Leyland – Page 9 – Old bus photos

Bradford Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – EKY 569 – 34

Copyright Ian Wild

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

16/11/12 – 09:00

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 The last ones were 20 years old when they were withdrawn in 1970.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

Chris Hough

16/11/12 – 11:24

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

Eric Bawden

16/11/12 – 11:38

I may upset a few people here, but I’d like to venture to suggest that Bradford Regent Vs 121-5 were withdrawn in 1972 not because they were worn out, so to speak, but simply because Bradford had a surplus of vehicles at the time – Fleetlines 336-55 being more than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

David Call

16/11/12 – 13:49

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

David Oldfield

16/11/12 – 13:50

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

John Whitaker

16/11/12 – 15:35

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

Roger Cox

16/11/12 – 16:45

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

Roger Cox

16/11/12 – 17:14

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

John Whitaker

17/11/12 – 06:47

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

Roger Cox

17/11/12 – 06:48

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

Michael Elliott

17/11/12 – 06:49

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

Chris Hough

17/11/12 – 06:50

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

Pete Davies

17/11/12 – 06:53

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

Chris Hebbron

17/11/12 – 06:53

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

David Oldfield

17/11/12 – 06:54

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

David Call

17/11/12 – 08:39

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

Joe

17/11/12 – 08:39

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

Eric Bawden

17/11/12 – 13:29

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

Phil Blinkhorn

17/11/12 – 14:37

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

Kevin Hey

17/11/12 – 17:26

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

Pete Davies

18/11/12 – 08:13

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

John Whitaker

18/11/12 – 08:13

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

David Beilby

18/11/12 – 08:15

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

Michael Elliott

18/11/12 – 08:16

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

Phil Blinkhorn

18/11/12 – 12:11

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

Pete Davies

18/11/12 – 12:12

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

Eric Bawden

11/01/13 – 14:28

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

Geoff S

12/01/13 – 13:51

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

John Whitaker

13/01/13 – 07:22

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

Ken Jones

13/01/13 – 14:09

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

Chris Hebbron

13/01/13 – 15:14

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

Alan Murray-Rust

13/01/13 – 17:23

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

Ken Jones

14/01/13 – 07:08

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

Phil Blinkhorn

14/01/13 – 13:14

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

Chris Hebbron

14/01/13 – 14:22

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

John Whitaker

06/07/13 – 07:02

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

David Hudson

06/07/13 – 18:11

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

Roger Cox

01/05/18 – 06:12

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

Mr Anon

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

18/12/18 – 07:22

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

Chris Hough

Hunter’s – Leyland Titan – ETY 912 – 18

Copyright John Kaye

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

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

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

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

02/12/12 – 11:10

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

Phil Blinkhorn

02/12/12 – 11:11

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

Pete Davies

02/12/12 – 11:15

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

Phil Blinkhorn

02/12/12 – 12:01

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

Chris Youhill

02/12/12 – 14:16

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

Pete Davies

02/12/12 – 16:20

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

Ronnie Hoye

02/12/12 – 17:05

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

Pete Davies

03/12/12 – 08:04

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

Diesel Dave

03/12/12 – 08:06

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

Michael Elliott

03/12/12 – 08:08

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

Philip Halstead

03/12/12 – 10:41

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

Chris Youhill

03/12/12 – 13:59

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

Phil Blinkhorn

03/12/12 – 14:00

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

Ronnie Hoye

04/12/12 – 07:12

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

Roger Cox

04/12/12 – 07:13

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

David Oldfield

04/12/12 – 08:14

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

Chris Hebbron

04/12/12 – 09:14

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

David Oldfield

04/12/12 – 11:35

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

Chris Hebbron

04/12/12 – 11:37

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

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

Phil Blinkhorn

04/12/12 – 15:41

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

Andrew

05/12/12 – 07:20

Good point, Andrew!

Chris Hebbron

05/12/12 – 08:05

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

David Beilby

05/12/12 – 09:14

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

Pete Davies

05/12/12 – 09:16

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

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 11:04

Pity WL was not a Sheffield mark eh Pete?

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 11:58

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

Andrew

05/12/12 – 12:00

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

Phil Blinkhorn

05/12/12 – 13:54

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

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 17:35

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

Ronnie Hoye

06/12/12 – 07:04

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

Philip Carlton

07/12/12 – 06:50

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

John Thompson

10/12/12 – 08:00

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

Ronnie Hoye

09/01/13 – 10:35

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

Paul Robson

07/07/13 – 13:57

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

Percy Trimmer

20/05/14 – 10:37

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

Alan Coulson

20/05/14 – 16:29

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

David Call

21/05/14 – 08:11

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

Alan Coulson

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

13/11/21 – 06:19

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

David Call

South Notts – Leyland Titan PD2 – MRR 338 – 48

Copyright John Stringer

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

27/01/13 – 11:49

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

Neville Mercer

27/01/13 – 12:36

No problem Neville.

John Stringer

27/01/13 – 12:37

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

Chris Barker

27/01/13 – 16:32

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

John Whitaker

28/01/13 – 13:35

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

Alan Murray-Rust

29/01/13 – 06:44

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

Chris Barker

29/01/13 – 10:05

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

Chris Youhill

29/01/13 – 15:18

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

Chris Hebbron

29/01/13 – 15:19

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

Stephen Ford

29/01/13 – 18:05

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

Roger Cox

30/01/13 – 06:19

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

Chris Hebbron

30/01/13 – 06:20

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

Michael Elliott

30/01/13 – 11:29

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

Neville Mercer

30/01/13 – 11:30

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

Chris Barker

30/01/13 – 13:55

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

Stephen Ford

30/01/13 – 17:34

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

Roger Cox

31/01/13 – 06:01

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

Philip Carlton

31/01/13 – 06:02

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

Pete Davies

31/01/13 – 06:03

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

Philip Rushworth

01/02/13 – 06:14

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

Michael Elliott

01/02/13 – 06:14

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

Chris Barker

20/05/13 – 16:52

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

Brian Binns

21/05/13 – 12:06

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

Bob Gell

10/09/14 – 07:00

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

Ross

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

31/01/17 – 07:22

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

DaveM

Tynemouth and District – Leyland Titan PD2 – AFT 51 – 221

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

Tynemouth and District
1957
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Willowbrook H35/28R

I think many of the job lot of anonymous photos I purchased must have come from the same source as the same locations crop up on a regular basis. Once again we are at the Whitley Bay Bandstand Terminus of the service 8 to North Shields Ferry Landing. Its been mentioned before about the amount of freedom Northern General Transport allowed its subsidiaries, and here we have a typical example. This is a 1957 H35/28R Willowbrook bodied Leyland PD2/12, one of 5 bought by Tynemouth and District, they were AFT 49/53 fleet numbers 219/23. About this time Northern ordered quite a number of PD2’s, 12 were rear door Park Royal’s originally for Sunderland District but diverted to Northern for use on longer routes shared with United, the remainder were Orion bodied, but as far as I’m aware these were the only Willowbrook bodied versions. The photo would be no earlier than about 1960 as by now the bus has been repainted and the top is red, where as it would have been cream when first delivered. They had the same O600 engine as the later PD3’s and were much lighter and far livelier, but they did bounce quite a lot, especially when running light. However, they had one big advantage over the PD3, a prayer book was not necessary as they were a lot less reluctant to stop when asked to do so.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

30/01/13 – 15:10

Nice view, Ronnie. Thanks for sharing. I agree entirely with your comments about the management style of the old Northern General. It continues today with the Go Ahead Group where, for example, it seems to be at the depot manager’s discretion whether the “We’re part of the Go Ahead Group” appears in the window or not. The opposite end of the scale when comparing with – certainly one of if not both – of the big groups based in Scotland!

Pete Davies

Solent Blue Line – Leyland Titan PD2 – 86 GFJ – 01

Copyright Pete Davies

Solent Blue Line
1963
Leyland Titan PD2A/30
Massey H31/26R

This PD2A/30 was new to Exeter City Transport in 1963, with Massey H57R bodywork. In this first view she was with Solent Blue Line, a subsidiary of Southern Vectis, established by two disgruntled managers of Southampton Citybus in 1987. Most of the time, 01 was the training vehicle, but she did operate peak journeys on some routes, notably between Southampton City Centre and the Thornhill Estate. A colleague who had the misfortune to travel on her on these occasions described her as a wreck. The current version of that route uses Mercedes Citaros! This view was taken at the Netley rally on 23 July 1989.

Copyright Pete Davies

In this second view, also at Netley, but on 12 July 1992, she has been restored to her previous Exeter condition. What a difference a coat of paint and a bit of care can make!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

01/02/13 – 06:19

In case anyone was wondering, the bus alongside in the second view is the Maidstone & District Atlantean, 558LKP.

Pete Davies

01/02/13 – 06:19

In the “as restored” photograph she seems to have an enclosed platform (with doors?), whilst in the earlier photograph she has an open platform . . .

Philip Rushworth

01/02/13 – 07:37

Looking at other photos on the web this seems to be a removable doorway to allow the owner to secure the vehicle on trips. There are plenty of pictures of it as restored without doors.

David Beilby

01/02/13 – 08:40

Our moderator and I were wondering how soon readers would notice the presence or absence of a platform door!
1hr 14mins is pretty good going David.

Pete Davies

Premier Travel – Leyland Titan PD2 – DCK 212

Copyright John Stringer

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.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

24/02/13 – 09:54

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.

John Harvey

Manchester Corporation – Leyland Titan – TNA 494 – 3494

Manchester Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Burlingham H37/28R – Leyland H32/28R

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.

Ian Lynas

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan – LWE 123 – 623

Copyright Dave Careless

Sheffield Corporation
1949
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

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.

Stan Zapiec

Yorkshire Woollen District – Leyland Titan – 3156 WE – 135

Copyright John Stringer

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.

Philip Rushworth

Wigan Corporation – Leyland PD2/37 – FEK 9F – 46

Copyright John Stringer

Wigan Corporation
1968
Leyland PD2/37
Massey H37/27F

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.

Paul Mason

Bradford Corporation1950Leyland Titan PD2/3Leyland H33/27R

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

South Notts Bus Co Ltd1951Leyland Titan PD2/12Leyland L53R

Tynemouth and District1957Leyland Titan PD2/12Willowbrook H35/28R

Solent Blue Line1963Leyland Titan PD2A/30Massey H31/26R

Premier Travel (Cambridge)1950Leyland Titan PD2/3East Lancs. FL27/26RD

Manchester Corporation1958Leyland Titan PD2/40Burlingham H37/28R – Leyland H32/28R

Sheffield Corporation1949Leyland Titan PD2/1Leyland H30/26R

Yorkshire Woollen District1958Leyland PD2/30Roe H33/26RD

Wigan Corporation1968Leyland PD2/37Massey H37/27F

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

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

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

Tynemouth and District
1957
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Willowbrook H35/28R

Solent Blue Line
1963
Leyland Titan PD2A/30
Massey H31/26R

Premier Travel (Cambridge)
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/3
East Lancs. FL27/26RD

Manchester Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Burlingham H37/28R – Leyland H32/28R

Sheffield Corporation
1949
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

Yorkshire Woollen District
1958
Leyland PD2/30
Roe H33/26RD

Wigan Corporation
1968
Leyland PD2/37
Massey H37/27F