Tag: Roe

Leeds City Transport – AEC Swift – JNW 952E – 52

Leeds City Transport - AEC Swift - JNW 952E - 52

Leeds City Transport
1967
AEC Swift MP2R
Roe B48D

Leeds bought several batches of AEC Swifts between 1967 and 1971. Prior to these appearing the fleet was 90% double deck with around 15 saloons most of which were AEC Reliances some with centre entrance bodies with the later ones being dual door for one man operation.
Seen here are a quartet of the first two batches of Swifts parked outside the old Bramley depot which was a former tram depot.
Three of the Swifts have Roe bodywork of an attractive style while the fourth carries an MCW body which had forward sloping window pillars and a slightly stepped waistrail. Further saloons in the shape of both Swifts and single deck Fleetlines would appear before the last Roe bodied Swifts entered service in 1971. All of the buses seen here carry their original dark green with light green windows livery that was basically reversed when it was decided to paint one man operated buses in a different style to the rear entrance fleet. All of the Swifts passed to the PTE and had a largely normal life span. From the left they are 52 JNW 952E, 74 MNW 174F the solitary MCW example seen here and 54 and 56 from the same batch as 52.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough

05/09/13 – 14:30

Leeds City Transport plus Roe bodywork is pretty much as one might expect, since the factory was within the boundary. MCW? However did that idea get past Committee???

Pete Davies

05/09/13 – 14:30

A matter of personal preference I know Chris, but I thought that the traditional Leeds City Transport livery as shown here was the very best – corporate and completely dignified, inside and out. The various batches of Swifts each had fascinating characteristics, often considerably different and interesting (challenging even) in their own ways. The first fifty as shown in the picture had semi automatic transmission while the final batches of fifty and twenty had the option of fully automatic or, if drivers like me preferred, manual override so as to allow “normal” gearchanging of a sort. In fairness though the fully automatic mode on these was normally very predictable and well behaved. All things considered, the final twenty (1051 – 1070) with luxury seats were the best of the lot and were a delight to drive and to ride in. Passenger flow in the last seventy was really excellent and they were ideal for one person operation. Rumour had it, we shall never know on what foundation, when the last twenty were on order that they would be of 12 metres length – its a good job that they weren’t, as some of the corners on the inner city routes would have been literally impossible – the turn from the nearside lane of East Parade into Park Lane (Headrow) being one certainty. Thanks again for a really nostalgic picture Chris.

Chris Youhill

06/09/13 – 08:21

Peter Leeds had a long history of dual sourcing bodywork between Roe and MCW although the Swifts were the first saloons.
Chris I too preferred the original liveries seen here although the doors were a little eccentric since the exit door was half the width of the entrance. The Park Royal examples were much better in having both doors of normal width. The Roe 1971 batch had fronts derived from the Leeds two door decker design and as you say were a joy to ride on. I recall that they were replaced on the Ring Road service with Duple bodied Tigers which were also a pleasant ride. One thing that has always struck me about the MCW bodied Swifts was their apparent narrowness at the front compared to the Roe examples.

Chris Hough

06/09/13 – 08:22

By 1967/8 MCW had been Leeds’ ‘backup’ supplier of bodywork for the best part of two decades. It was widely believed that it was possible to get more advantageous quotes from suppliers by multi-sourcing.

David Call

10/09/13 – 06:33

You are right Chris, and the MCW do appear narrower and even allowing for slightly different camera angle its very strange indeed – but must somehow be just an illusion ??
The Tigers were truly superb vehicles, mechanically and bodily, and the luxurious brown patterned moquette seats were the finest. They did indeed replace the Swifts on the Ring Road service entirely, and I think on most other single deck routes from Headingley Depot – memory not clear, although it should be, on the last point but its getting now to be a long time ago – I eagerly took redundancy from the forthcoming “circus” on October 25th 1986. On joining South Yorkshire Road Transport after that I encountered daily more Tigers but with OPO adapted Plaxton luxury coachwork – these really were the bees knees for stage carriage work, and one of them still enjoyed a working radio – the others having been silenced because of arguments arising on private hires and excursions – and whenever I had number 22 on bus services (often) the passengers were able to enjoy Radio Two.

Chris Youhill

10/09/13 – 16:30

Like Chris, I have a great deal of affection for the TRCTL11 Tigers. [A shame there were no TRCTL12s – AEC men will know what I mean.]

David Oldfield

10/09/13 – 16:30

Going off at a bit of a tangent here, but at Halifax we had some of the Tigers to which Chris refers. They became regular performers on the ex-Hebble Rochdale service, along with its later alternative variant via the incredibly narrow and tortuous lanes around Mill Bank and Soyland. They certainly romped along compared with ex-West Yorkshire Leopard coaches which we also had at the time, though they always gave me the impression of not being quite so durable. They were also without any doubt the worst buses I have ever had to drive in snow and ice.
However, I would question Chris’s views on their bodywork. They had Duple Dominant Bus bodies, and were apparently built in stages, the works giving priority to coach production and fitting ours in as and when they had a bit of spare time. Our chap whose job it was to monitor the construction of the PTE’s buses paid a visit to the works and found their basic steel frameworks had been assembled and then dumped outside in the yard with inadequate (or possibly no) rustproofing to suffer the worst of the salty Blackpool sea air. They were already rusting away and a strong request was made (in no uncertain broad Yorkshire terms I can well imagine !) to get them treated straight away. This was apparently carried out, but apparently not very well, and they began to suffer corrosion problems from quite an early stage in their lives. There were two batches, and I think it was the first batch of seven Y-reg ones (which went to Leeds) which suffered the worst, but one of our A-prefix ones was subject to quite a major rebuild later and became the only one to carry the white, blue and yellow First Calderline livery, and the last to survive.

John Stringer

11/09/13 – 08:30

But John, they were Duples. The reason that the firm folded was because of the appalling quality and finish. Your story helps explain why the metal frames were so prone to rust and corrosion. The fit and finish left a lot to be desired on the 320/340 bodies at the end (1989). I know of at least one Western National 340/Tiger where the panels were coming adrift after a few months and I drove a 320/Scania where I thought that the engine cover had counterbalancing until I was told it was rusted metal “sloshing” about in the cavity. How are the mighty fallen. Duple were at the top of their game when they moved to Blackpool and had an honourable history with the Continental and Commander but seemed to lose the plot after that. The Dominant was an Elite rip off – but with a metal frame. Somehow it never worked – despite the Continental being a successful metal-framed model. MCW had exactly the same corrosion problems despite the MCCW metal frames being the best of their time.

David Oldfield

11/09/13 – 16:30

Following on from Davids comments. It is interesting that the PTE/Yorkshire Rider never went for the National (one batch only) and Calderdales last pre low floor saloon were Plaxton bodied Volvos.

Chris Hough

12/09/13 – 08:30

John and David – I can only say that I amazed to hear of such structural inferiority in the Duple Dominant bodies, but naturally don’t doubt it for a minute on hearing such reliable reports. All I can say is that, in their “youth”, the Headingley PTE Tiger ones were superbly comfortable and free of any rattling or body noise and movement – as the saying goes “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” !!

Chris Youhill

Rotherham Corporation – AEC Renown – 5588 ET – 88

Rotherham Corporation AEC Renown

Rotherham Corporation
1964
AEC Renown 3B3RA
Roe H39/31F

There has also been a 1961 Rotherham Corporation Bridgemaster on site (link here) and the easy way to tell them apart was the front off side mudguard. It is easier to show than describe so the close up on the left is the Renown and the one on the right is the Bridgemaster.

          
As you can see the Renown’s mudguard follows through the body where as the Bridgemaster’s body goes over the mudguard and this was always the case with these two buses.
This Renown has the AEC code of 3B3RA which meant it had an AEC 9.6 litre six cylinder engine with a 4 speed synchromesh gearbox and air brakes. There was only one alternative the 3B2RA and the only difference was it had the Monocontrol direct selection gearbox. One thing I have noticed which I find strange is that this Renown’s drivers cab door slides backwards on the outside of the body to open it normally the door slid forwards inside the cab.

A full list of Renown codes can be seen here.

If you look at the position of the cab door opening in relation to the front wheel it is obvious why the sliding door is external. If it was internal the wheel arch leaves nowhere for it to go, unless the door were made unreasonably shallow to pass over the top of the mudguard. For the same reason Lodekkas and other low-height buses always had hinged cab doors. The only exception seems to be the Albion Lowlander, as bodied by NCME and Alexander, where the coachbuilders raised the cab ceiling above the level of the main upper saloon floor (and raised the foremost seats to perch on top of the cab). That gave sufficient headroom to allow an internally-sliding cab door of conventional style.

David Jones

I’m not absolutely certain but weren’t these the only Renowns bodied by Roe? (although obviously to a Park Royal design)

Ian Wild

Yes, Ian. As was common in the sixties and seventies, whenever Park Royal was hard pressed, they subcontracted to their (smaller) Yorkshire partner. Geoff Lumb’s excellent book on C H Roe records in words and pictures that the Rotherham Renowns were built at Crossgates.

David Oldfield

11/09/12 – 06:43

I think I have a photo somewhere in my possession that show an EYMS Renown at Roes too, or am I dreaming there?

Graham

Hanson – AEC Reliance – BCX 486B – 383

Hanson - AEC Reliance - BCX 486B - 383

Hanson
1964
AEC/Hanson Reliance
Roe B41F

My first black & white photo and what a good one it is, on the face of it this bus looks like any normal “AEC Reliance” of 1964 but believe you me when it comes to Hansons nothing is what it seems. This bus is actually a rebodied  “AEC Reliance” registration JCX 754 dating from 1955 which had a Plaxton C41C body. Hansons it seems made a point of getting there money”s worth out of the chassis they owned by rebodying them, nothing wrong with that in Yorkshire, in fact it is quite commendable. On saying all that the bus pictured here was sold along with the bus service to Huddersfield Corporation as fleet number 83 on the 1st Oct 1969 which is when I think Hansons got out of the bus business.
I don”t think it would be very long before this bus was on route to the scrap yard as I shouldn”t imagine many drivers would put up with the crash gearbox and the heavy steering, especially both at the same time.
Correction to previous sentence. I have just crossed referenced with an Huddersfield Corporation fleet list and found out that this bus was passed on to W.Y.P.T.E. on the 1st of April 1974 as fleet number 4082 (but it was never numbered) but at least it did 5 years service with Huddersfield.
I have a photo coming up soon where an Hansons 1948 “AEC Regal II or III” with a Duple C32F body becomes an 1958 “AEC Regent III” via an 1953 Plaxtons FC33F, you couldn”t make it up really, but when Hansons got involved, it happened.
I have quite a few Hansons photos and believe you me researching them is not an easy task as they do like to rebody and re-register at the same time but my thanks go to the Huddersfield Buses Website for all the information I have gathered. Photos of the above bus with its Duple body can be found on the above site, but you will need to be a bit of a scrolling wizard with a 17ins screen to find it, but it is well worth it when you do.

Huddersfield Corporation – AEC Reliance – ACX 324A – 24

Huddersfield Corporation AEC Reliance

Huddersfield Corporation 
1963
AEC Reliance 2MU2RA
Roe B44F

Another shot of the very popular AEC Reliance this one has a rather nice C. H. Roe of Leeds body. During researching this bus I found it to be listed as a 2MU2RA and a 2MU3RA but as Huddersfield only had two post war buses with manual gearboxes and they were both Leyland Leopards I went for 2MU2RA. The reason being that 2RA had a epicyclic gearbox and 3RA had a synchromesh gearbox. This bus was taken over by W.Y.P.T.E. in 1974 and became fleet number 4024 in there fleet.
I’m not sure just how many AEC Reliance vehicles were actually built but from my research the last chassis number in 1972 was 8118. If you know a more exact number, let me know, please leave a comment.

10/06/14 – 07:52

1972 was when AEC adopted a single numbering system for all its chassis (including lorries), starting at around 21000 and reaching over 38000 by the time the factory was closed in 1979.
Reliance production continued throughout that period, with at least 1,175 built – taking the total number to at least 9,293.

Des Elmes

11/06/14 – 07:52

Also, the registration of this particular Reliance is of note – Huddersfield was, I believe, the first county borough to adopt the year suffix system, issuing ACX 1A in August 1963 after completing the YCX and YVH series.
And according to Bus Lists on the Web, the number of new buses and coaches in 1963 registered with “A” suffixes was barely a hundred – the vast majority of these being registered in Middlesex, which of course was the very first authority to adopt the system.

Des Elmes

Sheffield Corporation – AEC Reliance – 9000 WB – 900


Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1958
AEC Reliance MU3RV
Roe Dalesman C37C

This was a one off purchase by Sheffield initially used for visits, inspections etc by the Transport Committee but later used in normal service. My mother travelled on it on a number of occasions on service 48 to Manchester via Woodhead when visiting relations ‘over there’. Having a centre entrance made it unsuitable for one man operation but it still lasted until 1970. Since much of the Peak District single deck work had by this time been converted to OMO, I wonder what use was made of it in the final two or three years.
The bus was renumbered 90 in the 1967 scheme and I recall it being in a pretty dreadful external condition towards the end of its life.
This was Sheffield’s only AEC Reliance (perhaps experience suggested the Leyland 0.600 engine in the early Leopards was a better bet than the head gasket failure prone AEC AH470) and their only coach body built by Roe. I think it is quite an elegant design from what was generally a bus body builder. I assume it would be teak framed like their standard double deck design . Note the non standard size Sheffield Transport fleet name transfer above the City coat of arms.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Reliance codes can be seen here.

19/06/12 – 18:07

Oh the blessed 900/90. What Ian says from both a professional and enthusiast perspective is quite right, but the Leopards came later. The story I heard was about Civic Spite – between Sheffield and Leeds. Leeds bought one and Sheffield had to have one as well. [Bit like Salford and Manchester.] I assume the 1955 Moncoaches were AH470 rather than AH410, but I agree dry-liner 0.600s were probably a better bet than wet-liner AH470s for charging across the Pennines and into the Peak District. As Charles H Roe’s biggest fan, I’m a little sorry that the Dalesman didn’t quite take off into great popularity – but that wasn’t really the point. Just as Plaxton’s built buses in the summer to cover their dead period, Roe built batches of Dalesmans for sale from stock when they had fallow periods of bus construction. [On that basis, I suppose it’s surprising they built so many Dalesmans!] The construction was of Roe’s original and best.

David Oldfield

20/06/12 – 08:17

David. you’re probably aware of this already, but Economic of Whitburn had one of these splendid vehicles on an AEC chassis ‘YPT 796’ and I’m pleased to say that its still alive and well and now forms part of the N.E.B.P.T. Ltd collection

Ronnie Hoye

20/06/12 – 08:18

Leeds first coach came in 1965 and was an AEC Reliance with a different style of Roe bodywork. It was always used as a private hire vehicle and never as a committee toy! Indeed the only saloons in the Leeds fleet at that time were some centre entrance standee types on Leyland AEC and Guy chassis seating 34 and some newer Reliances with dual door bodywork. All carried Roe bodies and had mountainous steps. They were certainly not coaches!
Locally West Riding had a batch of AEC Reliance coaches with Dalesman bodywork

Chris Hough

20/06/12 – 11:38

These stories which go the rounds….. I actually drove the Leeds coach when in the ownership of David Crowther’s Classic Coaches of High Wycombe. [In lousy weather from Reading to Lord’s Cricket ground – and back.] The Dalesman was dropped after the slightly odd final version in 1959, of which Black & White had, I believe, six. After that, the Roe coach was far closer to a DP on the standard bus shell. Leeds and York Pullman showed how to “coachify” the body to make it more than acceptable for Private Hires – as did Booth and Fisher.
Ronnie, I was aware of the Economic coach, but not its continued existence. Thanks for the good news. Regrettably this Sheffield exile in Surrey may never get to see it in your beautiful part of the world.

David Oldfield

20/06/12 – 11:39

There are shots of both the Economic and also a West Riding example at www.sct61.org.uk

Chris Hough

21/06/12 – 06:43

There are some interesting comments above and on other pages of this site regarding civic jealousy, rather than civic pride, when it came to having a coach in the fleet. In Southampton, there was a period when the then Transport Manager wanted at least dual purpose vehicles if not full coaches, to support his growing private hire business. The idea was rejected by the Committee, largely because one of the members was of the family owning a local coach operator. Shouldn’t there have been a declaration of interest?
I imagine from the photo that this coach was in overall cream livery. I feel it would have looked better with the lower panels – where the crest is – in blue.

Pete Davies

21/06/12 – 06:44

The story goes that on one of its first outings with the Transport Committee on board, 9000 WB ground to a halt in the centre of the city, needing rescue. Apparently before leaving Townhead Street garage, the driver had topped it up with water, but had poured it into the the fuel tank instead of the radiator. Can’t begin to imagine what the Committee chairman had to say about that!

Dave Careless

21/06/12 – 06:44

It was known amongst Sheffield Transport staff as the “blunderbus”!

P White

21/06/12 – 06:45

Felix of Hadfield also had a “coachified” AEC Reliance- Roe DP vehicle which is happily still around it lives at Sandtoft Trolleybus Museum

Chris Hough

21/06/12 – 06:46

David O, I don’t understand your passing reference to Salford and Manchester. Salford had a committee coach – a self-indulgent 26-seat Weymann Fanfare-bodied Reliance that rarely turned a wheel – but I don’t believe Manchester did.

Peter Williamson

21/06/12 – 11:22

Peter. Sometimes the brain is faster than the finger. Manchester always had some sort of coach for Ringway services, Salford had to have one and, like Sheffield, the only true use was for the Committee. Yes, the Fanfare got more use in SELNEC days on airport work. [I believe its predecessor was a full fronted Daimler CVD6/Burlingham.

David Oldfield

21/06/12 – 11:25

Did Roe have any liaison with Duple over the Dalesman as it bears more than a passing resemblance to the Duple Elizabethan body. Similarly the last version of the Dalesman has a look of the contemporary Willowbrook Viscount One of these ex Felix of Hadfield is also preserved at Sandtoft.

Chris Hough

21/06/12 – 19:06

Just for the record, Sheffield used its other coaches (23 I believe) on the longer routes, for example the Peak District routes / railway routes.

Les Dickinson

21/06/12 – 19:12

It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think that Roe were probably just inspired by the Elizabethan and copied the general outline of the front entrance version, with its slightly more upright front, yet making it sufficiently different in detail so as not to cause any bother. The Dalesman’s window line was a fraction higher and slightly straighter, and the forward sloping pillar that divided these from the front section was slightly squarer. I rather prefer the Dalesman myself, but Duple soon replaced the Elizabethan with the neater Brittania with its uninterrupted window line, whereas Roe continued with the stepped outline.

John Stringer

07/08/12 – 07:19

I suspect this was as much to do with civic pride as anything else. If Leeds has got one, we must too and vice versa. LCT certainly had a Reliance coach, C reg I think. Then there was SCTs 500 City Clipper service, cos Leeds had one, using Merc minibuses. It continues today with the nonsense over trams.

Roger Davies

West Riding – AEC Reliance – JHL 717 – 817


Copyright Chris Hough

West Riding Automobile
1956
AEC Reliance
Roe B44F

In the nineteen fifties West Riding bought very few batches of saloons They were used on a selection of routes. Seen in Leeds bus station is a Roe bodied AEC Reliance fleet number 817 registration JHL 717 which dates from 1956. It is on the “back roads route” from Leeds to Castleford via Swillington and Fryston. West Riding did not always bother with route numbers as is evident from this shot The bus certainly shows the effect of road grime on paintwork as it stands in Leeds bus station in 1967.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough

01/08/12 – 07:19

Odd design- front not very Roe? It may well have picked that spray up that day on that back roads route- could be off the fields or clay slurry from mining. Note the single mini-wiper and the gloop around its perimeter, the state of the wheels/tyres and (possibly) the wet muck behind the rear wheels. It got better when the windows were covered too- that’s where the idea for the all-over adverts came from.
Nearly on thread: West Riding’s successors, Arriva, have just managed to provide a new batch of deckers with facing fore and aft seats over the rear wheels. Now where do the local yobbery put their muddy feet/boots? Arriva are now providing notices to try to stop people dirtying their clothes on muddy seats. Come back practical designers… conductors… inspectors!!

Joe

01/08/12 – 08:53

Actually, very Roe, Joe. For a time in the early fifties, this droopy windscreen was a feature of Roe saloons – and distinguished them from their Park Royal cousins built on the same frames. I like your theory about the origins of contra-vision adverts, though!

David Oldfield

01/08/12 – 11:59

As we Geordies would say “wor bairns hacky mucky” rough translation “the baby is in need of a wash”

Ronnie Hoye

01/08/12 – 12:01

What a dismal scene! Obviously a grotty day, when some photographers would leave the camera at home because of a) the weather and b) the resulting dirty appearance of the vehicle. There are some photographers of buses who capture only “pristine” views but there is a real world out there and it often happens that the cleaners can’t keep pace with the weather. It may just happen that the photographer is on holiday and wants to record the local transport. I know that doesn’t apply in this case, but what’s the photographer supposed to do, come back next year and hope the same bus is still in service?
Very atmospheric, and the black and white print enhances that. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting comment from Joe regarding back to back seating over the rear wheels. I first noticed this with Bolton Corporation, but the idea still persists. The original idea was to have greater seating capacity. The inward facing arrangement seems to me to be far better. Clearly, a candidate for the “nice idea, but . . .” file!

Pete Davies

01/08/12 – 15:38

While “facing seats” are not by any means ideal the abuse of them on both buses and trains is absolutely abominable. Its almost certain that, as you walk past any stationary bus, if you look inside you will see passengers with their filthy footwear planted on the opposite seat – and not just placed there either – there will be plenty of “scrubbing” in every direction just to plant more filth and to cause as much wear to the material as possible. It might be thought that those responsible would just be the yobs of Society, but not a bit of it – the culprits are just as likely to be smartly dressed businessmen or secretarial young ladies. It is a despicable and costly habit, of which the perpetrators are fully aware and, apart from the burden placed on transport operators, the ruination of decent peoples hard earned nice clothing is scandalous. In summary the phrase “Blow you Jack I’m alright” springs to mind, and in reality there can be no cure for it – its sadly just another sign of “Today.”

Chris Youhill

01/08/12 – 17:37

You’re dead right, Joe and Chris. However, it seems to be a universal problem. I remember once risking my life by photographing a couple of youths on a German train with their feet on the seat directly under a large and unambiguous”Halten Sie Füße weg von den Sitzen”(or similar) sign and graphic image. Needless to say, they just laughed at me, but (who knows) maybe the memory of the occasion may just hit home to one of them in years to come? Staff, particularly on railways, rarely bother to challenge the offenders as they prefer a quiet life, and who can blame them? However, one can sometimes come unstuck by making big assumptions – like the time I worked myself into a Victor Meldrew Harumph on seeing a lady with outstretched legs onto the opposite seat in a first class carriage. I was on the brink of saying something when I thankfully noticed that she had removed her shoes and placed a newspaper on the seat to rest her stockinged feet! Phew! Nearly an “I’ll get my coat…….” moment!

Paul Haywood

02/08/12 – 07:12

Would, the would be perpetrators on arriving home put their muddy /dirty shoes on their own furniture thus defiling their property, I think not.

David Henighan

02/08/12 – 07:13

Sometimes a bit of sarcasm works wonders, when I was at Armstrong Galley one of our drivers had a notice in his coach ‘if the floor is full please don’t hesitate to use the litter bin’ strangely enough it seemed to work

Ronnie Hoye

02/08/12 – 07:13

I acknowledge your knowledge, David. I was thinking of exclusive Roe users like Doncaster, but at that time they were still on half cabs! Underfloor came much later.

Joe

02/08/12 – 07:14

I thoroughly agree with Joe regarding back to back seating over rear wheel arches, they seem to be obligatory with modern day low floor buses. I witnessed one of Stagecoach leather coach seated Scania/ALX 400’s when only days old being so treated despite various notices asking that it not be done.
When I was a driver I would wherever possible make a point of loudly asking for all feet to be taken off all seats it seemed popular with most passengers except the thoughtless culprits, as Chris says another sign of “today” I’m glad that I retired 9 years ago.

Diesel Dave

02/08/12 – 07:15

I wholeheartedly agree about the comments made about yobs (and non yobs) putting their feet on the back to back seats, who knows what they could have stood in? A few years ago I went for a lengthy trip on the Yorkshire Coastliner service between Leeds and Scarborough and felt the need to contact the company about some matter or other, I honestly can’t remember what it was now. Anyway, I took the opportunity to mention that this seating arrangement was not ideal for such a long journey and that people sat on the back seat tended to use the facing seat as a footrest. Coastliner’s suggestion was that I should have had a word with the perpetrators!

Dave Towers

02/08/12 – 11:18

Dave Towers received a somewhat pathetic and “resigned” reply from Coastliner – did they also include a list of A & E departments along the route where Dave could receive attention to his injuries after the quite likely “smack in t’ mouth” which could result from “having a word.”
I share Diesel Dave’s sentiments and I am glad that I retired eleven years ago – the level of appalling conduct by too many passengers is now beyond a joke – and I loved the career to a passion – so I can well understand how most drivers who are doing the job “just for a living” must feel.

Chris Youhill

02/08/12 – 11:20

Joe. This comes down to personal experience – if you had never come across the droopy screens then you would assume they did not exist, or were an aberration. I happen to be a Roe fan/”expert” – but presumably, with Doncaster connections, so are you. I’ve been caught out in the past myself.

David Oldfield

02/08/12 – 17:12

Tough attitude of passengers both young and old can be yobbish but to a degree the companies are also at fault. In Leeds the interior of vehicles are often filthy with old newspapers, tickets etc on buses just out of the depot. Minor vandalism such as graffiti is left in situ so Joe Public see an unloved uncared for bus that they think hmm the company don’t care why should I. I am old enough to remember buses smelling of disinfectant on leaving the depot not last nights takeaway!

Chris Hough

02/08/12 – 17:13

I seem to remember being told that the reason for the demise of inward facing seats over wheelarches, in favour of back to back ones, was an ‘elfen safety’ issue. It was reckoned that passengers could fall off these seats too easily when the bus cornered (yes, they did actually sometimes!).
I agree entirely with all the above sentiments regarding inconsiderate, yobbish behaviour on buses these days, and as someone who still has to drive buses for a living (albeit part-time now, after nearly 40 years full-time) for a major operator, it is heartening to know that at least a few of you sympathise with the hopeless situation we find ourselves in.
All too often, present day bus drivers are criticised for being uncaring and disinterested, and held totally to blame for the state of the industry today. Physically we may have it easier with our automatic gearboxes, power-steering and computerised ticket machines – no more grappling with crash boxes, heavy steering or snipping away at piles of Willebrew tickets etc. – but the job is much more stressful, frustrating and demoralising in a host of different ways that the PSV drivers and conductors of yesteryear could never envisage.
Passengers often complain that the “bus driver should have done something” when there has been yobbish, unsocial behaviour taking place but, as Chris rightly implies, one is certainly putting oneself at risk of abuse – at the very least of the foul verbal kind, and quite possibly of the violent physical kind – if one intervenes. It’s just not worth it.
The companies pay lip service to their official intolerance of this kind of behaviour, but otherwise just ignore the issue – probably for fear of appearing too authoritarian. Even yobs are fare-paying passengers so we must not upset them too much.

John Stringer

03/08/12 – 07:55

I remember these buses coming through Dewsbury on the joint West Riding/Yorkshire Woollen service 3 to Cullingworth. I believe one is being prepared at the Dewsbury Bus Museum.

Philip Carlton

09/08/12 – 09:30

If I may climb back over the seats to the subject of Roe Underfloor Designs of the 50’s…. checking with Peter Gould’s list, I see that Doncaster actually bought a single centre entrance Regal IV in 1951…it must have been a sort of Festival of Britain experimental fling, because they also bought the two 8ft double deckers- Regent III and CVD6- which they sold on as two wide (for the streets or the washer- the jury is out) and then the two all-Leyland PD2’s which were the last non-Roe deckers ever bought and, trolley-bodied, lasted nearly 20 years: the next year, I see they bought nothing! Anyway… the party was clearly over and they reverted to half cab Regal IIIs in 1953, which were more typical of this traditional fleet. But… my point is that I have found a pic of 21 and it doesn’t have droopy windscreens… angled two piece, it seems…… so the droopy screens came later…

Joe

11/08/12 – 07:27

Pontypridd U.D.C. had three 1957 Guy Arab LUF’s with Roe rear-entrance bodies and ‘droopy’ windscreens – try this link:- www.sct61.org.uk/  Lancashire United Transport had some Atkinson PM746H’s with Roe bodies with similar fronts also, see:- www.flickr.com/photos/

John Stringer

11/08/12 – 09:20

I’ll throw another one at you Joe. You mentioned square screens on Regal IVs – just like Sheffield’s 12 – 14. The droopies were only on Reliances (and contemporary underfloors) which would make them 1953 onwards – but still from “the early fifties”.

David Oldfield

12/08/12 – 07:21

As Manuel said… I learn… I learn. Curious that the “square” underfloor body designs look better or more modern…like that Pennine Royal Tiger.

Joe

16/11/12 – 09:04

John mentions (02/08/12) the yobbish attitude of passengers sadly this attitude to other peoples property is prevalent in all walks of life. I work in the NHS and we have a constant problem with mindless vandalism to furniture in particular. I once asked a culprit if he would do the same to his own property and was met with a torrent of four letter words and told I pay your effin wages so shut it.

Chris Hough

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

04/07/14 – 07:41

You get a fine from Merseyrail Electrics if you put your feet on their seats. There are signs up warning about it and they seem to work. Not that I use their trains very often.

Geoff Kerr

Leeds City Transport – AEC Reliance – KUA 46 – 46

Leeds City Transport - AEC Reliance - KUA 46 - 46

Leeds City Transport
1964
AEC Reliance 2MU2RA
Roe B41D

Seen in April 1970 is Leeds City Transport No. 46, 46 KUA, an AEC Reliance 2MU2RA with Roe B41D bodywork, one of four, Nos. 44 – 47, 44 – 47 KUA delivered in 1964. These followed an earlier order for six similar vehicles in 1962, Nos 39 – 43, 839 – 843 CUM. I understand that all these Reliances had quite a short life of around 8 years or so with Leeds.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

03/12/18 – 07:13

I can’t comment on the others, but 45 and 47 went to Aberdeen. I have a view of each from the late Arnold Richardson’s collection.

Pete Davies

04/12/18 – 06:33

All four were new in August 1964 and withdrawn in December 1970.
44 and 45 went to Aberdeen on 30th June 1971, being followed on 7th July by 46 and 47, retaining the same fleet numbers.

John Kaye

05/12/18 – 07:46

Oh dear, that destination box doesn’t look comfortable, balanced up there.

Petras409

11/12/18 – 07:43

These Reliances really came too late. They were in effect an update of the standee single deckers 29-38, to the same 30ft. length when 36 ft. had become available. Getting 41 seats into the shorter length, with dual doors meant they had poor access/exit and tight seat spacing. As with many AECs of that design they were not comfortable, or liked by passengers or drivers. Just two years later, the first 36 ft. Swifts with wider doors, easier steps and 48 better spaced seats arrived. They may not have been great, but they were better. In a year or so there were 50 Swifts in operation and 39 to 46 were consigned to relief work and then sale.

Andy Buckland

13/12/18 – 05:53

Several of these also ended up in Scotland with Greyhound of Arbroath.

Chris Hough

07/01/19 – 07:12

I’ve sometimes wondered what was so wrong with the AEC Swift and the Leyland Panther that caused many operators to not get on with them, prematurely retire them (especially London’s AECs) and overall have bad experiences, while the conceptually similar Bristol RE seems to have commonly led a full life with its original operators.
It’s not as if they did not incorporate standard components in use elsewhere.

Bill

12/01/19 – 08:23

In the absence of a more comprehensive reply from someone who knows more, I will say that one of the differences between Bristol’s approach and the Panther/Swift approach was the position of the driveline and its effect on weight distribution. In the Panther and Swift the engine and gearbox were at the extreme rear of the overhang, whereas the RE had the engine further forward, with the gearbox in front of the rear axle.

Peter Williamson

16/01/19 – 07:27

The Panther also had a much weaker frame causing bending and breaking. Even in preservation I can think of a couple where following you can see the curve.

Roger Burdett

17/01/19 – 07:09

The radiator for the Swift was not at the front, as in the Panther or the RE, but tucked away behind a panel in the bodywork behind the offside back wheels.
Although this arrangement probably insured against air locks in the cooling system, it restricted the flow of cooling air over the surface of the radiator and could result in the engine overheating.

John B

18/01/19 – 06:30

My Foden which has the Rad in the same position still airlocks so concur John B comment.

Roger Burdett

18/01/19 – 06:32

In the Bristol RE the drive went forward from the engine to the gearbox located in front of the rear axle, and then back again to the differential. This gave a prop shaft of decent length to accommodate the suspension travel of the rear axle, something that competitive designs (the worst being the Seddon RU) lacked. Contrary to popular belief, the RE did not pioneer this layout. The Rutland Clipper of 1954 used a similar arrangement.

Roger Cox

West Riding – AEC Reliance – THL 921 – 921

West Riding - AEC Reliance - THL 921 - 921

West Riding Automobile
1961
AEC Reliance 2MU3RV
Roe B41D

In 1956 West Riding turned to the AEC Reliance for its limited bus saloon requirements, taking twelve with Roe B44F bodies characterised by a “droopy” lower line to the windscreen. www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/
The Reliance then became the choice for the coach fleet with Roe C41C bodies, and in 1961 twelve of the 2MU3RV chassis type arrived carrying Roe B41D bodywork of which THL 921, fleet number 921 is an example. No more Reliances were purchased before West Riding sold out to the National Bus Company in 1967. This picture was taken in April 1970 before the corporate dead hand of Freddie Wood fell in 1972, after which the poppy red livery was inflicted upon West Riding.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

18/05/20 – 06:38

A stylish yet functional design enhanced by a smart livery. More attractive than the standard (Alexander in the cases of PMT and Trent) BET version of the time.

Ian Wild

17/06/20 – 07:19

These dual bodied Roe bodied Reliance saloons felt very solid indeed. They lasted until 1973 when they were ousted by new Leyland Nationals. None of the batch was repainted into National Bus Company red, and these along with the elderly Guy ArabIV of 1957 vintage stood out from the mainly repainted fleet by early 1973. They were probably the last traditional green single deckers in service.

MarkyB

18/06/20 – 06:45

I was recounting, only last week, to a friend retired from the industry that C H Roe were among the coachbuilding greats and, against a general trend and tide, retained a composite structure which produced high quality bodies of a generally attractive appearance; robust, well built and well finished. These, and the traditional deckers, were among the best bodies available (in every sense). Following in Crossley’s footsteps, the introduction of PRV frames (particular on the Atlantean and similar bodies on various front engined chassis) brought the nadir of Roe bodywork. They were ugly in the extreme and time revealed them also to be rot boxes. They did solve these problems – but not in the OBP era.

David Oldfield

03/05/21 – 07:19

A snippet of information for fans of the AEC Reliance. A 1961 AEC Reliance (WKG 287, the last of a sequence number-plated WKG 276-287) was still in daily service with Henley’s of Abertillery, Wales in the 1990s, making it the oldest service vehicle still in daily use on a public route.

Julian Meek

East Yorkshire – AEC Regent V – WAT 651 – 651

East Yorkshire AEC Regent V Beverly Bar

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1957
AEC Regent V
Roe HBB66R

Photographed at Scarborough bus station this Beverly Bar styled Regent V with normal V radiator is on route to Bridlington via the Butlins Holiday camp at Filey.
I have now found my old fleet lists above information comes from one dated 20th February 1964 the only other snippet of information other than above is that this bus had a 9.6 litre engine

A full list of Regent V codes can be seen here.

This was the last East Yorkshire full height bus with a Beverly Bar roof to enter service, it is now preserved and appears on the Northern Rally circuit.

Chris Hough

When I travelled daily from Hedon to Withernsea School on 651/652 they were always known as “Hovercrafts”. Don’t know why.

Martin Ferris

Eeee Martin, that takes me back.  I was in the RAF at Patrington in 1955/6 – a Utopian posting for a lifelong devotee of the wonderful East Yorkshire Motor Services.  Mark V Regents were still to come of course, but oh what treats you would have enjoyed on your school journeys a little earlier – Leyland PD1s and often, on duplicates from Hull Depot, the gorgeous ECW rebodied pre-war Titan TD5s.  Due no doubt to a temporary shortage of transfers, or possibly a most enchanting mistake, some of the PD1s had on the platform rear wall the fabulous instruction “WAIT UNTIL THE COACH STOPS.”
One of the Motor Transport drivers at our Patrington camp came to the end of his long regular service with the RAF and joined EYMS at Withernsea Depot – I’ve NEVER been as green with envy of anyone before or since.  His surname was Mitchell (Mitch) and I hope he’s still around but will be well in his “eighties” by now.

Chris Youhill

With regards to Martins question two up:

Noise? Vibration? Pitching? Deafening engine fan?
Ability to deal with run off water from fields?

Joe

Leeds City Transport – AEC Regent V – XUM 894 – 894

Leeds City transport AEC Regent V

Leeds City transport
1957
AEC Regent V
Roe H60R

Yet another example of a Regent V with a Regent III radiator. If I remember Leeds city Transport buses were nearly all semi automatic or had clutch less gearboxes of some description probable to help them off to quick start from the bus stops.

894 is the last of a huge batch which were ordered as tram replacements. The next batch numerically were fitted with 8′ wide bodies.

Terry Malloy

The last batches of post-war LCT buses to have full three pedal “clutch and gearbox” transmission were the Crossleys, the Leyland PD1s, the sixty Leyland PD2s (NNW batch), the six “standee” single deckers (2 Guy, 3 AEC Reliance and 3 Leyland Tiger Cub) – so rather more than is generally realised !!

Chris Youhill

Hi everyone,
I meant to post this link a while ago, finally got around to it.
www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=39972
It shows the first delivery of these vehicles to Torre Road Depot.

Terry Malloy

I think the reason for preferring clutchless transmissions, in common with several other municipal operators, was the need to retrain large numbers of tram drivers in a very short time. Far fewer people owned cars in those days, and many of those tram drivers would never have driven a motor vehicle.
What about the PD2/11s (UUA batches)? I know some of them were specials with pneumo-cyclic transmission, but I didn’t think they all were.

Peter Williamson

The last manual gearbox double deckers were the sixty “NNW” Leyland PD2s. All subsequent double deck vehicles being semi automatic of one kind or another. Thereafter all AECs and Daimlers were either three pedal pre-selector or two pedal “monocontrol.” All Leylands were two pedal pneumo-cyclic with the exception of the batch of ten “RNW”s (301 -310) which were three pedal pre-selector, and were the only ones made other than the London Transport RTLs and RTWs. Passionately wishing to drive one of the latter, I booked a piece of teatime overtime out of Bramley and persuaded a bemused but helpful shift foreman to let me take 307, one of the only two remaining at the time – a great experience !!

Chris Youhill

31/07/12 – 05:43

The clutch you are referring to was a gear changing pedal (NOT A CLUTCH) they were known as preselctors, I used to love to drive them brings back memories going up Churwell Hill in the old girls, (52/53 Morley)

Roger Hopper

07/11/12 – 16:47

Snivelling out of Bramley Chris? You’re very lucky one of the PD1s wasn’t compulsory for you! When we had these at Torre Road Garage (301 – 310) we used to complain bitterly that they wouldn’t “Pull” up hills. Scott Hall Road 69 & 70 routes used to see old Hunslet MK3s flying past us. The regular Bramley drivers (used to PD1s & PD2s used to use a form of “double declutching” on these and other preselector buses – preselecting neutral between gears. Don’t know if this helped or not. Perhaps the Bramley mechanics knew how to tune them up properly as I never heard of any complaints about lack of power when the Bramley drivers got hold of them.

Bill Midgley

08/11/12 – 07:16

Most interesting memories Bill, thank you, and I had forgotten or was never aware that the “RTL”s had been at Torre Road. On that one joyous occasion that I drove 307 I found it went very well – unless I was mesmerised by the wonderful concerto of gurglings, compressed air hissings and tick over wobblings so as not to notice, and of course there were virtually no real hills on that particular piece of work, the entire outward journey from Bramley in the west to Barnbow Factory in the east being “private.” The Bramley practice you mention of “double de-clutching” is completely unorthodox, baffling, and quite un-necessary, and surely can have no advantage at all – in fact it entirely defeats the object of faultless gear changes for which the system was invented !!

Chris Youhill

08/11/12 – 11:12

Ah, but it must have been harder to fiddle a CVD or CWD like. The gearchange was not an H-gate but a quadrant, so the neutral position was not between the gears. Having said that, the sheer driver-crippling vindictiveness of the change pedal has entered the annals of bus folk-lore!

Stephen Ford

10/11/12 – 10:20

Chris, these buses were new to Torre Road Garage and serviced the 69 Moortown and 70 Primley Park via Scott Hall Road services. The crews were on the TRG Rota – the precursor to getting a “Regular” on a main route.
At TRG, these were :- Dewsbury Road – Moortown – Middleton, Morley – Meanwood, East End Park Circular (included Moortown-Whitkirk & Leeds – Bradford), Lawnswood – Beeston, Half Mile Lane & Compton Road – Horsforth. Nearly everyone wanted to get onto Lawnswood because it had the best duty sheets – usually two “dinnertimes” in a late week. I worked out of TRG from 1958 – 1960 and had a “Regular” on Dewsbury Road before I went off to Headingley. When I first started, I was the youngest conductor on LCT being eighteen and two weeks! Ah! Those were the days – or maybe not!

Bill Midgley

06/01/15 – 05:42

Here’s a Pathe News clip of one of the Monocontrol Regent V’s being driven by a one-legged driver. //www.britishpathe.com/video/monocontrol-bus-aka-revolutionary-bus/query/leeds+buses

Chris Hebbron

07/01/15 – 06:26

Chris the one legged driver was John Rafferty the long time chairman of the council transport committee. The film was shot at Torre Road depot.

Chris Hough

08/01/15 – 06:43

Breath-holding shots of Alderman Rafferty climbing unaided into this Roe half-cab using his one leg and his crutch.

Joe