Southend Corporation – Leyland Titan – CJN 438C – 338

CJN 438C

Southend Corporation
1965
Leyland Titan PD3/6
Massey H38/32R

This picture was taken sometime in the early seventies at what is now to me an unknown location in Southend, it shows No 338 CJN438C one of a batch of twelve Leyland PD3/6s with Massey H38/32R bodywork delivered in April 1965 after Massey had changed to a severe upright front profile in stark contrast to it’s very curvaceous shape although personally I liked the upright look, so I imagine my view of most modern vehicles is quite obvious but then like most people who use the site live in the past like me.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave


07/07/14 – 07:59

I agree, Dave, that the upright front end looks better than those exaggeratedly backswept Massey front profiles of earlier days. Wonderful contrast in seating capacity (70 and 34) between this Southend Titan and the magnificent Thornycroft posted by Pete Davies, yet the overall lengths differ by only five feet or so. Each, in its way, a very handsome bus.

Ian T


07/07/14 – 08:00

I had just been riding on ex-Ramsbottom no 8, an East Lancs bodied PD3/4, at Peterborough Bus Rally when I got home and opened up this superb shot. The sounds of the O.600 engine and ‘solid’ gearchanges still ringing in my ears. Sheer bliss!
I can’t make my mind up whether I preferred the curvy Massey front or this upright version but whichever front they had Massey bodies always looked so solid and well built. The Southend livery is a classic too, a lovely shade of blue.
Thanks for the post it has really made my day.

Philip Halstead


07/07/14 – 08:02

CJN 435C

I don’t know a lot about this vehicle (CJN 435C) only that my boss borrowed it for me for driver training at Midland Red North it was in beautiful condition and must be a preserved vehicle. Around about 1994.

Michael Crofts


07/07/14 – 10:17

This batch of superb vehicles were delivered during the time when I was regularly on Leeds – Southend Airport tour feeders for Wallace Arnold. I had already fallen in love with “The County Borough” and the Corporation’s glorious and fascinating fleet, but these buses really were the bees’ knees. Avoiding that possibly exclusive word “favourite” I’m sure that these must be amongst the most handsome and well proportioned “back loaders” of all time.

Chris Youhill


07/07/14 – 15:50

I think there is scope for confusion in respect of what is meant by a ‘curvy’ Massey body. In the photograph linked to below, the right-hand vehicle has one of the the most curvy Massey bodies produced, these were current late 1940s to mid-1950s. The vehicle on the left has a body which isn’t quite so curvy, this style was current mid-1950s to mid-1960s – but it’s still more curvy than the upright style shown above, produced in the very few years from the mid-1960s until the end of Massey production.
These two additional buses are also from Southend, one of Massey’s most regular customers. www.sct61.org.uk/ss307b

David Call


07/07/14 – 15:51

I think that the curvy Masseys look dreadful, but I agree with everyone else that these “upright” versions look rather special.

David Oldfield


08/07/14 – 07:30

Massey seemed to increase the ‘curved back’ angle for lowbridge bodies more than they did on highbridge versions. The Daimler in the photo linked above is a good example. I don’t recall any lowbridge versions being built with the ‘upright’ front but stand to be corrected. By the time the upright design was introduced lowbridge (ie sunken gangway type) buses were pretty rare.

Philip Halstead


08/07/14 – 07:30

Thanks for your thoughts in respect of this and my posting of the Portsmouth Thornycroft, Ian. I was more familiar with the Massey double deckers of Morecambe & Heysham than the more upright version seen here.
I have a (bought) slide of an A1 Service Fleetline with a Massey body of the same era, “B” suffix. It seems to me to be more reminiscent of the MCW offering. At least we should be thankful it isn’t like the Park Royal which Southampton had on PD2, PD2A and Regent V chassis!

Pete Davies


08/07/14 – 07:31

David O, I have to totally agree with your comments about the Massey bodies. This upright style I would probably rate as my joint 3rd favourite style of half-cab double decker. As a patriotic Yorkshireman 1st has to be the early 1950’s Roe bodies,2nd the ECW on Bristol K chassis & joint 3RD the postwar Leyland

Keith Clark


08/07/14 – 07:32

These buses had red steering wheels to denote that they were highbridge and therefore banned from certain routes.

Philip Carlton


08/07/14 – 07:32

I enjoyed the ‘spot the difference’ contest between these two photos of the upright Massey bodies – I much prefer these to the dated curvy style, even though I used one of the latter as my wedding transport.
The difference is, of course the London Transport stencil holders, which remained on this batch of buses after their hire to Croydon Garage to work route 190 Thornton Heath – Old Coulsdon in 1975. I think that Southend felt that they were some sort of badge of honour and the stencil holders remained on these buses, i think, to the end of their days, despite serving no purpose back home.

Petras409


08/07/14 – 07:33

The intermediate style of post-war Massey bodywork (as displayed by Southend 307 in the above linked picture) was available to the end of Massey production, concurrent with the more upright style. Very few operators took the upright style – Chester, Wigan, and Birkenhead spring immediately to mind as users, in addition to Southend.

David Call


08/07/14 – 08:00

The link given by David Call does not compare like with like. Both vehicles depicted are the lowbridge type, which had a more exaggerated curvature to the frontal profiles than the corresponding highbridge versions. Alan Murray-Rust’s OBP gallery ‘Massey Bodies with Independents’ includes examples of the later highbridge design before the introduction of its upright successor. Personally, I prefer the older style – the upright type has an air of ungainliness that is absent from the classic East Lancs design that Southend turned to for its last PD3s. Massey were very late entering the rear engined bodywork market – the first examples of the firm’s new design entered service with Maidstone in January 1967 – but the initial concept must have been drafted much earlier. I think that the upright design for front engined chassis was conceived to allow a degree of commonality of components with the rear engined body. These Southend PD3s travelled far beyond the borough boundary. From September 1975 they appeared from Croydon Garage on London Transport service 190 (originally a Croydon Corporation tram route as far as Purley) between Thornton Heath High Street and Old Coulsdon. This was at a time of market domination by Leyland, when the entire bus industry was suffering late deliveries of new vehicles and severe shortages of spare parts. LT hired ten PD3s on a rotational basis from Southend, the vehicles being returned to their owner for maintenance. The drivers ‘lucky’ enough to be trained to drive the clutch/synchromesh gearbox, ‘modestly’ braked Titans must have found themselves in another world entirely from the fully automatic, hydraulically braked Routemasters. I have to say that the PD3 design certainly had the heaviest controls of all the buses I have ever driven.

CJN 434C
MHJ 347F

The pictures show Massey bodied CJN 434C and East Lancs MHJ 347F at South Croydon en route to Old Coulsdon. When LT finished with these buses they passed on to London Country, who based them at Harlow Garage. (Some of the drivers’ comments that I heard cannot be repeated on a family site like OBP.) It is a tribute to the indestructability of the PD3 that it survived some pretty unsympathetic treatment in unfamiliar hands. London Country finally ended the hire arrangement at the end of January 1977. One aspect of this tale that intrigues me is how Southend (and Maidstone as well – between six and nine Atlanteans were on loan to Chelsham Garage in 1977)) should have so many buses surplus to requirements that it could hire them out to others.

Roger Cox


08/07/14 – 11:10

Petras 409 – I’ve often, over the years, reflected wryly on the displeasure that the London Transport “pre-selector” chaps will have expressed when driving the excellent PD3s. Similarly just after the War when borrowed Bristol Ks and LT’s own new Leyland PD1s appeared – ah, I’m going into happy memories now of the glorious PD1s – Yorkshire ex Bristol and ex Lancashire examples which gave me so much pleasure both privately and in my career.

Chris Youhill


08/07/14 – 11:11

A friend of mine who was an operator of high end coaches had a saying: I want professional drivers, not steering wheel attendants. This portrays the eternal problems. Leylands, such as these, were definitely engineers buses – solidly built with reliable operation in mind. They were not “drivers” buses – heavy and ponderous with suspect brakes. [Although an enthusiast/enthusiastic driver may take a pride in taming the beast and driving it well.] This could be said of all Leylands up to about 1970 (when power steering was becoming universal, along with better braking systems). On the other hand, AECs were drivers buses – in the words of another operator friend, thoroughbreds. Sadly, thoroughbreds can be temperamental and the wet liner 470s and 590s let the side down in the reliability stakes – and did quite a lot to tarnish the good reputation of AEC. Subsequent engines (505, 691 and 760) regained the old standards, but too late, as many had abandoned ship by then.

David Oldfield


09/07/14 – 07:59

Chris Y is so right when he talks about London Transport’s drivers being wedded to their pre-selective vehicles! Among other cases were the eight brand-new all-Leyland PD1 STD class allocated to Potter’s Bar Garage in late 1946. They replaced some 1929 open-staircase LT’s but, within the month, they had been swapped with Loughton Garage’s almost-as-old LT’s!

Chris Hebbron


09/07/14 – 07:59

Back to the Masseys. I prefer what one commentator was known to call an honest box (shape). I think there is far more class in a Setra or Van Hool than in fussy, curvy coaches just as I am an admirer of the Mancunian, the standard Park-Roe body (1968-1981) and the subsequent ECW/Roe body on the Olympian. All outside our time frame here, but examples of simple classic design.

David Oldfield


09/07/14 – 07:59

In my own defence perhaps I could make the point that I was trying to show that there were various degrees of ‘curvy’ Massey bodies. The fully sweptback style I think only featured on lowbridge bodies, highbridge of the period having much the same sort of profile as the mid-1950s to late-1960s style. In respect of the latter, I’ve never been conscious of any great difference in the rake between highbridge and lowbridge models.

David Call


09/07/14 – 07:59

I wonder if being a “drivers bus” equates to “being popular with drivers” though. Certainly I read in one of the many articles/books by that recent great loss to the transport world, Geoffrey Hilditch, (not sure which one though) that at Halifax it was custom to keep a Regent V conspicuously parked in the depot doorway, as a warning to any crew asking for a changeover, presumably from a PD2 or PD3, that that would be the vehicle they would be given as a replacement. Or was it just as in so many fleets, the minority vehicle type tends to be less popular? I would imagine noise levels in the cab of any synchromesh Regent V or Renown would be pretty high which some drivers probably did not appreciate.

Michael Keeley


12/07/14 – 06:44

The practice of leaving an even more unpopular replacement vehicle in a conspicuous place was not restricted to Halifax. I’m sure I’ve read of the practice elsewhere and certain that Charles Baroth used the same deterrent at Salford, even on the trams.

Orla Nutting


12/07/14 – 09:11

Having undesirable vehicles available for changeovers was a practice which was widespread. Towards the end of my stay with Burnley & Pendle it was accepted that if your vehicle needed to be changed, the replacement would be a Bristol RE, which was not only the oldest type in the fleet, but compared poorly with the contemporary standard. Didn’t this practice deter drivers from reporting bona fide defects?

David Call


14/07/14 – 07:50

It’s good to see the Massey and East Lancs versions together like that. I agree that the East Lancs is more elegant, but it’s also more bland; the Massey has more character. For some strange reason they put me in mind of the difference between dark chocolate and milk chocolate. I prefer dark –
I prefer the Massey.

Peter Williamson


14/07/14 – 09:49

Compare the Massey body to that of Manchester’s 3520 in the current thread about Manchester’s 3629. In 1958 Manchester wanted more upper deck space and had Burlingham straighten and tone down their somewhat over curvy design and came up with this elegant design – which looked far better on the Leyland chassis than the Daimler version. Massey seemingly followed suit.

Phil Blinkhorn


02/01/15 – 09:16

The top picture of 338 I believe was taken in London Road Southend, just by Victoria Circus. The bus is heading west (it is a 3A to Canvey Island). Buses don’t use that part of the road any more since the road behind this bus has now been pedestrianised and a bypass (Queensway) was built just to the north.

Brinic


16/01/15 – 08:28

CJN 436C
CJN 436C_2
CJN 436C._3

Photo of CJN 436C at Castle point Open Day, also two photos of the same vehicle as a playbus

Brian Pask


18/10/15 – 07:45

I was delighted to see the photograph of Southend 335 (CJN 435C) at Midland Red North’s Cannock Depot. My introduction to the Massey Highbridge PD3s was when one picked me up on my way to school when first introduced in 1965 and made an impression with that smell of ‘newness’. Nineteen years later a friend encouraged me to help at the Castle Point Transport Museum on Canvey Island and I found myself helping to extract a stripped vehicle from the rear of the building ready for the collection by the scrap merchant. Once it had been moved an old friend was revealed – 335 – and I asked what was happening to the ‘Old Lady’ sadly down on her luck. The answer was blunt – she would be leaving for the scrap yard once the other vehicle had left. When I mentioned my memories of 335 and her sisters the owner offered to sell at scrap value if I was interested – and in a moment of madness I agreed.
Within a month 335 was removed from the rear of the building and tucked-up inside the Museum. Progress was slow and the engine was found to have a defective block. In the July of 1986 my dad, who had been helping me, suddenly died and my wife and I decided 335 would be rebuilt in memory of dad. The rebuild was extensive with the bodywork undertaken by Roy Hawkes – including new rear platform, staircase, stress and external panels. At that time was working part-time for Southend Transport and had got to know Chris Hilditch who was Chief Engineer as well as other senior staff. With the bodywork renewed I offered the mechanical overhaul, repaint and seat re-trimming to Southend Transport. I remember the day she was towed from Canvey to Tickfield Works in plain aluminium finish and the greeting the ‘Old Lady’ was given on her arrival. Chris made me a promise and he kept it. On the first anniversary of dad’s death, with the engine from a Portsmouth PD2 installed, 335 made her first test run. At the following Canvey Open Day she worked on the Shuttle Service crewed by Southend Transport Drivers. Chris moved to Midland Red North and 335 fitted the bill to retrain drivers with automatic licences to drive stick motors. She did two periods of duty at MRN but also had a spell with Southend when her sister, by then on loan as a trainer, was in the works. After regaining her PSV status she worked for the late Brian Smith of S & M Coaches on school contracts until rear-platform vehicles were phased-out. She also spent time at Mangapps Railway Museum at Burnham-on-Crouch. Unfortunately the on-set of arthritis meant it was becoming difficult to drive her and a friend, Carl Ireland, stored her for me where she caught the eye of a French gentleman. After a fresh repaint she came south for the Canvey Open Day allowing me a last opportunity to drive her before crossing the Channel where she was well looked after. Eventually she returned and was gutted to be a Playbus in the Southend area. After that I quit ‘bus preservation but I have been told she is back in preservation and would be delighted to hear how she has fared. I cannot recall the year I sold her but it must have been around 1989.

Frank Spence


28/10/15 – 07:04

Many thanks to Frank for having preserved this bus and to the snap a photo of old 335, it really was a magnificent effort to get her back to better than new standard about 1987 and I was to leave Southend in 1988 to join MRN, I saw this vehicle as above in the yard of Cannock and recognised it immediately, I had a bit of sleeplessness as I was really worried about how much it cost Frank to have the bus rebuilt at professional fees even doing the best I could, I do hope the vehicle survives and what a waste to turn it into a playbus the interior was done in original style by Seph our trimmer in original new moquette.
Good luck I hope it survives I too would be pleased to here how it goes on.

Chris Hilditch


04/05/16 – 06:23

I was delighted to see Chris Hilditch’s response to my notes on Southend Transport 335. He was very supportive of my efforts to return the Old Lady to her former glory and that enthusiasm extended to everyone in Tickfield Works. I was fortunate to be on Southend Transport’s part time driver panel so I was able to come and go at the Works whenever I wanted to monitor the progress and discuss directly with the staff any issues. Even the spiders in the deepest recesses of the stores were disturbed as odd PD3 parts were discovered. When 335 was stripped to become a playbus the seats survived and found their way into her sister, Lulu, as she was returned to her former glory by new owners.

Frank Spence


28/02/17 – 06:11

The Top picture is in London Road, Southend virtually opposite what was at the Time ENOC’s Southend Depot. Behind the bus is Southend Victoria Circus & an area nicknamed ”Cobweb Corner” in Tram & Trolleybus days due to the high amount of Overhead wires. I remember Chris Hilditch wayback when I was at ST in 1986 as a 18 year old handyman-31 years later I part-run a Bus & Coach company in Rochford with 3 Routemasters.

James Sadd


13/08/17 – 07:41

Glad I stumbled on this site! CJN 436C (Lulu2 above) was sited in the grounds of Darlinghurst School for a while and somewhere along the way was bought by my father, Don Hebden who was Duty Crew at London Road. 436 arrived in Tickfield and stood there for a number of years. Eventually it was sold to someone in the Worthing area, I believe. My dad reported that with a bit of attention, it started up and ran OK and was then driven to Worthing under its own steam! I actually heard it running as my dad’s mobile phone made a “pocket call” to mine part way through proceedings! I have a photocopy of the log book somewhere which I found when clearing out his paperwork after he died. Greetings to Chris Hilditch, too – fellow piper in SSPB!

Mike Hebden


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


02/11/18 – 07:34

CJN 435C

I came across this publicity shot of Southend 335 (copyright unknown), which now resides at PenYBanc Farm, not too far away from where I now live in West Wales. It has been converted to an upmarket camper van, although it is stationary on site. From previous comments, it seemed that 335 was well on the way to being preserved in running condition. Anybody know what happened? I will have a look at the bus at some time and get some more photos.

David Field

Bedwas & Machen – Leyland Titan PD3 – PAX 466F – 6

Bedwas & Machen - Leyland Titan PD3 - PAX 466F - 6

Bedwas & Machen Urban District Council
1968
Leyland Titan PD3/4
Massey L35/33RD

PAX 466F was new to Bedwas & Machen in June 1968 and carries a Massey lowbridge body L35/33RD. She was one of the runners at Bus & Coach Wales in September 2014 carrying some healthy loads on some difficult terrain. The event is held in Merthyr Tydfil.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson


25/05/15 – 07:20

PAX 466F_2

Another fine contribution from Les. I attach a view of this bus in Milton Keynes Metro livery, at Duxford, for the SHOWBUS event on 24 September 2000. I accept that people have different ideas of what looks good as a bus livery, but the Milton Keynes one doesn’t fall into that category in my estimation!

Pete Davies


25/05/15 – 17:00

I think a lot of people would agree with you, Pete. The original livery for this poor bus was simple and dignified.

David Wragg


25/05/15 – 17:00

At the risk of stirring the wrath of the good burgers of Milton Keynes, I agree with Pete and therefore think the livery is entirely appropriate for the city of a thousand traffic roundabouts!

Stephen Ford

Caerphilly UDC – Leyland Titan – GNY 432C – 32

GNY 432C

Caerphilly Urban District Council
1965
Leyland Titan PD3/4
Massey L35/33RD

Here we have another Urban District Council vehicle this time it is a Massey lowbridge-bodied Leyland Titan PD3/4 which was new to Caerphilly Urban District Council in October 1965 as fleet number 32. With chassis number L42817 and body number 5911 this bus looks in fine fettle in this photograph, taken at the Bus & Coach Wales event in September 2014.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson


21/01/16 – 06:49

What a smart looking bus. Very unusual to have hopper windows in the saloons of a bus of that age – wonder if they are a later fitment? Must be ‘pretty adjacent’ to the nearside top deck passengers heads – wonder if an additional notice is required ‘Please mind your head on the windows when leaving your seat’!!

Ian Wild


21/01/16 – 06:49

Nice view, Les, and thanks for posting.

Pete Davies


21/01/16 – 07:33

Caerphilly had hopper vents on all their later PD2s and PD3s as well as their Massey-bodied Leopards. They seem to have had some popularity in South Wales as Pontypridd also specified them on their last two Guy Arabs and first few Regent Vs as well as some Reliances at the same time. Oddly, they went back to sliders for the last Regent Vs.

David Beilby


21/01/16 – 15:37

Something curiously old fashioned about it for its age. Probably the trad Massey body and classic radiator- and the blind masks and handle… but how come the OMO-ish cab side windows? Smart job, though.

Joe


22/01/16 – 06:14

Very handsome bus, but what really is old-fashioned about it is that as late as 1965 someone thought it worth ordering a traditional lowbridge bus with the awful offside sunken gangway on the upper deck.

David Wragg


22/01/16 – 06:15

Joe – you’ve lost me there about “OMOish cab side windows ?? The extended destination handles were not unknown amongst certain operators and they were an extremely good idea – any small conductor/driver, or any height for that matter, could have a nasty accident climbing up a slippery metal foothold to change the destination in the more usual arrangement. As you say curiously old fashioned – but in my view delightfully traditional and oh how I wish they were rolling off the production lines in their hundreds today !!

Chris Youhill


22/01/16 – 16:10

5350

Talking of small Conductors and changing destination blinds, here is an Oldham Corporation Passenger Transport Department ‘GUARD’ doing just that with the help of the extended winding handles, on Roe (H37/28R) bodied Leyland PD2/30, PBU 950 (Fleet No.450).
New in October 1958, it passed to SELNEC PTE in November 1969, and was given Fleet No.5350, a seen here.
It was the only bus to carry the SELNEC fleet number on the Crimson Lake livery.
It was withdrawn in July 1971, and went to Barnsley for scrap.

Stephen Howarth


22/01/16 – 17:04

West Riding were partial to long winding gear as were Salford. In Salford it was specifically to stop crews clambering up the bus front. Of course West Riding went one further so to speak by fitting exterior winding gear to their Wulfrunians!

Chris Hough


23/01/16 – 06:45

Chris Y…. OMOish because the drivers engine side window appears to be in two pieces but not angled enough for fares… Or was there an orderly queue up, the bus?! Any ideas anywhere… And Chris….were those or the Regent V at Ledgards the only survivors into West Yorkshire?

Joe


23/01/16 – 06:46

David W – Purely by chance, I came across an item about the last lowbridge-bodied bus built – in 1968 and preserved. Coincidentally it was also a PD3 with Massey body! It was bought by Bedwas & Machen UDC, who worked closely with Caerphilly and the two probably influenced each other.
See: //historypoints.org/index.

Chris Hebbron


23/01/16 – 06:47

I don’t think the hopper vents would have been a problem for passengers leaving, since it was impossible to stand up in any case. The only way out was to slide along the seat – after asking anyone else who was on it to unload themselves into the gangway first.
There really was no excuse for this in 1965. I know these buses were wonderful for enthusiasts, but passengers and conductors were more important.

Peter Williamson


23/01/16 – 12:43

No Joe – you can definitely forget any OMO connotation on connection with the cab window. I’m pretty certain that the only front engined buses, and forward entrance ones at that, were some adapted by various operators for the purpose by angling the front bulkhead window partly over the bonnet. It was the shabbiest practice ever and involved the driver twisting round excessively to serve boarding passengers on the steps as they entered. Much unjustified scoffing is aimed at “Health and Safety” but this would be a prime example of where this “OMO” practice should have been stamped on from the very start !!
Now, the West Yorkshire/Ledgard takeover – all the Ledgard vehicles were taken over by West Yorkshire, but only fourteen were used by them. These were the ten AEC Regent Vs (six new to Ledgard and four ex South Wales) which became DAW 1 – 10, and the two Daimler CVG6s which became DGW 11/12. This apparent “series” of 1 – 12 was not a series but a coincidence as West Yorkshire already DGW 1 – 10 of their own, those being Bristol KSW6Gs. Also used by West Yorkshire were Ledgard’s two Thames/Duple coaches which became CF1/2.

Chris Youhill


25/01/16 – 06:31

Thank you, Chris Hebbron. I hadn’t realised that lowbridge bodies were produced as late as that. My family left for Malta for three years in 1956, by which time Hants & Dorset Bristol LD series Lodekkas could be seen in Gosport. Of course, the change over took some time, and returning in 1959 there were still lowbridge Bristol Ks running around Gosport and Fareham, as well as a couple of highbridge convertibles that had originally been panted in reversed out livery and which, with the upstairs roof on, rattled like mad.

David Wragg


26/01/16 – 06:46

The specifying of lowbridge bodywork as late as 1965 and even afterwards indicates organisations in which the purchasing decisions were dominated by the engineering department. Better to have a simple, proven traditional chassis like the PD3 rather than one of those troublesome rear engined things. As far as the passengers were concerned, they were used to the old lowbridge type and didn’t know any better. The fundamental reason for running buses – that of encouraging people to travel by offering an attractive mode of transport – didn’t enter the equation. The Lodekka was still available right up to 1968, but that didn’t have a rear entrance, nor could it have a Massey body. This was surely a case of “It’s always been done; why change?”.

Roger Cox


29/01/16 – 07:09

Does anyone know why, after decades of running lowbridge dds, Caerphilly suddenly switched to highbridge for their last two PD2s (F-reg) and subsequent Atlanteans?

David Call


30/01/16 – 06:10

I think the main reason that Caerphilly changed was the removal of a low railway bridge at Maes-y-Cymmer, between Ystrad Mynach and Pontllanfraith. This was on two routes – the famous 36 from Cardiff to Tredegar and also the former Commercial Motor Service route from Pontypridd to Blackwood. As a consequence it had an impact on a lot of fleets as Cardiff, Caerphilly and West Mon worked the 36 whilst the other service involved Caerphilly, Pontypridd and West Mon. Pontypridd also had a works journey to Pontllanfraith and for this reason Pontypridd had two lowbridge K6Gs in an otherwise highbridge fleet.
Cardiff’s contribution was lowbridge Crossleys followed by Bridgemasters. I think there was another low-ish bridge which still constrained Cardiff a little and only certain batches of vehicles appeared on the 36 even when the Maes-y-Cymmer bridge was removed.

David Beilby


25/10/16 – 14:22

Ramsbottoms last two PD3s, 10 and 11, were fitted for OMO by having an angled shelf towards the driver but when they were transferred to Bury after the Selnec takeover, the crews there would not entertain it at all.

David Pomfret

Morecambe & Heysham – Leyland Titan PD2/37 – 33 MTD – 87


Photo by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Morecambe & Heysham Corporation
1960
Leyland Titan PD2/37
Massey H37/27F

Here is a difference in livery for Morecambe & Heysham Corporation the old as depicted on fleet number 63 in the background and the new on the Leyland Titan PD2 fleet number 87 in the foreground even in black & white the new livery looks more attractive. The colours by the way were a darkish green and cream. Morecambe & Heysham had a tendency to get there money’s worth out of there buses and kept them a little bit past what other operators would regard as there sell by date, luckily for us bus enthusiasts (more photos to follow).
The PD2/37 coding breaks down as follows:- exposed radiator, synchromesh gearbox, air brakes, 27 foot long by 8 foot wide and built 1955 onwards.
I do like the sliding doors but they never really caught on, why not? If you know, let me know, please leave a comment.

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.


The only sliding doors I ever experienced (on North Western Dennis Lolines and Lancashire United Guy Arab Vs) were air operated. This meant that they were moved by an accelerating force rather than at a steady speed as they would be by an electric motor. Being quite heavy they were slow to get moving, and then moved faster and faster, eventually shutting with a massive thump. I would not like to have been in their way.

Peter Williamson


You will be pleased to know that one of the Weymann-bodied batch 73 (MTE 635) survives at Keighley Bus Museum, where its owner Ken Wade is valiantly battling to replace about four tons of rotten steel and wood! Steel + wood + salt = bad news!
As far as sliding doors go, I concur with Peter: they were always sluggish in operation, and from the Green line “Q” double-decker to the SHMD short Fleetlines they were always troublesome.
One reason must be sheer physics: one big door has to be made quite rigid and is therefore very heavy, so it needs a lot of power to get it moving (unless it’s manually operated when it’s murder for the conductor!) Secondly, the single door leaf has to travel further to close the opening -about four feet as opposed to the one-foot movement required of a jack-knife door leaf, so it just takes longer to shut.
On a one-man bus they were worse still, because there was often an interlock to prevent the gears engaging until the door had closed, so they increased dwell times at stops and hindered time-keeping too. For the record, the twin-sliders on SHMD centre-entrance buses are electric, and they’re fairly quick, but still slower than the jacknife type.

David Jones


Sliding doors were common in this area; I’m 99% certain that Ribble’s full-fronted PD3s had them and also Lancaster City Transport’s PD2s, (201-206).

Dave Tower


When Southend Corporation purchased some ex Ribble deckers with sliding doors they were nicknamed Bacon Slicers. I recall that they tended to be slow to close and then speeded up and closed with a bang. I recall that Yorkshire Traction had a batch of PD3s with sliding entrance doors.

Philip Carlton


It must’ve been a regional thing because as a kid in the 1960s sliding doors were quite common where I lived.

See these two links which show the kind of bus which I regularly saw

//www.flickr.com/

//www.flickr.com/

KC


Arriva Yorkshire’s newish reputedly hi-spec Volvo/Optare Double Deckers rattle constantly: although you could sometimes put it down to driving style, the noise seems to come from the folding front doors. So is it back to sliders?

Joe


All Yorkshire Traction’s Northern Counties and Roe bodied PD3’s had sliding doors and the description of that accelerating door followed by a solid thump was just as bad east of the Pennines as it was in Lancashire, very hard to set up perfectly.
The only exception on PD3’s they had were the two ex County Motors vehicles, these had traditional (as opposed to Park Royal style) bodies with jack knife doors.
The advantage of the sliding door though was that it maximised the width of the door aperture meaning that you could easily achieve a double flow of leaving or entering passengers to both saloons simultaneously whereas the jack knife type tend to narrow the doorway a bit.

Andrew


Morecambe and Heysham Corporation was the catalyst which got me hooked on buses when I was about 3 years old. in the 1945/8 period.
I recognised the similarity of Weymann body to those of my home town Bradford fleet, and the dis-similarity of the Park Royals. This was in the pre Mk III days, and one had a real job to recognise fleet numbers as they were all over the place on the pre-war stock, filling voids for withdrawn buses.
Anybody got a fleet list of the pre-war Regents and the single Regal?
What a super green livery too…I cannot believe I am talking about 60 odd years ago!

John Whitaker


John, I have a M & H fleet list of every bus the undertaking owned. If you are still interested contact me through the website.

Dave Towers


12/01/12 – 06:35

Here I am again on about Southdown but they did have a batch of PD2/12’s No’s 799-812 with East Lancs bodies plus one earlier Guy Arab with Park Royal body No 547 (thankfully now preserved) fitted with sliding doors on rear entrance bodies. These were different in as much as they were in two parts which with some, to me unknown, mechanical trickery slotted in between the rear wheel arch and the normal width platform. They were still very slow in operation and being electrically driven struggled manfully when facing up a steep hill, the driver was well advised to press the open button a little in advance if possible. I have only recently discovered your wonderful site and I am have fun exploring it, so I hope you will excuse my ramblings.

Diesel Dave


12/01/12 – 10:43

Ramble on as much as you like, along with the rest of us!
I don’t know where they were based, but seem to recall seeing one or two on route 31 around Portsmouth. However, Southdown had similar bus bodies made by Park Royal, Beadle and Northern Counties et al, and you had to look closely to tell the difference. Can’t recall whether they all had doors, though. I was distracted with girlfriends around this period!

Chris Hebbron


13/01/12 – 07:35

Welcome to the club, Dave, and, as Chris says, ramble on – from another David with diesel in his blood.

David Oldfield


14/01/12 – 07:34

From my childhood holiday memories, Blackpool had some centre entrance Burlingham bodied Leylands that I think were unique to them, they were fitted with two opposed sliding doors that closed like a guillotine. I never got to ride on them very much, but I will always remember one conductor calling out ‘mind the doors they’ve just been sharpened’. I know one of these vehicles is awaiting restoration with LTT preservation trust, but I don’t know if any more of them survive

Ronnie Hoye


14/01/12 – 07:36

Well Chris and Dave – not sure which was the greater distraction, but the Southdown PD2’s were great machines, even if I only sampled them as a teenage passenger! There were 112 of them (on PD2/12 chassis), the first 54 with Leyland bodies. The initial 24 were without doors on delivery in 1951, but soon had them fitted, and all the rest were delivered with doors. Then came 10 with Northern Counties bodies, and the rest were bodied by Beadle, Park Royal and East Lancs. As Dave says, some had sliding doors, although most had 4-piece folders. Until the PD3 Queen Marys came along from 1958 onwards, these were Southdown’s front line machines not only on the 31 to Brighton, but the London Road services out of Portsmouth to Waterlooville and Petersfield too. Before the Queen Mary’s took over everything in sight (as it seemed by 1965 onwards), the PD2/12s were nicely intermingled with earlier PD2s (80 of these also Leyland bodied)and PD1s (a mixture of Leyland and Park Royal bodies), and the surviving rebodied pre-war TD4s and TD5s. I loved the sound of a pre-war Leyland TD engine, and was sad to see the last Southdown one go in 1962. But the sound lived on in Portsmouth Corporation’s four open-top TD4s, and in their “Leylandised Crossleys” (as the local drivers called them). These survived until 1967, and the open-toppers until 1971/72, and all 4 still survive in preservation.

Michael Hampton


14/01/12 – 12:21

Barton’s Northern Counties bodied Regent V’s, plus there own rebuilt Leyland deckers all had sliding doors including the UK’s lowest height Dennis Loline which was at the 1960 commercial motor show.

Roger Broughton


14/01/12 – 14:00

Roger is right – all of those rebuilds had single piece sliding doors. The earlier PD1s with Duple front entrance bodies had twin doors, and from memory they were usually fairly gentle in operation. There were conductor or passenger operated “open/close” buttons above the doors (i.e. they were not under the control of the driver.) In warm weather they were often left open – none of this Health and Safety nonsense, and after all the other 70% of deckers had open rear platforms anyway!

Stephen Ford


13/02/13 – 04:30

When in the 1940s I used to stay with my gran who lived in Ingleborough Road we would take the bus to Morecambe. The bus used to detour off the main road and go through Torrisholme where I was always fascinated by a a large Italianate coloured statue in a garden which could be seen from upstairs on the bus. I wondered if it is still there or if anyone else remembers it.

Garth


26/03/13 – 06:41

My mum, Hilda Wilson, used to be a bus conductress on the Morecambe & Heysham buses and she and the other women (except one) could only work on them in the spring and summer. The lady who was allowed had worked on them before the war. There must have been some rule that prevented them. My mum used to have to finish before winter and start again the year after when the weather got warmer.

Lynne


26/03/13 – 11:23

More often than not, Lynne, it was the unions who objected to conductresses continuing after the war. I suppose your mum worked during the Summer Season, when services were augmented for the holidaymakers.

Chris Hebbron


27/03/13 – 06:49

I think that – for all it’s weaknesses (slow to operate, yet forceful when opening/closing [I understand that the repeated slamming when closing caused structural problems in the front near-side bulkhead]) and strength (unrestricted entrance/exit area) – the sliding door just came too late: the advent of the rear-engined/front-entrance double-decker killed it off (sliding door ahead of the front axle?) . . . apart from those strange dual-door Fleetlines supplied to Walsall and SHMD.

Philip Rushworth


27/03/13 – 16:51

I am replying to Lynne’s comments about conductresses on Morecambe’s buses. I was a seasonal conductor (student) in the early 60’s working about 3 months in each of four successive summers (remember those?!) and recall three full-time conductresses : Mrs Fisher, Mrs Camm and Ms Higgins. I have vague memories of your mother also Lynne (Mrs Wilson). Another conductress, Mrs Bell worked every year from Spring through Summer. Her husband was a full time driver and they were often rostered together. Unlike the many students who wore lightweight summer uniforms Mrs Bell was attired in full regular uniform (navy blue). They were years fondly remembered and all of my colleagues were tremendous characters – even the inspectors!

Keith Nicholson


28/03/13 – 06:39

Keith, you may find this a funny question, but have you lived in Market Deeping?

David Call


28/03/13 – 17:58

Well David – how right you are! Yes I did live in Market Deeping and I needed to get the abacus out to calculate when! I was there for about 6 years and left in 1988 or thereabouts. I now live in Peterborough and in my retirement I make ‘guest appearances’ for Stagecoach locally driving on city routes. What’s our connection?

Keith Nicholson


29/03/13 – 06:44

I used to know a lad in Heysham (I lived in Morecambe at the time) who, in the 1970s (and possibly longer, of course), kept in touch with you. It’s a small world, bus enthusiasm – everyone knows everyone else, if only indirectly.

David Call


29/03/13 – 17:07

Thank you David for enlightening me!
It brought back memories of CH and his involvement with M & H TD’s unique No 72 (MTC 540) which was stored in the open at Steamtown, Carnforth in the late 70’s. This bus was new to Morecambe in 1950 and came directly from the Earls Court Commercial Vehicle show in that year. It sported original dark green livery then. The vehicle, an AEC Regent III, was the last of Morecambe’s pre-selectors and was fitted with a larger engine than its sisters. The bus is currently undergoing restoration.
I conducted No. 72 many times on the Carnforth route – a service jointly operated with Ribble. The ‘middle Carnforth’ duty (12.53 – 20.27) was a particular favourite of mine. The conductor’s place on the platform was draughty and cold (even in summer) with winds coming straight off the Bay. The driver’s turn of speed through Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands didn’t help either! I was told that this was the reason that AEC Regent V No. 84 (793 ATD) was fitted with rear platform doors under the control of the driver for use on this service in winter. Unfortunately he often forgot to open or close them! No.84 was the only bus in the fleet fitted with rear platform doors.
Returning to the original subject of this posting (Leyland Titan PD2/37 No. 87) I conducted this vehicle and its two sisters many times on the “Circular” route. After the relative ‘seclusion’ of rear-entry vehicles I found that standing at the front under the perpetual gaze of the passengers was somewhat unnerving! However I recall conducting this vehicle one Sunday morning in the 60’s for the ‘nurses special’. This involved gathering up these fine ladies early morning from the Queen Vic Hospital in Thornton Road presumably after working a night shift and taking them home. We did not operate over any recognised bus route but I think we went along the Promenade and Broadway at one point before starting conventional Sunday services.

Keith Nicholson


30/03/13 – 07:27

Keith, thanks for the interesting recollections of the Carnforth route. Now please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it linked with Overton at the other end? I believe the route went through Middleton (well I suppose it would have to do!) and then down a fairly lonely stretch of road into Overton, maybe turning round in a pub car park, where the landlady was well known for her collection of eggs. End to end I expect this would have taken at least an hour, perhaps venturing into the bus station rather than directly along the prom.

Dave Towers


30/03/13 – 12:05

Keith was a seasonal conductor with M & H C T D in the early 1960s, and the Carnforth buses didn’t start running through to Overton until the late 1970s, i.e. in consequence of the so-called ‘agency agreement’ whereby the purely local services of Ribble and (by then) Lancaster City Council were considerably recast with the operators having their agreed running costs guaranteed by Lancashire County Council, who, presumably, became the people who were required to ensure that public transport paid its way. Although both the Carnforth and Overton routes had previously been operated jointly (Ribble/Council), after the agency agreement came into effect the combined service was operated solely by Lancaster City Council. Conversely Ribble began to run some services which had been purely Council-operated. The round trip time on Carnforth-Overton was two hours, and yes, it is my recollection that the service diverted via Euston Road, but not actually going into the bus station (which may or may not have existed by that time, I’m not sure now).
By the time of the above changes the terminus at Overton had moved from the pub car park (‘Ship’ hotel, was it?) to a new turning circle at the Middleton end of the village, which I presume still exists.
These so-called ‘agency agreements’ were widespread but within a few years bus deregulation came along, this the County Councils were generally opposed to (they weren’t the only ones, of course) because it effectively undid the work they had done over the previous decade or so coordinating bus services.

David Call


31/03/13 – 17:42

Herewith a reply to Dave and David!
The Overton service in the early 60’s started from and terminated at the Battery. Anyone wanting to travel to Carnforth from Overton would then have had to take three buses! Many of the drivers at the time would have loved to operate such a ‘long’ route. It did come as David points out – but sadly too late for these fine gents. The landlady of the Ship Inn, Overton was “Ma Macluskie” – a larger than life character who wore a very wide ‘brimmed hat and had a loud laugh! As correctly stated it was the conductor’s job to see the driver back when doing an offside reverse into the pub car park. The road from Middleton Corner was indeed narrow and winding and without bus stops (no ‘hail and ride’ in those days). Unusually this fare stage cost 3d to ride (as did the other service from this point to Middleton Tower Holiday Camp [Pontins])- all other single fare stage rides in the Borough were only 2d! In the later 60’s when I had moved away the Overton service evolved into a convoluted circular route by grafting it on to a town circular taking in Regent Road, Westgate, the Branksome estate, Euston Rd Station (ERS), Promenade and Westgate again! I remember with a shudder my first time on this Westgate service which had been omitted from my route learning! I had No 84 bus (AEC Regent 5 with rear-platform doors)on a very busy wet market day and with the doors closed all the windows steamed up and I couldn’t se where we were! I received what busmen call ‘a hammering’ and had no time to alter the rear indicator blind which showed blank for most of time!
Ribble did operate an Overton service but I’m not sure how it got to the Battery – via the Promenade or via ERS. It was relatively infrequent then -rather like their L14 to Bare.

Keith Nicholson


01/04/13 – 07:45

Thanks Keith for your recollections. I don’t imagine that residents of Overton would be too impressed at being deposited at the Battery, on the edge of the town and some distance away from the majority of the shops!
I’ve just dug out an old BBF 16 (Ribble) to have a look at the local services. There was an L11, Lancaster to Overton service run, it is claimed, jointly with Morecambe and Heysham Corporation. In all my years of living in Lancaster I can honestly say I never saw a green M&H bus in Lancaster bus station (even after the University service started around 1966) so the actual operational side must have been, I reckon, all provided by Ribble.
With regard to David’s posting regarding the ending of the Agency Agreement at deregulation, I can remember a time around 1988 when LCT and Ribble were competing vigorously on the Heysham to Lancaster University services. The timetables on these services changed, it seemed, every few weeks, with each operator moving their schedules five minutes in front of the other on a regular basis. I could swear that it wasn’t long before they went all the way round the clock with it! I’m fairly sure that between them they had something like six buses an hour chasing each other around even on Sundays, a terrible waste of resources. As you will know though, eventually some kind of truce was arrived at (I think in 1989) with both operators negotiating an agreed network which showed a lot more common sense, so this sort of agreement must have been permitted under deregulation.

Dave Towers


02/04/13 – 08:12

Thanks Dave. The only time you might have seen a green M & HTD bus in Lancaster in the 60’s was around midnight when a mechanic would take the late shift workers home (those without their own transport!)However even then I suspect it would have been a rare occurrence as the driver of this bus would be very reluctant to go there and would have tried his utmost to deposit any bus employee living in Lancaster as near to Torrisholme as possible!
The Overton service more than likely followed the L6 Ribble route to Heysham (via ERS, West End Rd, Westminster Rd and Battery). No ‘green’ bus operated beyond the Battery from points further out than ERS. I have a fare table dating from 1961 showing a service to Higher Heysham (Harbour Gates) from ERS. However I think this was probably a workman’s service and in my four years there the only time I operated a green bus this way was a football special from Christie Park to Heysham. We did not have a fare table for this entire journey and I remember guesswork being the order of the day for the those riders (the majority) wishing to travel beyond the Battery from Christie Park! Similar situations could arise on a very occasional basis elsewhere and usually a paper sheet showing the fares to charge would be provided by an inspector if one was to hand. On the above occasion I had to ‘go it alone’ however. Happy memories!

Keith Nicholson


02/04/13 – 08:12

Dave T: Such agreements were certainly not permitted under deregulation. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have taken a very dim view of any agreement between operators, and Traffic Commissioners had powers to reduce or revoke licences.
It was generally the case where this sort of competition did not result in one operator gaining a significant advantage over the other that both operators found that there were some routes where there was no gain from continuing to operate, and withdrew, leaving the other in possession. This would normally be a common sense business decision, resulting in what looked like a common sense division of the traffic.
Any suggestions that the respective Managing Directors had happened to bump into each other in a pub a few weeks earlier are of course entirely conjectural.

Alan Murray-Rust


27/08/13 – 05:32

Just to add that Morecambe & Heysham No 77 does of course survive as well as 73 and in spite of everything is still road worthy. In fact if it hadn’t been so late I would have taken it a quick spin last night but I was a bit tired!
Does anyone know what’s happened to No 20, JTE 546 since it was advertised for sale?

Bob Armour


30/09/13 – 08:00

The Battery Hotel is now closed and boarded up, My father worked for MHTD for over 30 years and stopped when the brought in 1 manning.
The “Terminus” at the “Battery” was the plot of land opposite the Battery Hotel, the land is now a “Health centre”.
And regarding a previous post regarding the “Border” of Morecambe and Heysham!! There used to be a post office between Stanley and Sefton road on the seaside of Heysham Rd next to a “Chippy” and had a “Zebra crossing” when I was a kid I was told that the “Border” was the “Zebra crossing. The crossing has now moved to the Battery.

I Bradshaw


28/07/14 – 07:44

I only found this web site by chance when trying to establish if the Trans – Pennine run still takes place on the first Sunday of August. Having lived in both Lancaster and Morecambe until January 1962 when the family moved to Peterborough I found the articles on both undertakings of great interest. I happened to visit the area only last Wednesday with my father (now 91)to see how much he remembered.
The Morecambe / Heysham border was of particular interest because my grandparents had a boarding house at 201 Heysham Road, directly opposite Rydal road and thus with a sea view. To give my father chance to look directly at the property I seemed to remember my grandmother saying that hers was the last house in Morecambe and that no. 203 was in Heysham. That would appear to be incorrect given the earlier comment.
I was always interested in transport (subsequently spending an enjoyable 40+ years in the freight industry) and whilst I have scores of old photos from the 50’s and early 60’s these are all of trucks rather than buses. I believe I have 1 odd bus photo (if I can find it) of a Leyland pulling into the bus station from Damside Street but unfortunately no story to go with it.

David Hayhurst


12/01/15 – 07:01

Does a list of what was on the destination blind of M&H buses exist anywhere?

Andy


17/01/15 – 06:12

Massey sliding doors were a victim of the usual British half cab/forward entrance body weakness found on just about every other chassis and body combination on such vehicles.
The Massey sliding door fitted to forward entrance PD2s (we had 4 of these at Baxter’s in Airdrie) would occasionally slide out of its runners, due to the amount of flexing in that area of these buses. It was therefore the case that the sliding door would rarely fall off the vehicle onto the roadway.
All of Baxter’s Massey bodied PD2s were of lowbridge configuration and the forward entrance examples made for interesting contortions by those of us who were employed as conductors. They were well liked by the drivers for their turn of speed, and ease of driving compared with the various Bristol Lodekkas we had in the fleet, which was under control of the SBG Eastern Scottish company when I was there.

Mr Anon


25/04/15 – 09:21

Andy there is a book called ‘Morecambe and Heysham’ by a Harry Postlethwaite. This has a fleet list in and is the history of MHTD Isbn number 978 190530 4424.

Ian Bradshaw


20/11/15 – 06:44

My dad was a bus driver in Morecambe, in the 1970’s (Ribble, not Corporation). Orginally there was a tram route between Morecambe and Heysham, and when drivers got a shift on that service they still said they were “on track”, presumably from the days when the old tramlines were still in the road. Does anyone know if they still say this?

Vaughan Birbeck


21/11/15 – 06:03

Vaughan, the entire Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham route (L6, later 570) was always known to Ribble crews as ‘the track’. I believe there are or were other operators (Midland Red is one of which I am aware) who also had a ‘track’.
I’ve not previously heard the suggestion that the term arose from the existence of tram tracks, and don’t know what to make of the idea really. As far as I am aware trams never operated between Lancaster and Morecambe – electric trams ran locally in Lancaster, horse trams in Morecambe, and petrol trams (I believe) between Morecambe Battery and Heysham (it may have been to the Strawberry Gardens, I’m not sure).
I worked at Ribble’s Morecambe depot through most of the 1970s (as a conductor, and later driver) and knew your father well.

David Call


21/11/15 – 09:34

The famous West Riding route 10 from Wakefield to Leeds (now 110) was (is?) known as “the track” and replaced (and even tried to imitate) the trams along this route.

Joe


22/11/15 – 06:55

The Tynemouth and District service 8 from North Shields Ferry Landing to the Bandstand at Whitley Bay, was also known as ‘The Track’ because it followed the exact route of the former tram route

Ronnie Hoye


22/11/15 – 06:56

Some interesting thoughts here about the origins of “The Track”, as it relates to the Lancaster & Morecambe area. I have – but it’s hidden behind a pile of stuff that normally lives under the model railway, while I do some major work on said model – an early 1900’s map of the area, and it does show SOME tram tracks. I’ll have a look to see if they did or did not run cross boundary.

Pete Davies


22/11/15 – 08:55

www.old-maps.co.uk has a 1913 1:2500 OS map which shows a tramway which can be traced from the Lune Bridge through to Morecambe where it terminates by going round the Euston Rd/Market St???/Cheapside/Moss Lane block, there is no indication that it is 2 tramways meeting end to end at the boundary. It does not appear to connect with the sea front tramway.

John Lomas


22/11/15 – 11:31

My ‘initiation’ with Midland Red, after route learning was ‘The Track’ – service 201 Smethwick to Worlds End. It was almost some sort of sadistic punishment, a D5 (no power steering) and 18 islands within some 5-6 miles! This was supposed to be shared between Digbeth & Bearwood garages. I still believe I was the only one from Digbeth, my arms hurt as I write!

Nigel Edwards


23/11/15 – 06:34

I’ve unearthed the book of maps. I can confirm that the Lancaster & District (horse-drawn) operation did cross the boundary at Torrisholme and it terminated in Market Street, Morecambe. The notes to map reference 434638 say that there was no connection with Morecambe Corporation’s (horse-drawn) operation along the seafront.

Pete Davies


23/11/15 – 06:34

Huddersfield services 370/1 between Lindley and Dalton/Rawthorpe are still known as ‘the track’ – maybe to do with the former trolleybus services on this route.

Ian Wild


24/11/15 – 13:46

I can’t now remember the Midland Red route I saw referred to as ‘The Track’, but I’m sure it wasn’t Smethwick to Worlds End. I think it’s likely that every significant depot would have had its own particular ‘track’.

David Call


25/11/15 – 07:25

The Midland Red route I remember being referred to as ‘The Track’ was the B87 Birmingham to Dudley via Smethwick and Oldbury, but as you say, David, there were probably others.

Allan White


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


03/01/19 – 06:29

For research purposes does anyone know why Morecambe & Heysham stopped their 40 year ‘nothing but AEC’ purchasing policy in 1960 when they bought the first of five Leyland PD2s??

Howard


03/01/19 – 16:32

I believe it was caused by the retirement of one Manager and the appointment of his replacement. Others may have a closer working knowledge of what happened in M&H. I was in Lancaster, and the two Councils didn’t “get on”!!!

Pete Davies


05/01/19 – 09:02

Leyland were always very persistent in pressing their claim to supply local authorities in Lancashire. I suspect they may have had a special campaign to drum up extra business round the end of the 50s. Even Nottingham, whose only previous experience of Leylands was 30 TTB3 trolleybuses in 1935, took 44 PD2/40s in 1958/59. There must have been some serious inducement to break with the tried and tested AEC Regents.

Stephen Ford

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

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

Birkenhead Corporation – Leyland Titan – FBG 910 – 10

FBG 910

Birkenhead Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Massey H31/28R

Birkenhead 10 entered service in January 1958 with Birkenhead Corporation Transport. It has bodywork by Massey Brothers of Wigan which had been a major supplier of bus bodies to Birkenhead for various chassis since 1931. From 1957 to 1967 Birkenhead had almost totally standardised on the Leyland PD2s with Massey bodywork. Although there were inevitable changes in body design, there where essentially only two external appearances of body. The later design that had a more upright front profile is shown on the Wirral Transport Museum’s Birkenhead 152.
In 1969 10 passed to the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive (MPTE) where it served until February 1974. Although out of public service, 10 then spent a further six years of service in the driver training school. In 1980 Birkenhead 10 became part of the 201 bus preservation society. It is seen at NWVRT open day in June 2014 at Kirkby.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones


01/09/14 – 07:30

Just a classic. Nothing more to say.

Phil Blinkhorn


01/09/14 – 18:50

I’ve always felt Massey’s bodies to be a bit of a mixed bag, in terms of some designs, but this one can’t be faulted. The Wirral was very colourful in this era, what with Birkenhead and Wallasey Corporations’ cheery liveries.

Chris Hebbron


02/09/14 – 06:46

The epitome of a British municipal bus. Straightforward chassis and body design coupled with a superb and tasteful livery. The fleetname and crest show a high degree of civic pride that existed with most municipals in those days. Also a clear and easily legible destination display with no need for the bus to be daubed in route branding graffiti like today. Sheer class.

Philip Halstead


16/04/15 – 06:46

Class indeed, and what a sight it used to be at the Woodside Ferry terminal to see dozens of these lined up, always looking smart, with the dull green Crosville buses terminating farther up the hill. I remember you could get off a bus (or a ferry) at Woodside and catch a train from Woodside Station to London Paddington. Now it’s all gone.

Mr Anon


07/10/19 – 07:25

Not all entirely gone as buses still go down to the Woodside ferry just nowhere near as many but the same goes for the river Mersey which once was busy with ships, boats, ferries up and down now a thing of the past but will once again be back but then even busier not in my lifetime though.
My father in law drove this bus, and when he sadly passed away this exact same bus led the funeral cars to the church.

Nikki

Lancaster City Transport – Leyland Titan – 998 AKT – 998

Lancaster Corporation - Leyland Titan - 998 AKT - 998

Lancaster City Transport
1957
Leyland Titan PD2/30
Massey H33/28R

998 AKT is a Leyland Titan PD2/30, was new to Maidstone Corporation in 1957, with fleet number 8. She has a Massey H61R body. In 1975, she and three sisters returned to their birthplace in the north west to join Lancaster City Council’s Transport Department, after the merger with Morecambe & Heysham in 1974. The new Council had a flurry of buying used vehicles in 1974/5, and Maidstone 8 followed the old Lancaster pattern of matching the fleet number with the registration, becoming 998. In this view, taken on 13 September 1975, she is westbound near the Grand Hotel, on Morecambe Promenade.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


20/11/15 – 06:54

There seemed to be something about Massey bodies and the seaside. Operators on or near the coast that had them that come to mind are Morecambe & Heysham, Lytham St Annes, Birkenhead, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Barrow-in-Furness. Chester, Colchester, Ipswich and Exeter aren’t that far off the sea either being on tidal estuaries.

Philip Halstead


20/11/15 – 06:54

Lancaster City Council had been told by the Traffic Commissioner that the 1940s and early 1950s AEC Regents inherited from Morecambe were unacceptably old and that was the main reason for the secondhand buys. Maidstone around the same time had a new broom General Manager who was convinced that the town didn’t need heavyweight double deck buses and the same job could be done by a fleet of lightweight single deck Bedfords.

Stephen Allcroft


20/11/15 – 14:20

Thank you for your thoughts, Philip and Stephen. If I remember rightly, what Stephen says would account for the views I have seen of Maidstone Atlanteans with operators in the Glasgow area.
Incidentally, the building site in the background, in the process of becoming a block of apartments, was rather controversial, being at the Promenade end of Princes Crescent. There were rumblings at the time of ‘deals’ between the developer and Morecambe & Heysham’s Town Clerk, who was about to become redundant through the Reorganisation. He had long been in dispute with his employers over his address. He was supposed to live within the Borough, but lived just outside it, in Hest Bank. His mother lived within the borough, and he had his post delivered there.
The Captcha code seems vaguely akin to a Rochdale registration: RDK7 . . .

Pete Davies


20/11/15 – 14:21

This vehicle had been on hire to Alder Valley at Reading the previous year.

Paul Robson


20/11/15 – 14:22

What a superb livery! This livery would certainly lift modern double deckers, as opposed to the random ramblings that pass as liveries today.

Allan White


21/11/15 – 06:06

Let’s not forget Southend-on-Sea, too, Philip, with the livery colours of both fleets not being too dissimilar!

Chris Hebbron


21/11/15 – 06:06

Further to Allan White’s comment. At the time the fiesta blue and cream Maidstone livery was new, having been introduced with the trolleybus Replacement Atlanteans.
After a green and cream livery, the GM’s choice, was rejected the Lancaster city fleet was painted Trafalgar Blue and white.

Stephen Allcroft


21/11/15 – 06:07

Yes, Allan, it certainly beats Maidstone’s previous brown.

Pete Davies


21/11/15 – 06:08

In the mid-1970s I knew both the Lancaster Chief Engineer and the depot foreman at Morecambe, and did not hear any suggestion that they were under orders to get rid of the Regent IIIs. I was told that the local examiner was inclined to ‘pull a face’, but that was as far as things ever went. If the relevant bus met the required standards, there wasn’t much anyone could do.
Of course, the Regent IIIs weren’t getting any younger, and no doubt costing more to maintain as time went by. I was one of four enthusiasts who purchased No.72 (MTC540) for preservation in 1975, and (for our own interest) we were given a copy of a list of jobs which would have needed to be done for a recertification, which Lancaster had apparently considered. It was an uncomfortably long list, for a vehicle with a very limited life expectancy.

David Call


21/11/15 – 06:09

The traditional livery at Maidstone was an attractive brown and cream worn by buses and trolleybuses alike. Trolleybus replacement began in 1965, and the new buses introduced the pale blue and cream livery shown in the photo above. In 1974 things changed dramatically at Maidstone when Alan Price became Manager of the transport dept. In that year local government reorganisation saw Maidstone Corporation become the extended Maidstone Borough Council with control over the old rural district councils to the south and east of the former Corporation boundaries. Maidstone then sought to run bus services in its new extended area which had hitherto been the province of Maidstone and District, and under the NBC Market Analysis Project, integration did occur under the name “Maidstone Area Bus Services”. Until 1974 Maidstone had operated a high quality all double deck fleet. Under its new manager this was quickly replaced with OPO Bedford Y type lightweight single decks and all double deckers had gone from service by 1979. In that year, to commemorate the 75 years of Maidstone municipal transport, a bus was repainted in the old brown/cream livery, and, for a while, this became the new standard again. In the meantime, surplus double deckers that had not been sold were hired out to other operators in that period when British Leyland was falling catastrophically short in the supply of new vehicles and spare parts. As the Maidstone fleet expanded to meet its enlarged aspirations, many second hand vehicles were pressed into service still in the liveries of their previous owners. Then, in October 1986 came deregulation, which, amongst its numerous stupidities, outlawed area operating agreements as being “uncompetitive”. Thereupon, Maidstone and M&D became competitors, with the Maidstone business relaunched as Boro’line. A new Best Impressions livery of blue and yellow with red and white trim (to my eye as every bit as grotesque as it sounds) came in at the same time, and double decks, new and second hand, reappeared in the fleet. In entering the new competitive environment, M&D adopted practices that later became the subject of the highly critical Competition Commission enquiry of 1993. To further its expansion, Boro’line succeeded in winning some London Regional Transport contracts. Unfortunately, Boro’line was not entirely adept at costing its operating activities, and began accruing very large debts. The whole business was offered for sale by Maidstone Borough, and Kentish bus took the London contracts early in 1992. A receiver was appointed to sell off the remaining operations but very few takers could be found. Discussions with more than 30 prospective buyers fell through. In the meantime, several buses were repossessed, though services struggled on. The end came in June 1992 with the sale of the of the residual business to Maidstone & District.

Roger Cox


21/11/15 – 06:09

The stories of the happy marriage of Maidstone & Morecambe fall into the category of “you couldn’t make it up”. They replaced 25 year old (and more) buses with 17 year old buses…? Maidstone were embracing the mini fashion which has swung to the opposite end now, with oversized buses on urban streets. I think a good compromise would be a 26ft double decker, 7ft 6in wide and carrying 56 passengers. A rear loading platform would speed travel, as would employing apprentices or “conductors” who could train as drivers once they had learnt the routes. It would never catch on…

Joe


22/11/15 – 11:34

Joe, you comment on the ‘happy marriage of Maidstone & Morecambe’. I think you mean the very unhappy, shotgun, marriage of Lancaster and Morecambe. So far as the thoughts about open rear platforms, apprentices helping to load the bus and learn the routes go, well, RADICAL isn’t in it!
I did some afternoon conducting on some of Southampton’s preserved buses (the operation had by then become Southampton Citybus) during afternoons off from my job with the Council, and was amazed at how many folk said much the same thing: it was nice to have a bus with a conductor, and the engine and entrance where they ought to be. I mentioned this to the MD and he declared the thought to be economic suicide. You’re right, Joe – it won’t catch on!

Pete Davies


22/11/15 – 11:35

There is an excellent article in Classic Bus 135 (Feb-Mar 2015) on the Lancaster undertaking written by Thomas Knowles who was GM of the combined Lancaster – Morecambe & Heysham operation from its outset. Mr Knowles gives a fairly candid view on some of the problems he encountered in running the newly combined outfit. There are also some excellent photos illustrating the article.

Philip Halstead


23/11/15 – 06:27

No, Phil- the happy marriage of convenience of Maidstone & Morecambe- one with too many buses and one with too few!
Not conductors, mind… interns or…runners… pupils… there were/are plenty of jobs where you do or did earn next to nothing for the privilege of learning the job. I don’t think the unions ever saw it this way..

Joe


24/11/15 – 13:48

Trafalgar blue is used by Lancaster City Council to this day to paint shelters and stops perhaps they are trying to tell Stagecoach something!

Chris Hough

Caerphilly UDC – Leyland Tiger – LTX 311 – 1

LTX 311

Caerphilly Urban District Council
1952
Leyland Tiger PS2/5
Massey B35F

Fleet number 1 in the small Caerphilly concern was allocated to this less than common Massey-bodied single-deck Leyland PS2/5. Chassis number is 520623 and the body is number 2083 B35F. This image was taken at Bus & Coach Wales in Merthyr Tydfil 14/09/2014.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson


12/01/17 – 06:46

Very nice, Les! Thank you for posting. I particularly like the shape of the ‘valance’ forward of the door.

Pete Davies

Maidstone Corporation – Leyland Atlantean – NKK 243F – 43

Maidstone Corporation - Leyland Atlantean - NKK 243F - 43

Maidstone Corporation
1968
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Massey H43/31F

Maidstone Corporation’s No 43 registration NKK 243F was a rather rare combination of Massey body on the Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1 chassis with H43/31F seating being one of only thirty two rear engine chassis bodied by Massey Bros. Of this total Maidstone Corporation bought twenty all on Atlantean chassis No’s 27-46 and Colchester Corporation bought ten also on Atlantean No’s 45-54, the other two went to members of A1 Services of Ardrossan one on the only Daimler Fleetline chassis bodied by Massey which was followed by one on an Atlantean. All thirty two had the same seating layout as the photo’s subject.
Several of Massey’s regular customers who bought from them on front engine chassis chose not to go to them when rear engines became the order of the day which possibly contributed to the later merger with Northern Counties.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave


20/04/14 – 09:32

By 1968 most bodybuilders were producing bodies with a more shaped frontal aspect on rear engined chassis but to my eye this is quite an attractive functionally boxy body, aided by a simple but effective livery.

Ian Wild


20/04/14 – 17:36

EKP 232C

I Worked for Connor & Graham, Easington East Yorkshire in 1982 and we had three of them, I was told he bought two and later the dealer phoned and gave the third one free, the bodywork was very sound as it was used on school run from Sunk Island to Withernsea and to Hull on Saturday, I left in 1983 I think they were Maidstone Corporation Nos 28,29 and 31.

Phil Savin


21/04/14 – 06:22

I agree with Ian, although boxlike, I thought the Massey design was quite attractive and far better looking than some other builders designs where curved or wrap-round windscreens were indiscriminately ‘grafted’ on leaving some real ‘hotch potch’ end results. The livery also helps. Tasteful, traditional and practical.

Philip Halstead


21/04/14 – 06:23

Wigan had at least one AN68. Were there any more – for Wigan or anyone else?

David Oldfield


21/04/14 – 10:49

David
Northern Counties bought Massey Bros in 1967.
The final Massey deliveries to Wigan Corporation were Titans FEK1-9F in early 1968.
The first AN68s delivered to Wigan Corporation were NEK1-10K in August 1972.

Dave Farrier


22/04/14 – 05:04

Ah. Right. Obviously NCME then. Not to a Massey outline by any chance?

David Oldfield


24/04/14 – 08:18

London Country borrowed six of these buses during a period of acute vehicle shortage in 1977. They were operated out of Chelsham Garage on the busy 403 group of services across Croydon to Wallington. I rode on several of these at the time, and noted the high standard of internal finish of the Massey bodies, but the PDR1/1 Atlantean did struggle a bit on the long gradient up to Sanderstead Church. In the mid 1960s, Massey double deck design went from the extremely curvaceous to the excessively angular. The Pemberton firm was very late entering the rear engined double deck bus market, and this application of the perpendicular was its eventual offering. It would seem that, from then on, some structural componentry must have been common to rear engined and front engined double deck bus bodywork, because the latter type, hitherto very rounded, then became very squared up. It was as if the firm had become revitalised by memories of its markedly austere wartime utility designs. The bold angularity of these Atlanteans was not unattractive, but the vertical front screens must have given problems with internal reflections from the interior lighting during hours of darkness. I was never a convert to the insipid and rather grubby pale blue and cream livery. To my eye, the colours do not complement each other – the lighter colour would have looked better had it been white with black lining out – but Maidstone really should never have abandoned in the mid 1960s the magnificent ochre and cream livery that I recall adorning the trolleybuses when I was a child living in Kent during the late 1940s. Maidstone, once a proud operator, seemed to go progressively downhill in its metamorphosis from ‘Corporation’ through ‘Borough Council’ to the ultimate horror of ‘Boro’line’ with its truly ghastly blue and yellow, with red and white trim, so called “livery”.
Take a look at this if you don’t believe me. No prizes for guessing the perpetrator of this abominable colour scheme. No wonder the Boro’line outfit eventually went bust. //victoryguy.smugmug.com/Maidstone

Roger Cox


24/04/14 – 08:18

When NCME took over Massey, they moved into the former Massey factory and some subsequent NCME bodies showed a marked Massey influence, particularly around the front of the upper deck. None were identical to past Massey products, however.

Peter Williamson


09/08/17 – 16:58

There is a Leyland Atlantean with Massey body in Northern Ireland which is used as an “activity centre”. The vehicle spends most of the year in under cover storage but has re-emerged this summer. It is devoid of any identity but can only be an ex Colchester or Maidstone example. Did any of the C&G ones go to Ireland, or can anyone reveal more about what this vehicle may be.

Bill Headley


20/02/19 – 06:34

Did the identity of the Massey bodied Atlantean in Northern Ireland ever got established? I too liked the Massey bodied examples. They looked different from the Alexander, MCW, Roe, Northern counties etc.There aren’t many left.

Roy Wolstencroft


22/02/19 – 06:25

I have scrutinized Shane Conway’s excellent ‘Classic Irish Buses’ website and have been unable to find any trace of a Massey-bodied Atlantean. As you’ll gather, the site is pretty thorough. www.classicbuses.co.uk/+Leyland
Bill Headley (above) says that the one in Northern Ireland is devoid of any identity, but it must carry a registration plate, if only a Northern Irish one. Perhaps it could be identified from that.
How close is it possible to get to the said vehicle? There is likely to be some source of identification on it, somewhere.

David Call