13 – 15:54
Thanks, Pete, glad you liked the picture. I realised a short while after I’d captioned the photo, David, that those FWA-Regents weren’t Regent II’s, I should have had my first edition of BBF No. 2 beside me for reference when I wrote it!! Yes, I do get back from Nova Scotia from time to time, but probably not as often as I’d like. I was back for the 50th London Transport trolleybus event at Carlton Colville last May, (couldn’t possibly miss that) and spent a few enjoyable weeks in Sheffield as a guest of long-time friend and fellow Sheffield enthusiast, Paul Fox. Remarkably, my aunt still lives in the same house in the east end of the city where I stayed during that summer holiday in 1959, and for the record, father’s old Agfa camera that took the picture, that he brought back with him from Germany after the war, apparently still exists in the care of the Photographic Society of Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland!! What a pity that the buses it was pointed at on this overcast summer’s afternoon don’t exist along with it!!
Dave Careless
19/03/13 – 17:10
I don’t get back as often as I would like, Dave, and I only live in Surrey. I know of Paul, and have met him a couple of times – once when he brokered a second hand copy of Charles Halls book for me. Paul is better known by my closest school friend, Ian Manning.
David Oldfield
20/03/13 – 06:11
That’s interesting David, I wasn’t aware of the connection. I know Ian a little bit, he gave me a splendid run around Paisley one evening many years ago in a Clydeside Scottish Routemaster, truly expertly driven, one of the best RM rides I’ve ever had. Happy times!
Dave Careless
20/03/13 – 08:18
A great picture Dave. There were line-ups like this every day of the week. Different combinations all the time. Today’s wheeled boxes will never compare. Hope you have more to follow. Thanks for posting.
Les Dickinson
20/03/13 – 08:55
Well said, Les. Like the wheeled boxes. No sane person would “bad mouth” the (generally) well run and well kept fleets in London, Manchester or Birmingham. They were however, to quote a friend, boring in their ultra standardisation. Sheffield did have standard buses in that they had (the usual) dual sourcing policy from preferred suppliers. For many years this was Leyland and AEC – latterly Daimler when AEC deckers were no more. Weymann was a standard supplier until they folded in 1963. Alongside were Leyland and Craven pre WWII and then Roe in the ’50s. The interest was in the constant “odd” purchases and those unique to the JOC B & C fleets. The standards were still as high, if not higher than those in the standard fleets.
David Oldfield
20/03/13 – 10:04
Perhaps we’re biased David, but I loved the variety. I had a piece in Buses Yearbook 2012 about some of the unique and unusual buses in the fleets at Sheffield. Nothing too technical, just a layman’s notes really. Things like the Mann Egerton deckers, Strachans, Cawood, Craven bodies all added to the unique character. ECW bodies in a “municipal” fleet, Alexander bodies on 30 foot Regent Vs, Regent V fronts on Regent IIIs. Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be?
Les Dickinson
20/03/13 – 12:33
Enjoyed your piece in BY 2012, Les. I’m not going to apologise for being biased.
David Oldfield
20/03/13 – 12:34
I’m not convinced by David’s statement that the Manchester fleet suffered from ultra standardisation. Between 1950 and 1964 (the end of front engined, rear entrance deliveries) there were no less than 3 basic designs from MCW (Post War Standard, Phoenix and Orion) plus Atlanteans and Fleetlines and the Orions alone had 3 different versions – 4 if you want to be picky – plus umpteen variations of window vents making many individual vehicles look different, not to mention two versions of Cave Brown Cave heating/cooling. In addition there were 2 different Northern Counties body styles, 2 versions of the standard Leyland body and Manchester’s modified Burlingham bodies on Leyland and Daimler, each looking different. Add in the trolleybuses, Post War Standards of two body widths on Leyland, Daimler and Crossley and anyone on the street in Manchester would be faced with a wide variety. By 1964 Manchester had also changed the front end of its rear engined vehicle deliveries and it was only 4 more years until the Mancunians arrived adding to the variety.
Phil Blinkhorn
20/03/13 – 16:19
Excellent – taken before my time in Sheffield, but the LWE and SWE batches were still active in 1965. I came through Castleton on Saturday, and the 72 bus is recognisable as the 272, now running every hour.
Geoff Kerr
20/03/13 – 16:28
I think its safe to say that the only Yorkshire municipal operator who had a standardised fleet at that time was Todmorden with all Leyland Titans, all the others had something different. Bradford rebodied second hand trolleys. Doncaster trolleybus bodies rebuilt for motor buses. Halifax a very mixed fleet triple sourced chassis plus the odd Loline and Albion saloon for good measure. Huddersfield no corporation motor buses until the sixties the JOC had Guy saloons. Hull dual door trollies a big influx of second hand deckers to ease the way to one man operation. Leeds a very odd collection of saloons three chassis types for eight buses triple sourced chassis polished bonnets. Middlesborough ECW bodied Leylands and Guys Dennis Lolines. Rotherham single deck trolleys all rebuilt to double deck. Sheffield has already been discussed and the aforementioned. Todmorden and the companies were just as exiting even THC owned WYRCC ran pre-war Bristol Ks until well in the sixties. Now we have the ubiquitous Wright bodied deckers and little of real interest to those of a certain age!
Chris Hough
20/03/13 – 16:36
Les, the variety you mention that was so much a part of the Sheffield scene back then was, as you say, very much in evidence every day, and I needed to go no further than the bottom of the small cul-de-sac where my aunt lived, which ran off Owler Lane, to witness it. Not only were there PD2’s like 623 here, on the 17 service, which had only just supplanted the trams, and themselves replaced the following year by first generation Atlanteans and then again later by the magnificent Roe-bodied PD3’s, there was a steady stream of Cravens, Roberts and Weymann bodied Regent III’s on the peak hour workers services, shuttling between the large housing estates of Southey Green and Parson Cross and the miles of giant steelworks at Brightside and Templeborough. And just a few yards down the road were even more wonderful Regents, turning every few minutes at the Reform Chapel to head back along Petre Street to the city, and out the other side to the more fashionable suburbs of Graves Park and Hollythorpe Rise. On Saturdays, just to liven things up, the new 30-footers would often get on there as well, both Weymann and Alexander ones. To sit there on the stone wall and watch it all go by was really quite magical.
Dave Careless
20/03/13 – 17:45
My maternal grandmother lived on Woodhouse Road (Intake) and we saw her every Saturday. My little stone wall was by the shops at the junction of Woodhouse Road and Mansfield Road, Dave. AECs on the 95 and 41, lowbridge Orions on the 15/19/21, various PD2s on the 23. [Not to mention EMMS 3 and 46.] Even half an hour, free of the family, on the stone wall was bliss.
David Oldfield
20/03/13 – 17:46
In my run down of the Yorkshire municipals and their oddities I forgot to mention Teeside Railless who pinned their hopes on the trolleybus for their entire existence and beyond, they rebodied many trollies and had some ex Reading ones at the very end. Equally their motor bus policy was a straight Leyland/Roe one unlike their immediate neighbours Middlesborough who quickly went to Fleetlines with NCME bodywork.
Chris Hough
21/03/13 – 06:14
To follow on from Chris’s recent post, around these parts (which I shall call “Youhill-land”) I find that the attire of the staff now provides more interest than the vehicles: “high-vis” or not; jeans or uniform (?) trousers; baseball cap – First (and who decided that a baseball cap was appropriate uniform issue?) or random – or not; woolley hat – see previous – or not; there seem to have been so many changes of uniform over the years that I can’t actually work out whether uniform or “smart casual” is being worn, but the permutations/combinations seem endless; tinted sunglasses/mirrored sunglasses of myriad styles – even in sunless winter; and whoever might be accompanying the driver – offspring, girl/boy-friend, wife, friend, “random pick-up” – draped over front dash.
Philip Rushworth
21/03/13 – 06:17
Dave Oldfield, you forgot the Chesterfield contribution of Titans on the 62/4, also passing your look-out post on the wall, and what about the Sheffield Regent III’s on the 25 Beighton, 26 Killamarsh, 30 Eckington. That wall must have seen much excitement over the years. Were you still there when the EMMS Alexander Lowlanders started passing by? Happy Days.
Les Dickinson
21/03/13 – 10:54
Yes, Les, I had forgotten – but it’s fifty years of decline (mine and the buses) which has passed in the interim. Lowlanders? Not sure. The sojourn on my wall ended after my translation to (the original) King Edward VII School. …..but Oh the memories.
David Oldfield
21/03/13 – 17:30
David, another strategically placed stone wall was at the bottom of Burngreave Road, at Firvale. There was all kinds of activity there, including Tracky, West Riding and Yorkshire Woollen buses on the 65 group of services, but best of all the KWA-PD2’s pounding up the hill towards the city every few minutes on the 150/151. The trams shuttling between Meadowhead and Sheffield Lane Top made for a spectacular sight at this location as well, not to mention the full range of splendid sound effects.
Dave Careless
22/03/13 – 07:44
…..and Burngreave Vestry Hall could almost combine both of them – but I’m not convinced there was a suitable wall upon which to perch.
David Oldfield
22/03/13 – 07:46
I well remember the KWA registered batch of PD2s on the Shiregreen services. My Grammar School was at the top of the long climb from Pitsmoor and I decided that the 150/1 to Bridge Street was a better bet than the almighty crush to board a tram into the City (who says we schoolboys were better behaved in those days? – at least we didn’t use the foul language commonplace on school journeys nowadays – probably didn’t even know it!) Back to the buses, the initial 537-557 batch of PD2s had green rexine across the top of the lower saloon front bulkhead whereas the later ones had this area painted cream. Just a small detail but it somehow made them that much more different. Later when I started work I was placed for a time at Ecclesfield which involved journeys on Yorkshire Traction’s PS2 rebodies and later PD3s on the 65 service.
Ian Wild
22/03/13 – 09:09
Firth Park, Ian? Had an interview there – but no-one in Sheffield wanted me and I started my teaching career at Stretford Grammar School. Before then, often enjoyed the delights of Tracky PD3s when visiting relatives in Barnsley and also regularly visited a friend of my father at Pitsmoor/Firshill at the top of the hill between Firvale and Burngreave.
David Oldfield
22/03/13 – 10:18
The inclusion of 178 (SWE 278) in the picture raises another point. This was one of thirty-six similar buses delivered in 1954. Twelve for the A fleet were straight forward, ie 724-735 (SWE 424-435). The others were two for the C fleet, 1154/5, and twelve for the B fleet, 178-199. The registration plates were not issued in line with fleet numbers. SWE 254/5 were issued to 188 & 199, whilst their expected plates (SWE 288/99)went to 1154/5. Presumably this was due to delivery dates vs their “needed on fleet” dates. Can anyone give a definitive explanation of this anomaly please?
Les Dickinson
22/03/13 – 16:29
Can’t help Les, but your maths is shaky. 179 – 199 is twenty-two, not twelve. It was these I was most used to in the Greenhill/Lowedges area.
David Oldfield
22/03/13 – 16:30
I might be able to, Les. According to friend and long-time Sheffield observer and enthusiast, Keith Beeden, due to their long-distance work, it was decided to fit the two ‘C’ fleet examples, 1154/5, with saloon heaters to provide some passenger comfort in winter. Problem was, somebody at Queens Road made a mistake and the heaters accidentally got fitted in the wrong buses, 188 and 199!! Rather than mess about with the heaters any more, the simpler solution was to swap the two buses that had received them with the two actual ‘C’ fleet examples, which ended up in the ‘B’ fleet, bearing the numbers of the two which had been switched out. Which just goes to prove that if you look long and hard enough, you’ll find there’s usually a reason for everything!! Towards the end of its life, SWE 299 made a memorable last trip to Bradford, organised by local enthusiasts, and once it got into its stride, acquitted itself very well despite its advancing years, and the jeers and taunts from the crews of other buses on the service that it encountered along the way!!
Dave Careless
22/03/13 – 16:31
I used to be a pupil at firth park Grammer from 62-67. It was on the way home where I learnt the skill of jumping off the bus as it went from Haymarket onto High St. It was a Policeman on point duties at the time, no traffic lights. The tram replacement no 75 (via Burngreave to Sheffield Lane Top), were AEC 5 Regents, Roe & Alexandra bodies. Many were garaged at Brammall Lane. I remembered them being delivered. The no 17 to Sheffield Lane Top (via Attercliffe & Page Hall Road) were all Leylands with Roe bodywork. There was a fatal accident on Page Hall Road, no 475 I think. The picture in the paper at the time showed no damage to the bus!
Andy Fisher
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
23/03/13 – 07:38
Has anyone any info. on the BWB reg. TD5s with Craven bodies?
Jim Hepburn
23/03/13 – 07:39
David O – no, I went to De La Salle Grammar on Scott Road at Firshill.
Ian Wild
23/03/13 – 09:05
Deep apologies, Ian. Taught at a Catholic Public School down here in Surrey and discovered that the father of two of my pupils was a De La Salle boy. [A friend, Old Edwardian, is Head of Music at Notre Dame. Was it deliberate to have them as far apart as possible at either end of the city?]
David Oldfield
23/03/13 – 16:06
Going back to Chris Hough’s comments about standardisation, particularly the TRTB bus fleet: Although it is true that all purchases from the late 1950s onwards were the Leyland/Roe combination, the all-Leyland buses (4 PD1A, 12 PD2/1) that formed the immediate post-war fleet renewal formed more than 50% of the bus fleet until the arrival of the 1965 Leopards. As late as 1967 they could still be found doing duty on the ‘T’ service into Middlesbrough. Add the pair of Dalesman-bodied coaches, and it was far from being an uninteresting fleet in the mid-60s!
Alan Murray-Rust
23/03/13 – 17:50
I went to De La Salle as well Ian, as you know and for shame was one of the mob of boys fighting to get on to a tram at the end of Scott Road for a while.The same tram transported me across the city to Abbey Lane where we lived back then. When the trams were replaced by buses on the 61/63 services instead, between Abbey Lane and Shirecliffe, I used to walk to and from Burngreave Road and could avoid the crush at Scott Rd. Also the tram replacement buses were the Roe bodied Leyland PD3s which I always thought were quality vehicles, even with their tin fronts. The other attraction, as noted elsewhere was the proximity of the bus stop to Burngreave Convent school for Girls! In reply to David O, if it was policy to keep us boys and girls apart it didn’t work as my wife was a student at Notre Dame, but we’re getting away from the subject here.
Yorkshire Woollen District 1958 Leyland PD2/30 Roe H33/26RD
Sheffield buses seem to have a very keen following on the site, so this ex-pat in disguise may be of interest. Around 1970/71 Yorkshire Woollen District were experiencing acute maintenance problems resulting in severe vehicle shortages, and a number of most unlikely temporary second-hand acquisitions appeared on the Dewsbury scene. These included Bristol K’s from West Yorkshire, KSW’s from United, AEC Bridgmasters from South Wales and PD2’s, Atlanteans and Leopards from Sheffield. One of these was 3156 WE, which had been new to the Sheffield ‘C’ fleet as their 1156 in 1958. With the takeover of the wholly owned British Railways ‘C’ Fleet by the National Bus Company it passed to YWD as their 135 in 1970, in which form it is seen here at Savile Town garage in late June 1971. Renumbered 466 in 1971 it was withdrawn in 1972. Sold to North’s, the dealer, of Sherburn-in-Elmet in early 1973, they quickly sold it to Don’s of Dunmow, Essex. It was later secured for preservation and by 1997 was owned by First Mainline forming part of their heritage collection – even receiving group fleet number 30386 ! It is now part of the South Yorkshire Transport Museum collection.
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer
21/04/13 – 09:58
This Sheffield exile in the south has only been on 1156 once in preservation, a couple of years ago, but she was rather fine on that occasion – taking a full load from Meadowhall to the museum in Rotherham.
David Oldfield
22/04/13 – 10:21
Any idea what that is behind 1156, John? It looks suspiciously like another of the same batch from Sheffield. [Although if it’s 1162, it was delivered on it’s own in 1960 after the last of the “B” fleet Regent Vs (1325-1349). This would follow on logically – all had Roe bodies with platform doors – but it seemed strange to be separated from the other PD2s by two years.]
David Oldfield
22/04/13 – 14:36
I did not make any notes at the time, but it certainly would be another like 135. YWD had 135-140 (3156-3161 WE), and 141 (6162 WJ), as well as two ECW-bodied PD2’s, 142/143 (YWB 152/153).
John Stringer
23/04/13 – 08:06
I remember an occasion when a defect affected a Sheffield J.O.C Leyland Atlantean on the joint service 66 Sheffield to Bradford service whilst it was passing through Heckmondwike. Yorkshire Woollen supplied a change over in the guise of one of their former buses from the Roe bodied batch.
Philip Carlton
23/04/13 – 08:07
This particular vehicle didn’t seem to stay with Yorkshire Woollen very long following it’s full repaint. At fourteen years it wasn’t exactly an old bus, had YWD’s difficulties eased by 1972 or did they just run these until the COF’s expired?
Chris Barker
24/04/13 – 07:49
In August 1971 YWD undertook a major service revision (reduction) and a major extension of OMO which saw off most of the ex Sheffield buses. When I worked at Frost Hill in the Hebble coaching unit summer 1972 I would travel home to Bradford on one of the last few of these regularly, but as we took delivery of the K registered Leopards and Fleetlines, all the half cabs except the Lowlanders, PD3’s and converted PS2’s were withdrawn.
Ken Aveyard
24/04/13 – 15:15
135 is blinded for route “C”, Ravensthorpe-Dewsbury-Ossett. This route, together with “B” (which avoided Earlsheaton between Dewsbury and Ossett), became routes 46/47 under the August 1971 revisions referred to by Ken, when the ex-tramway routes became numbered instead of lettered. At the same time YWD vacated its Frost Hill, Liversedge, Depot into which Hebble – now the coach unit of the “West Riding Group” – then moved.
Latterly, Massey double deck bodies adopted a much squarer outline than the curvy designs of previously, giving them a less stylish but nonetheless quite purposeful air. Here we see one of Wigan Corporation’s final batch of so-equipped PD2’s, about to depart the town’s bus station for Wrightington Hospital, whilst a flock of archetypal bus station pigeons hover in the background. What is it about pigeons and bus stations?
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer
12/05/13 – 09:54
It’s interesting that this is the first appearance of a Wigan bus in the column on the left. For such a proud operator – look, no external adverts! – I’d have expected others to have got in before you, John. Thanks for posting. Wigan and Leigh, having both avoided the dreaded SELNEC were appalled at the thought they should both fall into the renamed PTE’s clutches by being absorbed into the new County of Greater Manchester. It’s very timely in view of yesterday’s FA cup result! Did our editor have his crystal ball polished specially while deciding when to post it?
Pete Davies
12/05/13 – 09:55
In Wigan bus station it was all about pecking the crumbs left by the Pie Eaters!! Well done Wigan on winning the Cup – now just ensure you stay up so the town truly becomes a first rate two sport venue. Oh, nearly forgot, the PD2. That front dome is very heavy – almost in the same league as Alexander’s Balloon Roof dome. The curvy designs were seen as dated by the late 1960s and the more upright front profile mirrors Manchester’s attempts with its Burlingham and MCW Orion bodied PD2s.
Phil Blinkhorn
12/05/13 – 10:15
Actually Pete, Leigh Corporation passed into SELNEC (Northern) with all the others in 1969. Only Wigan suffered as a result of the l974 fiasco.
John Stringer
12/05/13 – 17:20
I sit corrected, John!
Pete Davies
12/05/13 – 17:21
The front spot/fog light is situated in an unusual position. I assume the route to Wrightington Hospital was joint with Ribble – being numbered 343. Was Wigan the last operator to continue with coloured “identifier” lights? James (of Ammanford) used a single green light mounted under the canopy on half-cabs and outside the front near-side windscreen of underfloor single-deckers, the last being so fitted were its 1957 Tiger Cubs. Were there any other users between 1957 and 1974?
Philip Rushworth
13/05/13 – 07:43
Yes, Philip, the 343 was joint with Ribble. A similar one, the 333, showed DANGEROUS CORNER on some blinds. I trust the drivers took suitable precautions!
Pete Davies
13/05/13 – 07:43
Maynes still had their identifier lights after Wigan was absorbed into GMT
Phil Blinkhorn
13/05/13 – 07:44
This route was one I used often when living in Wrightington. It was joint with Ribble but each operator actually took a slightly different route. The Wigan version took a direct route while the Ribble version went under a low railway bridge which meant that it was always single decked. At the time I was using it these were Ribble’s iconic 36ft Leopards. This version of the service was numbered 333. Phil the green lights were discontinued from 1957 on saloon but retained on double deckers until the last deliveries in 1972
Chris Hough
13/05/13 – 15:43
Chris, did you find that the Ribble buses were governed so their top speed was around 30 mph? Frustrating if the bus was running late.
Jim Hepburn
14/05/13 – 07:52
There must have been a time when Wigan Corporation vehicles appeared on the 333 as I can remember seeing a photo (in BBF6, I think) of a Tiger Cub standing on the then Wigan Bus Station displaying the famous destination ‘333 Dangerous Corner’. My memory says that the route was extended to Wrightington Hospital in the early 1960s and the destination ‘Dangerous Corner’ ceased to be used. There could well have been periods when only Ribble vehicles appeared on the 333, but it would have remained technically ‘joint’ of course.
David Call
15/05/13 – 07:39
Wigan was one of a group of North West municipal operators who reverted to the Leyland exposed radiator after previously having deliveries of Titans with both the BMMO and St Helens style ‘tin fronts’. Stockport and Ramsbottom were the others that come to mind. Another interesting feature of the Wigan fleet was of course the unfathomable fleet numbering system. In the Ian Allan BBF’s the registration numbers were used to define the batches of vehicles with the fleet numbers being allocated in what appeared to be a completely random way. Does anybody know the reason for this (if there was one)?
Philip Halstead
16/05/13 – 14:00
Some of the posts on this site are critical of the role of the PTEs as bus operators – with reference to both their size and sometimes controversial liveries, although this is clearly a subjective matter. The PTEs have stood the test of time, despite the upheavals since 1969 in both the bus industry and local government, but it is interesting to speculate on what might have happened if they had been just coordinating bodies from the outset, with the bus operations left in the hands of local authorities. After all, there was already a great deal of joint operation in the area which became Greater Manchester, between the various municipal operators and between them and the company operators Ribble, LUT and North Western, and it seems that little was gained by creating a mega-operator with over 2,500 buses and standardised staff conditions etc. In 1974, local government reorganisation would have seen mergers between Wigan and Leigh, Bury and Ramsbottom and between Ashton and SHMD, maybe each with a new livery. While the last-mentioned would have been a merger of equals, no doubt the other two would have been seen locally as ‘takeovers’! This would have left Trafford as the only non-operating district. What would have been the implications of this?
Geoff Kerr
16/05/13 – 15:26
Geoff, a very interesting post which raises the potential of many hypothesis. I’m not going to speculate on what might have been but will make the following points: When Henry Mattinson established the Express Services in the late 1920s he prefigured SELNEC/GMT by 41 years and had he not died prematurely he may well have been able to both defend the services against the railways, taxi drivers and haulage companies and restructure the routings through the city to avoid Market St and the congestion thereon. There is some evidence that he had some form of deeper integration in mind. His successor, Stuart Pilcher, had other fish to fry but Henry’s far-sightedness led to an unprecedented co-operation, through running arrangements and revenue sharing which, by 1968 had become somewhat unwieldy, especially in terms of mileage sharing, fare structures and revenue split. Whatever the political motives behind the formation of the PTEs were, there was a sound economic, operating and purchasing reason to pull the bus operations in the conurbation together, local pride and the views of enthusiasts were a long way down the list of priorities. In effect the job was incomplete until GMT pulled in Wigan, LUT and the share of North Western. In GMT times, especially under Labour, there was a definitive drive to finalise what had been started over 10 years previously and to give the operation an identification with Greater Manchester in a similar way to that which had been the case when the pre SELNEC operators served there own areas. The SELNEC/GMT “standard bus” carried forward the well proven Manchester ideal of trying to achieve cost savings and spares rationalisation – though, as ever, there were a large number of deviations. The anomaly of Trafford not having an operator within its boundaries arises from the fact that, from tram days, MCTD had set itself up in competition with the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway which served Altrincham and, by default, Stretford and Sale on the way. As the route to Altrincham was the only real money spinner in the area, there was little room for the boroughs that now form Trafford to become involved, Manchester and North Western serving the branch routes off the A56. The history of Manchester’s tram and bus operation along the A56 is littered with obstruction from both Stretford Council and the railway so there is no doubt that any operator set up by Altrincham, Sale or Stretford would have had problems both with each other and certainly with Manchester, though the problem never arose as even an SHMD type operation between the towns would have had few viable routes. Had SELNEC/GMT never appeared, presumably after 1974, Manchester Corporation would have continued its presence in the Trafford area, as would NWRCC.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/05/13 – 07:19
Phil The idea of a single operating authority was also discussed in West Yorkshire in the thirties when the then Leeds manager W. Vane Morland suggested a PTE like organisation. One factor at the time which put brakes on the idea was the high degree of railway involvement in several of the operators. It is also interesting that from 1974 when the later PTEs were set up no more large NBC companies were dismembered. The companies based in the new West and South Yorkshire PTEs all had clearly defined territories where in the main the old municipal operators did not run except on joint services, indeed although West Yorks PTE was based in Wakefield it ran no services there. But oh how I wish LUT were still in existence!
Chris Hough
16/07/13 – 07:51
Hi Philip I live in Wigan & when I was a youngster used to have a fleet list (don’t have it anymore). I seem to recall that all the buses were numbered 1 to 150 & so each new bus took the number of one retired. Hence over time the numbering appears to be completely random.
Nigel
28/02/15 – 17:38
I used to drive, as a casual driver for Ribble Motors in the 1980’s, and believe it or not, the height warning in the cabs of the Leyland Nationals indicated that they wouldn’t fit under the bridge in Mill Lane, but they always did. JUST! When Red Bridge, at Standish Lower Ground still had its top span on, the newer double deckers that Wigan Corporation ran, wouldn’t fit under it. Only the older ones with the flatter tops would. So the newer ones always had a warning in the cab about this. Imagine my surprise when I was waiting for the bus in Shevington, to go to school round about 1957, and a newer bus arrived to pick us up. I said to my mate, “this bus won’t fit under the bridge” He told me not to be so stupid. Guess who was right?
Brian
01/03/15 – 06:48
I know the Dangerous Corner references are nearly 2 years old, but I have only just seen them. As well as Dangerous Corner on the A5209 near Wrightington, there is also a place with that name on the A577 near Atherton, I wonder if Wigan would have had that as a destination as well. There is even a 3rd location with that name, it is in Yorkshire on the A59 near Menwith Hill though I can’t see that one appearing on a bus blind.
John Lomas
01/03/15 – 06:52
The reference to pigeons reminds me of a certain inspector at a certain underground (well, under-carpark) coach station in Manchester who did not like passengers who asked an excessive number (i.e., 2+) questions. He carried a pocket full of bird seed and would quietly stroll behind said passenger, scattering the good seed as he went – the resulting flocks of pigeons soon sent the passenger on their way!
John Hodkinson
02/03/15 – 07:29
I don’t think Wigan Corporation ran to the Dangerous Corner on the A577 near Atherton but Leigh Corporation certainly did and carried that destination on their blinds.
Michael Keeley
02/03/15 – 15:37
Here’s a shot of a SELNEC ex-Leigh PD2 destined for the ‘other’ Dangerous Corner near Atherton. www.flickr.com/photos/81936099
David Call
02/03/15 – 17:56
With the “home made” style radiator grille, it looks as if it has had a more serious encounter at “Dangerous Corner” – this one or somewhere!
Michael Hampton
03/03/15 – 06:24
True, Michael- or was it cross-bred with a Guy – a Leyland Arabic?
Joe
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
28/01/17 – 10:58
I’m surprised no one has mentioned that this was one of the last Massey built bodies as Northern Counties took over in 1968.
Pioneer Coaches 1958 Leyland Titan PD2/41 East Lancs H35/28R
This vehicle was new to Lancaster City Transport and its registration was 128 DTD. After withdrawal it spent a period with OK Motor Services – Bishop Auckland, and used as a Driver Trainer. It then spent a period in Preservation with the Cumbria Bus Preservation Group before going to Pioneer Coaches, Jersey, Channel Islands and being converted to an Open Topper for use on Round Island Sightseeing Tours.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth
18/07/13 – 07:47
This bus is now resident in the Scilly Isles
Chris Hough
21/07/13 – 07:22
At a quick glance this could so easily be mistaken for a Leyland body. Only a quick glance, mind you !
John Stringer
21/07/13 – 07:24
Well, well, well, the old girl’s looking good. SCT61 followers will be aware that this was probably my least favourite bus whilst it was with the OK as I’ve often grumbled about it. This was for a number of reasons, one of which being that it was never painted into OK livery but retained its rather washed-out Lancaster colours so never really looked the part. During almost two years with OK, although its main duties were as a driver-trainer, DTD made a number of appearance on service on Summer Saturdays when everything else was out, mainly on Evenwood and mainly, it always seemed, for part of the day on yours truly’s shift! As a result of an attempted – though, thankfully, unsuccessful – serious assault one night it went further down in my estimation. I’m not generally a fan of open-toppers but it looks extremely smart in this livery: not bad for almost 56 years old.
Alan Hall
22/07/13 – 06:49
A picture of DTD 128 as the Driver Trainer with OK Motor Services can be seen on flickr at www.flickr.com/photos/
Stephen Howarth
22/07/13 – 07:13
Here is a picture of Pioneer Coaches ‘Oliver’ doing what it was bought to do, carrying a good load of happy holiday makers – upper deck only though – on the Round Island Tour. It is seen here on The Five Mile Road or La Grande Route des Mielles which runs along St Ouen’s Bay to the West of the Island. The protection of the natural landscape has ensured that only limited residential development has occurred along the road. The tree in the foreground and those in the background show clearly which way the wind blows off the Atlantic. There is nothing between this point on Jersey and Newfoundland.
This picture shows Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Transport XTC 855 and Oldham Corporation Passenger Transport NBU 508 in Oldham’s Wallshaw Street Depot.
The photograph shows the cast fleet number plate that was a feature of the Oldham fleet at that time. In this view 408s Coat of Arms is on the lower deck panel, until, like Ashton, they were moved to the front upper deck panels. This was to save the costs of replacement when damage occurred due to accidents. The Service 3 was Middleton to Rushcroft. 408 was renumbered as 5308 in the SELNEC fleet in November 1969. The picture shows the vast expanse of the roof of Wallshaw Street depot. The Garage roof having only 3 stanchions, supporting girders with spans of over 200ft. Ashton XTC 855 was one of the Guy Arab IVs with Bond H32/28R bodywork delivered as No. 40 in 1956. Here it has Fleet No. 68 which it received in 1964. It was renumbered 5468 at the formation of SELNEC in November 1969. It can be seen that the Corporation crest and lettering is in the normal position before being moved to the upper deck front panel (as shown in the photograph of No. 19 in Part One – Ashton under Lyne article by Phil Blinkhorn and Roger Cox). It is in Oldham Garage, showing Service 8 which was the joint Oldham, Ashton, & SHMD service between Oldham and Stalybridge via Hurst Cross.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth
12/09/13 – 16:30
Oldham 408 was numerically the first of five Leyland PD2/20 with Crossley bodies built to Park Royal design, after the takeover by the ACV group. Similar bodies were supplied to Ashton-Under-Lyne and Stockport Corporations at this time Crossley ceased body building soon after, although not before they had built the prototype Bridgemaster, which had many similarities to this body design. The Manchester independent A. Mayne and Son had three AEC Regent V with Park Royal bodywork to the same basic design (although in 30ft length.) These bodies proved inferior to their contemporaries of other makes, and after takeover by Selnec PTE, 409 was overhauled and lasted in service until 1973, the rest of the batch were withdrawn in 1970. Ashton-Under-Lyne Corporation was a Leyland User, and had only the one batch of Guy Arab IV’s. These were unusual in having exposed radiators and 5LW engines, as well as the relatively rare body make. I enjoyed several rides on these interesting buses from Ashton to Mossley, this route being their usual home. I wonder why an Ashton bus was inside Oldham’s depot? At first I wondered if it was one of the many buses hired from other operators as a result of the disastrous visit by Ministry of transport inspectors in October 1965. However David Wayman’s book on Oldham buses states that there were no Ashton buses involved. Perhaps it had broken down in Oldham.
Don McKeown
13/09/13 – 06:30
An interesting photo of a neighbouring municipality’s vehicle interloping into the home fleet’s garage. I would venture this was a relatively rare occurrence in its day unless someone can enlighten us. The photo has made me realise what an attractive design the Bond bodies were in a fairly understated way. The Guy radiator looks a bit old fashioned and puts about 10 years on the body design though. The Birmingham tin front would have made them into really stunning buses. Bolton of course had similar bodies on exposed radiator Leyland PD2’s but somehow the Leyland radiator seemed to age much better and still looked good right up to the end of Titan production.
Philip Halstead
13/09/13 – 08:30
A number of points regarding Don’s comment. The Stockport PD2s with Crossley bodies to the same design didn’t have the same problems as the Oldham batch and some were sent to Oldham after SELNEC took over. As I’m away from home at present I can’t confirm actual vehicles used and the dates but the Stockport vehicles outlasted the Oldham and Ashton batches. The Ashton Guys were specifically bought for the Mossley route – see my article on SELNEC Part One. They appeared on the 7 and 8 from time to time, both being regular Guy turns, more frequently operated with rebodied austerity Guys sporting 7 foot 6 in versions of the Crossley body shown in the picture. What the bus is doing in the depot is a matter of conjecture. It certainly wasn’t a 1965 swap vehicle. A breakdown is possible but as there was always one of the batch spare and it may have been filling in for a broken down Oldham vehicle which came to grief in Ashton’s territory and would have been taken to Mossley Rd. Most of the joint services in the Manchester conurbation had vehicle swap arrangements should a vehicle come to grief in the territory of another operator.
Phil Blinkhorn
13/09/13 – 08:30
I know exactly what the Ashton Guy was doing in the Oldham garage and I even have the negative of this photo (although I didn’t take it). I’ve had to look very carefully as it is quite likely that very similar photographs were also taken. Ashton 68 was on a tour organised by the Buckley Wells Bus Enthusiasts Society. It operated on 9th July 1967 and visited several locations in north Lancashire. Thanks to Stan Fitton, who organised the tour, I have photographs of the Ashton Guy next to Todmorden PD2s, a BCN Guy and an Accrington Wulfrunian. I hope in time to put these in a gallery recounting the history of the Society as I think many will find it an interesting story. Although both these vehicles were allocated SELNEC fleet numbers neither carried them and in fact the Oldham PD2 had been withdrawn some time before SELNEC was formed.
David Beilby
13/09/13 – 16:30
I wonder why the blind was set for route number 8? Has David thwarted a ruse set 46 years ago to confuse future enthusiasts and historians? The date was my 20th birthday and I spent the day riding buses – far away from Oldham however. They were two shades of green, exclusively single deck and carried a coat of arms containing the letters SPQR and a crown. I have in mind an article covering my wanderings on the city and country buses I used around Rome but am having problems finding relevant photos and accurate references to exact types.
Phil Blinkhorn
14/09/13 – 06:24
To quote Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, “Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder”. I consider the elegant and timeless Guy radiator on the Ashton Arab IVs to be much superior in appearance to the bulbous Birmingham style tin front. The best version of the Birmingham front was that fitted to the Dennis Lance K4 which had vertical chrome strips instead of the crude sausage shaped slots. Did these Ashton Arabs really have the 5LW engine? Hitherto, I understood the power plant to be the 6LW. Gardners were always cool runners, an effective oil cooler being an important feature of the engine design. The handsome Bond bodywork exhibits several similarities with contemporary five bay East Lancashire products. Perhaps Bond used the East Lancs frame. Then again, the Harkness bodies of the period had much the same appearance, and these used MetSec frames.
Roger Cox
14/09/13 – 16:19
Roger, as you are aware, I’m away at present but my memory and the references I can find on the Net all point to the 5LW engine. Bond used various frames inc Burlingham but I’ve no knowledge of any use of East Lancs frames and I’d doubt that the Blackburn concern would have supplied frames given just about every batch built by them in the 1950s and 1960s was unique, though I take your point about resemblance, especially the frontal appearance. The Park Bridge service was an oddity. It followed the Oldham Rd to almost the boundary with Hathershaw then turned right down a winding road to Park Bridge, a hamlet established in the 18th century around an iron works. Its timings on weekdays were based around rush hours and a late evening service. Saturday saw an enhanced daytime service for shoppers but, until the closure of the Oldham to Guide Bridge and Stockport rail services in the Beeching era, the halt at Park Bridge provided a more frequent service though Oldham Rd station at Ashton was a good ten minutes walk from the market and shops, the final 200 yards back to the station being up a quite sharp gradient. The hamlet is now a heritage site with beautifully restored houses in a rural setting.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/09/13 – 07:25
Phil, your knowledge of the operators in the Manchester locality is rewardingly comprehensive, and, as you indicated in the Ashton article, these Guys must have been purchased for a specific reason. Nonetheless, it does seem extraordinary that Ashton should specify the 7 litre, 94 bhp 5LW engine to meet a situation that distressed a 9.8 litre, 125 bhp Leyland. The Gardner would assuredly climb a proverbial brick wall without overheating, but progress must have been decidedly sedate. On the subject of the body frames used by Bond, a contributor to the following website, named T W Moore (surely the well known bus photographer) suggests that Bond was an associated company of East Lancs (see the last post on the page):- //cwk205.freeforums.org/ Do you think that this was the case?
On the face of it the use of the 5LW looks odd but there may have been a very logical reason – at least in the minds of the members of the Transport Committee and the General Manager. The order was placed in the period in the 1950s when diesel prices and wages had escalated rapidly putting up costs against a background of increased availability of cars, an increase in home entertainment with a widening of TV output and a resistance against increased fares all of which produced a marked decline in passenger numbers. Small and reduced output engines were not a rare phenomenon in the area and whilst the route to Mossley may have seemed to demand a large engine, a slow plodder which completed the journey, on what was a fairly relaxed schedule, was preferable to an enforced cooling stop or even a breakdown, which had become a regular and expensive enough occurrence. No other route in the system had such demands and the 5LW would have had a more racehorse like performance on the other routes to which Ashton’s Guys were allocated and to which the vehicles would eventually be tasked. I rode on both the Leylands and the Guys and whilst I was under ten at the time the Guys took over, I have memories of their stately progress compared to the rather raucous progress of the Leylands, which included much gear changing and stuttering starts from some of the bus stops on the steeper parts of the route, not to mention the overheating. With regard to Bond, the posting linking the company to East Lancs contains a major nonsense in so far as it places the latter in Bridlington, not once but twice – hardly a typo. Apart from its own bodies Bond did finish bodies for other manufacturers and may well have taken the strain for East Lancs with the Coventry job but, as far as I have understood the rather obscure history of the company, it was totally independent of any other bus body builder, its demise in Wythenshawe coming about after protracted labour disputes between craft unions.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/09/13 – 16:50
Roger’s information with respect to the suggestion that the S.H. Bond concern was an associate of East Lancs. would go a long way towards explaining why the remainder of a batch of nine pre-war Bristol saloons of Rotherham Corporation, of which I think four had been rebodied by East Lancs. at Bridlington when the decision was taken to wind up the seaside operation in 1952, ended up being taken to Bond at Wythenshawe for the work to be done.
Dave Careless
15/09/13 – 16:51
Ashton’s Guy Arab IVs had 6LW engines. I get this information from a very detailed fleet list published by Ashton themselves about 1968 when the buses were part of the current fleet. As (I believe) the only Ashton buses ever fitted with a 6LW it is most unlikely they would have got that wrong. The fleet list shows withdrawn vehicles and the utility Guys are shown correctly with a 5LW engine. Bond bodies were built on Metal Sections frames and were as good as anybody else’s. The closest connection they had to any other coach builder was Brush as the head of their bus operation had come from Brush when they moved out of the business. One of these Guys was earmarked for preservation in early SELNEC days but a significant chassis defect meant that project was stillborn. It’s a shame as one of these would have been a fine testimony to a local coachbuilder, the sole representative being a contemporary Ashton trolleybus.
David Beilby
15/09/13 – 18:05
Phil, East Lancs did have a subsidiary business at Bridlington as the following web page confirms:- www.ebay.com/itm/ I do, however, agree with your assessment of the situation in that any connection between Bond and East Lancs occurred purely in the course of business; there was no inter company control. I am grateful to David for endorsing my belief that these Ashton Guys had 6LW engines. The revelation that the Bond bodies were built on Metal Section frames also ties in with the visual and quality similarities to the fine Harkness products of that time.
Roger Cox
15/09/13 – 19:19
Dave, I’m a little surprised that either Coventry or Rotherham accepted tenders from the Bridlington operation of East Lancs as I always understood this arm of the operation was to be wound down from the end of 1951, thus my thought that the reference to Bridlington in the link posted by Roger was in error. If the operation was still functioning in 1952, as seems to be the case, then it’s demise must have been delayed then brought on in very short order for vehicles to be moved to Bond, implying a hasty decision and that the Blackburn operation was operating at capacity. Again, the movement to Bond doesn’t imply any legal connection or association. As mentioned before, Bond completed orders for a number of body builders, including three of the 1953 Royal Tiger half decker airport coaches for Manchester for which Burlingham supplied the frames, the Blackpool concern completing the other three itself. David, as I mentioned previously, I’m away from home at the moment so can’t access my own records. If 6LW engines were fitted, they would certainly have been the only ones in the fleet and from a power point of view the bigger engine, as Roger points out, would be more logical though the references I can find say 5LW. The fleet list to which you refer has long been on my “must have” list but seems to be as rare as hens’ teeth.
As a rider to the above, the Commercial Motors’ archive which often can clear up seemingly contentious issues with contemporary news items is silent on both the demise of the Bridlington operation and the Ashton order for the Arab IVs.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/09/13 – 06:28
Bond were initially active in rebuilding before they turned their hand to building new bodies. Ribble was a big customer and most memorable were the early SLT trolleybuses that were given a new lease of life at Wythenshawe. Significantly it appears from the fleet list elsewhere on this site that the Rotherham Bristols that went to Bond were also lengthened to (almost) the recent 30-foot limit, whereas the others were rebodied and remained the original length.
David Beilby
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
17/09/13 – 05:06
Phil, the story of East Lancashire Coachbuilders (Bridlington) Ltd., and sister company, Yorkshire Equipment Company, is a most interesting one. Apparently the latter built school furniture, desks and cupboards etc., and even constructed a furniture van body on an old Rotherham Bristol JO5G chassis with which to deliver the items to schools around the country. Unfortunately, as orders for bus bodies and school desks inevitably dwindled, and commitment from owners wavered, the search for a buyer was unsuccessful, and both companies went into voluntary liquidation in mid-1952.
Dave Careless
19/11/13 – 18:04
In the comment above you make reference to Yorkshire Equipment being a subsidiary of East Lancs and being a school furniture maker. I had my own website back in Gocities days and had a page for makers. In doing research for Mann Egerton of Norwich, I found a US site that had school desks made by them. At one time they also made radios! Varied markets for many!
Yorkshire Traction Company Ltd 1952 Leyland Titan PD2/12 Leyland H58R
A friend of my then wife to be was married at Worsborough Church on a Saturday in July 1968. Whilst we were outside the church, this YTC decker appeared on the service from Barnsley to Worsborough Park. Although 16 years old by this time the Leyland bodywork still looked in good condition – something I regularly found with Leyland bodywork on Sheffield vehicles. A couple of months later I joined PMT at Stoke on Trent, a fellow BET Group Operator where 1952 deliveries had long disappeared out of the fleet.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
04/11/13 – 07:16
These are sisters to STD 656-667, my favourite Leyland bodied PD2s. I think most people are agreed on the excellence of post war Leyland bodywork, and indeed the immediate pre war examples as well. Like all good designs, they also had an understated dignity. Wasn’t Worsborough the home of Arthur Scargill?
David Oldfield
04/11/13 – 13:05
I think he lived at Worsbrough Dale – a different bus route!
Geoff Kerr
04/11/13 – 13:30
This rather pleasant countryside between Barnsley & Sheffield was certainly Arthur’s patch, although he mined at Woolley, north of Barnsley. Nice atmospheric picture with the Bus, Herald, Minivan, & Farina BMC saloon- all to be themselves part of an unhappy marriage. There’s a West Riding Police House behind, detached- so Sergeants and upwards for the use of. Typical Tracky bus with multiple dome dents & that cherry paint everywhere except the windows- although here we have that metallic looking maroon that popped up now and again on radiators etc- perhaps wheels- is that right? An old comment about Tracky governor twiddling may explain why they all seemed slow and wheezy- they were like a familiar but well worn jacket.
Joe
04/11/13 – 16:58
…..but was that a governor on the engine – or the one in the big chair in the office…..?
David Oldfield
05/11/13 – 10:37
David O, here follows Pete’s “First Rule Of Office Life”. When the boss is away from the office – holiday, sick, meeting, or whatever – nobody notices. When the junior is away from the office – holiday, sick, College, whatever – the place falls apart. Joe’s reference to governor must, therefore have been the one in the office!
Pete Davies
05/11/13 – 15:08
These Tracky PD2’s might be considered sisters to those Sheffield Titans 656-667, David, but would it be fair to perhaps go one step further and say they were estranged sisters?! Agreed they’re nice looking buses, those Leyland bodies were nothing if not elegant, but compared to those Sheffield PD2/10’s, there’s definitely something lacking here. Maybe it was the fact that the Sheffield ones had push-out vents in the front windows of both saloons, or could it have been the chromium wheel nut rings that they usually wore, at least until the latter part of their careers, making them appear just that bit smarter than your average PD2. Granted the Sheffield livery helped too, especially the variation that they were painted in, with the dark blue window surrounds, and when they had the grey roof applied as well, they were absolutely the bee’s knees. Quite ironic really, that such classic machines spent most of their lives shuttling back and forth to Rotherham on the 69, passing miles and miles of smoke belching steelworks!
Dave Careless
05/11/13 – 15:52
Dave- the thing that people liked – I think- about the Sheffield cream livery was that it was an act of defiance against the tyranny or acceptance of muck! Does anyone remember “there will one day be salmon again in Salmon Pastures!” Are there now?
Joe
06/11/13 – 07:30
If there are, Joe, it would definitely be a case of “catch and release”! Given the state of the River Don, you certainly wouldn’t catch me eating one!
Dave Careless
06/11/13 – 07:32
Joe, you’re probably right, and one can admire Sheffield for daring to stand out against the acceptance of grime. But you know the old saying “Where there’s muck, there’s brass!” Sheffield and many other cities have lost an awful lot of the industry that produced the muck, and the jobs that went with it. A colleague of mine used to say the country is just being turned into a giant theme park. That view is certainly supported by the Noddy playbus “liveries” that we have today.
Stephen Ford
06/11/13 – 07:32
I agree, Dave, that “ours” were a cut above the rest – but I always thought that the old STD was a cut above the rest anyway.
David Oldfield
06/11/13 – 07:34
I hadn’t thought of it as a sister bus to Sheffield’s most elegant 656-667. Two immediate differences – Sheffield’s were on the 7’6″ wide PD2/10 chassis (vs the Traction PD2/12 8’0″ wide) and the Sheffield buses were the first in the fleet which had the then new smaller slightly more inset headlamps. These differences plus the upper deck front push open ventilators set 656 etc apart from other contemporary Sheffield deliveries. I remember the name Salmon Pastures but I can’t recall now just where it was on the River Don.
Ian Wild
07/11/13 – 15:27
Salmon Pastures was/is between Norfolk Bridge and Staniforth Road, Ian, that area around there, just before you get into Attercliffe. My auntie lived in T.W. Ward’s office building as a child (my grandparents were caretakers there, and had a live-in flat) just along Savile Street from the Wicker Arches, and she went to school at Salmon Pastures.
Northern General Transport 1957 Leyland Titan PD2/12 Park Royal H35/28RD
Pictured outside Consett Depot, VUP 761 is a Park Royal bodied H35/28RD Leyland PD2/12, it was the first in a batch of ten delivered in 1957 – VUP 761/70; We have seen Northern General Transport vehicles with the open platform version of this type of Park Royal body before on this site, the previous ones being the Guy Arab IV’s of Tynemouth and District. The order for these handsome vehicles was initially placed by Sunderland District Omnibus, but prior to delivery they were diverted to Northern and entered service as 1761/70, so I don’t know if any of them got as far as being painted in SDO livery. They were generally to be found earning their keep on the long routes to Darlington and Stockton/Middlesbrough that NGT shared with United, where they were eventually superseded by the Routemasters. 1761 is still looking very smart, but going by the lettering and livery style it was probably nearing the end of its service life at the time this photo was taken, but I don’t think any of these vehicles suffered the indignity of being painted in NBC poppy red.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
20/12/13 – 15:51
I didn’t ever encounter these particular buses, but the combination of the dependable and stolid PD2 chassis with the stylish and well finished Park Royal bodywork of the time always formed a sound and efficient piece of capital equipment. The reputation that Leyland double deckers acquired from the TD1 through to the PD3 was entirely merited, and Park Royal bodywork, until it descended from the sublime to the ridiculous, was always a sound choice. Buses like these attained a level of reliability that present day bus engineers can only dream about.
Roger Cox
20/12/13 – 16:43
Couldn’t agree more, Roger.
David Oldfield
20/12/13 – 17:58
It’s called rugged simplicity lads. There’s a lot to be said for power steering and fully automatic gearboxes -especially when the driver has to collect fares, ensure the passengers are safe and watch out for top deck vandalism – self diagnostics can be a boon to the engineers and heaters, fluorescent lights and high visibility grab rails with low floor accessibility might be great for passengers but the modern bus for all its sophistication is a potential nightmare when it goes wrong.
Phil Blinkhorn
21/12/13 – 07:13
…..and so say all of us, Phil…..
David Oldfield
21/12/13 – 07:13
Power steering can also be a bad thing, Phil. Our half cabs a Percy Main were well maintained, and although heavier, they were perfectly acceptable, and at least they had ‘feel’ whereas the MK1 National was a nightmare on a wet or slippery road. Half the time you didn’t have a clue where the wheels were pointing, and it was more by luck than judgement if you went in the direction you intended to go.
Ronnie Hoye
21/12/13 – 08:32
Only drove a Mk1 National once in good conditions. Light and vague sums up the handling!
David Oldfield
21/12/13 – 13:58
A bendy is even worse, gents! Imagine putting the foot down for a standing start on a frosty morning, and seeing – via your mirrors – the back end advancing sideways towards the wall of a nearby property, while the front end just sits there. I know of one instance in Southampton and I’m sure it isn’t unique . . .
Pete Davies
21/12/13 – 13:58
Notwithstanding all the supposed development work and the well publicised testing in near arctic and sub tropical climes, the National MkI was appallingly unbalanced design with very poor front/back weight distribution. Its one saving grace was the almost indestructible bodywork. Some of the early 11.3 metre production examples went to London Country who, despite the dual door configuration, put the things on the Stevenage Superbus, thereby applying to that ‘premium’ service its first kiss of death. Hatfield and Dunton Green garages were next to receive these bundles of joy for local bus routes. By now Leyland had relaxed its rigid stance and agreed to produce a single door option, and, despite the ultra basic bus seating, a batch of these gems went on Green Line routes 721. 706 and 711. I never drove a National; at this time I worked in the LCBS HQ next to Reigate Garage, where the vicissitudes of the LN were well known. The introduction of these things coincided with a spell of extremely hot weather which caused some kind of meltdown in the gear selection/control mechanism. Also, the misconceived microswitches in the engine cover required someone to push the back panel hard to enable engine starting – it was said that the National was the only bus that needed a boot up the backside to make it go. I did often ride on these early Nationals, and found them to be utterly nasty. Drivers had never experienced such rapid engine acceleration before, and progress consisted of a succession of savage starts and violent stops. The body roll on corners was extreme, requiring passengers to clutch at the handrails to avoid being deposited in the gangway. The very light steering coupled with the long rear overhang behind the back wheels led to a spate of rear end collisions due to the backswing. The much hyped heating system, the rearward pod roof location of which added to the weight imbalance of the design, must have been created by someone with no knowledge of simple physics, since hot air rises everywhere except, apparently, in Leyland, Lancashire. The roof interior soon became Henry Ford’s preferred colour. Certainly the National did improve with time, but the 500 series engine was always a lemon. The MkII addressed several of the problems, but it could never match up to the Bristol RE that Stokes deliberately killed off to boost National sales.
Roger Cox
21/12/13 – 15:22
Brilliant resume of the National, Roger. I am a little more generously inclined to the MkII – but there was no excuse nor was it a substitute for the Series III RE that never was.
David Oldfield
21/12/13 – 18:04
And how did the Lynx measure up to the Nationals I & II?
Chris Hebbron
22/12/13 – 07:17
Lynx? Swearing and bad language should never be allowed on this site.
David Oldfield
22/12/13 – 07:18
It would be fascinating to know just what the warranty arrangements were for the Mk1 Nationals. They were either a nightmare or a milch cow for Leyland judging by the throughput of spares at the Chorley operation in the first few years. There was many an old Leyland hand seen shaking their head and muttering about the legitimacy of the type. On a different tack, just what is it that the Brits don’t like about articulated PSVs? They operate successfully all around the world, including in many countries where snow and ice reign for far longer than in the UK. Certainly those with the power pack driving the rearmost wheels are harder to control in certain conditions but I can’t recall hearing such criticism of the breed anywhere else.
Phil Blinkhorn
22/12/13 – 08:46
Is it the “London Transport Syndrome”, Phil? We didn’t invent it, we didn’t design it so we won’t make any effort to make it work. Oh, and whilst we’re at it, we’ll draw attention to the slightest fault – conveniently glossing over any faults in our own designs. I’m a firm believer in the RM – having both ridden and driven numerous examples. It is fairly well documented, however, that there were numerous teething problems – which were eventually sorted out. [Pride wouldn’t let us design a dog.] The MB and DM(S) weren’t designed by LT, so could be jettisoned as rubbish and failures – but like the Cravens RTs they had long and honourable lives post LT. The Bendis fall into this category. They are not British – and therefore not worth consideration. Oh, goody. Some have gone up in flames. QED. [As a world-wide statistical point, this argument doesn’t hold water.] The Bendis are not bad, I simply don’t like them. Now that is honest!
David Oldfield
22/12/13 – 09:04
According to Bus and Coach Magazine the Maltese Government in August ordered off the road the former LT Mercedes-Benz Citaros following nine fires in one year.
Peter
23/12/13 – 06:55
Roger’s summary of the Leyland National (perhaps a little off-topic here, but I didn’t start it!) is very accurate. For the passengers it was a lively ride accentuated, on those early models, by the shiny seats in an attractive shade of fawn. LT passengers had long enjoyed the tactile pleasures of moquette and slithery seats requiring a steadying hold on the handrail were most unwelcome.
Petras409
23/12/13 – 11:19
This British anti-bendi-bus attitude could simply be the fact that we increase our bus capacity with double-deckers which are familiar here, but nowadays virtually unknown on the continent, so they do it with bendi-buses. Having said that, it seems to me that, as ever, it’s the few influential ones who make the fuss, like Boris, peddling untruths like the rear part squeezing cyclists off the road etc.
Chris Hebbron
23/12/13 – 14:00
David and Chris make excellent points re articulated buses plus there is the “not invented in Britain” syndrome. Berlin operates both double deckers and articulated singles very successfully across a massive area of both intensely urban and semi rural road networks London could easily do the same. London tourism, in particular, has traded on the red double decker for decades as if they were the only double deckers in the world, touting riding on the top deck as a unique experience. As David points out, too many otherwise successful designs have been condemned by LT in its various forms and it was only the break up of LT that catapulted so many industry standard designs onto the streets of London. TfL under Boris has now come up with a very expensive animal compared to the articulated Citaro (£330K new as opposed to £200K) which it has lauded as being the best of all things to urban London, whilst ensuring no-one else can buy one even if they wanted one for the foreseeable future and even then any order would include a licence payment to TfL. Presumably if it turns out to be a dog, work will be done to rectify problems that the rest of the industry will not find out about until years later, (apart from some unusually good journalism from the Mail) see this link www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ whereas the Citaros were stigmatised in short order and very vociferously.
Phil Blinkhorn
23/12/13 – 17:27
Chris Y- did you see (Daily Mail story link above) conductors on a Borisbus for 12 hours a day cost £60K per annum for each bus?
Joe
23/12/13 – 17:28
It always surprised me that, despite North’s selling lots of London Transport (and possibly non-LT ones, too) double-deck buses to European countries such as Belgium/Jugoslavia/Canary Isles/Spain/Portugal, the double-deck principle never really gained momentum. Berlin had DD buses before the war, of course.
Chris Hebbron
24/12/13 – 06:44
Ref. to Joe’s remark on costs of Borisbus conductors, I have never understood why the UK does not adopt the continental method of revenue collection, at least for urban routes – self-cancellation of pre-purchased tickets. It reduces to a minimum driver’s duties as a ticket seller/revenue protector and so cuts down on dwell time at stops. On-the-spot penalty for ticketless travel (spot checks by teams of roving plain-clothes inspectors) is fixed at about 25 times the standard fare. So, provided tickets are checked once in every 25 journeys the operator loses nothing, and the freeloaders gain nothing.
Stephen Ford
24/12/13 – 06:45
These “Borisbus” absurdities are nothing more than a vanity project for a publicity hungry London Mayor. I am not a great fan of the articulated bus, but Johnson’s hysterical condemnation of the Citaros in his self awarded parallel role of “Cyclists’ Champion” was just another headline grabbing stunt. Perfectly sound, expensive public service vehicles (I prefer the old expression) have been flogged off well before their properly depreciated lifespan, at a heavy cost to all national taxpayers (most of whom receive no benefit whatsoever from the huge and disproportionate subsidy handed out to TfL). In their place have come these ridiculous committee designed camels, each having a unit cost far above entirely acceptable, proven, modern designs. Within a few years, these things, neither fish nor fowl (nor barely recognisable as buses) will be deemed too old to continue in passenger transport service within the exclusive, rarefied bubble that seemingly now encompasses London. What then? I do not see realistic operators outside the Metropolis wanting Borisbuses for normal services. No doubt they will be sold off to dealers at hugely discounted prices for school transport operators once the rear doorways have been permanently nailed up.
Roger Cox
24/12/13 – 06:46
Leyland Nationals in the snow would go anywhere the problem was stopping them but the traction was amazing on snow covered roads going up hill.
Michael Crofts
24/12/13 – 06:47
David (Oldfield); living in the Morley area and working in Bradford, between about 1988 and 1990 I probably travelled on a West Riding Lynx up to ten times per week. As you will know West Riding built up a large fleet of these (as they did, of course, with the Guy Wulfrunian!), but the Lynx had a full service life. I found it an attractive vehicle to look at, not especially noisy, fairly comfortable and with very impressive acceleration. I admit I am not a professional busman, either a driver or an engineer, so why do they seem to be so unpopular? You are not the only person to condemn them on this and other forums!
Dave Towers
24/12/13 – 08:31
Boris buses do not have conductors. They are platform attendants – allegedly to prevent customers falling off. It patently hasn’t worked if recent news is to be believed. They do not have anything to do with fare collection or revenue checks. In central London there is already ticket-less operation similar to what you have suggested, Stephen. Personally, I find the Boris bus ugly in the extreme, its linking with the name Routemaster an abomination and its whole existence pointless. Most, if not all, of its useful features are also found in the standard offerings of ADL, Wright-bus and Optare and its usefulness and desirability outside London (new or second hand) is, as Roger said, nigh on none-existent. Dave/Lynx. As said elsewhere, the National had an unassailable body to mitigate against its dreadful engine and handling. The Lynx was so badly designed. The body depended on its bonded glazing and other such features to ensure body rigidity. In practice this didn’t happen. Rattling and twisty body syndrome did. In the general scheme of things the engine was too big for the bus – and contributed to body disintegration – and with the transmission contributed to as clog and anchor style of driving and ride. It didn’t hit the market at an auspicious time, but even so the poor sales represented what operators thought of it. Caldaire was the only big scale operator of the type and probably, like LT mentioned above, had to make it work. Getting rid of so many vehicles would have bankrupt them.
David Oldfield
24/12/13 – 13:45
I seem to be a Rare busman on these pages as I Liked the National. We used to operate them (Crosville) on the C84 service which was a five hour round trip and these buses worked for a living day in and day out fully loaded on lots of trips, they were T reg they spoilt the National by putting Gardener engines in them making them noisy and smelly with no performance ! I had a K reg Lynx as a training bus I believe it was one of the last to be made and always enjoyed driving it.
Michael Crofts
24/12/13 – 15:35
The Lynx came with four engine options, though not concurrently. Early examples had the Leyland TL11 or Gardner 6HLXCT coupled with the Leyland semi auto gearbox. The Cummins L10 and ZF fully auto box were added later, and became the standard when the Leyland and Gardner power options were withdrawn. Then Leyland Bus fell into the clutches of Volvo, and the THD102KF 245 bhp 9.6 litre unit – developed from the AEC engine – was offered as an alternative to the Cummins. All the Lynxes that I drove were Cummins powered, and had the endearing Cummins PT injection system characteristic of a total lack of logical liaison with accelerator pressure. Depressing the pedal brought no response until the engine revved up to a level way beyond that which was desired. Easing off the pedal again yielded no effect in reducing revs until the thing suddenly shut down again to idling speed. Effectively, Cummins engines were either ‘on’ or ‘off’, making it impossible in buses so powered to drive smoothly with consideration for the passengers. The driver might just as well had an on/off throttle switch on the dashboard. The transmission howl from gearbox and rear axle in the Lynx gave one a severe headache in no time; the semi integral body structure must have amplified the noise somehow. Yes, the Lynx could certainly motor, but progress was decidedly savage and unpleasant. I absolutely hated driving the Lynx; it was beaten for nastiness only by the Seddon Pennine IV, and then by a small margin. My distaste was shared by all the drivers of my acquaintance that encountered the things. In one depot where I worked the Lynx was nicknamed “The Scud” – it went like a missile and was just about as uncontrollable. The L10 powered Olympian was a nasty creature too, unlike its Gardner stable mate, but the Lynx was far worse. It is noteworthy that the ‘in house’ Cummins engines, latterly the ‘C’ family and M11, are no longer offered for the automotive market. The ‘B’ series and its derivatives, as used in ADL buses, was originally designed by the Case Corporation, and it employs the trusted Bosch type conventional fuel injection system. This web page www.aronline.co.uk/ gives one opinion of the Lynx, much of which I do not share, especially the comment, “The Lynx was a good vehicle to drive; Cummins and Volvo-engined buses had acceleration best described as alarming and were very popular amongst drivers”. Popular with drivers? Not in my experience.
Roger Cox
25/12/13 – 06:35
Just as matter of correction (and we are way past the 1970 cut off for this site) the Cummins C series engine had a conventional fuel injection system, same as the B series. I believe both types were built in Darlington for UK applications – as was the V6-VIM – now THERE is a pre 1970 comment!- Daimler Roadliner!
Ian Wild
25/12/13 – 09:39
Thanks for that correction Ian. my only driving knowledge of the ‘C’ engine came from a couple of Dennis Javelins at one garage, and, yes, they were less ‘snatchy’ than the L10s. Mercifully, I never had to handle a Roadliner.
Roger Cox
26/12/13 – 08:36
The interesting thing about the Lynx and Caldaire (West Riding/Yorkshire was that the single deck Lynx seemed to become a major part of the fleet, replacing double deckers such as Bristol VR’s. This (with real minibuses) seemed then to be the way forward: surely passenger numbers were declining & something simpler was needed, together with buses that could pick up around suburban estates. Then the megagroups formed and we have the lumbering megabuses which can scarcely squeeze into bus lanes: what is the real logic (not the public transport command economy logic) of this?
Joe
26/12/13 – 13:07
Re Michael’s comments on the National. The only ones I have ever driven were the early MK1, of K & L vintage, this covered the period from Aug 1971 to July 1973, and I don’t retract a single word I said about them, they were in my opinion an absolute abortion. By the time you got to the ‘T’ registered vehicles ‘Aug 78 to July 79’ that Michael speaks of, a further five years had passed during which time many of the problems had been dealt with. However, I can’t help thinking, that had the opposition not been killed off, and had the companies been given a free choice rather than having the National thrust upon them, the chances are that working for Crossville, Michael would have been driving a Bristol RELL rather than a National.
Ronnie Hoye
02/01/14 – 08:23
Returning to the photo of 1761, this batch of ten buses were very easy on the eye – Ronnie describes them as handsome and I can’t think of a better adjective with which to describe them. They were also very fast (for their day), particularly when given their head South of Durham on the 46 (Darlington) and the 55 (Middlesbrough). Their downside was the seating, which was cramped and provided inadequate legroom, especially for long journeys. They were intended to displace the MCCW (Orion)-bodied Guy Arab IVs, themselves less than two years old, from the above services although I can well remember both types operating in tandem on the 47 and 55 during the early ’60s. The arrival of Routemasters at Chester-le-Street and Bensham depots in 1964/5 ousted these fine machines from the North Road but they continued to provide excellent service elsewhere on less prestigious routes. The 136, as seen above, was, at 11 minutes from Consett to Chester Road (Moorside), a bit of a comedown compared with Newcastle-Darlington (1 hour 55 minutes) and Newcastle-Middlesbrough (2 hours 9 minutes).
Alan Hall
18/05/14 – 06:24
1769 seemed to outlast its siblings of this batch as this was the only example I saw/travelled on. It often found itself on the scholars (of which I was one) run from Lanchester back to Consett.
John4521
18/05/14 – 11:56
I see from the colour of the wheels and logo that we have now entered the NBC era, and look how standards have dropped. Okay, the photo was taken on a damp and dreary day which is never a help, but both vehicles are showing signs of neglect. The Atlantean appears to have a broken fog light, and neither vehicle has any front wheel trims. Neither would have been acceptable under the old NGT regime, whatever the reason the wheel trims had been removed, they would have been replaced, and the broken light would have been attended to at the earliest opportunity, apart from anything else its an offence, fog lights are not obligatory, but if fitted must work.
Ronnie Hoye
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
04/08/16 – 08:54
I lived next door to the depot at this time, and I’m sure that the buses parked at that end of the depot were awaiting disposal, which would excuse the missing foglight.
Stuart Gunn
09/08/16 – 06:18
I have an update to the discussion about the New Routemaster which took place in this thread two-and-a-half years ago, although actually it is also closely linked to the main subject matter of this forum, because the story really begins with the original Routemaster. Readers may recall that, when the Routemaster was finally withdrawn from normal London service, an urban myth started circulating, to the effect that its open platform had been specially designed for London to allow passengers to board and alight between stops during periods of heavy traffic congestion. (This has resulted in anything with an open platform now being called a Routemaster.) Of course we all know that, in reality, getting on and off between stops is something that was always discouraged for safety reasons, until Boris promised to being it back in order to get elected as mayor. Well the update is that next month – a mere four months after the end of Boris’s second term – the ‘platform attendants’ on the New Routemasters are to be dispensed with to save money, and the rear doors are to be kept closed between stops. What a surprise!
Peter Williamson
09/08/16 – 09:23
And what a criminal waste of public money on a preposterous vanity project.
Roger Cox
10/08/16 – 05:54
It’s probably partly political, with a Labour Mayor in post, to dismantle one bit of the ‘Boris Legacy’, with a wish to get rid of his unattractive-looking buses, too, but that is a step too far! Politicians love these projects, Concorde being one of the most expensive for huge technical advances, but no direct benefit to more than a few rich and business folk.
Chris Hebbron
11/08/16 – 06:25
As one who has always thought of Concorde as being a simply beautiful design, I cannot bring myself to say the same about the New Routemaster.
This is my only photo of G56 in action doing what it did so often in the 1960s, recovering an errant PDR1/2 Atlantean in this case on a very wet day in Leopold Street, Sheffield. G56 was converted from fleet number 666 as a gritter/tow wagon in 1966. Three of the batch were put on one side for conversion, 662 as a tower wagon to replace AEC Regent CWJ 410 and 667 as a driver trainer but in the event only the gritter conversion went ahead. It was a standard Sheffield conversion, lop off the top deck, take away the drop rear frame extension and install a doorway into what was the lower deck gangway. Random buses were modified in this way over the years when the Transport Department had to stand on its own feet when snow fell as Local Authority road gritting was not commonplace.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
03/02/14 – 13:55
This type of conversion continued into PTE days with at least one ex Doncaster bus getting the treatment in addition to a number of ex Sheffield PD3s and an ex Severn of Duncroft example.
Chris Hough
03/02/14 – 17:09
Small point. It was originally a 58 seater. The first 59 seaters were the 1957 PD2s (ECW, Roe and Weymann). Nice atmospheric shot of Leopold Street in its one way phase with the Town Hall and Beethoven House (and Wilson Peck’s music shop) in the far distance and the Education Offices in the near distance. The latter have been redeveloped into upmarket boutiques and restaurants – the bit out of sight on the West Street corner was what originally was a college which eventually became Sheffield University. Leopold Street was named after the Prussian Prince Leopold. The broken down Atlantean had its body built in Sheffield. Why did so many Atlanteans fail in the ’60s? Sheffield bought around 100 PDR1/2s between 1964 and 1966 – by far the worst and least reliable of all Atlantean variants!
David Oldfield
04/02/14 – 07:46
What a wonderful old workhorse this machine was; in the heady days when Atlanteans were hove to all over the city, with engine covers raised and pools of oil gathering underneath, I doubt G56 ever really cooled down. I still consider it a great shame that this splendid old PD2 ended up getting scrapped and not preserved, even though half of it was already missing!
Dave Careless
04/02/14 – 07:47
The problem with the PDR1/2 seemed to be in the combination of Leyland engine and Daimler gearbox which didn’t appear to work very well, was it something to do with the power produced by the Leyland engine being too much for a gearbox designed to be coupled with a Gardner slogger? Certainly the Manchester examples never sounded quite right compared to either a PDR1/1 or a Gardner engined Fleetline. I used to enjoy travelling on the back seat downstairs on a BND-C or END-D PDR1/2 for an exciting combination of excessive heat and interesting mechanical smells!
Michael Keeley
04/02/14 – 13:44
Apologies for submitting a photo with myself in it, but I thought in this instance it might be forgivable. On holiday from Canada in the spring of 1984, I caught up with G56 in a sorry looking state at the SYPTE Meadowhall Training Centre in Sheffield, out of use and presumably awaiting the scrapman. Unfortunately, there was nobody in authority to whom I could beg, plead or otherwise come to an agreement with about acquiring the much coveted registration plate! Note that somebody has already taken it upon themselves to ‘rescue’ the ‘Leyland’ radiator badge! OWB 866 was thirty two years old by this time, had worked hard all its life, and didn’t owe anybody anything.
Dave Careless
04/02/14 – 13:46
According to my information, the power outputs of the engines contemporary with the Atlantean PDR1/2 were as follows. The Gardner 6LX developed 150 bhp at 1700 rpm, with a maximum torque of 485 lb. ft. at 1050 rpm. The corresponding figures for the later 6LXB were 180bhp at 1850 rpm, and 536 lb. ft. at 1050 rpm. For the Leyland engines in bus applications, these became, for the O600, 125 bhp at 1800 rpm, and 410 lb.ft. at 1100 rpm. The O680 gave 150 bhp at 1800 rpm and 450 lb. ft. torque at 1100 rpm. The ‘Power Plus’ O.680 gave 200 bhp at 2200 rpm, and 548 lb. ft. at 1200 rpm., but this engine was not employed in the Atlantean. These figures did sometimes vary with differing applications, but not by much. The Gardner engines were lighter than their Leyland equivalents, though not so compact in design. It is unlikely, therefore, that the torque of the Leyland engines was responsible for transmission problems in the PDR1/2.
Roger Cox
05/02/14 – 09:29
Here is an ex Birmingham PD2 in use as a towing wagon, but in this case by a scrapman. Photo taken at Walsall depot, 1970 I don’t remember what the vehicle was being towed, but appears to have had an argument with a low bridge.
Tony Martin
05/02/14 – 13:54
Note in the background, yet another quaint destination on Walsall Corporation No.315 : “Boney Hay”.
Stephen Ford
06/02/14 – 06:36
It’s actually 815, a Leyland PD2/12 with Roe body. The destination is a reminder that Walsall, like neighbouring Wolverhampton, ran well outside its own boundaries.
Tony Martin
07/02/14 – 18:04
I wasn’t aware until this discussion that there was a known transmission problem with the PDR1/2. Leyland were aware of a weakness in the Daimler gearbox at that time, which caused them to refuse to supply PDR1/2s with O.680 engines in standard Atlantean fettle, but the standard O.600 should not have been a problem. Manchester specified derated O.680s for durability rather than extra power, and had them rated at 130bhp. This was the same as the derated 6LXs in the Fleetlines, but I don’t have torque figures for either. As a passenger I did notice a tendency to slip in top gear, but that was no worse than on the Fleetlines. I know exactly what Michael means about Manchester’s PDR1/2s not sounding “right”, but this seems to have been confined to Manchester, and was probably due to them having strangulated O.680s instead of standard O6.00s.
Peter Williamson
07/02/14 – 18:46
The Daimler gearbox of that era was not a very robust unit with excessive band wear evident resulting from poor driving standards (2nd gear restarts/full throttle gear changes). The Mk3 version with wider brake bands made a significant improvement about 1971 followed by a ‘self wrapping’ 2nd speed band by 1975 (we called these the Mk4 although this was not an official Daimler/Leyland classification). The Fleetline used a trailing link coupling between flywheel output and gearbox input throughout its life. This was intolerant of misalignment usually down to failing rear engine mountings, again these were substantially improved by the early 70s. I have never seen under the bonnet of a PDR1/2, does anyone know whether it used the Daimler coupling or a short propshaft between flywheel and gearbox? The Leyland 600/680 engine was shorter than a 6LX giving more space. All sorts of reasons why the PDR1/2 was so poor compared with the standard PDR1/1. (Memory suggests that the Leyland engine Fleetline used a short propshaft – mind you, they were never as good as the Gardner version)
Ian Wild
27/02/14 – 07:34
The reason that the PDR1/2 Atlantean model suffered problems was due to the adoption of an Albion Lowlander dropped centre axle Daimler supplied the right angle drive gearbox, as the Leyland PDR1/1 design could not be used. In Sheffield a fleet of 99 PDR1/2 chassis were ordered. Disaster occurred in 1965 when a late duty to Worksop by an East Lancs bodied PDR1/2 shed its rear axle gearing when the Albion designed unit broke up. All the Sheffield PDR1/2 buses were returned for repair and modification over many months.
Keith Beeden
27/02/14 – 10:55
As far as I’m aware, the weakness of the PDR1/2 was in leakage from the flywheel oil seal – this would be consistent with ‘pools of oil’ and ‘slipping in top gear’. The oil seal itself was presumably every bit as good as the ones fitted to other marques, so the implication is that there was something about the transmission which upset the apple cart. I do recall that with the PDR1/2s there was noticeable vibration at moderate to high revs in the indirect gears.
David Call
28/02/14 – 07:52
That’s interesting Keith. I hadn’t realised that the rear axle in the PDR1/2 was such a problem. No doubt Sheffield’s hills exacerbated the problem. Does anyone know if the weakness in the rear axle also affected Lowlanders.
Ian Wild
30/11/14 – 10:29
In the picture of the Birmingham PD2 towing a bus at Walsall, could this be the bus behind. I had taken the photo at Wolverhampton Falling Road Depot in the late 1960s
