Tag: Roe

Hull Corporation – Sunbeam MF2B – RKH 102/15 – 102/15

Hull Corporation RKH 102 Sunbeam MF2B Trolley Bus

Hull Corporation RKH 115 Sunbeam MF2B Trolley Bus
Photographs by ‘unknown’ if you took these photos please go to the copyright page.

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport
Sunbeam MF2B
1954 (102) 1955 (115)
Roe H30/24D

The final batch of Kingston upon Hull Corporation trolleybuses, comprised a batch of 15 production and one prototype Sunbeam MF2B’s with Roe 54 seat highbridge bodywork. Due to the date of the prototype entering service in 1953, the whole batch were known as "Coronation" They were designed by the General Manager of KHCT, Mr G H Pulfrey, and the bodies were built to his design by Charles H Roe, of Crossgates, Leeds.
They were designed for one man operation, but in fact were never so used. The bodies were of 8′ width and featured front entrances, ahead of the front wheels and a central exit; internally they were fitted with two staircases, and a periscope was fitted to allow the driver to see how may seats were available on the upper deck, without leaving his seat. Another new feature in Hull was the use of automatic trolley retrievers, to assist with rewiring dislodged trolley poles.
It is believed that the 16 "Coronations" were always allocated to Cottingham Road Garage, working the Chanterlands Avenue and Beverley Road routes (61 and 63). Their working lives were comparatively short being only 9 to 11 years. Despite their short lives, none were sold for use elsewhere, but some Motors and electrical equipment were sold to Bradford, the remainder going for scrap. It is a shame that none of these fine vehicles were preserved.
The two photographs show number 102 (RKH 102), working route 61 on Chanterlands Avenue at the Goddard Avenue turning circle, this was the terminus of the 65 short working. It is on the outward journey. The second photograph shows sister vehicle 115 (RKH 115), In Ferensway, Hull city centre, passing the (then) Royal Station Hotel, whilst working a special service. The streamline livery of Hull Corporation, is shown to best effect on these vehicles.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Keith Easton

—

What superb vehicles these Hull trolleybuses were, and to a unique design too. I remember them so well from my RAF days at Patrington (1955/6) and of course they were in their prime then. What a tragedy that, if they had to be withdrawn early, they couldn’t have been sold as complete runners to Bradford. With five or six years remaining for the Bradford system they would have been a fine sight in the lovely blue and cream of the last trolleybus network in the Country – ah well, we can dream.

Chris Youhill

—

Ref the Bradford comment, lets play ‘what if’s’ for a moment!.
If we assume that going from a two door to front door only layout ( i.e. as per Atlantean or Fleetline) would gain 10 seats – 2 x doubles on each deck in place of the stairs + a double in place of the door that would take it up to a 64 seater. Extend the body in the rear overhang by one full bay would gain another row of seats on each deck which now gives us a 72 seat 30 foot bus. Sounds drastic?, perhaps – but not as drastic as building a complete new body which is what Bradford did only two years earlier on the ex Mexborough chassis and even then only finishing up with a vehicle with less seats at greater cost. Perhaps we could then have also seen a One Man Operated trolleybus as originally intended?.

By the way – is it me or does anyone else think that the Coronations bear a strong resemblance to the AEC Q type trolleybus?

Andrew

—

I talked, a month ago, about AEC cul-de-sacs – but often a design is years ahead of itself. Could be this is just such an example.

Sometimes a vehicle morphs into someone else’s.
Daimler Roadliner   became:
Dennis Falcon V     became:
Duple 425             became:
Dennis R series

The Bristol RE became:
Ward Dalesman GRX and Dennis Falcon H/HC

Did you know, though, that the last Sunbeam motor bus was a Sunbeam Regent – the trolleybus side was sold separately!!!

David Oldfield

—

The decision to abandon Hull’s trolleybus network was made in 1959, but although the trolleybuses were making a healthy profit, passenger numbers were on the decline, as more journeys were being made into the B zone, whilst the trolleybuses were only operating within the A zone. In 1934, the well known co-ordination agreement with East Yorkshire took effect and the tram routes in the B zone were abandoned and replaced by motor buses. Hull could have had a much larger trolleybus network, but for two reasons. The first being the co-ordination agreement, and secondly the cost of extending the overhead equipment. Had the trams not been curtailed, the trolleybuses would almost certainly have operated within the B zone also. This could have also seen EYMS trolleybuses, what a thought!

Keith Easton

—

A wonderful thought indeed Keith – but I imagine no through workings to Beverley as that would have been pushing the clearance miracle under The Bar just too far !!

Chris Youhill

—

Oh, I don’t know, Chris. You remember the principle of the conduit trams in London!

Stephen Ford

—

Indeed Stephen, I remember the London conduit system very well. On frequent childhood holidays in South London I spent many hours wonderment in watching the procedure for changing from overhead to conduit at the south end of Streatham High Road on the A23. Any such trolleybus scheme for the Beverley Bar would, I’m afraid, have been stamped on heavily at the planning stage in that very conservative ancient town.

Chris Youhill

—

With all the hoo-ha over satellite dishes in the Avenues, from the residents association, I very much doubt that trolleybuses would be allowed along Chanterlands Avenue these days; let alone Beverley! Seriously, though, trolleybuses working around Hessle, Anlaby, Willerby and Cottingham would have been serious contenders for, perhaps circular, services to and from Hull.

Keith Easton

—

As an aside, I notice that Hull was another (trolley) bus organisation which did not really consider visitors to the city in terms of blind displays. Enormous numbers and an almost begrudging display of the destination, and this was the ’50’s! Whilst it could be argued that pre-war London Transport intermediate blind displays were over the top, they did at least consider the native and visiting passenger. Smart vehicles, though, and nice to see a general manager ploughing his own furrow.

Chris Hebbron

—

Hello Chris, please see my comments on the AEC Regent III, HAT 471, for an explanation of Hull’s post-war blinds. Pre-war blinds in Hull were really quite informative, giving inner and outer terminals, with the main road(s) traversed, and the route number. For an example see the rear blind on Sunbeam W, number 80 (that will be posted 25/09). I must agree with post-war blinds though, but as a native Hullensian, we knew which route numbers went where, but it was not easy for visitors, but most Hull folk were friendly anyway.

Keith Easton

—

Interesting to read that these vehicles were intended for one-man-operation, given that this was not to be legal on double deckers for another 12/13 years; I would have thought that in 1953 O-M-O was fairly uncommon even on single deckers!

Dave Towers

—

The Coronations were also used on service 62 – I used service 62 every day to go to school. No. 101 did a six week stint on every route when it first entered service although the Hessle Road stay was cut short because it couldn’t cope with the very heavy loads.
The photo of 115 shows in Paragon Square on the DOLRS tour which covered every route and garage. No. 115 was newly repainted. There are other photos which show it in Holderness Road garage and at North Bridge.

Malcolm Wells

—

26/04/12 – 06:17

Keith, I think that RKH 102 is pictured at the end of Chanterlands Avenue, entering the Bricknell Avenue roundabout, just before it reaches Goddard Avenue. In the mid-1950s the roundabout was quite new, prior to which the trolleybuses used to sweep majestically round the bend into Chants North! The site of the pre-fabs in the background is now occupied by sheltered homes and the bus shelter at far right is now the Rainhill Road stop (opposite Murrayfield Road).

Malcolm Burke

Hull Corporation – Sunbeam W – GRH 356 – 80

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport - Sunbeam W Trolleybus - GRH 356- Black& White

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport - Sunbeam W Trolleybus - GRH 356- Colour

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport
1945
Sunbeam W
Roe H31/29R

In order to undertake the final tram replacement along Hessle Road, in 1945. The final trolleybus route commenced on 1st of July. To operate this route 18 trolleybus chassis were purchased from Sunbeam. The first 12 were bodied by Brush of Loughborough, but the final 6 were bodied by Leeds-based Charles Roe. Number 80 is one of this final batch, which entered service in November, 1945.
Originally the seating layout was H30/26R, but along with most of the earlier trolleybuses it was upseated to H31/29R configuration in 1948.
The black and white photo shows no 80 operation along Anlaby Road, near to the Boulevard, the latter being the terminus of route 71, which, incidentally, had the only trolleybus reverser on the whole system, located at Malm Street. 80 is operating the main 69 service, in the outbound direction. The blinds are of interest, as the front blind is the 1942 wartime version, but the rear blind is the original black on white type. It is carrying a healthy load of passengers despite being on a 5 minute headway.
The colour photo shows it returning to the city centre on Newland Avenue service 62. It is seen in King Edward Street nearing the terminus. Considering the austerity of the period when they were built, they are a very handsome vehicle.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Keith Easton

—

The front blind in the top photograph is not the wartime version – the wartime version was a large number only – the number and via only display was agreed in December 1945 and gradually introduced from 1947. The rear blind is not as originally made as the Anlaby Road service was to be numbered 65 (Hessle Road would have been 66) but the renumbering in February 1942 changed this to 99. The blind was changed simply by altering the number.

Malcolm Wells

—

Hi Malcolm, many thanks for your input clearing up details on trolleybuses, a lot of the information was mainly from memory, and it ain’t always what it used to be!

Keith Easton

—

The reference to service 99 in my previous comment was a typing error – it was 69.

Malcolm Wells

—

Hull`s first batch of trolleybuses were Leyland TB4s with composite Weymann bodies. Subsequent batches by Crossley and Leyland were bodied by East Lancs and Cravens, both well known for metal framed bodywork. If this is so, does anyone know why Hull changed policy here, only to revert to timber framing (Roe) post war?

John Whitaker

—

My initial reaction would be that Hull’s East Lancs and Cravens bodies were timber-framed. I don’t know in this specific instance, but it was generally preferred in trolleybuses as metal-framed trolleybuses had to have low voltage (instead of traction voltage) lighting and in those days that required a motor-generator set which was extra weight, expense and something else to maintain, so not preferred.
Huddersfield had many East Lancs-bodied trolleybuses but only ever one metal-framed one. The motor-generator set and the associated noise was the reason why (I learnt this from Roy Brook’s excellent book on that system.)

David Beilby

—

I`m pretty sure you are right Dave re the Hull Craven and East Lancs trolleybus bodies, although they must have been to special order to be timber framed.
Motor generator sets are not the only way of lighting a trolleybus with metal bodies though, Bradford, from 1935 dispensing with this item but still retaining English Electric and Weymann all-metal bodies. I can supply more detail on this if anyone is interested, but Bradford was a trolleybus pioneer in several ways at this time.

John Whitaker

—

The debate about use of timber &/or metal framed bodies for trolleybuses is both interesting and, for the most part, true. The premise, however, isn’t. It presupposes that the move to Roe composite from any other metal was retrograde. The fact is that Roe composite bodies right up to the end (1968) were far better quality than many metal framed bodies – and that includes Roe’s own (Park Royal designed) metal framed bodies which gradually replaced them.
Evidence also suggests that the quality of Craven bodies could be suspect and that rebodying of such vehicles was not unknown.

David Oldfield

—

Further to David Oldfield’s comment, Nottingham had a series of 45 Craven bodied AEC Regents supplied in 1938, and I understand they were always regarded as much inferior in build quality to the earlier (1936) Metro-Cammell equivalents. And the inferiority of the Craven bodied first generation DMUs for British Railways was legendary!

Stephen Ford

—

Bradford was indeed a pioneer with trolleybus development, as it worked with the English Electric Company to produce a new trolleybus control system called series dynamic and rheostatic braking (SD) in 1936. This SD control system became the standard adopted by the Ministry of War Transport for the Sunbeam W/Karrier W trolleybuses built from 1943 onwards. Most of the post war trolleybuses built had the SD system of control, which was the case with the London Transport BUT 9641T BUT Q1 class. These were significantly different to the London prewar fleet that all had regenerative braking control.

Richard Fieldhouse

—

No premise intended David!
Horses for courses and all that. I am one of the greatest Roe admirers, as were Bradford Corporation, with their BUTs 740-751 !

John Whitaker

—

03/02/12 – 06:26

Pontypridd Urban District Council Transport needed extra buses during World War II for the local town services (electrified) as the petrol buses were in great demand to transport workers to the then rapidly expanding Treforest Industrial Trading Estate, (war effort) near Pontypridd.
The Trolleybuses ran a regular route from Treforest village 2 miles south of Pontypridd (not to be confused with Tref Ind Est, 4 miles south of Pontypridd)through to Pontypridd and on to Cilfynydd (pronounced Kilvunith for non welsh speakers) 2 miles north of Pontypridd where the buses turned for the return journey.

Mike Ashcroft

—

05/02/12 – 06:44

The Hull Cravens bodies on Crossley TDD4 chassis were of composite construction in accordance with Hull Corporation Transport’s specification TC2 as were the East Lancashire bodied Leyland TB7s. The Cravens bodies received major overhauls in the early 1950s (no. 46 excepted which was withdrawn in December 1954). In addition, several received new or rebuilt platforms by 1959.
Hull’s Sunbeam F4s nos 91-100 had 8 feet wide Roe bodies similar to Bradford’s 740-751 but the interiors of the Hull vehicles were far superior to the Bradford bodies. I was surprised on the first visit to Bradford in 1961 (when 91 to 100 were still in service in Hull)at the difference.

Malcolm Wells

Wolverhampton Corporation – Sunbeam W – EJW 451 – 451

Wolverhampton Corporation - Sunbeam W - EJW 451 - 451
Copyright Tony Martin

Wolverhampton Corporation
1948
Sunbeam W
Roe H32/28R (1960)

Passing through Sedgley on its way back to its home town, Wolverhampton 451 was nearing the end of its days in early 1967. Built in 1948 with a Park Royal body and rebodied in 1960, these vehicles saw out the once extensive Wolverhampton trolleybus system. It is working on route 58 from Dudley to Wolverhampton, which in its time had seen horse steam and electric trams and also, incidentally, the only trolleybus route to enter Worcestershire. The end came on March 5th 1967.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin

14/03/13 – 09:02

Thanks, Tony for posting this reminder of how many Roe trolleybus rebuilds there were. It has always puzzled me why Roe got so much of this trolleybus rebuild business. Did they actively seek it, or was it simply available capacity? In any event, they were a smart addition to the street scene, but many sadly never had a full life, being prematurely scrapped on system conversion. Apart from Wolverhampton, and purely from memory, Roe rebuilt trolleybuses of this style operated in Doncaster, Teesside, Maidstone and Ashton. Anywhere else?

Paul Haywood

14/03/13 – 09:50

You partly answer your own question, Paul. Doncaster, Teesside, Wolverhampton and Ashton were established Roe customers. [Don’t know about Maidstone.] Roe were experienced at bodying trolleybuses. QED. Go where you had experience of the expertise.

David Oldfield

14/03/13 – 10:01

They also rebodied 6 wheelers for Huddersfield and Rotherham.

Eric Bawden

14/03/13 – 15:47

Actually Paul, it wasn’t just trolleybuses. Roe also re-bodied hundreds of War-time utility Guys.

David Oldfield

14/03/13 – 15:48

I think the fact that Roe bodies were teak framed as opposed to metal framed had something to do with it. Trolleybuses had to pass some sort of earth leakage resistance test and with wood being an insulator rather than a conductor of electricity wooden framing aided the bodywork in complying with the earth leakage requirements. Can anybody confirm?

Philip Halstead

14/03/13 – 15:49

David, the situation regarding Ashton and Roe is not as you describe. Ashton only bought two Roe bodies on new chassis prior to the first PD2s delivered in 1960, these being 65 and 66 on Sunbeam W chassis which were delivered in 1946 when their traditional suppliers, Crossley and English Electric, were unavailable for different reasons.
When it was decided to rebody wartime trolleybuses in 1954/5 the work went to Bond who rebodied 2 Sunbeams, being 63 and 64. In 1956 eight new BUT trolleybuses were ordered and bodied by Bond and it had been intended that wartime Sunbeams 61 and 62 would be rebodied by the Wythenshawe concern but the company closed so the contract was put out again to tender which was won by Roe in 1957.
The last motor bus deliveries to Ashton prior to this was for the Bond bodied Guy Arabs which were originally numbered 37-40 and delivered in 1956.
The 1957 Roe bodies for the Sunbeams must have impressed because the next vehicles ordered were thee 1960 PD2s and Ashton stayed with Roe until 1967 when East Lancs bodied Leopards were ordered followed by Northern Counties bodied Atlanteans in 1969.

Phil Blinkhorn

14/03/13 – 15:50

So if both Wolverhampton and Dudley were then in Staffordshire, where did the t/buses stray into Worcestershire, Tony?
Although I think much of Ted Heath’s county re-organisation was wrong, there were some mismatches. It was bizarre that enormous Birmingham was in Warwickshire, with its small, peaceful, market town.

Chris Hebbron

14/03/13 – 16:14

FTE 645

Would love to know the answer to whether Roe actively canvassed the trolleybus rebodying business or just that were a very good bodybuilder. The Roe bodies always looked elegant and so up-to-date on trolleybuses and very modern for the time.
Attached is one of my first colour photos of Ashton 61 in Piccadilly, Manchester in the last week of trolleybuses.

Ian Lynas

14/03/13 – 17:31

Well Ian. Regardless of whether they did any canvassing they were a very good body-builder – one of the best.

David Oldfield

15/03/13 – 08:29

Chris H, Dudley was a County Borough in a detached portion of Worcestershire. Before the political meddlers leapt in, parts of the Lake District were in a detached portion of Lancashire – 3/4 of the Windermere shoreline was, but the water itself was entirely in Westmorland.

Pete Davies

15/03/13 – 08:30

Philip’s point on earthing. When I first started bus work in 1967, I was told by one of Newcastle Corporation’s drivers that you could always tell a former Trolleybus conductor by the way they boarded a bus, apparently they would never grab hold of the centre platform rail

Ronnie Hoye

15/03/13 – 08:37

The newish Roe rebodies on Doncaster’s second hand trolleys found themselves new motor-bus chassis and half cabs when the trolleys were withdrawn and some of these chassis in turn were quite old- but some were brand new. You could tell which they were- as remarked here before- because they had the old cable trunking in the upstairs window frames and some of the bodies were a bit proud & vertical at the front. I also think that the Corporation did a lot of the conversion work themselves?

Joe

15/03/13 – 17:55

Bradford Corporation Passenger Transport obtained sanction in November 1950 for 12 new bodies for their 1938/39 AEC 661Ts and Karrier E4s, but an offer from C H Roe to supply 7′ 6" wide bodies at a lower cost than those previously supplied for 8′ 0" wide BUTs 740 – 751 was rejected by the City Council, who insisted on completive tender. The successful company was Crossley Motors who supplied them in 1952 and a photo of one of these trolleybuses has previously been posted on this web site by me and can be seen here.
Clearly this is evidence that C H Roe was actively seeking business, but had their offer been accepted, Bradford may well have followed a different trolleybus re-bodying route from 1956 onwards.

Richard Fieldhouse

16/03/13 – 07:45

Thx, Pete D. I recall when struggling with Hardknott Pass in the Lake District some years ago, coming across a tall stone post with ‘Lancashire’ on it, many miles from where I would have expected to see it in ‘old money!’

Chris Hebbron

16/03/13 – 07:47

Thanks, Richard, for this interesting information regarding Bradford and Roe’s failed attempt to obtain the trolleybus rebuild business. It has always puzzled me why Bradford went to East Lancs in such a big way and this helps to explain it. Indeed, it would have been fascinating to have seen Roe’s version of the last trolleybus rebuilds in Bradford. Smart as the 1962 East Lancs rebuilds were, I venture to suggest that a trolleybus version of the Leeds 1962 *** CNW front-entrance bodies would have been something really special.

Paul Haywood

16/03/13 – 16:58

Puzzle no longer, Paul: Bradford was proud, trad Bradford and CH Roe were in LEEDS! The twain did not always meet and the good burghers might prefer to look west for their tracklesses as it wasn’t really safe to go further east than English Electric at Thornbury.

Joe

12/07/13 – 07:53

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to drive a similar vehicle to this one, namely DUK 833, fleet No 433 at the Black Country Museum, I have heard it mentioned that trolleybuses were built using wooden frames for electrical insulation purposes.
I was also once told that the teak Roe used was imported into the UK as ships ballast! Our trolleybuses are tested for earth leakage each time they go into service at the museum. When trolley buses in regular service during the winter time when there could be heavy slush finding it’s way into areas that would normally not get water intrusion it was not unusual for passengers to get a slight electric "tingle" from touching a stanchion ect and apparently the normal practice was to take the bus out of service so that it could dry out.

William Parker

06/02/14 – 08:33

Further to the Worcestershire comment, Dudley was part of Worcs detached until the local government reorganisation of the 1970s.

Tony Martin

06/02/14 – 16:33

A couple of years ago a car enthusiast friend of a friend asked why the West Yorkshire Road Car Co. had had its headquarters in Harrogate, which is in North Yorkshire. He said he hadn’t realised that the town had been in the West Riding of Yorkshire prior to local government reorganisation in 1974, but being an "off comed ‘un" maybe he could be excused. The nearby city of Ripon was also home to a bus depot, which was unusual in being United Automobile’s only one located in the West Riding of Yorkshire, as far as I’m aware.

Brendan Smith

22/04/17 – 10:30

The information about Trolley Bus 451, passing through Sedgley is not correct. The bus has just passed the junction of Bilston Street, towards Sedgley Bull Ring, on its way to Dudley.
I was a Wolverhampton Corporation Trolley Bus driver till 1960, and then at Wolverhampton and Dudley Midland Red, till the garage closed, as a Midland Red driver. Retired eventually back at Wolverhampton, when Dudley closed, taken over by WMPTE, then West Midland Travel.

John Dawson

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

County Motors Leyland Titan PD3A/1

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

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

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

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

Andrew

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

Chris Hough

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

David Oldfield

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

Chris Youhill

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

David Oldfield

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD3 – 4462 WE – 462


Copyright ‘unknown’ if you know please get in touch

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

30/03/11 – 10:00

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

David Oldfield

30/03/11 – 14:38

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

Stan Zapiec

31/03/11 – 16:00

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

John Darwent

01/04/11 – 07:28

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

Chris Hough

01/05/11 – 07:48

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

Keith Beeden

23/03/13 – 07:56

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

Brian Lamb

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan – 4461 WE – 461


Copyright Ian Wild

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

09/02/12 – 05:59

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

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

David Oldfield

17/02/12 – 08:03

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

Phil Drake

21/02/12 – 16:51

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

Stan Zapiec

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

Copyright Brian Lunn

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Brian Lunn

09/05/12 – 07:53

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

David Oldfield

09/05/12 – 07:56

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

Chris Hebbron

09/05/12 – 09:22

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

Joe

09/05/12 – 09:22

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

Chris Youhill

09/05/12 – 19:22

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

David Oldfield

09/05/12 – 19:24

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

David Beilby

09/05/12 – 19:26

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

Brian Lunn

10/05/12 – 11:13

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

Chris Youhill

11/05/12 – 08:05

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

Joe

12/05/12 – 07:42

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

Chris Hebbron

12/05/12 – 17:23

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

Brian Lunn

13/05/12 – 08:37

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

Chris Youhill

04/09/16 – 13:33

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

Sandy

05/09/16 – 06:26

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

Chris Youhill

25/06/21 – 06:23

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

Ken Holway

26/06/21 – 06:07

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

Ken Holway

Leeds City Transport – Leyland Titan – 5221 NW – 221


Copyright Chris Hough

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough

18/05/12 – 07:46

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

Diesel Dave

18/05/12 – 07:47

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

Philip Halstead

18/05/12 – 07:48

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

David Beilby

18/05/12 – 10:25

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

Roger Broughton

18/05/12 – 12:17

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

Chris Hough

18/05/12 – 12:19

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

David Oldfield

18/05/12 – 15:59

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

Pete Davies

18/05/12 – 16:57

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

Joe

18/05/12 – 16:57

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

Eric Bawden

19/05/12 – 07:41

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

Chris Barker

19/05/12 – 07:42

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

Chris Hough

21/05/12 – 08:04

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

Philip Halstead

21/05/12 – 17:16

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

Ian Wild

02/07/12 – 18:03

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

Ken Greaves

03/07/12 – 07:24

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

Chris Hough

21/01/13 – 17:25

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

Bill Midgley

22/01/13 – 06:48

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

Chris Youhill

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

25/07/16 – 09:51

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

David A. Young

25/07/16 – 15:13

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

Chris Youhill

28/07/16 – 08:48

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

David A. Young

29/07/16 – 08:50

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

Joe

29/07/16 – 16:26

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

Ronnie Hoye

30/07/16 – 08:39

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

Roger Cox

31/07/16 – 07:08

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

Chris Youhill

01/08/16 – 07:01

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

Chris Hebbron

01/08/16 – 07:03

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

John Stringer

01/08/16 – 16:17

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

Chris Youhill

02/08/16 – 06:51

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

Roger Cox

02/08/16 – 17:19

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

Stephen Allcroft

Huddersfield Corporation – Leyland Titan – WVH 419 – 419

Huddersfield Corporation - Leyland Titan - WVH 419 - 419

Huddersfield Corporation
1963
Leyland Titan PD3A/2
Roe H39/31F

Since the formation of the partly railway-owned Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee in May 1930, the arrangement had been that tram and trolleybus routes, irrespective of whether they ran within or without the borough, were to remain the business of the Corporation, and that all motorbus routes would be run by the JOC ” a very different arrangement to JOC agreements elsewhere. When the Corporation finally made a decision to abandon trolleybuses from 1961 and replace them with motorbuses, then the converted routes would remain in Corporation control. With the introduction of motorbuses on the 30 Almondbury to West Vale route in November 1961, eight Leyland PD3A/2’s with Roe H39/31F bodies (401-408, UCX 401-408) were delivered ” a new type for Huddersfield ” in a streamlined variation of the livery. They were not well received at the time, being considered noisy and slow, adding considerably to the time taken to climb from Elland to Ainley Top up the steeply graded ‘Ainleys’ compared to the trolleybuses.
For the next conversions a further 16 of the same type were purchased (409-424, WVH 409-424), delivered in two batches in late 1962/early 1963. Eight similar, but shorter PD2A/24’s were bought for the JOC later in 1963, being in the JOC’s more conventional three-cream-banded livery, but then allegiance switched to Daimler products. Trolleybuses were abandoned altogether in 1968, and in October 1969 the Corporation took over the former railway-owned share of the JOC, as well as the local stage services of Hanson’s Buses Ltd, so from then the operation was all ‘Corporation’. Someone then suggested a new version of the livery should be introduced for the newly combined operation, and 419 (as seen above) was duly turned out in this scheme that can surely only be described as truly dreadful ” rather like the drab Hanson all-over red with a cream front. Here it is seen in John William Street in September 1970. Thankfully, this particular idea was not adopted.
Following the formation of the West Yorkshire PTE twelve of the WVH-registered buses were transferred to Halifax (Metro Calderdale), including 419 – soon after renumbered 4419. All but one were repainted into WYPTE livery and soldiered on having quite a hard life on Halifax’s arduous routes, 4419 being withdrawn in September 1979, then sold at auction to a scrap dealer. The last one (4418) was withdrawn in February 1980 being one of the last three halfcabs in the Halifax fleet. Of the ones that remained at Huddersfield, some were sold for further service with OK Motor Services of Bishop Auckland, in whose livery they looked superb. One was later used as a static restroom and changing facility at the Beamish Open Air Museum, painted allover grey, but is believed not to have survived.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

21/06/16 – 06:04

John says these buses were not popular when introduced. I think any motorbuses which replaced trolleybuses were on a hiding to nothing especially in such hilly terrain where passengers were used to a silent climb up the long slog to Ainley Top. The same happened in Bradford where the AEC Regent V’s got a bad reputation for noise and vibration when they took over from the trolleys on the climb up to Wibsey and Buttershaw. Bradford compounded the problem by moving to synchromesh gearboxes so in addition to the engine noise passengers were treated to the screaming whine from the gearbox.

Philip Halstead

21/06/16 – 09:06

Much as I loved trolleybuses Philip, and I did love them, if I’d been a resident of Wibsey or Buttershaw I’d have raised no objection at all and indeed I’d have been delighted, to enjoy the symphony that you mention coming from the gearboxes of the Regent Vs. If the totally unnecessary bad driving sadly so characteristic of many of the Bradford chaps on the Mark Vs had caused any injury or bruising I’d have had to follow the advice of the wonderful J. Stanley King and purchase some embrocation !! Oh to go back to the wonderful days of the 1940s/50s/60s when virtually every make and model had such character and individuality.

Chris Youhill

21/06/16 – 10:46

Indeed so, CY! We can of course sample these delights during rallies and running days, but it isn’t the same as experiencing them in normal service. Someone has commented on here in the past – I suspect it might have been Roger Cox – about having ‘steering technicians’ these days instead of drivers. All they are able to do is aim the vehicle; everything else is done automatically. When the Optare Deltas first came into service – sorry, folks! – Marchwood Motorways had some. Drivers of more traditional vehicles commented that they didn’t have even the rudimentary gear stick of a normal automatic, just three buttons: go forward, go backward, and park it. It worries me that some fleets now have them in their ‘driving schools’! Intended specifically for those ‘steering technicians’, perhaps?

Pete Davies

22/06/16 – 06:37

My memory of trolleybuses in Nottingham is that they were certainly quiet and powerful, even on steep gradients, but smooth they were not! The superb acceleration was achieved in a series of sudden sharp thrusts – reminiscent of an aircraft take-off. They couldn’t compare for smoothness with the huge fleet of pre-selector Regent IIIs.

Stephen Ford

22/06/16 – 06:38

The Leyland PD3, though undeniably a reliable plodder, was never a scintillating performer, and its braking characteristics left much to be desired. During my time in Halifax, the HPTD contribution to the 43 Halifax – Huddersfield service which traversed the Ainleys en route always consisted of PD2s which ascended the long, steep gradient steadily if not spectacularly. The Halifax JOC PD3s were generally relegated to the rather less demanding Hebden Bridge – Brighouse services. The prospect of going down the Ainleys with a PD3 would not have inspired confidence in me – I suspect that third gear would have been required to obviate severe brake fade on entering Elland. The ‘streamlined’ colour scheme of the Huddersfield Corporation fleet looked quite smart to my eye, as, indeed, did the more restrained JOC version of the livery. As John remarks, the appearance of the bus in the picture is absolutely terrible. I would suspect that this idea emerged from the engineering department where considerations of painting costs rather than presentational image took precedence.

Roger Cox

22/06/16 – 06:38

Bus sounds of old certainly stick in your mind. We had Regent V’s in Rochdale but they were of a special breed. Fitted with Gardner engines and preselector gearboxes they used to bark their way up Drake Street and then at the top would give that characteristic little jump forward as the driver pressed the gearchange pedal to change up. No screaming or whining from these beauties. And oh that livery!

Philip Halstead

22/06/16 – 06:39

With all due respect to the old-timers (being one myself!) I think your remarks about steering technicians is unnecessarily harsh. With the volume of traffic on the roads and the abysmal driving standards generally anything to make the drivers job easier is to be applauded.
Would you like to drive a bus with a crash gearbox on todays roads while collecting fares and dealing with the idiots on the roads and the moaning “t’wearlies” at every stop and behind you not to mention the drunken yobs on lates? I thought not.
I have never driven an automatic bus in my life (and very few semi-automatics), but if I were city bus driving today I would be grateful to have either !

Malcolm Hirst

22/06/16 – 06:40

At Reading Buses on Friday during a break on the 2016 Royal Blue Run one of the female technical apprentices asked what the long lever with the ball on top was for ie gearlever-she was being serious!

Roger Burdett

22/06/16 – 09:39

Malcolm I know exactly what you mean about today’s road and service conditions and nowadays you are right. As one who had to suffer many new fangled fully automatic systems in the 1960s/70s though I have to say that several of these were violent in behaviour and in certain circumstances downright dangerous. Take for example the first batch of 33 foot Fleetlines of LCT which incorporated a “kick down” facility – the very title says it all. Upon approaching a roundabout if you wished to change down you had to slam the accelerator pedal to the floor whereupon the infant electronics should have selected a lower gear. this failed more often than it worked and so, aided by the legendary torque of the Gardner engine, you were propelled towards the hazard at speed in top gear, or which ever ratio had been too high as you “kicked down.” On the other hand, and to be fair, all the modern systems leave me breathless with admiration as they “read” the road situation with incredible precision and change up and down imperceptively. The only exception in my experience were the dreadful Leyland Lynxes in which the ZF gearboxes regularly malfunctioned and “missed” third and other gears, causing the Cummins engines to scream to full revs in neutral and before your could ease off the gear would then engage with a violent thud – causing universal loud condemnation from the victims within “They’ve some rough drivers on this firm, we don’t know where they get them from.” The same could and did occur as you braked smoothly and the ZF decided to change down in a similar fierce manner, resulting in “Oooh this fella’s ‘evvy on his brakes” from within.
Speaking now admittedly with “forked tongue” I have to say that as an enthusiast I would gladly enjoy a live gearbox on urban service work, but I realise that’s an exceptional view.

Chris Youhill

22/06/16 – 14:47

Interesting use of the word “Kickdown”.
In automatic cars the kickdown was to engage a lower gear but for acceleration rather than deceleration.

John Lomas

22/06/16 – 14:48

I seem to have kicked over the ant-hill! I was not intending to denigrate today’s bus and coach drivers, for most of them do a fine job with the equipment they are given. As Chris says, some vehicles in the not too distant past have been dire in the way they have changed gear. First in Southampton have some Volvo double deckers (W801 series) which sound as if they are desperate for a gearchange, but I’m told that it’s actually the cooling fans . . .
I used to work for Southampton City Council on the traffic management side, and was the only one in the team who had ever driven a bus (though not on public service). Even my manager hadn’t. I took advantage of an invitation in the booking office window of the old Hants & Dorset Bus Station in Southampton – it was Hampshire Bus by then: “If you’ve ever wondered what it’s like to drive a bus, pay us £10 and have a trial hour.” It was a Lodekka trainer of the EMR…D series, crash gearbox, so double declutch every move, and a big stick. At least it gave me some idea of what the bus driver had to contend with.
With reference to Roger Burdett’s comment, I was once told about two coach drivers who had been sent to collect a pair of new vehicles. I believe they were Neoplan Skyliners. The drivers inspected the exteriors and then had a quick look inside. They were appalled by what they found, and there then followed an urgent call to office. “We can’t drive these, boss. We’re only licensed for two pedals and a wrist-flicker, but these have three pedals and a big stick! HELP!” At least the ‘wrist-flicker’ is more like a real gearchange than the three buttons I mentioned.

Pete Davies

23/06/16 – 08:53

Too true Pete – when the first “buttons” Olympian was delivered to SYRT my heart sank and my fears intensified when we were taken out on “familiarisation” runs and I found that the Company had fitted a plate over the original “1, 2 and 3” buttons taking away any emergency control from the driver. My immediate protest about legality (in which I was eventually proved wrong it seems) encourages this unbelievably fatuous sneer from the uninformed senior fitter that “We’ve blanked them off to prevent you mad drivers from thrashing it in lower gears.” I still after 28 years cannot believe I heard that. When I took my objections to the General Manager I was told “Oh well if you don’t like it, take a screwdriver with you and remove the plate while you’re driving”, to which I politely replied that I supposed that I should then be sacked for interfering with the bus. So it was that the famous 107 “TWY 7”, which should of course have had an E *** *** number, leapt and jerked its misbehaved ZF way along, often in the wrong gear, especially in heavy urban traffic. The same “Company Luddite” treatment was afflicted upon the next two Olympians also. I retired in 2001 and I can’t for certain remember now, but possibly the offending plates were removed from the gear buttons eventually.
I’m talking now of course about the earliest versions of the “button” method and as I’ve said elsewhere the modern gearboxes are intelligent and faultless to a commendable and amazing degree, so credit where its due. To my traditional standards though, the buttons always reminded me of the “long, medium and short” wavelength buttons on old radio sets, rather than anything automobile.

Chris Youhill

24/06/16 – 05:57

The link below shows the first UK bus with three button gear control.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/

Stephen Allcroft

24/06/16 – 05:58

Chris, the ZF box, if properly maintained, was probably the best of the earlier auto systems in double deckers, though the Allison in single decks was OK. The sequence of torque converters with lock up at each stage effectively gave five gears, and the hold down buttons for the intermediate stages allowed some measure of driver control to considerable advantage. The policy you mention of plating over these buttons was stupid and insulting. If neglected, the ZF box could certainly behave in the wayward manner you describe, with thumping, rough changes at illogical speeds, but this was definitely a maintenance issue. Some of the Viscount (i.e. Cambus) Olympians of the Peterborough area displayed these symptoms, but in regular driving one did get to sense that the thing was about to change gear upwards, and easing the accelerator at that point alleviated the bang. Slowing down was another matter, and nothing could be done to minimise the savage lurch and thump of the lower gear engagement. By contrast, the Olympians at Huntingdon & District were better maintained, and the ZF gearboxes there behaved entirely properly. To my mind the worst of the earlier bus autos was the three speed Voith box that Stagecoach specified in the Volvo Olympian. With these, the engine had to be taken up to screaming full revs before the thing would change up, and, on slowing down, the lower gear would lurch in again at ridiculously high road speeds. When the bus was held in gear for more than a few seconds, such as when waiting to enter a roundabout, the Voith automatically engaged neutral, so that, when the accelerator was depressed to move off, the engine would speed up a bit before the gearbox engaged with a lurch. Several valuable seconds would thus be lost in trying to get the bus going again, and coupled with the miserable low speed torque of the Volvo engine, moving off could be decidedly sluggish and hairy in some circumstances. At Peterborough, the southern exit from Queensgate Bus Station is on a rising gradient into a fast, busy roundabout, and these Volvo Olympians were hopeless at getting out. Similar nightmares would be experienced re-entering the A1 traffic from village side roads, pulling into the A605 at Elton, crossing the A47 at Wansford……… I won’t go on. The Voith may have been simple and easier to maintain, but it was hopeless on the road. At Ramsey, our ZF Gardner Olympians would just about run for two days on one fill up. The replacement Voith Volvos had to be refuelled twice in one day. Yes, the modern transmissions do seem to behave better, but I retired (thankfully) in 2006, so I don’t have any practical driving experience with them.

Roger Cox

Yorkshire Woollen District – Leyland Titan – HD 8553 – 699

Yorkshire Woollen District - Leyland Titan PD2 - HD 8553 - 699

Yorkshire Woollen District Transport
1963
Leyland Titan PD2
Roe H63R

Now this gets interesting according to my book this is a 1950 Leyland Titan PD2/3 with a Roe H56R body. Well it is defiantly not a rear entrance that’s plain to see and the registration of just two letters I think came well before 1950. I think its time to get Googleing
Here is a result found on the SCT ’61 website the link takes you to a better photo of the same bus, the info found does make sense to me it is as follows.
“Yorkshire Woollen rebuilt a number of Leyland Tiger PS single deckers as double deck vehicles in the 1950s and 1960s. One such is HD8553, a PS2/5 given a Roe front entrance body in 1962 and numbered 699 – later renumbered 502 by YWD.
This bus and its brethren survived long enough to receive NBC livery.”

I think your history is wrong.
A large number of PS1s were rebodied. I saw one of the first which was painted “Poppy Red” in Frost Hill depot parked in the middle of the depot It looked terrible then. The new bodies were MCW Orion.
They weighed less after re-bodying than when original.
They were very noisy and cold as the new bodies were single skinned.
The photograph is one of a small batch of PS2s which were rebuilt much later. the chassis were rebuilt by YWD with new chassis sides, they originally had a bolt on chassis extension as the rules changed when they were originally built. I think there were only 8 rebuilt. A like number were sold to Yorkshire Traction for rebuilding the only difference was that the Yorkshire Traction rebuilds were reregistered. I never found out why.

E. Malone

I will investigate this further find my own information and get back, check with the ‘Latest Comments’ page for any update.
Here are the details of a batch of six Leyland Tiger PS2/5 chassis that were re-bodied by Roe to H35/28F in 1963 Reg no HD 8551-4 and HD 8562-3 they went into service with fleet nos 697-700 and 708-9 respectively.
The above photograph is one of this batch and this information backs up the original article.
An extra piece of information I found is that the original Tigers were probable bodied by Willowbrook with a B38F body and were first built in 1950.
The PS1 chassis you mention were a batch of 24 originally built in 1948 the registrations are a bit haphazard but are late HD 7800s and very early 7900s the fleet nos are a bit the same but they all fall between 562-631. These were re-bodied by Metro-Cammell with H56R ‘Orion’ bodies in 1954-5.

Peter

Richard Malone is wrong about the colour. Poppy red only came in with NBC.  The closest to the original colour was Post Office red. I know this from a YWD Fleetline I owned at one time.
There were 75 Brush bodied Leyland Tigers PS1s, fleet numbers 558-632 registration HD7841-7915. In 1954 12 of these were rebodied as double deckers with fleet numbers (562/75/7/97/8/9/603/11/3/4/6/20) with a weight of 6.8.1 tons. A further 12 were rebodied in 1955 as fleet numbers (570/4/83/7/8/96/618/24/7/8/30/1) with a weight of 6.7.0 tons. It is interesting to note that they weighed 6.9.1 tons as Tiger single deckers.
I own the only survivor of the original batch of Brush bodied Tiger PS1s fleet no 622 registration HD 7905 which can be seen here.
The Willowbrook/PS2s, 697-725, HD8551-79 (and OPD2s, 728-733, HD8710-5) were built in 1949. They were originally 27’6″ long with B32F bodies these were then lengthened to 30′ B38F by Willowbrook between June 1954 and June 1955. Six were rebodied by Roe as H63F (697-700/8/9) for YWD a further nine went to YTC (701/4/6/7/10/1/2/4/6) in 1962, rebodied by Northern Counties as front entrance double deckers. (One of these still exists.)

Gordon Brooke

The subject of re registrations of bus rebuilds is an interesting one. I was always curious about the batch of Leyland PS2s that were rebodied as double deckers by both Yorkshire Traction and Yorkshire Woollen. The Y W D ones kept their old 2 letter HD marks yet the YTC ones were allocated new YHE marks of the time. Another example of these double standards concerns County Motors of Lepton owned by YTC, YWD and West Riding. In 1955 they had two elderly single deckers rebodied as double deckers. They wanted to give them new registrations but Huddersfield CBC would not allow this so they were transferred to Barnsley where they were given new marks of the time.

Philip Carlton

Difficult to tell from the photo if the width of this vehicle, was a PS2/5 7ft 6in or 8ft wide? The original batch of re-bodies, from PS1 chassis were certainly 7ft 6in Orions. When Birch Bros had some PD1’s re-bodied with Orions by MCW a year or so later, they were virtually identical even down to the destination display. Maybe the same drawings were used!

Chris Barker

01/01/14 – 09:14

I drove these buses in 1965 at this time I lived in Heckmondwyke and worked at Becklane Depot I remember the P duties they worked Mirfield Bradford 65 service they seemed to be sluggish pullers..

Jack

03/01/14 – 10:00

I would like to comment on the “Hales Cake” vehicle shown in Colin Shears yard. It is a Leyland TS7 and was East Midland Motor Services No10 BAL 610. In the 1950s I worked at EMMS Chesterfield workshops at this time after I left school and remember this vehicle well it was one of eighteen rebodied by Willowbrook in 1948 it looked far better in EMMS livery of biscuit cream and brown picture shown in Mikes afterlifes.

Jack

26/10/16 – 06:41

I remember the forward entrance versions of these rebodies on B and C services from Ossett to Fir Cottage in YWD red and cream and then NBC poppy red not bad for a bus built as a single decker in the late 1940s and still in service in the 1970s we cannot say that today, by the way I liked them as much as AEC Regent Vs.

David Parkin

27/10/16 – 08:17

To answer Chris Barker’s question from way back, the PS2/5 was 8 feet wide.

Peter Williamson

28/10/16 – 07:37

Peter W, thanks for your answer, I’m certain that these vehicles reverted to their original length of 27ft 6ins. upon rebuilding as double deckers, the seating capacity of 63 seems to support this. However, when they ran as single deckers, presumably they had drop frame extensions to enable the provision of luggage boots and then they were extended to 30ft length, still with drop frame rears, so was the chassis itself extended? When they became double deckers, a drop frame extension would have been of no use on a front entrance d/d but if it was simply removed, the rear overhang would have needed supporting somehow, I imagine new chassis frames were the only answer. Perhaps it might have been easier to rebody them as 30ft double deckers!

Chris Barker

31/03/17 – 15:37

The registration of just two letters I think came well before 1950.
Dewsbury didn’t reach HD 9999 until November 1953 – while it took until April 1960 for Bootle to reach EM 9999 and August 1960 for Rutland to reach FP 9999.
And nine Scottish counties didn’t reach 9999 with two letters before the year suffix system was introduced in 1964/5 – Buteshire famously only getting as far as SJ 2860.

Des Elmes

06/09/17 – 06:44

Chris Barker, I think you will find that NONE of the PS1 or 2’s owned by YWD had luggage boots. The emergency door was in the middle at the back on both those models.

Ron Lake