Leyland Titan PD3 – Old bus photos

County Motors – Leyland Titan PD3A/1 – AVH 635B – 105

County Motors
1964
Leyland Titan PD3A/1
Roe H42/31F

Another County Motors of Huddersfield vehicle this time a Leyland Titan PD3A/1. The PD3 indicated that the bus was 30 foot long rather than 27 foot of which all the PD2s were. The A after the 3 indicates an enclosed radiator made mainly of fibre glass and this style was introduced after consultation with St Helens Corporation. The 1 after the 3A indicates that the gear box was of the normal synchromesh type rather than the Pneumo-Cyclic direct selection type.
County Motors were taken over by Yorkshire Traction in 1968 and this bus became fleet number 745 with them. There is a photo of this bus in the Yorkshire Traction livery here unfortunately it seems to have lost the bottom half of its radiator.

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

Re the comment about the radiator grill. These were only a fibreglass moulding and were prone to being broken – for example by conductors standing on them to change the destination. Yorkshire Traction simply modified them when necessary by substituting a mesh panel instead.

Andrew

This was one of a pair of PD3As which replaced a pair of ill fated Guy Wulfrunians which went to West Riding. Yorkshire Traction bought PD3s with Northern Counties or Willowbrook bodies. However a 1965 batch carried Roe bodywork to a Park Royal design similar to those supplied on AEC chassis to East Kent. The Yorkshire Traction livery suited the lines of the Roe body and these were a pair of handsome machines

Chris Hough

Handsome indeed – but they were traditional Roe bodies!
Yorkshire Traction only ever had three batches of PD3s from new. The first two Northern Counties, the last the Roes (on Park Royal frames) – which still managed to look better proportioned than the almost identical contemporary Sheffield Regent Vs with “real” Park Royal bodies.
The only Willowbrook deckers in the fleet were the RHE…G registered Atlanteans which were a diverted order from Devon General, delivered initially in Devon General livery.

David Oldfield

David, I seem to remember that there were four of the diverted Devon General Atlanteans. They appeared very frequently in Leeds on the Yorkshire Traction services and I found them fascinating. The colours were most pleasing and, although I never rode on one, I have an impression that the interiors and the seats were in blue – can anyone please confirm this ??

Chris Youhill

I think you’re right about the numbers, Chris, and almost certainly about the interiors. Blue was the then standard for Devon General. Prior to nationalisation, Devon General was a superbly presented fleet and the difference in shades of red and cream between Devon General and Yorkshire Traction made an interesting comparison.

David Oldfield

Halifax Corporation – Leyland Titan PD3/4 – TCP 55 – 55

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

Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee
1964
Leyland Titan PD3/4
Weymann H40/32F

Here is the 30ft Weymann bodied Titan I mentioned yesterday it has a more square appearance I will let you decide which you prefer. This Titan was passed on to WYPTE on the 1st of April 1974 and renumbered 3055
To see what the Halifax livery was like there is a colour shot of a Weymann PD2 of Halifax Corporation here.

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD3 – 4462 WE – 462

Copyright ‘unknown’ if you know please get in touch

Sheffield Corporation
1959
Leyland PD3/1
Roe H39/30R

This was one of the first 30ft long double deckers for Sheffield and was one of a batch of 30 similar buses. In a typically perverse way these buses, all for the A fleet, were numbered 461-476 and 901-914. Logic suggests they should have been 901-930 but gap filling seemed to be a Sheffield speciality. Following the closure of Northern Coachbuilders and the body building facility at Leyland Motors in the early 1950s, Sheffield dual sourced bodywork for their new double deck deliveries from Weymann and Roe until Alexander and Park Royal came into favour. The Roe body in this 30ft rear entrance form and with the elegant Sheffield livery was a design classic. I wonder if anyone can explain why Roe bodies for Sheffield were painted in this style whilst those from other bodybuilders had the more conventional three blue bands. 462 was new in March 1959 and is seen outside the Roe factory premises prior to delivery. Similar vehicle 904 is preserved.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

30/03/11 – 10:00

Before becoming the 42/53 route with Atlanteans, the 38 was primarily and AEC route. For a short while, in the mid sixties, the 901 – 914 suddenly replaced AECs overnight. [It was years before I realised that there were proportionally more Leylands in the fleet.] There must have been a reason, but I never discovered what it was.
I was, and remain, an AEC man and was most displeased. Old age and experience have placed Leyland as a much loved second – but these vehicles had the mitigating feature of those beautiful Roe bodies. The 38 was East Bank, the 461 – 476 were from another garage and I rarely came upon them except “in town”. …..and I don’t know why Roe, and certain Leyland bodies, had their own special livery either.

David Oldfield

30/03/11 – 14:38

What a great photograph Ian and what a lot of memories it evokes from when we both lived in Sheffield and travelled up Greystones Road on the “74” between our respective homes. I guess the 74 was an unusual route for Sheffield in that it didn’t cross the city but meandered around the southern suburbs. Like you in one of your earlier comments I remember the winters in Sheffield with snow on the ground but the buses kept running, always got us to school. How things change!

Stan Zapiec

31/03/11 – 16:00

I agree wholeheartedly with Ian and David that the proportions and original livery of the PD3/Roe produced one of the finest looking buses to grace the Sheffield fleet. On the question of livery style, Keith Beeden has stated that in the case of the original batch of PD2/Roe 386-394, the Roe design did not offer an easy adoption of the STD cream and azure blue with three bands and that it was agreed that the livery should be of the ‘simplified style’ quite similar to the Farington scheme as seen on the all Leyland PD2s of 1949. This resulted from the difficulty at the time of accommodating the standard Sheffield destination display which of course with early Roe deliveries was of a side by side style. Presumably, this livery was considered appropriate for all future Roe deliveries despite the standard display being accommodated in due course with effect from the Regent 3’s of the 168 series. We know of course that subsequently, many Roes were repainted in ‘standard’ livery but to my mind, it was nowhere near as elegant. My personal opinion is that in painting the ‘bars’ black between the destination display in the early 60’s, disfigured the look of Sheffield buses in one fell swoop although I believe the general manager of the day also reinstated the cream roof for which credit is due. I cite the present livery scheme of preserved 904 as an example of ‘disfigurement’ but as I said, it is purely my opinion and others will no doubt like it.
Whilst we are on the subject, does anyone remember that AEC/Regent No. 8, FWJ 808, also wore a version of the Farington livery in the late 40s or early 50s.

John Darwent

01/04/11 – 07:28

Sheffield 904 as preserved carries the later cream with bands livery and looks superb. A slightly earlier Roe bodied Titan PD2 II56 is also preserved and wears the blue window livery. This is a high backed seat bus used on C fleet long distance services.
As well as 904 in the final livery with cream bands Leyland Titan PD2-Roe 1156 3156WE of 1058 is also preserved and carries the livery with blue window surrounds on both decks.

Chris Hough

01/05/11 – 07:48

In reply to John and Ian, I can add further information to the Roe style of livery applied to Sheffield double deck buses.
The query about AEC Regent No.8 actually is the start of the case in question. Leyland Motors Ltd. delivered a large fleet of PD2/1 chassis with the new Farington body design. The former lower waistrail feature was eliminated, as was other external beading. Leyland advised Sheffield T.D. to the effect that it would be difficult to apply the usual cream livery with three blue bands. Possibly a suggestion that extra cost would ensue if the standard livery was still required, led to Sheffield looking to simplify the painting style.
Regent FWJ 808 was chosen to explore the possibilities and was out shopped in a bland style of all over cream with blue window surrounds. This eliminated the blue bands but the overall image was poor. A slight improvement, that included a little more blue, led to the adoption of the new style for all the Farington PD2’s. A similar situation arose with the Roe bodies, where the patented waistrail did not adapt to the three blue bands style and also lack of upper beading. Therefore, it was deemed expedient to apply a similar livery to the Farington style.
I hope that this will clarify matters.

Keith Beeden

23/03/13 – 07:56

I believe the reasoning behind the different paint schemes in use on Sheffield buses was purely financial. Some bodies had beading in different places to others and thus the joint between different colours were easier to apply on some rather than others. The placing of masking would add extra cost which on a big batch of vehicles could amount to quite an amount of money which some authorities would be averse to spending on buses!! The characteristic Roe waistline bulge is one awkward bodybuilders addition in question.

Brian Lamb

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan – 4461 WE – 461

Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1959
Leyland Titan PD3/1
Roe H39/30R

An earlier Sheffield posting showed sister bus 462 when brand new outside the Roe factory. Here is 461 towards the end of its life on 13th July 1974 passing the Three Merry Lads pub returning from an occasional extension of the 51 service to Wyming Brook. By now it has the standard three blue band livery and the final version of the fleetname used prior to the formation of South Yorkshire PTE. It still looks smart and elegant despite its fifteen years in service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

09/02/12 – 05:59

Only possible improvement would be for it to be a successor 1325 – 1349 Regent V. I came across the 901… batch rather than these, but it is strange how memory plays tricks. I had a Grandmother, an uncle, aunt and cousins living at Lodge Moor and never remember riding on any of these to visit them.
Christmas was always spent with said Grandmother (a superb cook) and the men (Dad and uncles) would all repair to the Three Merry Lads until time to return for Christmas Dinner!
Even before the 1974 Government reorganisation which expanded Sheffield greatly, this was part of the City of Sheffield but well out in the countryside. “Oh my beloved homeland!” Despite this, it is obviously an “A” fleet route – otherwise it would read “Sheffield” rather than “City”.

Just realised that 13 July 1974 would put it under SYPTE ownership (from April 1974).

David Oldfield

17/02/12 – 08:03

You probably don’t remember travelling to Lodge Moor on a PD3 because only the two daily journeys which extended to Wyming Brook (for a few schoolchildren, I think) were crew-operated, because of the reversal needed there. The regular service was operated by AEC Swifts from OMO conversion in 1969, and later by Atlanteans. The extension was finally withdrawn around 18 months ago.

Phil Drake

21/02/12 – 16:51

I seem to remember similar buses in the 900 number series replacing the trams on Abbey Lane. I travelled from there to Pitsmoor to school at De La Salle college. If memory serves routes 61/63 were Shirecliffe – Beauchief/Woodseats Circular, I can’t remember which was which. It meant a walk from Burngreave to Scott Rd where school was but it meant that I Passed Burngreave Convent school which was full of girls so there is always a silver lining! These buses seemed to be a great improvement over the trams that they replaced and of course the bus service was very reliable. As the route crossed the city centre it was possible to get off on the way home and sample the delights on offer!
We had passes which allowed free travel to and from school which had to be shown to the conductor on the way in and out of the city, even if the crew didn’t change.
Happy days!

Stan Zapiec

South Yorkshire – Leyland Titan PD3/1 – 2600 WW – 83

Copyright Brian Lunn

South Yorkshire Motors
1960
Leyland Titan PD3/1
Roe L31/32RD

In the late 1970’s I purchased South Yorkshire Motors Leyland PD3 2600WW at the urging of a number of people who offered help in preserving this vehicle. The bus was running in service the day before I took it to where I was keeping it. I was a little naive as I thought straight out of service it must be roadworthy. How wrong could I be? I took it for a MOT a month later and it failed on 5 items rendering the vehicle dangerous to use on the road. I managed to get the bus painted in the original South Yorkshire Motors colours, by this time a year had passed and so had all the willing helpers who soon disappeared when they found out there was some hard graft to do. I think all they were interested in was going to Rally’s! However I progressed with as much as I could manage by myself, until one day in the early 1980’s I was offered a sum of cash for it and away it went. It caused a bit of a topic when it was seen in a local scrap yard, I think it caused more interest as to why I had sold it than any of the time I had been struggling to get jobs done on it. I am sure I am not they only one who has been led into the false sense of believing all the promises of help and then they do not materialise.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Brian Lunn

09/05/12 – 07:53

Such a sad story, Brian, but so common. A friend bought a Grey Cars Reliance/Willowbrook Viscount about thirty years ago and spent much in time and money. In the end, it was too much for one man on his own and again the scrap yard won. Makes you admire even more the chaps who manage to succeed and share their charges with us at rallies and on running days.

David Oldfield

09/05/12 – 07:56

I think we all know about “fair weather friends”, Brian!
At least you tried. Thanks for posting what looks to be in interesting bus with an unusual livery, albeit one I’m not that keen on.

Chris Hebbron

09/05/12 – 09:22

They looked good round Pontefract! There’s a clip of one of their Albions on the “sounds” page here, if I recall.

Joe

09/05/12 – 09:22

What a very sad, but by no means rare, saga Brian. Its also a great pity because 83 and its twin 82 were, as far as I’m aware, the very last 30 foot long lowbridge double deckers ever produced, and were like all SYRT vehicles above average in internal appointments. I shall have to relay your story to my one time workmate Mrs. Gladys Banks of Pontefract – I still see her and many more of my former colleagues quite regularly.
Gladys passed her PSV test on 83 and was a driver, a very competent one indeed, for many years before becoming an inspector. Right up to her retirement she would abandon her ticket checking at a second’s notice and would operate any busy journey, OPO of course in latter days, without a whimper and with impressive and enviable punctuality !!

Chris Youhill

09/05/12 – 19:22

After the 1325-49 Regent Vs the 901 and 464 PD3s were among my STD favourites – the PD3s being highbridge but otherwise like the South Yorkshire motors (only a year older).

David Oldfield

09/05/12 – 19:24

Thank you Brian for being open about a saga that some would keep quiet. Unfortunately when your resources are stretched to the limit and you decide you need to let go of a bus, you will never find a suitable buyer. Let’s face it, realistically how many people would want buy a South Yorkshire PD3?
Unrealistically, I would, as I thought they were superb machines. In hindsight I would have picked one of the Bond-bodied PD2s which were also very appealing as well as being unusual.
They were by no means the last lowbridge PD3s as several entered service in South Wales later, notably the last lowbridge bus of all, Bedwas and Machen UDC 6 (PAX 466F) in 1967. Caerphilly UDC also bought a few, before turning to the PD2 for their later purchases.

David Beilby

09/05/12 – 19:26

Thanks to every one for their comments I thought that I had not tried enough, to make it work, but it makes me feel a little better to know I was not the only one who was left to graft alone. I think that you are right Chris regarding the last 30 foot low bridge to be built. As for Gladys she used to conduct on my local service coming home from school, in the mid 50’s as Gladys Illingworth as she was then, I still see Fred Bellamy and Nelly Edwards around town. One thing that was good about SYM all the garage staff with licenced drivers and conductors, I know the duplicate on the Doncaster-Leeds route which ran from Thorp Audlin to Whitwood Tech, often had a member of the garage conducting.

Brian Lunn

10/05/12 – 11:13

Thanks David B for that correction – I think I was confused regarding the last thirty foot lowbridge bodies, and SYRT 82/3 were simply the last such built by Roe.
Brian, I’m fascinated to learn that you are local to Pontefract, where I spent almost fifteen very happy years with SYRT/Caldaire/British Bus/Arriva before retiring on my 65th birthday.
I was once involved in the preservation of a Portsmouth Corporation Bedford OWB in the open air in a muddy yard off the A61 at Robin Hood. While we toiled away under awful conditions, hoping to reach a point where we could attend rallies “part preserved”, there were plenty of “visiting dignitaries” with much verbal advice and that’s all !! I nearly blew my top one day as the season approached and a notorious pair rolled up one Saturday and, casting a deprecatory glance at CTP 200, remarked “Huh, only three weeks to the Rally – THEY’RE going to have to get out and get under then !!” “THEY’RE” consisted of me and my pal up to hilt in grease etc and we were not amused. The state visit lasted only a few minutes before the smartly clad “enthusiasts” departed.

Chris Youhill

11/05/12 – 08:05

Alas, the Albion clip has gone- “taken down” from you-tube. It was shot in Dewsbury, with a trip up the “cutting”. Could it be tracked down?
I think I now see your livery problem, Chris H: the pic here makes the lower “Oxford Blue” look black. Chris Y & I register it in the proper colour!

Joe

12/05/12 – 07:42

Although I do have colour-blindness problems, Joe, even my wife, not so afflicted, thought it was black at first sight. We both noticed the subtle difference between the black mudguard and lower bodywork. A look at the SY Albion on Flikr, showed the true colours. And you would both be familiar with the livery, whereas I’d never seen it in the flesh, so to speak! Freshly painted, it looks handsome!

Chris Hebbron

12/05/12 – 17:23

In answer to the colour, I did use the official SYM paint which was mixed by Masons of Wakefield, I agree that in the photograph it does look dark, but I think that there is some evening shadows on the vehicle as the photograph was taken quite late in the day. I have looked at No 81 and the lower blue seem much lighter than I remember and looking at my collection of SYM photos a number tend to differ in different light conditions.

Brian Lunn

13/05/12 – 08:37

Brian, I’ve had lunch in Pontefract today with Gladys, who was quite amazed and pleased to hear that she was so well remembered.

Chris Youhill

04/09/16 – 13:33

Yesterday I returned to Leeds after 25 years away. (only in Staffordshire but not my beloved Yorkshire!) I went to look at the old…now new…Leeds bus station and was so disappointed not to see a South Yorkshire pulling in on the 1/2 hour, complete with a ‘duplicate’ following shortly behind, much to the relief of the long queue waiting at the barrier. When did South Yorkshire stop running? My uncle Harold ‘Tom’ Westwood spent many of his retirement years reupholstering or mending the upholstery of these buses, well into his 80s

Sandy

05/09/16 – 06:26

Brian – I’m sorry to have to tell you that dear Gladys passed away in June after a short illness. Independent to the last she was 83 – – a coincidence considering that she passed her PSV test on 83 !! Freddy Bellamy is still around but I don’t know about Nellie – she’s certainly been ill in recent times.
Sandy – SYRT sold out to Caldaire Holdings on July 8th 1994, but West Riding did run it as a separate unit until it finally closed in March 2003, by which time it had been owned by Caldaire, British Bus, Cowie Group, and Arriva. The vehicles and staff were transferred to Castleford Belle Isle and the depot sold for housing and was demolished.

Chris Youhill

25/06/21 – 06:23

I have just got a South Yorkshire timetable from the late 70’s I think. Company name is South Yorkshire Road Transport Ltd., not South Yorkshire Motors. Did they have a company name change, and if so, when.

Ken Holway

26/06/21 – 06:07

Re my post above, I am told the name change to South Yorkshire Rod Transport was 1973

Ken Holway

Leeds City Transport – Leyland Titan – 5221 NW – 221

Copyright Chris Hough

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough

18/05/12 – 07:46

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

Diesel Dave

18/05/12 – 07:47

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

Philip Halstead

18/05/12 – 07:48

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

David Beilby

18/05/12 – 10:25

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

Roger Broughton

18/05/12 – 12:17

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

Chris Hough

18/05/12 – 12:19

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

David Oldfield

18/05/12 – 15:59

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

Pete Davies

18/05/12 – 16:57

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

Joe

18/05/12 – 16:57

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

Eric Bawden

19/05/12 – 07:41

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

Chris Barker

19/05/12 – 07:42

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

Chris Hough

21/05/12 – 08:04

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

Philip Halstead

21/05/12 – 17:16

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

Ian Wild

02/07/12 – 18:03

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

Ken Greaves

03/07/12 – 07:24

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

Chris Hough

21/01/13 – 17:25

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

Bill Midgley

22/01/13 – 06:48

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

Chris Youhill

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

25/07/16 – 09:51

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

David A. Young

25/07/16 – 15:13

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

Chris Youhill

28/07/16 – 08:48

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

David A. Young

29/07/16 – 08:50

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

Joe

29/07/16 – 16:26

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

Ronnie Hoye

30/07/16 – 08:39

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

Roger Cox

31/07/16 – 07:08

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

Chris Youhill

01/08/16 – 07:01

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

Chris Hebbron

01/08/16 – 07:03

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

John Stringer

01/08/16 – 16:17

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

Chris Youhill

02/08/16 – 06:51

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

Roger Cox

02/08/16 – 17:19

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

Stephen Allcroft

Stratford Blue – Leyland Titan – 537 EUE – 25

Copyright Roger Cox

Stratford-upon-Avon Blue Motors Ltd
1963
Leyland Titan PD3/4
Northern Counties H41/32F

My second of three Stratford Blue pictures this one is of 537 EUE, an exposed radiator Leyland Titan PD3/4 of 1963 with a Northern Counties H41/32F body.
The fleet list at this site :- www.petergould.co.uk/
gives the fleet number of this bus as No.37, but the picture shows the number 25 clearly displayed. The close up also shows that the vehicle has also suffered some accident inspired remodelling of the offside front wing. This bus was withdrawn in 1971, after a short life with Stratford Blue of only 8 years.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

20/07/12 – 07:43

A smart, (offside mudguard excepted), and purposeful looking vehicle, so much more attractive than it would have been with a tin front. Any idea, Roger, why it was withdrawn at so young an age, and what happened to it thereafter?

Roy Burke

20/07/12 – 07:46

It is also listed as 37 in my BBF 7 Midlands something strange.

Peter

20/07/12 – 09:27

Not quite the pristine condition we’d normally expect of Stratford Blue. I’m guessing that the early withdrawal was either after another (serious) mishap or that its outline didn’t match the criteria of the parent company on take-over. After all, Midland Red are known to have kept very few of the vehicles of acquired fleets – those in the Leicester/Loughborough area being something of an exception – although I have seen views of SB vehicles in red.

Pete Davies

20/07/12 – 09:28

Agree with you, Roy. Amazing how many late (E, F, G registered) PD2s and PD3s were exposed radiator.

David Oldfield

20/07/12 – 09:30

Apparently this Bus is still in existence in Galway in Ireland. Owned by an open top tour operator (Lally’s) under the reg. no ZV 1466. It also spent some time on the Isle of Man.

David

20/07/12 – 12:24

It wasn’t ‘withdrawn’ in 1971 as such- that was the date of Midland Red’s takeover of SB.The PD3s were totally non-standard for BMMO and the whole PD3 fleet was sold to Isle of Man Road Services, the EUE batch changing hands at the start of 1972. IOMRS withdrew it in 1982. The SB renumbering took place in 1969. (Info from R. L. Telfer (2003), Stratford Blue. (Tempus).

Phil Drake

20/07/12 – 12:26

Midland Red sold as number of Stratford Blue buses to Isle of Man Road Services for further service all of which were Titans many with Willowbrook bodywork. Perhaps the most interesting disposal was a trio of Marshall Camair bodied Leyland Panthers that never turned a wheel for either Stratford Blue or Midland Red these ended up in Preston for a full life span.

Chris Hough

20/07/12 – 12:27

Interesting comment about late exposed radiator Leylands. Atkinson trucks also came like that then (any others?): it was a sort of macho quality look and possibly a sign that the fleet was engineer led!
That leads in a sort of way to BMMO buses, which seem to go too far the other way: the SOS FEDD recently featured is one of the most hideous buses I’ve ever seen (or not seen) – like an illustration in a children’s book…. to sit the driver on the fuel tank (!) and then have to put in a “peep” window over the filler…. and the proportions… words fail me. It fits with the all-red, easy maintenance but so boring look.
This leads in a sort of way to this bus! I’m not sure it is so smart. Why was it sent out without a quick splash of paint to disguise the damage- and is that diesel slop under the filler?… and then the blind doesn’t fit the destination window… What I intended to say was that the numbers on Peter Gould’s list are all over the place (the fleet, not his list) and appear almost random: here they may have thought of a number & then followed the registration instead. Soon after, it seems, they started again. As the bus would say….
Then happy I, that love and am beloved,
Where I may not remove nor be removed. Sonnet 25

Joe

20/07/12 – 12:35

Here’s a photo of it in 2003 (look just above Canada).
SEE: www.skylineaviation.co.uk/

Chris Hebbron

21/07/12 – 07:44

It is nice to see that this bus has survived, albeit in a “trepanned” state. I cannot understand why the full takeover of Stratford Blue by BMMO should have rendered the Stratford Leyland fleet suddenly “non standard”. BMMO had full management responsibilities for Stratford Blue from 1935, and the fleet content was entirely a BMMO decision. If the Stratford unit could operate efficiently for so long, why should the replacement of blue and white paint by overall red suddenly rewrite the economics. BMMO in house bus manufacture had made decidedly dubious economic sense for some considerable time before the sale of the BET group to NBC in 1968, so the withdrawal of tried and trusted Leyland designs in Stratford in favour of BMMO standard types seems to have arisen from the increasing NBC fascination with the god of “standardisation” (corporate liveries and Leyland Nationals lurking just round the corner) than with operating logic.

Roger Cox

21/07/12 – 12:15

I suppose it was inevitable, if BMMO took over direct management of the concern instead of the arms-length approach, Roger

Chris Hebbron

21/07/12 – 12:16

Standardisation for it’s own sake is not always a good idea, I cant see the point of wholesale changes just for the sake of it, however, in the case of the Routemaster for example, it can work very well, but even they weren’t all bog standard and had several variants. Most Tilling group companies ‘take overs apart’ had standard fleets, where as BET companies managed very well with ‘off the peg’ vehicles, then came the curse of NBC who seemed to go out of their way to prove that Oscar Wilde was right when he said “consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative” end result? the MK1 Leyland National, how can you spend so much time and money on R&D and get it so wrong? I suppose they must have had some good points, but off hand I cant think of any.

Ronnie Hoye

21/07/12 – 17:07

And the Leyland National body had an Italian designer, although we all recall the Mk II Morris Ital had one, too! In Gloucester, they had an all-Bristol fleet, of which the urban services were allocated RELL6L’s. But then Leyland Nationals started to arrive. Never a great Bristol lover, it was nevertheless obvious that the Nationals were inferior and a great disappointment.

Chris Hebbron

21/07/12 – 17:08

I just have to say that I enjoyed driving Leyland Nationals both for Eastern Counties, and East Kent Road Car Co. Admittedly the handling characteristics were very different, and I’ve known one driver getting caught out by forgetting to build up gearbox air pressure in neutral. The bus shot off and embedded itself into the adjacent building in Ashford by a good 6 feet injuring the female driver who was working ‘spare’ moving the buses. My favourites to drive were the Bristol RE’s and RL’s

Norman Long

21/07/12 – 17:08

Strong structure, Ronnie. certainly wasn’t the engine!

David Oldfield

22/07/12 – 08:11

As ever we seem to have strayed from the original subject, nothing new there. The PD3’s the Northern General Group had were different ‘body wise’ to these, but I always loved driving them. Harking back to Leyland Nationals, I’m lead to believe that the MK2 was a far superior beast to the MK1, but never having driven one I cant comment. On Normans point about gearbox pressure, one of Tynemouth’s MK1’s had a similar incident in North Shields, it shot forward demolishing part of a stone boundary wall that surrounds Northumberland Square and ended up in the middle of the flower beds, whereupon it sank up to its axles and had to be lifted out by a crane

Ronnie Hoye

22/07/12 – 09:01

My experience of the Nationals is just the opposite of Ronnie’s – I never drove a Mk 1 but plenty of the Mk 2 variety. As a frequent passenger, and nearby pedestrian, I found the originals to be totally unacceptable – how on Earth they were allowed to make that horrendous screaming row from the large menacingly visible fan I shall never know, and I’m sure that ANY other model, new or ancient, which threw out such enormous amounts of acrid black smoke would have rightly received an immediate prohibition notice. On the other hand, however, I really liked the Mk 2 very much indeed. Weight distribution had been greatly improved, the dreadful 500 series engine banished, and the 600 series and Gardner power units were both powerful and positively “dulcet” in tone. The finest of the 600 type which I drove was one which had been bought from South Wales by West Riding – it was one of four which South Wales had fitted when new with comfortable luxury coach seats in fawn moquette and had an “open” exhaust system. Its power and sporty but pleasant bellowing became legendary in our operating area – its number, for those familiar, was CCY 817V and I wish I could do a few miles in it right now. I apologise for deviating from the Stratford Blue topic but, as we used to say as guilty schoolboys, “It weren’t me what started it Sir.”

Chris Youhill

23/07/12 – 08:05

You’ve described, Chris Y, to a ‘T’, my memories of the early Nationals. And the vehicles were so angular inside, especially the part above the top of the windows. The inside roofs soon became dirty, too, as if they were single-skinned. I think I preferred austerity bodies, on reflection! An altogether unpleasant vehicle that should never, in ‘Mk I’ form, have been put on the road.

Here’s a clip of some LN Mk I’s being cold-started – I think they might be South Riding’s vehicles. SEE: www.youtube.com/

Chris Hebbron

23/07/12 – 08:08

As ever, I’m in full accord with Chris Y.

David Oldfield

23/07/12 – 08:09

BMMO did seem to have a strange attitude towards Stratford Blue: although Stratford Blue vehicles worked on X50 (Birmingham-Stratford) for many, many years the service was never jointly licenced and Stratford Blue always worked on-hire to BMMO; and, so I’ve read, Stratford Blue vehicles were never welcome at Carlyle works. Somewhat “distant” relationships between parent companies and subsidiaries don’t seem all that uncommon: Frank Briggs managed to maintain a degree of autonomy for Standerwick from Ribble; and until the GM of Northern assumed management responsibility for Sunderland District and Gateshead the managers of the smaller companies ordered their own vehicles etc . . . but the relationship between BMMO and Stratford Blue seems particularly strange. Did it perhaps date back to the Power/Shire era? Power was reported as having looked at Stratford Blue with “admiring eyes” – did Power keep Stratford Blue separate/”independent” and so out of Shire’s engineering remit? (the two are known not to have got on), and did that translate into the appointment of a Traffic Department oriented board of Directors which persisted through the company’s subsequent history?
Stratford Blue itself had a strange approach to route numbering – when route numbers were introduced they weren’t applied to all services, and they were applied in leaps-and-bounds where they were.
I’ve got a handful of Stratford Blue Setright tickets in my collection: some on pink paper, some on white – its my understanding that Stratford-upon-Avon depot used white ticket rolls and Kineton depot used pink rolls.
And those Leyland Panthers that never turned a wheel . . . were they really a sound choice for a such a small company? – I can’t see that the traffic on Stratford-upon-Avon local services really justified dual-door buses. And weren’t those centre doors the cause of their “delayed” entry into service? I think that they had outwardly-sliding centre doors (now common, but then rare [Ribble specified them on some of its RELLs . . . anybody know of any others?]), and it was problems with these that caused the Deputy Manager to reject delivery from Marshalls as he didn’t feel able to accept delivery in the absence of the Manager (who was absent on leave) – and then the company was wrapped-up before they could enter service. They were subsequently painted into “Midland Red” livery but were “blacked” by BMMO staff (and then spent the rest of their time with BMMO parked out-of-use at Digbeth Depot’s Adderley Street over-spill parking area): which raises two questions – why did BMMO apparently intend on keeping these non-standard vehicles when the rest of the Stratford Blue fleet (including some quite new Atlanteans) was disposed of PDQ (although, given, they did repaint some Titans that didn’t stay long)? and why did BMMO crews refuse to work with the Panthers? (was it because they were dual door? – but then BMMO had its own dual-door DD11/12 Fleetlines).

Philip Rushworth

08/05/13 – 08:32

It was nothing to do with being ‘blacked’ by Midland Red drivers. The Panthers were parked up at Adderley Street in Birmingham to await disposal after the West Midlands Traffic Commissioners refused approval of the plug in doors on safety grounds. Other area commissioners did not have a problem with them. As a matter of interest the dual door Fleetlines were soon operated as single door buses with the centre doors fixed shut. This was due to even moderate nearside crosswinds opening the centre doors and disengaging the gearbox whilst bus was in in motion. The doors were controlled through the semi automatic gear stick and set up so that the bus could not be driven with the centre doors open.

Mike Holloway

09/05/13 – 07:41

If anyone misses the noise from Mk1 Nationals come to Leeds and follow one of the ftrs they are noisy!

Chris Hough

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

18/05/17 – 14:53

Sister bus 539 EUE seen at the Red Lion bus station, Stratford. The young gentleman seems to have his attention elsewhere!

Tony Martin

Stratford Blue – Leyland Titan – 669 HNX – 2

Copyright Roger Cox

Stratford-upon-Avon Blue Motors Ltd
1963
Leyland Titan PD3A/1
Willowbrook H41/32F

This the third and last shot in my series of Stratford Blue vehicles it is fleet number 2 registration 669 HNX. A Leyland Titan PD3A/1 with a Willowbrook highbridge body dating from 1963. Interestingly as my second posting of the exposed radiator Stratford Blue Titan No.25 which had frontal damage this vehicle also has frontal damage a large chunk of its glass fibre front radiator grill is missing.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

24/07/12 – 18:23

Is it accident damage or a modification as I looks rather neatly cut?
It was quite common at Yorkshire Traction for all three lower bars to be removed and replaced by wire mesh, as an aid to cooling, perhaps?

Eric Bawden

25/07/12 – 07:14

The reason for the mod at Tracky was for a reason a little less technical!, the slats kept getting broken by ham fisted (footed?)conductors standing on them whilst trying to reach up and change the destination blind.

Andrew Charles

25/07/12 – 07:15

More likely that it was stood on and broken when someone was changing the destination blind.

Ronnie Hoye

25/07/12 – 07:15

This type of damage was often caused by the feet of crews as they changed the destination indicator. Salford a fleet with very high standards used extra long destination gear to prevent this type of damage.

Chris Hough

25/07/12 – 11:21

Yes Andrew, that less technical reason dawned on me just after I sent my original message!

Eric Bawden

25/07/12 – 16:53

From about 1955 onwards, on all Tynemouth’s vehicles ‘Northern General Group’ the destination blinds were changed to the inside upstairs, access was gained by lowering a flap to get at the handles However, the flaps weren’t lockable, and especially on school runs you would usually complete the run displaying some very strange destinations. WORKMAN BAD or PRIVATE SEX were quite common along with SCHOOLARS ABC

Ronnie Hoye

26/07/12 – 07:45

I can’t decide whether the “St Helens” glass-fibre front is a masterpiece of raw industrial design or just plain ugly. Similarly the LAD goods vehicle cab front, with which it – perhaps understandably – bears some affinity. Ah! but the livery: I’d allow anything in that – way better than the striped lilac shockers that now run my way.
To pick up on Chris’s post of the 25th: it does look as though Stratford Blue had extended the destination gear . . . although not to the extent that Salford did, and with the consequences evident in the photograph.

Philip Rushworth

26/07/12 – 14:00

Ronnie’s comment reminds me that Trent also had interior access to the destination blind. I seem to remember the whole assembly was mounted on a panel that was hinged at the bottom edge and secured by a couple of budget locks. About age 8 I guess, I was with my parents heading into Nottingham one Saturday evening on a 61, front seat upstairs. The conductor came up after Bulwell to change the blind (not misleading as no one else could be picked up inside NCT territory). After unlocking the panel he saw me watching with interest and said, “’Ere – you can do this for me – wind it on ter Mansfield!” It made my day (I know, I know – little things please little minds!)

Stephen Ford

27/07/12 – 08:27

What was it about destination blinds that fascinated little boys? I remember being taken to an exhibition in 1956 to mark the centenary of my home town Rochdale becoming a County Borough. There was a mock-up of Rochdale Corporation’s bus destination gear in a big box on a stand and anyone was invited to play with the handles and set the blinds. Oh what bliss! I don’t remember anything else about the exhibition. I spent all day setting up the proper displays with number, destination and via details only for other kids to keep interfering and just winding for fun. Philistines!

Philip Halstead

27/07/12 – 08:35

The diversion into the merits or otherwise of having blinds changed on the upper deck reminds me of the days when Southampton had a balloon festival, served by a special bus service, and I was usually the conductor on a Regent V – it meant a welcome change from driving my desk! At each end of the route, the blind had to be changed and, though it was a free service, tickets were issued, so there was plenty of running up and down the stairs. It’s an incredibly pleasant way of burning off the excess blubber!

Pete Davies

27/07/12 – 15:30

Some front destination blinds were changed by the driver inside the cab. It must have been in either Leyland or Weymann bodies, but I can’t remember which, (information, anybody?). A Maidstone & District PD2 was involved in what was then the worst ever accident involving a PSV, (it may still be), when it was driven into a column of naval cadets in Chatham. The driver claimed to have blacked out; M&D staff – I was told the story by a Gillingham dispatcher – suspected that the driver was distracted changing the screen as he approached the terminus.

Roy Burke

27/07/12 – 15:31

Philip, it’s a relief to know I’m not the only sad person on here! One reason for the fascination – and why I, for one, would always stop and watch mesmerised when a blind was being changed, was to catch a fleeting glimpse of rarely used destinations – including some that had fallen out of use because of route changes. But I think the other thing was the ability to fiddle around with a mechanical contrivance that worked better than anything you could build in Meccano. For the same reason, bells of all shapes and descriptions also fascinated me – and ticket machines.

Stephen Ford

28/07/12 – 08:31

I remember that one, Roy, at the time. I seem to recall that he drove into the bus queue waiting at the stop.
And there are no sad folk on this website, Stephen, only happy but eccentric ones!

Chris Hebbron

28/07/12 – 11:03

The story as I heard it, Chris, was that the cadets were marching in formation to Chatham Dockyard in the same direction as the bus, so weren’t looking out for it, and the combination of the badly lit road and their dark uniforms, (and, allegedly, changing the blind as he was driving), led to the driver not seeing them.
BTW, while writing, thanks for your information about AFR Carling, (the recent WY posting). I met him once or twice – not always in the happiest of circumstances – and he had a lovely house right in the middle of my patch when I worked for Southdown.

Roy Burke

28/07/12 – 16:00

Okay, Roy you’re right – I’ve just looked it up, 1951 and 24 youngsters died. Sad business, doubly so if the driver did take his eye off the road.
Glad you found my Southdown comments useful, he certainly had a memorable war, along with many others!

Chris Hebbron

29/07/12 – 08:55

Sorry to go off on another old-bus-photos tangent, but your remarks about AFR Carling, Chris, revived many long dormant memories. You’ve said he was Area Manager, Portsmouth, during WWII, and became General Manager in 1947. What about the intermediate post of Traffic Manager? How long was Mr Carling GM of Southdown before going to Stratton House, and who followed him? George Duckworth was GM in my time.

Roy Burke

02/01/13 – 07:34

Just a slight correction, Roy, the bus involved in the Chatham disaster was apparently Chatham & District 875 (GKE 69), a 1939 Weymann-bodied Bristol K5G. Chatham & District were absorbed into Maidstone & District c1955 and of the batch of 37 (870-906) the 25 surviving at the time became M & D DH293-317. One of the batch, C & D 874, has been owned by the Friends of Chatham Traction for many years – I believe it is currently undergoing extensive restoration.

David Call

Leicester City Transport – Leyland Titan PD3 – TBC 164 – 164

Copyright Chris Hebbron

Leicester City Transport
1958
Leyland Titan PD3/1
Willowbrook H41/33R

LCT bought an eclectic mix of chassis and bodywork for its fleet over the decades, but settled on just three (164-166) tin-fronted Leyland Titan PD3/1’s, with attractive Willowbrook bodywork, in 1958. 165 and 166 were withdrawn in 1972 and 1975 respectively, with 164 being withdrawn in 1974. It’s seen here, looking remarkably chipper, aged 19, at the Bristol Bus Show, in 1977.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

29/09/12 – 07:43

And would the gent who looks as if he’s volunteering to become lunch be Mr Hebbron, by any chance?

Pete Davies

29/09/12 – 07:44

This bus is currently under restoration on a farm outside Leicester.

Philip Lamb

29/09/12 – 12:15

I thought it was at Snibston Discovery Park in Coalville, fully restored ages ago, along with a 6 wheel Renown and the 1911 Leicester City Transport Leyland tower wagon used up to the end of LCT Tramways in 1949. The latter is the oldest preserved Leyland lorry.

If the photo is 1974, Chris, and the figure looking in is not you, then it would be Clive; (sorry Clive, but I cannot remember your second name!). He was the regular Leicester Museums staff member who drove the exhibits to various shows when they were stationed at the Corporation Road Pumping Station Museum in Leicester. Probably still does, from Snibston. Other LCT buses are restored, or under restoration, by the Leicester Transport heritage Trust, including tram 36.

John Whitaker

29/09/12 – 18:03

Handsome bus, dignified livery. By the time I went up to university in 1984 the bus fleet had been standardised on MCW Metropolitans and Dennis Domintors with a few Metro-Scanias thrown in: but the fleet still sported the dignified cream and maroon-banded livery, some services were conductor-worked, and tickets dispensed from Ultimates and Solomatics . . . not for long though, the red/white/grey Leicester CityBus identity was adopted as part of the Leicester CityCouncil corporate identity (that’s right chaps, paint your buses the same colour as your refuse waggons so that passengers get the message), and Wayfarer machines came in. Most LCT services (except those worked jointly with Midland Red/Fox?) were cross-city and, I think until a route revision round about the time I went up, used different numbers depending on direction of travel. Leicester, like Trent, used to place front number plates at ‘tween decks level – any suggestions as to why? was this just a midlands foible, or did any other operators adopt this practice? Willowbrook seemed to have a respectable business amongst major operators for both single and double-deck business around this time, but then in the 1970s seemed to concentrate on the lightweight market: I suppose the introduction of the Leyland National killed-off the BET standard business, but why didn’t it continue to chase the double-deck market? And why did Duple buy Willowbrook and then divest itself of the business? Why did it keep the Willowbrook identity when Burlingham and Nudd Brothers & Lockyer became Duple (Northern) and Duple (Midland) – in fact, why wasn’t Willowbrook amalgamated with Duple (Midland)? Anyway, back to the bus: did Leicester pay extra for the Leyland badge? which would explain why not all tin-fronts sported this feature, but not why Leyland didn’t think it worth advertising itself on its products; and why, when the tin-front was adopted for wider use, did Leyland not modify the grill to eliminate the space for the BMMO badge? – surely the costs of re-tooling would have been miniscule when compared to production volumes. So many questions! Hopefully some answers will be forthcoming, in the meantime I’m going to scroll up and drool over the bus a bit more . . .

Philip Rushworth

30/09/12 – 07:57

Number plates between decks was not just a midlands foible Philip as Southdown did up until I think the late fifties when they moved them to below the cab windscreen for some reason although for obvious reasons the double deck coach No 700 with full front Northern Counties body always had it’s plate below the radiator grill.
I think the livery on the PD3 in the photo was far better than the later predominately cream version and the red/white/grey is best forgotten and the Midland Red front although not very stylish was infinitely superior to the St Helens front which was such an ugly brute which never suited any bodywork.

Diesel Dave

30/09/12 – 07:58

Philip Willowbrook did build some VRs and Atlanteans in the seventies principally for the Northern General companies sadly they were not a patch on this example Leicester’s last rear entrance bus an East Lancs bodied PD3 ran in 1982.
Why Leyland kept the tin front design until the early sixties without getting rid of the space for the BMMO badge I cannot say but Edinburgh fitted a version of it to all its Titans finally building a fibre glass version themselves.
The bodies built by Willowbrook were somewhat ersatz copies of ECW (the VR) and MCW products.

Chris Hough

30/09/12 – 10:40

If you go to your web page and type in AFT53 you’ll find a picture of Tynemouth 223 being used as a training bus, it was one of 5 Willowbrook bodied PD2/12’s delivered to Percy Main in 1957. AFT 49/53 – 219/223. The original livery layout was mostly red with cream center band and roof, later on the roof became red ‘I thought they looked best in that livery’ and about 1968 this updated version of the first post war layout was adopted. As far as I know these were the only ones of this type in the NGT group. Northern were never fans of tin fronts, in fact I think the Routemasters were the only ones that came close to that description

Ronnie Hoye

30/09/12 – 12:04

The tin front design question is an interesting one, as the Leyland grille design changed slightly over the years and I see nothing sacrosanct about the part with the space for the BMMO badge.
This photograph also makes clear why Orion bodies (in particular) on tin-front chassis, tapered in so much at the front. This was to match the width of the standard tin-front which was clearly to suit 7′-6″ chassis. Willowbrook opted to maintain more body width to the front resulting in a mini dash panel to the offside of the tin front.

David Beilby

02/10/12 – 14:46

Diesel Dave comments on the ugliness of the St Helens front. I’m making the rash assumption here that St Helens Corporation thought it rather pretty!

Pete Davies

02/10/12 – 14:54

The figure is not me, Pete/John and the photo was taken in 1977, so may or may not be Clive. I was worried, myself, about the wisdom of examining the mechanicals in the bowels of the monster, so I kept well clear. One can never be too careful!

Chris Hebbron

03/10/12 – 06:00

Thanks for clarifying! It looks as if that lid could stand duty as a guillotine.

Pete Davies

03/10/12 – 06:01

The later Leyland concealed radiator design was known as the St Helens front, because St Helens was the first operator to take delivery. The design was pure Leyland – a reverse of the situation re the original Leyland tin front, which was developed to match contemporary Midland Red styling.

Philip Lamb

03/10/12 – 06:02

David, the tin front wasn’t designed to suit a 7ft 6in chassis. The original design, as we all know, was for BMMO and the order was for 100 8ft wide PD2s with Leyland bodies. Again, as we know, the standard Leyland 8ft wide body was a widening of the original 7ft 6in wide body.
For some reason Leyland widened all but the the front of the 8ft body. This didn’t cause any design problem with the traditional layout of radiator and front scuttle panel and, as the BMMO requirement for a tin front was expected to be only for them, the tin front was designed to blend with the body.
Whilst the tin front was eventually offered on both 7ft 6in and 8ft chassis, the BMMO order was the only one, in either width, to specify Leyland body work.
Liverpool adopted the tin front and its 1954 delivery of PD2/20s (8ft wide with bodies by Alexander) did not have the narrowing and the tin front on these vehicles was the full width of the bus – as were tin fronts on bodies by other builders for a range of operators using the 8ft wide chassis.
Doug Jack’s “The Leyland Bus” has a range of pictures showing a variety of 8 ft wide tin front PD2s without any narrowing of the body, some with full width tin fronts, some with the 7ft 6in version on 8ft wide bodies.
The question is why 8ft wide Orion bodies narrowed as they did to use the 7ft 6in version of the tin front.
The Edinburgh Holmes designed tin front replacement was unutterably ugly. As for the St Helens front, it was designed to give better visibility and Leyland saw it as being akin to the design on the current Vista lorry cab (which they shared with Dodge), thus giving a form of “house style”.

Phil Blinkhorn

03/10/12 – 10:12

One of the attractions of this site is the wide scope of observations from correspondents with differing interests. With my ‘operational’ background, my reaction at the illustration was, as others have commented, of a smart vehicle in attractive livery, but I wondered about the destination display. The route numbers are large and very readable, which was fine for locals who knew where they were going, but the actual destination box itself isn’t too helpful for passengers who needed to check their intended destination, and is out of proportion with the numerical display. The positioning of the number plates is distracting, and doesn’t make things easier for them.

Roy Burke

04/10/12 – 07:22

Philip,
A reference in “Local Transport in St Helens 1879-1974” by TB Maund and MJ Ashton says “St Helens commissioned an unusual asymmetrical front which was subsequently used elsewhere and known as the ‘St Helens front’ “.
As a passenger on St Helens Corporation and Crosville to school from 1961-68, I always assumed that St Helens Titans had fibreglass fronts because Fibreglass Ltd (a subsidiary of Pilkington Brothers) were based in St Helens.
Thus, some Corporation spending was kept within the boundary and kept some local people in employment. This is something long-lost in our economy, much to the delight of Volvo, Scania etc.

Dave Farrier

04/10/12 – 13:35

On the subject of highly placed registration plates it may have been a geographical thing as both Trent and Barton also place them over the cab on double deckers.

Chris Hough

11/02/14 – 07:00

I worked for LCT for 5 years, and my understanding of the positioning of the number plates was that the body fitters were sick to death of having to refit them after minor shunts. So the chief engineer of the day, early 1960s, decreed that the damned things be removed to a higher place of safety. Presumably, other operators took the same view and for the same reason. A minor shunt, that maybe just dented the bottom of the grille, could be ignored until the next repaint, whereas damaged or missing number plates had to be attended to immediately or the vehicle was out of service until fixed.

Rob Haywood

11/08/14 – 07:16

The man looking at 164 is NOT Clive. It’s not me either but I did drive this to rallies when working for Leicester Museums and Clive Stevens worked for me. He still volunteers at Abbey Pumping Station Museum. We also drove the 1939 Renown, once all the way to Brighton.

Bob Bracegirdle

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

02/11/14 – 15:24

As an ex. LCT employee, 1956-61, I can confirm that the positioning of the front number plate between decks came about long before tin fronts – pre WW.II in fact. It was positioned there so that reconditioned radiators could be swapped between buses without the necessity to swap number plates.

Paul Banbury

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

Copyright Pete Davies

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

09/10/12 – 18:02

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

Phil Blinkhorn

09/10/12 – 18:05

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

Pete Davies

10/10/12 – 09:40

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

Philip Carlton

10/10/12 – 09:41

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

Eric Bawden

10/10/12 – 12:08

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

Pete Davies

10/10/12 – 12:09

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

Phil Blinkhorn

11/10/12 – 07:31

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

Stephen Howarth

11/10/12 – 08:58

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

Pete Davies

14/10/12 – 08:00

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

Bob Gell

21/05/14 – 12:29

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

Mike Rhodes

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

05/09/14 – 07:30

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

Nick Sommer

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

County Motors1964Leyland Titan PD3A/1Roe H42/31F

Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee1964Leyland Titan PD3/4Weymann H40/32F

Sheffield Corporation1959Leyland PD3/1Roe H39/30R

Sheffield Corporation1959Leyland Titan PD3/1Roe H39/30R

South Yorkshire Motors 1960Leyland Titan PD3/1Roe L31/32RD

Leeds City Transport1958Leyland Titan PD3/5Roe H38/32R

Stratford-upon-Avon Blue Motors Ltd1963Leyland Titan PD3/4Northern Counties H41/32F

Stratford-upon-Avon Blue Motors Ltd1963Leyland Titan PD3A/1Willowbrook H41/32F

Leicester City Transport1958Leyland Titan PD3/1Willowbrook H41/33R

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

County Motors
1964
Leyland Titan PD3A/1
Roe H42/31F

Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee
1964
Leyland Titan PD3/4
Weymann H40/32F

Sheffield Corporation
1959
Leyland PD3/1
Roe H39/30R

Sheffield Corporation
1959
Leyland Titan PD3/1
Roe H39/30R

South Yorkshire Motors
1960
Leyland Titan PD3/1
Roe L31/32RD

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

Stratford-upon-Avon Blue Motors Ltd
1963
Leyland Titan PD3/4
Northern Counties H41/32F

Stratford-upon-Avon Blue Motors Ltd
1963
Leyland Titan PD3A/1
Willowbrook H41/32F

Leicester City Transport
1958
Leyland Titan PD3/1
Willowbrook H41/33R

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