Samuel Ledgard – Some Truly Amazing Revivals

When vehicles were withdrawn from service it was almost invariably a permanent situation brought about by age, condition, or some very serious and expensive defect for which the repairs would not be economically acceptable. In very rare cases this misfortune occurred far earlier than would normally be expected and usually meant the premature end of a vehicle’s working career – BUT – there were some fascinating exceptions and here are a just a few which intrigued me greatly.

This Leyland Cheetah lightweight vehicle was one of Mr. G. F. Tate’s “Barnaby trio” and was inexplicably placed into store at Otley very shortly after the end of WW2. It languished quietly in the Otley Carriers van depot in Bondgate for many years before very unexpectedly being taken into the depot and fully overhauled and repainted. The Barnaby bodies were somewhat quaint for the mid 1930s but I loved them. They combined very sound construction with “kindly” looks and vintage features like spinning rooftop ventilators and wooden plank ceilings and, in the case of DUB 82, an incredible seating capacity of 39, three passengers at the top of the entrance steps facing backwards !! This fine machine re-entered service lacking the luxury of an offside headlamp or anywhere to put one – the Traffic Commissioners didn’t seem to mind – and was a spirited performer on the Otley – Wetherby service where its ascent of Harewood Bank with a 4.7 litre engine was little short of spectacular. Strangely, in its second career, it was never given any fleetnames which really was a shame. Eventually withdrawn permanently on New Year’s Eve 1952 it sadly ended its days in the Eller Ghyll scrapyard which was always a very unhappy sight to behold.

What fine machines indeed were the Leyland Tiger TS7/8s, with Sam’s own version of the lovely Duple coach bodies with “porch” doorways at the top of the entrance steps – a feature which facilitated their valuable use without modification for stage carriage work in later years. Of the 1938 quartet, for some reason GUA 639 was mothballed soon after the war and spent several years hidden away in the mysterious western end of Ilkley Depot. In a similar manner to the revival of DUB 82 it was suddenly brought back to Otley and received the most comprehensive and thorough overhaul imaginable. All seats were fully reupholstered in that grand blue and cream “leaf” patterned moquette of the time, and the half drop windows were replaced by expertly made sliders. The chassis was of course fully refurbished, and the engine was possibly one of Mr. Johnny Waddington’s very finest achievements – he had quite simply the most incredible skill in always rebuilding engines to a standard where they performed magnificently, and GUA 639 quickly became one of Otley Depot’s star performers and was supremely comfortable as well. It lasted until September 1957 when its final bus duties on “The Moorfield” were over.

Now here is quite an incredible saga. This Leyland Lion LT5 was part of the acquired B & B Tours fleet and had been fitted from new with a Wilkes and Meade luxurious coach body. It was taken off the road relatively early in its career to rest at Armley depot, until a sensation occurred in November 1953. After parting with its Leyland 5.1 litre engine it received the Gardner 5LW from Daimler UG 7252 – the double decker is believed to have gained this unit in place of its Daimler petrol engine but never ran with the diesel engine. After removal of the Hunslet built coachwork KY 7082 received an ECW rear entrance bus body from East Yorkshire Leyland Tiger DKH 442 and was ready for its amazing debut in disguise – it was to put in almost three years sterling service at Yeadon Depot before final retirement in October 1956

This Daimler CWA6 “utility” vehicle was one of a batch of four allocated to Samuel Ledgard in the dark days of WW2 and had Roe bodywork with more than a slight cheeky resemblance to East Yorkshire’s famous “Beverley Bar” design. 916 was the only one of the four at Otley Depot and for reasons long lost in the past was withdrawn very early indeed, but was not banished to any hidden dark premises like others. It spent I should say a good couple of years in the top left corner at the back of the garage, taking up useful working space and becoming progressively sadder and shabbier as the months went by. I hope I shall be taken seriously when I relate that a seed must have blown into the garage roof and established itself in one of the upper deck corner pillars of 916 where it developed into quite a presentable sapling, to everyone’s amusement. Apparently a very sudden policy change redeemed the bus and it was then given an extremely thorough complete overhaul and fitted with London Transport “STL” type seats. The paintwork, always immaculately executed by Arthur Mann and Benny, was arguably one of their finest achievements and the immaculate and potent motor became a very firm favourite with us all – it even sported a loud but tuneful repeater bell encased in a tamper proof metal box on the platform. So, after entering service with wooden seats in the sinister very serious atmosphere of 1943, JUA 916 ended its career on the last day of January in 1961 and defied the odds by being in finer condition than when it was new !!

Well, those are just a few of many fascinating and enterprising engineering projects carried out by Ledgard’s dedicated and highly skilled craftsmen. There were many other very ambitious alterations to vehicles throughout the Company’s existence, but such operations were usually undertaken very promptly and did not involve unduly long absences from service. There was always a surprise around the corner for we enthusiasts among the staff – and perhaps the passengers didn’t realise or appreciate that such conscientiousness and imagination was a major factor in the virtually 100% reliable service which we undeniably provided – it has certainly never been matched since – ask anyone!

Chris Youhill

05/2013

 Pictures

DUB 82 in Otley Bus Station – C. P. Youhill


GUA 639 on site of present Otley Fire Station in Bondgate – R. F. Mack

KY 7082 at Yeadon Depot – R. F. Mack

JUA 916 my favourite picture of 916 in fine form at Bramhope Church – R. F. Mack

 


24/05/13 – 15:16

Thank you, again, Chris for another excellent piece on your “old firm”. By amazing co-incidence, I was passing the very location of the utility Daimler at Bramhope two days ago and thinking “Wouldn’t it be nice to see a Sammy along here again”! Good old “Bob” Mack always seemed to be at the right place at the right time.

Paul Haywood


24/05/13 – 18:13

The idea of reviving seemingly terminally redundant vehicles is characteristic of a good number of independent operators where a combination of getting value for money, inventive use of various previously unrelated components and the skill of some truly excellent engineers and craftsmen tweaked extra years out of vehicles which many larger operators would have sold on or sold for scrap.

Chris’s article is unlikely to be repeated in future years by those who are currently in their younger years as we are truly in the age of the throwaway bus.

Mind you in my other interest, aviation, not only are we in the age of the throwaway aircraft but we have the nonsense of genuine spare parts being so expensive that aircraft as young as 4 years old are being broken up for spares by leasing companies when a lease is for some reason terminated and a new lease would not generate as much short term income.

Phil Blinkhorn


25/05/13 – 08:31

As you point out, Chris, most vehicles went from service to the scrap yard. I was aware of Samuel Ledgard, but they were too far South for me, and I knew nothing about them. However, up in this neck of the woods we had OK Motor Services of Bishop Auckland, another independent who were experts at getting a few more years reliable service from cast offs of others.

Ronnie Hoye


25/05/13 – 08:32

Chris, what a fascinating piece of Ledgard history indeed, and thank you for letting us be party to it. Four lovely vehicles full of charm and character – even the poor old ‘one-eyed’ Cheetah has a certain ‘je ne sais quoi’. The Tiger coach looks simply magnificent, and the Daimler/Roe utility looks a treat in that livery style, and no doubt sounded a treat too. The bees knees for me though has to be the mongrel (or whatever the feline equivalent is) Lion, with it’s 5-pot Gardner engine conversion and secondhand ECW body. What a handsome beast and looking as it does, ready for action come what may. Just gorgeous!

Brendan Smith


25/05/13 – 17:17

I was a school boy at Otley Grammar School from January 1954 and remember well some of these buses that Chris has described in a wonderful and memorable way. I never knew they were “resurrected” and just loved the Leyland Lion LT5 (KY 7082) which I always regarded as cheeky but was sad not to see the Leyland Cheetah (DUB 82). Thank you Chris for sharing some lovely memories.

Richard Fieldhouse


26/05/13 – 10:28

Some wonderful pictures here and, as you say Paul, good old Bob Mack! Without his enthusiasm for photography in the 50s and 60s, a lot of this visual record would have been lost. I used to go on West Yorkshire Information Service days out and Bob was always there with Colin Wright, taking photos of our progress etc., chasing ahead of us in an A35 van. I’ll have a look in my own Ledgard photos and see if I can post some later.

David Rhodes


27/05/13 – 09:30

Thanks to everyone for your interest in these revivals, of which very few people indeed were actually aware even at the time they took to the road again.

As Paul and David say, our memories would not be the same without dear Bob Mack’s comprehensive coverage.

Ronnie, I had the very highest regard for OK Motor Services and their interesting fleet and beautiful livery. One star vehicle which they had brand new was of course of enormous interest to we folks from Leeds – YUP 487 was a Roe bodied Leyland PD3 identical to the large batch of such vehicles in Leeds, although the OK one may have been three pedal synchromesh, anyone remember ??

David, What a small world indeed – I must have travelled with you on some of the superb WYIS tours.

Brendan, Yes the Cheetah had the charm and features of a “bygone age” and it was difficult, even then, to imagine that it was newer than many of SL’s Tiger TS7s and Titan TD4s !! Two more poor pictures here which show the other two of the equally delightful “Barnaby trio.” The Daimler utility not only sounded great but was a very potent machine indeed, maintaining the busiest schedules with ease. The Lion remained of course a Lion, but simply had a new heart with the Gardner and was a sprightly and characterful gem.



ANW 586 (rear)

Just before Mr. G.F.Tate’s demise in 1943, Leyland “Light Lion” ANW 586 waits in Edward Street for the Rawdon stand in Vicar Lane Bus Station to become free – note the delightful Barnaby spinning ventilators on the planked canvas covered roof. The London Transport petrol ST is about to tackle the gruelling journey to Harrogate in the same time as the modern day powerful giants often find difficult. (Photo source WYIS)


BNW 4

A very sad sight indeed – former G.F.Tate recently withdrawn in the depot yard at Yeadon (Moorfield) garage. Partly showing is one of the petrol Leyland Tiger TS2s which like many more, once the glory of coaching had faded, gave valuable and compeetnt service of the Horsforth to Otley bus routes – the bus is still in wartime khaki – the Avro factory where the Lancasters were built is scarcely a mile away !! (Photo R.F.Mack)

Richard, Here is a picture of the Lion when almost new with its original owner B & B Tours before the Ledgard takeover. The luxury bodywork with curtains was by the Leeds firm of Wilks and Meade.



KY 7082

Pictured in its almost new heyday with luxury Wilkes and Mead coachwork in a very pleasant private hire location, curtains neatly opened, in B & B Tours livery. (Photo source WYIS)

Chris Youhill


27/05/13 – 11:25

First things first – what a wonderful collection of “short stories” Chris. I live in West Wales where it has been normal practice for a number of operators, most especially in Pembrokeshire though not exclusively, to leave their withdrawn vehicles to rot in a field adjacent to the depot. Most were perhaps beyond redemption and a few have gone away for posterity. Examples include a certain Sentinel and OFC 205 the Duple bodied Regal currently in supposed “as found” condition in the Oxford Bus Museum. Most though just sit and rot, what a contrast with Chris’ story.

Les Dickinson


27/05/13 – 16:47

I think probably one of the most amazing revivals must be the rebodying of ex LT Daimler CWA6 HGF 948 with the Brush C36C body taken from Maudsley SF40 CUB1.

From the photos I have seen it looked a superb vehicle, although I believe the work was actually done by a bodybuilding firm in Bingley.

Eric Bawden


28/05/13 – 07:57

Eric,

It’s at this link

Chris Hebbron


28/05/13 – 12:10


HGF 948 in Morley Street Bradford “touting for excursion customers.” (Photo R.F.Mack)

Thanks Eric and Les and, yes, The HGF 948 saga was an amazing one which puzzled us all at the time and has done ever since – no doubt the Firm considered the economics of the adventure, but its difficult to see how it added up in view of all the labour involved. The result, as we know, was quite astonishing and produced a useful vehicle although its image didn’t belong to the mid 1950s at all. I always thought that the frontal appearance, produced by Rhodes of Bingley, looked remarkably sad and frankly unbalanced and amateur, but there we are.


JUB 649 outside the Woodman in Headingley on the Ilkley – Otley – Leeds service (Photo R.F.Mack)

We mustn’t of course forget the other part of the Sutton Daimler, the Park Royal body. This was mounted on the identical CWA6 chassis of Ledgard’s own JUB 649 whose Duple body had become unsound very prematurely compared with the rest of the batch which were remarkably long lived. Resident at Armley Head depot from delivery, the “new” JUB 649 was transferred to Otley where it immediately became one of my favourites as it was a fine performer. At the same time it wore one of the many experimental liveries, in my view one of the best, and initially retained the London front destination screens with one of our new larger displays.

Chris Youhill


28/05/13 – 17:36

I’ve submitted some of my own Ledgard photos taken in the 60s, which I thought Chris Youhill might appreciate and want to comment on. What a small world, Chris,no doubt we were on the same WYIS tours. The first and most memorable one for me was taking DX4 (Gardner engine) to Scarborough for the day, calling at York depot and Scarborough depot as well as parking up on the seafront for a break. Being fresh out of the paint shop after an overhaul, the bus had that lovely freshly painted smell. However, there are no known Bob Mack photos of this trip. I only had 12 shots in my camera, so didn’t get a comprehensive coverage. Did you take any photos, Chris?

The other thing I would like to comment on was regarding the khaki colour applied to the buses in wartime. My dad was a reserved occupation because he had to organise getting workers backwards and forwards to factories such as Avro at Yeadon. He used to show me how the waiting buses were hidden in banks of trees and of course a bright coloured livery would have been a dead giveaway. Perhaps Tate’s supplied buses for this purpose. Hope this is not becoming too much of a Ledgard-fest!

David Rhodes



Chester Street, Bradford, May 1962, ex-Rochdale.



Ex-Bristol Omnibus K type Chester Street, 1962.



Ex-London RT, Harrogate, 23.8.64.



Bradford Morley Street, Leyland Tiger, 7.9.62.



RTL Chester Street, March 1966. Compare the background with that on GDK. The monolith ruined Chester Street area.



RT at Chester Street, 1963.



Guy LUF Harrogate.



Ex-United K6A, Otley, photo late Tony Peart.



Ex-Bury at Ilkley 5.3.62.


29/05/13 – 06:59

I’ve just been checking on the 100 Sutton Daimlers. Delivered in 1946, they were all overhauled in 1949 and just over half were again overhauled in 1952, a task so lengthy and expensive this time, that LTE gave up and sold them. HGF 948 (D271)was not one overhauled a second time and this might explain the early demise of the body.

Chris Hebbron


29/05/13 – 07:01

The Bristol K6A in Tony Peart’s photo looks as though it had been planned as a K6G: long bonnet and short first bay. Any suggestions out there?

What a wonderfully heartening set of pictures: full use obtained from a fascinating variety of vehicles. Thanks, Chris and David.

Ian Thompson


29/05/13 – 09:57

Correct me if I am wrong Chris, but was it a couple of years ago that the JUB/HGF swap occurred?

What a wealth of wonderful memories come flooding back! I was at Belle Vue School, on Manningham Lane from 1950 to 1956, and we had a small group of transport devotees, mainly interested in WYRC, BCPT, and Leeds trams, but the prevailing Ledgard activity inspired us to form a group which others have since remembered, called SLEDGE. Sammy Ledgard Executors Doyen Group of Enthusiasts. No wonder I failed my History O levels…others too!

Ledgard was the perfect “foil” for other fleets in the total glory days of enthusiasm at that time, and we were very privileged indeed.

Bob Mack was mentioned. He was a real gentleman and well remembered for his approachable attitude from younger enthusiasts, as well as his many other transport “connections” of the day, such as the “Leeds and District Transport News”.

Absolutely wonderful days, and thanks for the reminders. The “Beer and Blue Buses” book is well worth the money for any Ledgard converts who may have been inspired by your post!

Perhaps a little TOO much diversity in the final years though….I prefer to remember the 1950s and those wonderful HGFs!

I cannot close without reminding myself, and probably others, of the Butlers scrapyard on Otley Road, just below the “Fox and Hounds” The headaches I have collected from twisted neck syndrome whilst passing the withdrawn Ledgard vehicles therein!

Re the sloping cab windscreen/bonnet on the ex United Bristol.

This was because the body was built originally for the shorter wheel base Leyland TD2, post war rebodying of which was policy among some Tilling Group fleets, necessitating a shorter first bay, and hence, no “slider” within the non standard window dimension.

This body was transferred to a wartime K at a later date, and the TD2 chassis scrapped.

John Whitaker


30/05/13 – 06:00

David – many thanks indeed for this fine selection of interesting views and I can make just a few brief comments on most of them.

KHY 746 – a superb vehicle based at Armley (often loaned to Bradford as here) which, by a fluke, I was lucky enough to drive just once. While operating the first Bradford to Harrogate journey one morning it suffered a front wheel puncture in Otley, was replaced by an Otley bus and repaired, and was therefore given to me for the 08:07 duplicate to Leeds and back – what joy. It ascended the long A660 hill to Bramhope like a refined rocket and, when the disinterested young conductor came to see me in Leeds, he jeered “I don’t know what you’re getting so excited about – its only a ruddy bus.” I just thought to myself “Oh you poor soul.”

LYR 918 – a deplorably sloppy destination display by the conductor – always one of my pet hates.

GBU 537 (and GBU 539) Both had their Plaxton bodies removed and scrapped, and their chassis were fully overhauled and altered to PD3 Titan specification, even to the fitting or radiators, bonnets and wings. Sadly in the mid 1960s no bodybuilder was prepared to build double deck forward entrance bodies on them and they ended up being scrapped eventually.

KGU 263 – NOT just any old RTL !! This vehicle had several owners after LT, not least the glorious Silver Star of Porton Down.

GUY 3 – after the acquisition of Kitchin’s the bus spent a short while at Bradford depot but sson found itself at Yeadon on the Horsforth to Otley services. I was once asked to collect it from Yeadon and do an excursion to Wetherby Races with it. It had just been recertified and upseated to 42. We had great sport in seeing the passengers’ puzzled faces as gears were pre-selected with its full size gear lever an engaged later with the gearchange pedal.

GHN 840 – seen here after overhaul at Otley depot and before being returned to Yeadon. I neevr forgave our superb painters for their all time but only “gaff” in positioning the fleetnames thus, instead of being half way down the panels. Possibly within days of this picture I was rudely arrested while travelling off duty on a bus from Burley in W to Leeds – in front of the holiday crowds I was ordered off the bus and accused of having STOLEN GHN 840 from the very spot in the picture the previous afternoon. The Police were acting on malicious information form a work “mate” – I was never told his name but I know who it was. The real thief was arrested six months later but that’s another story. GHN 840 ended up semi overturned in a rural field after a four hour joy ride all over the area and was moderately damaged.

EN 8408 – a wartime Daimler CWA6 rebodied in Roe’s super quality, with Bury specification high quality brown leather seats throughout. A veritable powerful “flyer” and lovely to drive and ride on, but why oh why wasn’t the destination display altered.

I’m afraid I wasn’t on the Scarborough trip, although I’ve conducted DX4 a good few times as it was often loaned to Ilkley if we needed one. You may be surprised to hear that a new model firm called “B – T” have made a very impressive model of the very bus !!

Chris H – A little confusion here maybe ?? It was the original Duple body on JUB 649 which failed prematurely – I can’t recall any trouble with HGF 948 although perhaps it needed a lot of attention after removal from the London chassis. The Park Royal one which really caused trouble was that on HGF 940, which caused the vehicle’s withdrawal in under four years – the first Sutton HGF to go.

John W – Oh if only I’d known of SLEDGE at the time I’d have joined of course. the mention of the Eller Ghyll scrapyard makes me weep to this day. Well, as for too much diversity in the later years I don’t really think so with 34 RTs and 5 RTLs – the Sutton HGFs could only muster 21 as double deckers. I know what you mean though, as there were AECs and Leylands galore of course as well as other odds and ends – fabulous odds and ends mind you eh ?? I’m sure my dreams would have come true ‘ere long if the next to arrive had been RTWs.

On a very sad note – I’ve just heard today of the sudden death in the most tragic of almost unbelievable circumstances of John Fozard of Ledgard and photographic fame.

Chris Youhill


30/05/13 – 09:05

My word – what a superb posting which has generated so many excellent photos and memories.

All my books are in boxed storage following a recent move, so I can’t check any SL references at the moment, and I might be making a silly observation, but…. When I looked again at the photo of JUA 916 in Bramhope, I was puzzled to see it displaying OTLEY Bus Station. All the other photos I’ve seen seem to only show OTLEY (or via Otley), but never Bus Station. Was this a one-off? I know that SL had the Otley locals to the Weston and Newall estates, but they always seemed to use the same (outward) destination display in both directions.

Am I totally wrong, or was this Bus Station display unusual?

Paul Haywood


30/05/13 – 11:32

I’m so glad, Paul, that you’re enjoying this topic. The way that its grown, from what was intended only as a description of four revival projects, has amazed me and I must say I’m gratified that so many friends have found interest and discussion in it. Your query about 916 displaying Otley BUS STATION is not silly at all of course but you may be very surprised by the answer. One of the very first moves by the Executors to improve the image of the Company from 1953 was to introduce destination blinds of this size – it has to be said that the usual SL “letterbox slits” until then were far from satisfactory. Over the next few years there were various versions of the new size displays, each one of improved layout and lettering, and the one in 916 was the final and undoubtedly the best. The version was pretty widespread by the end in 1967, although many of the older commendable attempts were still in use. As regards the two local town services in Otley it seemed to be simple “custom and practice” to leave the name of the estate showing all the time. Certainly “Weston Estate” or “Weston Drive” was always shown. On the older versions though “Newall” was shown throughout the half hour “cross town” cycle but, for perfectionists like me, it could be changed to “Golf House” for the southern direction. The final edition as in 916 “accepted defeat” and showed “Newall and Westbourne Estate” for the full round trip. Mind you, in all fairness, the Cross town Newall service was so incredibly busy during the day that the collection of all the fares was quite a formidable task. On the other route though to Weston Estate, equally busy, it was a case of “Ten minutes up, ten minutes back and ten minutes in the bus station” so “Otley Bus Station” could have been shown on the return, but really everybody knew the score and there was never any problem.

Chris Youhill


30/05/13 – 14:41

As a (slightly younger) participant in WYIS tours and as an enthusiast of that era can I pose another question for Chris Y?

I well remember Butler’s scrapyard and its role as Ledgard’s graveyard, but is my memory playing me tricks because in the early 70’s I was courting my now wife who lived in Hawksworth. I seem to recall seeing a scrapped Ledgrard vehicle or its remains in the local quarry (Odda Quarry) behind Hawksworth village. Could I be correct Chris ?

Gordon


31/05/13 – 06:31

My word Gordon, its a pleasure to try to help but you’ve certainly had we locals baffled initially with this. We assumed that you meant the Hawksworth near Kirstall and therefore drew a blank as nobody had heard of an ODDA quarry. However, I decided to take a chance on the “other” Hawksworth on the Internet and, sure enough, that is the village that you mean. We know of no Ledgard vehicle remains in that area, but could you please try to remember a little more detail and possibly we may solve this one eventually.

Chris Youhill


31/05/13 – 09:18

Re the Hawksworth puzzle. In all the years I lived in that area and went through that village as a shortcut to the Harrogate road at Whitecross, the only dumped vehicle which I ever saw was an old Bradford tram. A little further on is the notorious Alma hill and near the top of it used to be the breakers known to us as Bingley Brick Kilns. I saw many old buses dumped in there which stood for many years gradually sinking into a muddy pond. I thought perhaps my input might help.

David Rhodes


01/06/13 – 15:33

Chris Y, I am sorry to have set you off towards the wrong Hawksworth – I never thought but one does wonder what historical quirk resulted in two settlements no more than 5 mile apart having the same name.

Unfortunately I can give no identity clues, it was very much a rusting chassis with some remnants of blue equally rusting bodywork which could have course been an abandoned lorry related to then abandoned (but now reopened) quarry workings. The purpose of my mentioning it was to see if it sparked anyone else’s memory who might have had more detail if indeed it was a former Ledgard vehicle. In view of the negative response I suspect this is a red (or blue) herring. Sorry !

David, the quarry I refer to is off the beaten track to the North of Odda Lane and the remains I remember would only be seen if walking off the road. I drive past the old tram site between Hawksworth and Dick Hudson’s at least once a week – it is now gone and if I recollect correctly I think it was destroyed by fire. The scrapyard was a little further on than Alma Hill, nearer to Micklethwaite and Bingley and was at one time the resting place of some withdrawn Bradford trolleybuses. It was reputedly owned by the man who ran one of the Sweet Shops at the Norman Arch near my school in Bradford.

Gordon


02/06/13 – 06:37

Ref the Bradford trolleybuses in the scrapyard, would this have been Autospares?

Andrew Charles


03/06/13 – 07:10

Andrew – Yes it was Autospares as I recall.

Gordon


03/06/13 – 08:36

Thanks Gordon for further “Quarry” information. From 1967 until well into the 1970s we were actively insearch of any former Ledgard vehicles after the demise of the Company. We are reasonably confident that everything was traced accurately during those years, and indeed since and up to the present day. If the remains that you describe were severely rusted even in the early 70s I suppose there’s just a possibility of a very much earlier vehicle possibly disposed of around 1952, when Mr. Ledgard died and all his older vehicles, stored mainly on the collossal roof of Armley depot, were disposed of to defray death duties and to use the space far more effectively for parking. So, like just a very few other enigmas, I’m afraid we shall never know !!

Chris Youhill

Fascinating Aspects of Scheduling at Samuel Ledgard

Have you ever wondered how the buses and the crews reached their home depots at night?? Well usually there was no problem as the service timetable worked out suitably, but occasionally some interesting little tricks had to be devised and could be incorporated into the duties at any available time of the day.

Take for example the 05:50 from Otley to Leeds where the corrective measure was taken at the earliest possible opportunity. If this bus had stayed on the service timings all day it would have ended up at Armley Depot at night. So, on arriving in Leeds at 06:25, the bus stood for thirty minutes instead of the usual ten, being replaced on the 06:35 departure from Cookridge Street by the Armley machine fresh from the garage, and leaving for Otley at 06:55. A little later the Armley machine would provide a useful duplicate between Otley and Newall, chiefly for Prince Henry’s Grammar School, in its twenty minutes layover time between 08:30 and 08:50. Later still at 22:10 the same bus would convey Otley Depot administrative paperwork to Armley for prompt attention next morning.

Turning now to the 06:05 from Burley in Wharfedale to Leeds via Guiseley which was an Ilkley Depot duty and ran private to Burley at 05:55 – we never understood why passengers could not be carried on that stretch (although the odd “stowaway” was not unknown!!). However the rest day for that duty was Tuesday, when it was staffed by Otley Depot. The vehicle logistics question was solved quite easily – on Monday evenings the 20:00 from King Street to Ilkley, which on other days ran in to Ilkley Depot, was simply taken by the finishing crew to Otley Depot ready for Tuesday morning – to the relief of the night cleaner at Ilkley who’s work was reduced by 20% for a once weekly treat.

Certainly the most ambitious of these remedial measures involved buses from Otley and Armley Depots on the Leeds – Guiseley – Ilkley service. The route basically required four buses on a two hour round trip, one vehicle from Armley and three from Otley. The Leeds Depot bus left King Street at 06:00 and remained on that timing until 14:53 when it was taken to Ilkley Garage. There the crew had a half hour break before taking over an Otley Depot bus at 15:25 for a trip to Leeds and return for 17:23 when the vehicle was handed to a fresh late turn Otley crew. Meanwhile another Otley crew collected the Armley bus from Little Lane Depot and worked a very busy duplicate journey at 16:22 to Leeds and back. This arrangement was very pleasing to me and other enthusiasts as it enabled us to work on a large variety of Armley buses over the years. After an hour’s break at Ilkley from 17:23 to 18:23 the Leeds staff reclaimed their vehicle for the 18:25 to Leeds, the bus being now in the right place on the service to run in to Armley at night. As a happy reminder of the days when passengers were legion it is good to remember the scene at the wooden GPO parcels office in King Street in the weekday evening peak. At 17:20 two Hebble buses would leave for Halifax and Burnley/Rochdale, making room for a most impressive Ledgard quartet – all well loaded – which departed thus :- 17:27 to Rawdon Co-op, 17:28 to Guiseley White Cross, 17:29 (Armley “borrowed” bus) to Ilkley and 17:30 to Ilkley. Oh to see such a splendid procession now!!

The service from Ilkley to Otley was, of course, jointly operated with West Yorkshire and consequently the Ledgard bus stood at various times for seventy minutes in Ilkley. On Wednesdays and Saturdays this provided the means for operating the Middleton Hospital visitors’ journeys very economically indeed – imagine nowadays reversing with almost a full load onto the narrow Northern end of the Toll Bridge on the outward trips!!
The only “sleeping out” arrangement that I can recall involved the last “B & B” departure from Bradford which terminated in Otley at 22:55. The crew would leave the vehicle in the bus station and travel home on the last journey at 23:00 (22:30 from Harrogate). The bus was re-fuelled and cleaned by the Otley night staff and parked near the Bradford stand ready for the 07:00 journey next morning, the crew for which travelled from “Wool City” on the first departure arriving in Otley at 06:55.

Economy in operation was always taken seriously at Ledgard’s and so one notable apparent exception puzzles me to this day. The Weston Estate service was extended from its original terminus at Bickerton Way (where reversing was needed) right round the newly built and heavily populated Meagill Rise to a new turning point in a narrow slip road which was frequently obstructed by parked cars (reasonably so to be fair as the householders had nowhere else to park). The location was within but a few yards of re-joining Weston Drive and presented what would appear an ideal opportunity to operate as a circular loop at the outer end of the route with quite a saving in fuel over a year. I imagine that the possibility of overloading occurring from the combination of outward and newly joining passengers may well have been the reason for this caution, and the “loop” measure was not adopted till many years later when “another operator” took over the route.

In closing, two observations on the change in public standards over recent years spring to mind. Firstly, can anyone imagine today that buses could be left parked all day and by night in Otley Bus Station without fear of damage or theft. Or that the entire cash takings at Ilkley Depot, inside the relevant Setright machine boxes, travelled to Otley to be counted under the steps of the 19:40 and 23:25 buses from Ilkley – passengers galore AND open platforms!! Makes you think doesn’t it??

Chris Youhill

09/2013


22/09/13 – 17:12

Chris has given all of us a great insight to bus service operations which I have found of great interest and enjoyment. As a resident of Burley-in -Wharfedale and a pupil at Prince Henry’s Grammar School, Otley I used the “Sammy” buses on a regular basis and I got to know the Otley and Ilkley buses well, so the “strangers” were always spotted. Just as Chris enjoyed the change of bus, so did people like me. The article brings back very many fond memories of this time in the fifties/early sixties. Many thanks Chris for such a lovely article.

Richard Fieldhouse


22/09/13 – 17:13

Many thanks, Chris, for this fascinating glimpse into an often neglected aspect of bus operation – particularly of “Sammies”. Back in the days when every fare was important, every effort was made to grab as many riders as possible and these clever and money-saving schedules helped maximise income. It’s ironic to think that, in those perhaps more socialist, union-influenced days, operators were extremely savvy in ways they could maximise income, whereas in today’s more laissez-faire, de-restricted atmosphere, income is almost secondary to subsidy and the levels of service reflect this.

Paul Haywood


23/09/13 – 06:08

Thank you indeed Richard and Paul for your appreciative views of what is to me a most intriguing part of bus operation. I should have mentioned of course that this article was based on the Monday to Friday situation at Otley and Ilkley depots. Naturally the Saturday and Sunday rotas, due to the simpler demands and frequencies, were less complex. I imagine that similar “crafty tactics” were in force at Armley and Bradford depots too, although at Yeadon Moorfield the vehicles’ return to their proper home at night was ensured simply by the frequency and nature of the two Otley – Horsforth services.

Chris Youhill


23/09/13 – 06:09

Very interesting Chris.

Could you please explain to a local lad (not as local as Richard) the route to Middleton Hospital and why in particular it required a reverse at the toll bridge.

Gordon Green


23/09/13 – 10:21

Well Gordon I’ll certainly try to explain this challenging oddity on the Middleton Hospital service. The crux of the matter lay in the very limited visiting hours for the Hospital, and in the long and difficult journeys made by many of the visitors. Visiting times were 1400 – 1600 on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays only – therefore it was an enormous help to those travelling from the east direction to leave their long distance buses at the Toll Bridge and to walk across to the Hospital (north) end. This brings us to the difficult reversing performance from a very narrow country road onto an even narrower “fluted stone” entrance to the bridge – with an upward slope to add to the fun. It was a very difficult job dimension wise and the absolute limit was definitely reached with 27 ft x 8 ft double deckers. Then, as is widely known, with manual transmission especially, reversing while loaded involves an amount of “jigging up and down” to add to the precision required. Of course having accomplished the turn we were then faced with more waiting passengers than we should take, but we never left anyone – how could you really ?? This brings us now to the ascent of Carter’s Lane to the Hospital – the last few yards were of a really terrific gradient, culminating in the final thrill of the trip in the form of a steeply curved steep entry to the Grounds (still there actually on the demolished site) where platform and rear offside grounding had to be carefully avoided. It is a real tribute to the moderate engine capacity of the 7.4 litre Leylands and 7.7 litre AECs, and to the Ledgard maintenance, that the often very overloaded vehicles managed the ascent with 100% reliability – always of course in first gear in the end.

One other real hazard on the outward journeys from Ilkley concerned the cables for the suspension footbridge near the Lido – the cables were anchored at the nearside of the road and it was critically essential to pull over to the right to avoid an accident to the top deck of the bus. It may be wondered why the return journeys to Ilkley were direct – obviously the passengers had achieved their visiting hours target and therefore there was no justification for the Toll Bridge reversing and traffic disruption. Oh, if only a photo had been taken of the Toll Bridge reverse – I remember well my terror of the moment when, as a very new driver, I had to face it with an audience of bemused passengers.

Chris Youhill

Samuel Ledgard – Guy LUF – DCN 838


All three shots from the Stephen Howarth collection

Samuel Ledgard
1954
Guy Arab LUF
Picktree C35F

DCN 838 was new to Samuel Ledgard in 1963, it was one of 35 second hand vehicles added to the fleet in an attempt at some sort of standardisation, in order to reduce stocking a wide range of spare parts.
It was new to Northern General Transport in 1954 as their 1538. A Guy Arab LUF – Chassis No LUF 72189 it had a Picktree C35F body.
It passed to West Yorkshire Road Car Company on 14th October 1967, upon the takeover of Ledgards by that company. It was never operated by WYRCC.

Samuel Ledgard - Guy LUF - DCN 838

The three pictures show it in a sorry state in July 1968 being used as a Site Office with William Press at Leathley, not far from its home ground.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth

19/08/12 – 12:05

If my records are correct, Northern had 13 of these, they were fitted with Gardner 6HLW engines, and you’ve said they were built by Picktree coachworks, which was more or less next door to Northern’s Chester Le Street depot. They were designed by Doug Pargeter who had previously been with Northern Coachbuilders. I don’t know of any others of this type, so they may well have been unique to Northern General. Unlike most of the coach fleet which were predominantly cream, these were all red, but looked very smart and were always well turned out. They were built mainly for continental work, and the off side emergency door was designed to allow easy access to to vehicle whilst it was being used in Europe. I’m not aware of any survivors

Ronnie Hoye

20/08/12 – 07:53

It seems that Picktree Coachworks was founded on 6th September 1947. The coach building side of the business tailed off in the mid 1950s – possibly these Guys were the last Picktree bodies of all – and its latter day activities consisted of the sale of motor vehicles. It closed down in November 1996, being fully wound up in April 1998. As far as I can gather, the bulk of Picktree’s output went to Northern General, who also had some curious Picktree bodied AEC Regals known as “kipper boxes” whose chassis incorporated components from older machines. It is certainly probable that the Guy LUF coaches carried over much of the design expertise from Northern Coachbuilders, and they were generally considered to be high quality vehicles. We certainly need Chris Y to give us his valuable insight into their life with Samuel Ledgard.

Roger Cox

20/08/12 – 07:54

What a sad end for a fine coach These were my favourite Ledgard coaches. They had well appointed interiors complete with aircraft style drop down tables in the seat backs. I had a number of trips on various members of the batch and they were a very smooth riding machine with a very melodious transmission.

Chris Hough

20/08/12 – 07:55

Just as a footnote to my previous comments. I don’t know when it closed, but Northern had a booking office in Pilgrim Street Newcastle which was just round the corner from Worswick St Bus Station. As a youngster I remember that in the centre of the window they had a model of one of these on display in a glass case. I don’t have a clue what scale it was, but to a boy of about 8 or 10 it looked huge, I wonder what happened to it?

Ronnie Hoye

20/08/12 – 11:46

What very sad but inevitable pictures Stephen, and so close to the operating area of these fine vehicles too. I am somewhat puzzled though by the theory that they were purchased with “standardisation” in mind, and with respect I don’t think that this was the case. Rather, I think they will have been snapped up as an absolute bargain in mid life highly luxurious coaches on well proven and reliable chassis, and from an operator with high maintenance standards too. There is no doubt at all that they were in superb order when they arrived, and they gave impeccable service. I was a devotee of the old Ledgard original livery of dark blue, cream and black for coaches, and the “DCN”s looked majestic and dignified so painted. The final ivory and pale blue colours were just “not them” and didn’t suit their traditional and individual styling at all I’m afraid.
We had eight of them, DCN 831/4/5/6/7/8/9/40, and DCN 832 was bought from Wood’s of Pollington for spares only. DCN 831 was at Otley from Day One and was a joy to drive – Chris Hough so rightly says that they were smooth riding (exceptionally so) and the transmission was quietly melodious – in fact these coaches simply oozed refined quality. I was once sent to the Morley Street stand in Bradford to work a half day excursion to Bridlington (such outings were legion in those happy days) where the manager, Mr. Tom Kent, was supervising the loading. Any prospective passengers viewing the chrome and glitter of the opposition companies were quietly informed with a gesture to 831 and “Nice seats here.” By departure time the Guy was full and off we went – all without exception commented on what a lovely vehicle to travel in, and were very impressed by the Gardner’s competent and swift ascent of the notorious Garrowby Hill twixt York and Bridlington.
Returning briefly to the “standardisation” theory, I wonder if this perhaps arose from the purchase in 1963 -5 of the thirty four London RTs and five RTLs – certainly standardisation was the aim there, and they formed by far the largest class of identical vehicles in the Company’s history – sadly our “swan song” in view of the impending doom of October 14th 1967.

Chris Youhill

20/08/12 – 11:47

DCN 831_lr

I have been having another look through a box of pictures and came across this one. It is of similar coach DCN 831, again in a state of disrepair, hope it does not upset you too much seeing it this way Chris.

Stephen Howarth

20/08/12 – 14:05

Well Stephen, the entire saga of the demise of Samuel Ledgard upsets me but we just have to put up with it I suppose. The almost unreal proceedings in the week leading up to Saturday 14th October 1967 are still a sore point with enthusiasts and passengers, the latter never having had a truly satisfactory and reliable service since that date. DCN 831, in your latest picture of the near deserted roof of Armley Depot, was of course the vehicle which was always allocated to Otley Depot and, yes, I suppose I am still sad but there we are – the whole nature of the bus industry has altered out of all recognition and that’s that isn’t it ??

Chris Youhill

20/08/12 – 14:09

Sad to see this view of DCN 831, Stephen, as it captures its early demise on the Armley depot roof in June 1967, just a few months after it received a full repaint. This premature scrapping was because of badly decayed body pillars discovered during the repair of two accident-damage off-side panels (one of them seen missing in this picture?). I was fortunate enough to photograph it at Otley when freshly repainted two months earlier – see this link www.sct61.org.uk/

Paul Haywood

Samuel Ledgard – Guy Arab LUF – DCN 834


Copyright John Boylett

Samuel Ledgard
1954
Guy Arab LUF
Picktree C35F

DCN 834 was a Guy Arab LUF (chassis number 72143) with a Gardner 6HLW engine, bodied with a Picktree Continental C35F body.
Picktree were based at Bensham in Gateshead, near the Northern General headquarters, who had a financial stake in Picktree, these coaches being the last PSVs built by this concern before they turned over to the construction of commercial vehicles.
834 was part of a batch of 13 new to the Northern General Transport Company on 1st June 1954, and had fleet number 1534.
These vehicles had bold styling and had all the refinements required to undertake their principle duties of carrying 35 passengers in comfort on Continental Tours.
During their final days with Northern they undertook local tours to seaside resorts and on local Church and Club Private Hires, before being withdrawn in September 1962 and sold to W. North of Sherburn, who took all 13.
A total of 8* were bought by Ledgards, and taken in to stock in January 1963, these being DCN 831/ 834 – 840.
North’s put them through the MoT Certificate of Fitness test, before delivery to Ledgards, and obtained ‘tickets’ for 5 years for them.
They were painted by Ledgards at Armley Depot and all had entered service from there by April 1963.
The coach livery at that time consisted of black roof, cream window surrounds, black wings, and blue panel work, with cream wheels.
The final coach livery introduced by February 1964, was sky blue for the wings and window surrounds, with ivory panels, 834, along with 839 were the first to be released in these new colours, as shown in the picture.
The picture is taken on the roof of the Armley garage, where so many of Ledgard’s vehicles ended their lives.
Does anybody know the name of the Driver?
834 was withdrawn in April 1968 and went back to W. North (Dealer) at Sherburn, from where it was sold, along with 835/6/7 to Minster Homes (Contractor) in May 1968 for use as site offices.
*DCN 832 was additionally bought for spares from North’s (via Woods Coaches of Pollington, near Goole), in March 1966, and was dismantled on Armley garage roof, the remains going to Jackson (Bradford) for scrap in August 1967.
A picture of Northern General 1532 can be seen at this link.
For anybody interested in wanting to find out more about the History and Fleet of Samuel Ledgard they should read the book Samuel Ledgard Beer and Blue Buses by Don Bate. ISBN 095288499.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth


18/08/13 – 06:40

Is the driver really Chris Youhill?

Joe


18/08/13 – 12:08

No Joe – that’s not me. We only had DCN 831 at Otley depot. However, now you mention my good friend Don’s book, there is a picture of me as a young conductor at the bottom of the front cover – this was as a token of appreciation for my assistance with photo captions and information on aspects of the operations side of the Company.

Chris Youhill


20/08/13 – 18:57

In the 50’s and 60’s, Northern General had a booking Office in Pilgrim Street Newcastle, which was just around the corner from Worswick Street Bus Station. Anyway, I remember that in the window of the shop they had a model of one of these in a glass case. I don’t know what the scale was, but to a young boy of about eight or nine it looked enormous. From other makers models I’ve seen, I would guess it would have probably been an inch to the foot, so about 30ins long. I wonder what happened to it?

Ronnie Hoye


10/11/14 – 06:48

There are some pictures of Ledgard buses, including one of these Guys, on the following site of Marc Parry (with whom I once worked at LCBS); scroll down a little from the top of the first page:- www.flickr.com/photos/

Roger Cox


12/02/15 – 06:35

The driver of DCN 834 is me John Jackson, taken in August 1967.

John Jackson


12/02/15 – 12:15

Nice to see you “in print” JJ – if only the good old firm was still around – the happiest days of my PSV career without a doubt !!

Chris Youhill


13/02/15 – 06:18

Chris, what made Ledgard’s such a good place to work? Were the T&Cs better than WYRCC? – I know from my time in Cambridge that Premier apparently had better terms and conditions than ECOC. Geography may have played a part, but surely Armley-based drivers could have found better terms with LCT up the road at Bramley or in the City Centre at Sovereign Street? But then again why drive for Ribble out of Bolton or Hebble, full-stop, when corporation operations in the same town(s) offered better salaries . . .? Did variety of work, or the opportunity of “top-link” work (and associated tips) play a part?

Philip Rushworth


22/02/15 – 16:26

Well Philip, any answer to your question is bound to be complex and to vary between individual employees of every grade. So perhaps its best put as a “list.”
T & Cs – very favourable indeed, and the wage rates were good and generous. When I started there were no sick pay or pension schemes but many other advantages.
Duties – comprehensive and interesting with none of the soul destroying “one road and the same mate for ever” system of many of the municipalised and group concerns.
We had five depots, each with its own rota and route systems derived from its origin – built by SL or acquired. Well to be exact four depots, as Ilkley was a “running shed” administered totally from the larger Otley one – a seven week rota of local folks from nearby, while Otley had a twenty week rota – with a little twist !! All twenty drivers moved forward week by week while seventeen of the conductors moved “up the sheet” – the other three conductors were to all intents and purposes always on the Otley local cross town service from Bradford Road (Golf House) to Newall Estate – they all liked it and it suited them with their Ultimate ticket machines !!
Variety of work – plenty as most duties involved working on more than one route daily – not all, but most – and the mix of routes was considerable, varying widely between very very busy town services and almost always hectic longer interurban ones. Running times were generally pretty tight, especially with traditional live transmission vehicles and much hilly terrain with frequent stops and, despite the oft heard modern saying “Ah but there wasn’t the traffic around then” there was more than enough to contend with.
Rolling stock – now here was the real appeal, especially to anyone with even a trace of interest and enthusiasm. The mix was incredible, with representatives new and previously owned, of a wide array of chassis and body makes, ages and origins – and mainly distributed seemingly “willy nilly” around the depots. Larger concerns might view this as unsatisfactory and often had rigid allocation policies – fair enough if it suited them. Despite this way of working at Ledgard’s maintenance by skilled and dedicated staff was extremely good indeed – most of the heavy work being carried out at Otley and the huge Armley Leeds premises – resulting in the virtually 100% reliable service at all times and in all conditions which the Public have never enjoyed since and a “straw poll” on the streets would certainly confirm this. The local press after the October 1967 SL demise was full of justifiable venom against the new regime(s).
Its often forgotten, or perhaps not even known by younger people, that until Samuel himself died in April 1952 all vehicle purchases since 1912 had been brand new, other than those acquired with taken over Firms. When the necessity then arose for multiple reasons, Death duties chiefly, to buy second hand the Executors chose carefully and wisely and only rarely bought a lame duck or, as is the amusing term oft used in the motor trade, a “dog.”

Chris Youhill


23/02/15 – 07:30

Chris, thanks for that reply. So was Yeadon a “full” depot then? I’d always assumed it was an Otley dormy shed, like Ilkley.
Samuel Ledgard is always presented as the archetypical shrewd Yorkshire businessman . . . but he wasn’t so shrewd as to take the necessary steps to protect his main business interests in the event of his death. That being said he did die at a relatively young age and might not have thought it necessary at that time – and I suppose there are disadvantages in forming limited liability companies.

Philip Rushworth


23/02/15 – 07:31

Chris Y – You certainly have a nice and relaxed writing style, which is easy to read, informative, and easy to understand.
I must admit (and I am sure others will agree) that I read every one of your contributions to this site because they are so full of knowledge and interest, not just on Samuel Ledgard, as above, but on all aspects of PSV (none of that PCV stuff on here) operations, and history.
Long may you continue to contribute and keep me, at least, educated and informed with your wealth of knowledge.
For those on here who want to know more about the History of Samuel Ledgard then I would recommend the book, BEER AND BLUE BUSES – by DON BATE (ISBN: 9780952388494), if you are able to find one for sale. Mr Y has contributed, and, (not for the faint hearted) there is even a picture of him on the front cover.

Stephen Howarth


23/02/15 – 08:45

Indeed Philip, Yeadon was to all intents and purposes a full independent depot, and was referred to right up to the end in 1967 as “The Moorfield” – officially and among the staff and passengers. The name was of course that of the Moorfield Bus Company taken over by SL in 1934. All essential maintenance and quite heavy intermediate work was carried out there, but major overhauls and recertification were done at Otley. or Armley. The crews at Yeadon, about fourteen if I recall correctly, were a lively set of loveable individual characters – no one more so than “the Reverend Candler” who very sadly passed away en route for a late turn aged only in his early forties. Only very occasionally did Yeadon have to exchange staff with Otley in extreme circumstances – like my Siberian Monday rest day on a split turn with the aforementioned Reverend. Otherwise on Summer Sundays it was routine for Moorfield staff and buses, if available, to be sent on standby to Otley, where literally huge crowds of Leeds (mainly) and Bradford city dwellers needed taking home after a nice day out – sometimes the queues were still large at nine and ten on Sunday evenings, and all were cleared without fail – such was the reliable SL service.

Stephen – thank you indeed for your kind remarks which leave me blushing here. I do find it easy to write about the subject, and I enjoy keeping the fading history of the old Firm, and the earlier industry in general, alive where I can. I had to chuckle at your warning to the unwary that my picture (late 1957) on the cover of Don’s book is not for the fainthearted – I’m afraid that a current view if published would have the A & E Departments on overtime !! Don was only saying last evening that its around ten years since the book was published – time flies.

Chris Youhill


23/02/15 – 14:28

There are currently 3 copies available on ABE Books website (other book searches are available) they range between £30 and £40 +p&p

John Lomas


24/02/15 – 06:14

I’m surprised no one has picked up on Philip Rushworth’s comment that Samuel Ledgard died relatively young.
Born in 1874 and dying in 1952 that made him 78 years of age.
I would have thought that a “good innings” for that era.

Eric Bawden


24/02/15 – 06:15

Six in total John, from the three outlets

Chris Youhill


27/02/15 – 06:59

Eric, you are right: I didn’t check my facts – in my defence, my books are currently packed away – and I’d confused the date at which he became licensee of The Nelson . . . which would have made him about ?14 when he put his first char-a-banc on the road! But, it just serves to underline my point: he’d have been 72 when Clement Atlee’s Labour government took power – over the next few years he’d have had plenty time to see which way the wind was blowing on Capital Transfer Tax . . . and yet he did nothing to protect his businesses, despite his age.

Philip Rushworth

Samuel Ledgard – Guy Arab I – JUA 762

Samuel Ledgard - Guy Arab I - JUA 762


Photographs by “unknown” if you took these photos please go to the copyright page.

Samuel Ledgard
Guy Arab I
1943
Pickering H30/26R
Re-bodied 1953 Roe H31/25R

Much has been widely written about World War II utility bodywork and the appearance and durability of the various makes. Possibly the least numerous were the bodies by Pickering of Wishaw, the uppermost shot of one of the two Samuel Ledgard examples been shown here. JUA 762 was an Arab FD1 with the flush bonnet and Gardner 5LW engine. It has to be said that the Pickering bodies quickly deteriorated structurally and soon became a very sad sight. This picture clearly shows the most unusual, and extravagant in the circumstances, upper saloon emergency exit with three large glass panes. This bus and its FD2 twin were new in 1943 and in 1951 they were rebodied by Roe as shown in the lower view, and initially retained their 5LW engines. In 1956 they received 6LW units which necessitated the lengthening of the bonnet for JUA 762 – JUA 763 (lower picture) being an FD2 model was of course all ready for the longer engine without such a modification. There were many anomalies in the allocation of vehicles by the Ministry of Supply in those dark days and here we have a classic example – one of each model delivered together. On the theme of utility bodies in general I have to say that I thought that the Duple offering was of very pleasing appearance and, from my experience of working on them, possibly the soundest and most durable in construction. The shapely Northern Counties bodies were, of course, a most pleasing exception to the rule in their own right.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

Go on Chris- explain about the Emergency Exit: I always take it as a door at the upstairs back from which some unfortunate youth occasionally drops: (in my day we would not have dared to annoy the conductor by even touching it and would ever after have to sit downstairs) was that non-utility? Were there 3 kickout panes – presumably on each side?
I would also like someone to tell me why these 6 cylinder Guys had to have snout extensions, sometimes if I recall with a radiator shrouded in leather? Were Gardner engines longer than say Daimler or Leyland?

Joe

I don’t think Joe that there is anything dramatic about the emergency exits on the utility Pickering bodies. Presumably it was simply their own design but seemed rather extravagant under the Wartime shortages. The two vertical dividing pieces can just be made out in the picture and the total glazed area is quite enormous.
I have spoken to a very knowledgeable friend about your second question which had me foxed. Seemingly there was no excessive length in the Gardner 6LW engines and the reason for the “snouts” is quite fascinating. The wartime Arabs were seemingly designed with consideration being given to the Ministry orders that they were all to be fitted with 5LW engines in the interests of fuel economy. After early deliveries it appears that operators in hilly districts complained that performance was not adequate and therefore the FD2 was introduced with space for the longer six cylinder unit in a few cases where “hilly hardship” could be proved. As the chassis had been designed with transmission components arranged to suit the shorter engine the only practicable course was to provide “the snout” and the somewhat untidy but fascinating leather “filler.” Presumably the bonnet itself remained the same for each version, and my informant believes that a dispensation was granted as the alteration caused the vehicle length to slightly exceed the 26 foot maximum of the time.

Chris Youhill

Sorry- I’ve seen it: the two glazing bars at the back. Perhaps they had three long pieces of glass in the shed left over from a carriage contract- doors? (that’s a wild guess!). I thought you meant those three plain windows at the rear- but then you had privileged access to the back!

Joe

I wish someone would produce, like magic, a full rear view of the Pickering bodies – nobody seems to have one – and I was really glad when this nearside view turned up quite recently as the strange emergency door glazing can at least just be seen – I was beginning to fear that my memories of teenage years was perhaps playing tricks on me.

Chris Youhill

Obviously, everyone goes for the standard 3/4 front view picture, and I have no dispute with that. Very few people seemed to take the equally characterful rear 3/4 shots, and even less managed to capture the interior atmosphere – the different designs of seats, light fittings, bell-pushes, framing etc. Of course, interior shots in the pre-digital era meant extra expense on flash, and not entirely satisfactory results because of glare from glazed surfaces and so on. But the interior (and of course the sound) was THE bus travel experience. Any interior and/or rear shots out there?

Stephen Ford

The ‘snout’ was a means of accommodating the extra length of the six-cylinder (6LW) Gardner engine when it replaced the five-cylinder (5LW) unit. Gardners were generally quite long engines for their capacity. This was due them having a ‘timing case’ of generous proportions, housing a triplex timing chain, and also due to the arrangement of the cylinder blocks. The latter were split into pairs, so a 4LW would have two 2-cylinder blocks, a 6LW two 3-cylinder blocks and a 5LW would have a 3-cylinder plus a 2-cylinder block (no doubt today this would be termed ‘modular construction’!). This arrangement added to engine length as the water jacket had to extend around both ends of each block, and there was a gap between each block as well.
The original Guy Arab utility ‘decker was built to the 26ft overall length of the period. By the time Sammie’s ‘twins’ were re-bodied, double-decker dimensions had been increased to 27ft. Thus a more powerful, but longer 6LW could be fitted by extending the bonnet and moving the radiator forward to accommodate it. The alternative would have been to have the rear of engine protrude into the lower saloon, no doubt entailing modifying the front bulkhead, shortening the prop shaft and altering the gearchange linkages. Possibly the chassis cross member behind the engine would require attention as well. Moving things in a forward direction was much simpler!
Apparently after production of the first 500 utility Guy Arabs, the bonnets were lengthened in order to accommodate 6LW engines, should operators require them. Special dispensation was authorised to allow for their slightly increased overall length. These became known as Arab Mark IIs, with the original design, unofficially I believe, becoming the MkI. As you say Chris, one of those anomalies of the time – the two buses must have been ‘on the cusp’ in production as it were, hence an FD1 and an FD2 delivered together. Interesting stuff!

Brendan Smith

Thanks indeed Brendan for those most interesting facts about Gardner engines. While I’ve always been aware of the method of producing 4, 5, or 6 cylinder units by combining two blocks as necessary, I certainly never suspected the extra problems of multiple cooling jackets and intermediate gaps !! I have just looked up the records and am amazed to discover that JUA 762 and 763 were, despite the consecutive registration numbers, delivered and entered service five months apart – and there is a gap of 69 between the two chassis numbers. This seems to suggest that there was perhaps a “holding back” of some vehicles by The Ministry of Supply while they decided which operators could prove the greatest need at a particular time.

Chris Youhill

Some of the most attractive buses which LGOC/LT had in the Thirties/Forties were the 6-wheeler AEC Renown ‘Bluebirds’ LT Class, which were the last of the breed. The last 20, however, were fitted with Gardner 6LW engines which made the bonnets so long that the bodywork design had to be shortened (at the back) to keep them within the legal length! It showed in the upstairs side rear windows and the platform side opening being shorter! And they looked like pigs with their snouts!

Chris Hebbron

03/06/11 – 17:12

Can anyone remember Nudd Brothers and Lockyer of Kegworth Nottm., who rebuilt utility bodied ex London Transport Guy Arabs for Edinburgh in the early Fifties, which had a full front but open to the near side, very smart looking buses.

Roger Broughton

04/06/11 – 06:43

I agree Chris H that the “Bluebirds” were magnificent looking vehicles, and incredibly sleek and of tidy design for the early 1930s – and actually I could also forgive the appearance of the “long bonnet” Gardner powered ones – I was once told that they were fitted with special horns which went “oink oink”, and if you’ll believe that you’ll believe anything !!

Chris Youhill

04/06/11 – 06:46

Yes, the Edinburgh Nudd rebuilds were very attractive, and it wasn’t just the side that was open: there was no glass in the nearside ‘windscreen’ either. They were in fact halfcabs disguised as full fronts. They were built just after the company was taken over by Duple, and based on a Duple design.
By coincidence we have just been discussing Nudd Bros & Lockyer in another context. Click on this quick link, wait a second or two to view.

Peter Williamson

05/06/11 – 14:19

As for pigs, Chris Y, I thought the only buses which oink-oink’ed were the Dennis ‘pigs’, the pre-war Dennis Aces and Maces!

I do recall reading somewhere that the Nudd Edinburgh Guy bodies were somewhat frail. They were designed to be lightweight, maybe they were too lightweight!

Chris Hebbron

05/06/11 – 14:22

When first delivered the rebuilt Edinburgh Guys had a very flamboyant “grille: this was later replaced by Edinburgh’s own version of the Leyland BMMO inspired tin front.
Preserved 314 JWS594 has had the original flamboyant front restored and is now resident at the Scottish Bus Museum at Lathalmond.

Chris Hough

05/06/11 – 14:23

I tend to think that the Edinburgh Guy’s were the only complete bodies ever produced by Nudd Bros & Lockyer. I believe all of their other production were re-builds.

Chris Barker

07/06/11 – 09:36

They were certainly attractive buses, even with the flamboyant front! See here:

Chris Hebbron

10/07/11 – 07:47

Pickering of Wishaw was set up in 1864, and was mainly a constructor of railway rolling stock. It seems that only about 37 Pickering utility bodies, all of them highbridge, were built in 1943, and no further bodies by this firm appeared during the war. They quickly became known for shoddy workmanship, and, notwithstanding official exhortations such as “Walls have Ears”, “Be like Dad, keep Mum” and “Careless Talk costs Lives”, this appalling reputation spread throughout the bus industry. It is surely certain that this also came to the knowledge of The Ministry of Supply, and was the reason for no further utility bodies being sought from the Pickering company.

Roger Cox

11/07/11 – 07:22

That is most interesting Roger and, while I knew that there weren’t many Pickering utilities around, I had no idea that there were as few as that – regardless of censorship one might be forgiven for saying that there were approximately 37 too many. On the bright side, however, their awful quality and very early demise caused the excellent Roe rebodying of the two Ledgard examples and brought to my career one of the most delightful and characterful vehicles (JUA 763) that I ever conducted and drove. RIP “T’Guy.”

Chris Youhill

11/07/11 – 11:18

I recently discovered that Nottingham City Transport were “blessed” with 5 Pickering-bodied Guy Arab I’s in 1943. They were No.s 89-93 (GTV409-413?). In the published Geoff Atkins photo the 3-piece window to the emergency door is also discernible. Nottingham’s Utility fleet eventually had a total of 16 Arabs, the remaining 12 being Massey or Weymann, plus 27 Daimler CWA6s with Northern Counties, Brush or Duple. Apparently the first Utilities were not withdrawn until 1956, so it seems that even the wretched Pickering bodies must have lasted at least 13 years.

Stephen Ford

12/07/11 – 05:40

The Pickering story is indeed an interesting one and I have done a little research and it seems there are a few inconsistencies. In an article in Classic Bus in 1993 about Pickering’s link with Northern General, a figure of around 65 double deck utilities is given, mostly on Guy Arabs but also some Leyland TD7’s and some re-bodies of older chassis. Some of the Guys went to Sunderland District and Sunderland Corporation purchased two from Blackburn Corporation in 1948 (so they had a re-sale value!) These clearly did not have the three pane upper deck emergency exit but the Nottingham ones did.
Turning to single deckers, it is recorded that Pickering bodied 54 Albion CX13’s to MoS specification in 1946, 30 of which went to Red and White, others to Economic of Sunderland and South Yorkshire. In fact Red and White had 22 more Albion/Pickerings in 1947 but by this date, presumably there would have been no MoS involvement. Most but not all R & W vehicles were re-bodied by BBW after 5 or 6 years and Ledgard’s purchase of five in 1959 were ex Pickering re-bodies (perhaps Chris Y knows if the BBW bodies were much better?) Apparently Northern General had around a hundred vehicles re-bodied by Pickering, on AEC and SOS chassis and the average further life was about nine years, presumably by the end of the 1950’s they had become distinctly archaic! There were also ten Meadows engined Guy Arab III double deckers for Tynemouth in 1949 and these were of very pleasing appearance, they appeared to be of substantial construction and I know nothing about them but I wonder if they went any way towards making amends for what had been produced earlier.

Chris Barker

12/07/11 – 14:47

According to Alan Townsin`s book, “The Utilities” in the Best of British Buses series, Pickering produced 18 utility bodies on Mk.1 Arabs, and 37 on Mk.2 in 1943. There is no mention of any other bus build until the Albion contract of 1946, and I am not aware of any Pickering bodies on CWG5 chassis.
Perhaps they were busy with other wartime contracts, as the whole bus building business was under the strict control of the MOWT, and based on a contract system.
I suspect that Pickering was no worse than most other utility bus builders of that time, as most makes demonstrated severe problems with the use of unseasoned timber, and the lack of alloy metals. I cannot comment on the 1946 Albion single deck contract, which was largely allocated to the Scottish Bus Group, but there was certainly nothing wrong with the post war Aberdeen streamlined trams, which exuded quality!

John Whitaker

13/07/11 – 07:33

Your research is interesting Chris, as I have since realised that there were some Pickering bodies on unfrozen TD7, which would probably account for the difference between Alan Townsin`s 55 Guys, and your total of 65. Certainly Leicester had a Pickering TD7.
I cannot think of any rebodies at the moment, but there probably were some, but definitely none on Daimler wartime chassis. CWG5 chassis were only bodied by Duple and Massey (High) and Brush (low).
Glasgow received several batches of post war Pickering bodies which had reasonable lives I believe.
Regarding the triple rear window, was this a unique feature, or am I correct in thinking that a very early Duple bodied Arab 1 for Maidstone had a similar feature? Was the triple window even carried on after the first few bodies, or did Pickering comply with the utility directive at that time, and panel over the whole thing?

John Whitaker

13/07/11 – 08:47

Re. Pickering utility bodies, I have re-read Alan Townsin”s Utility book. If I read correctly, Pickering would not have built any utility bodies on reconditioned chassis, as “rebodying” was also controlled by the MOWT, and firms were allocated this function, Pickering not being one of them. East Lancs and NCB were the principle firms here, with Croft also involved in Scotland.
The whole utility chapter is absolutely fascinating!
I personally find as many differences in design amongst utility bodies as existed in peacetime. Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder, and they have a fascination and charm of their own to me!

John Whitaker

13/07/11 – 11:57

Hanson of Huddersfield received four Pickering bodied Albion CX13’s in late 1945, 186-189 (CCX 880-3) and a further four, 196-9 (CVH 226-9) in 1946. All had been withdrawn by 1950. 186-9 were sold to Carmichael of Glenboig (a photo exists of 186 with Carmichael with the body apparently heavily rebuilt) and 196-9 were sold to Birkenshaw Mills for staff transport, suggesting that these bodies were perhaps considered to be too badly deteriorated for further psv use.
Incidentally, a further four Albions were taken into stock in 1947/48 two with Burlingham and two with Duple bus bodies and these remained in service till 1958-62

Eric

14/07/11 – 06:33

Opinions, respected naturally, seem to vary on the quality of the Pickering utility double deckers and I can only speak from personal experience as a youthful passenger in two of them on Guy Arab chassis. Sadly I have to say that they very rapidly deteriorated into a sorry state and were also I think far from handsome. While I appreciate that unseasoned timber and other unsatisfactory materials caused problems in most makes I have to say that, again from personal experience this time including driving and conducting, we had no significant trouble with the Duple and Roe versions, both of which were tidy looking and attractive in their “utility” way and many examples of ours gave very long service. Oddly the Park Royal “relaxed” vehicles (London Transport D182 – 281) which didn’t enter service until May 1946 onwards did involve very serious timber problems and much rebuilding was often needed. Despite this however, once “fettled” they too gave long and extremely reliable service on arduous and busy routes and I admired and delighted in them – their various “London” features adding to the magic – we had twenty two out of the hundred, quite an impressive proportion I think.
Regarding the Albions, rebodied from Pickering to BBW. I had experience only of the Ledgard five and they were splendid machines. The BBW bodies appeared sound and of course bore a close resemblance to their attractive Lowestoft ECW cousins. The Albion chassis were a potent delight with one of the quietest and smoothest diesel engines to be found – and the gearbox gave a creditable impersonation of prewar Leyland TS and TD models – altogether a fascinating package !!

Chris Youhill

14/07/11 – 06:36

Certainly the wartime utility bodies suffered from the use of unseasoned ash, and materials were strictly allocated to manufacturers who had to take what they were given. Even so, some body manufacturers had better construction standards than others, and generally did a good job in difficult circumstances. In such worthy company, Pickering did not measure up too well. Didn’t one municipality cancel its order for Guys when it learned that they would be bodied by Pickering? Nowadays, railway stock design requires the entire vehicle to bear the stresses. Traditionally, in the past, railway and tram bodies relied on substantial under frames to carry the main loads, and rail borne vehicles are not subject to the same level of shocks and jolts as a road vehicle. Perhaps the bus body designs of the railway orientated Pickering concern did not take such factors sufficiently into account.

Roger Cox

14/07/11 – 09:51

It has to be remembered, too, that each bodybuilder, bizarrely, was able to design its own body; thus some designs were probably structurally sounder, to start with, than others. And I recall that at least one bodybuilder rejected some timber as being, even for those dark times, beyond the pale! London Transport were always impressed with the Duple product, even though they never used them in normal times. But even they gave up on overhauling the bodies as part of their normal high standards, opting to dispose of them prematurely. Since many of them then went to humid Far East climes, I wonder how they fared there! As for the escape upstairs rear windows, although many of London’s Guys had them steel-sheeted over, I don’t recall any of the 181 earlier Daimlers being so treated.

Chris Hebbron

14/07/11 – 18:58

I was delighted to read responses about Pickering utility bodies, and accept that they must have been a bit on the flimsy side, but it is just that I find them, and all utilities, absolutely fascinating!
Leicester had a Pickering TD7 which they cut down to single deck in 1950, and it ran, although rarely, as such until 1955! (No.347) I think it is true to say, though, that all builders in this era had their problems. The Brush CWA6 bodies in Manchester hardly had long lives, and Park Royal trolleybus bodies were withdrawn very early in both Newcastle and Reading. I would agree with Chris Y about Duple, as Alan Townsin also came to that conclusion too, and who better to judge than that?! It was probably due to the wedge shaped stiffener at the front near side canopy area.
Pickering were basically rolling stock (railway) builders, which is probably significant, but so were Roberts, and Hurst Nelson. The latter were the third biggest Tramcar builder in the UK, but only VERY rarely did they venture into the bus field. I believe the panelled emergency exit was a requirement which was relaxed in early 1943.

John Whitaker

15/07/11 – 07:29

I believe that the municipal who cancelled their Pickering allocation was Derby, who would have recevied two on Guy Arab I 5LW chassis. The MoWT allocation system usually meant that body buiilders in the north had their products delivered to operators in the north, and similarly for southern builders to southern operators. This was a general rule, I believe. So Derby was “quite southern” for a Pickering build. But where did these two go? – all the way to Brighton, where they entered the Brighton Hove & District fleet! Nos 6364/6365 (GNJ 574-5) lasted there from 1943-1949. Although neighbouring Southdown has 100 Guy utilities, BH&D found this pair non-standard. Their other utilities were Park-Royal bodied Bristol Ks. The two Guys found themselves transferred in 1949 to Western National, where they operated out of Plymouth garage. (This is from a memory of a photo in Buses Illustrated many years ago). I have no information as to how long they stayed there, although WNOC did have other Guy Arab utilities delivered new, so the chassis would have been acceptable. I have read comments elsewhere (I think in “Classic Bus” magazine) that several builders of rail vehicles had a hard time when entering the bus building business. Pickerings is usually quoted as the prime example, and Cravens also get a mention.

One contributor mentioned the post-war streamlined Aberdeen trams, which he said were good products. An article in Classic Bus a while ago recorded that Aberdeen wanted English Electric to build these trams, and placed their order. However, EEC had decided to withdraw from the tram/bus market by then, so would not accept an order. However they had drawings of the design that Aberdeen wanted. The Corporation then placed it’s order with Pickerings, who approached EEC for copies of the drawings. EEC not liking this intrusion, refused the request. What to do? Aberdeen then resubmitted their order to EEC, who then subcontracted the work to Pickerings, and sent them the drawings for the contract!
I hope I have this right – if the Classic Bus contributor or another reader spots an error in this, please send in a correction.

Michael Hampton

15/07/11 – 10:47

Yes Michael, I believe you have that right! The Aberdeen streamliners were actually an EEC design, as shown by the 4 pre-war almost identical examples (inc. the 2 x 4 wheelers). English Electric withdrew from this business and did not re-enter after the war, so the Aberdeen cars were built by Pickering to the pre war EEC drawings.

John Whitaker

15/07/11 – 10:47

Michael H Mentions Cravens in his list of bodybuilders This Sheffield based firm built several batches of vehicles for its home town and also for others as far afield as Portsmouth In post war years they built AECs for Sheffield and RTs for London Their latter were sold on as non standard in the fifties but ran happily for others somewhat in the manner of DMS class buses a decade or too later. I think although this is open to clarification Cravens became part of John Brown engineering as did East Lancs for a time in the sixties East Lancs designed buses were built in Sheffield under the Neepsend name in the old Cravens factory

Chris Hough

15/07/11 – 13:59

Yes, I recall Cravens bodied 45 AEC Regents 5 Regals for Nottingham City Transport in 1937. It was the old story – they undercut previous suppliers Metro Cammell and Northern Counties and got the business. Build quality was not up to scratch, and serious rebuilding was necessary – making them actually more expensive in the long run. Two quotes come to mind :
1. “The bitterness of poor quality lives on long after the sweetness of low initial cost has been forgotten”!
2. Reporter’s question to astronaut : “What do you think about when you are waiting for blast-off?” Reply : “I think that every component in this spacecraft went out to competitive tender, and the lowest price won” !

Stephen Ford

15/07/11 – 14:01

Strictly speaking, Cravens bought East Lancs directly – as noted in the TPC/Venture book about East Lancs. Cravens then sold out to John Brown. The Neepsend bodies were built in another factory at Neepsend in NE Sheffield, the original factory being in Darnall SE Sheffield where railway rolling stock continued to be built.
The East Lancs workforce feared for their jobs at this time but, apparently, the quality of build in Sheffield was not as good as in Blackburn and when demand dropped in 1967/8 the Neepsend factory was closed.

David Oldfield

16/07/11 – 07:04

I think I would agree with John W that perhaps history has been a little hard on Pickerings. Obviously some products would come to be known as better than others but given the circumstances and materials of the utilities plus the fact that Pickerings were relative newcomers, I think allowances should be made and of course operator maintenance was a big factor too, which would explain why a quality operator such as Nottingham City Transport ran theirs for 13 years (that is not to denigrate Ledgard in any way whatever!) I wish someone could post a picture of the Tynemouth Guy’s of 1949 which were very fine looking vehicles!
What excuse, however, could be made in peacetime? I think the dubious epitaph would have to go to Strachan’s who turned out a great many sub standard vehicles over many years after 1945 which had to be heavily rebuilt or withdrawn early, the worst of which and surely the record holders being the Leyland PD1’s supplied to Western SMT in 1949 which fell apart after only three years!

Chris Barker

06/09/11 – 07:19

J Laurie`s Chieftain buses of Hamilton had 2 TD1s rebodied with Pickering utility bodies. One had a Sheffield registration, the other had come from Western SMT. Both of these buses had lowbridge bodies.
Central SMT had a substantial number of TS2 single deckers from 1932, originally bodied by Pickering.

Jim Hepburn

12/09/11 – 08:43

PS. to the last comment.
I should add that these TD1s had six bay windows as they probably had originally. They are the only utility bodies I”ve seen with six bay windows.

Jim Hepburn

13/09/11 – 07:45

Did some of the Croft utility bodies in Scotland not have 6 bay layout Jim? I think also that Pontypridd had some BBW utility bodies also to that layout.

John Whitaker

13/09/11 – 07:48

Jim, the Pearson framed bodies were also of six bay utility construction. You can see a picture of a former Crosville TD7 thus bodied on “The People’s League for the Defence of Freedom” gallery.

Roger Cox

17/09/11 – 08:08

You may be right, but as I said these were the only 6 bay utilities I had come across. The TD1s had a shorter wheel base than a TD7 so they seemed to be quite a sturdy body.
I could never take to the Duple version.
I thought the Massey highbridge body was pretty smart.

Jim Hepburn

Samuel Ledgard – Daimler CWA6 – HGF 948


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

Samuel Ledgard
1946
Daimler CWA6
Brush C36C

Life for an enthusiast working for Samuel Ledgard was always full of intriguing surprises and developments, some of which are enigmas to this very day and will almost certainly now remain so. The saga of HGF 948 is a fascinating one indeed which involves two Daimler CWA6 chassis, a prewar Maudslay SF40 coach chassis, a Park Royal “relaxed utility” double deck body, and a prewar (1935) Brush luxury coach body. The starting point of the scheme involved the first major overhaul for Ledgard’s own Daimler CWA6/Duple utility JUB 649, this routine procedure being completed in 1963 but alas, most uncharacteristically, the bodywork condition was not to the Ministry Man’s satisfaction and the vehicle was held in abeyance for later consideration. However, also in 1963, the Sutton Depot “HGF”s were being acquired and many arrived with worthwhile current Certificates of Fitness – HGF 948 was one such and the mysterious decision was taken to mount its sound body on the satisfactorily overhauled and certified chassis of JUB 649, producing a unique vehicle which could be put into service almost immediately after minor body attention and repainting. The Duple body of JUB 647, the only Ledgard utility of that make to deteriorate prematurely, was scrapped, as was the Maudslay SF40 chassis. We were now left with a Daimler CWA6 chassis with Certificate of Fitness and a prewar Brush centre entrance full front luxury coach body – “virtually impossible to match the two” you might reasonably say, but never underestimate the quiet modest expertise of those immortal Armley workshops – in no time at all the mongrel subject of this little exercise was ready to start several years of valuable service on all classes of coach duties, and was not too proud to cover the occasional conductor operated service journey when asked. Earlier I used the term “enigma” and here is one if ever there was one. Why, we wonder still, wasn’t HGF 948 left in one piece like its twenty one siblings which joined our fleet?? – and why wasn’t the Brush coach body simply mounted on Ledgard’s own Daimler JUB 649?? Here is a picture of the “new” HGF 948 at Elland Road Football Ground on a supporters’ pilgrimage – the vehicle bears a pensive expression, as if there must surely be more prestigious assignments even on a Winter Saturday !!
I’m very happy to have been able to show Chris Hebron, as requested, another of the many fascinating sides of the Ledgard operation.

JUB 649_lr

This other view is of JUB 649, newly in service with the London body from HGF 948, in Otley Road, Headingley – proudly sporting its own pair of small headlamps incorporated into the original large frames from HGF 948 – only just now, while uploading this picture, have I noticed this “one off” anomaly.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.


17/04/11 – 05:00

A fascinating story, Chris, all the more so because of the seeming illogicality of it all! And the headlamp modification is bizarre, the small one inside the large one. In fact, the standard LT Daimlers also had the tiny headlamps, until some of the last went for overhaul, when they were fitted with larger ones, However, HGF 948 was not one of the few overhauled in 1952, being so treated in 1949, maybe why the body was not considered entirely sound. Incidentally, I never saw an overhauled Merton one with large headlamps. Samuel Ledgard were clearly worthy successors in maintaining LT’s high standards of painting and maintenance. And it looks the ‘bees knees’ in blue, with silver-painted radiator and minus adverts! Did they all keep their LT three-piece blind displays throughout their tenure with SL? When was it finally withdrawn?

Chris Hebbron


17/04/11 – 05:10

JUB 649 brings back many fond memories as I rode on this bus on many occasions and always thought it ran smoother than its HGF London cousins. Regarding the reason for this body transfer, I wonder whether the issue was “brass.” The Executors of Samuel Ledgard were struggling to keep solvent in late 1953 and having spent a lot of “brass” on the overhaul of the chassis of JUB 649, they wanted to get this bus back in service, so a quick fix would be to transfer an ex London Park Royal body with some Certificate of Fitness and HGF 948 fitted the bill. The time to sort the Brush coach body transfer on to a Daimler CWA6 chassis would take a longer time to do. Many thanks Chris for a wonderful posting.

Richard Fieldhouse


20/04/11 – 07:49

Many thanks Chris H for even more fascinating local London information about the fabulous “HGF”s. You may be amazed to hear that not one of these valiant motors retained the three piece London displays throughout their time with us. Its true to say that every single bus had the front arrangements altered many times to various differing styles – in fact if one’s memory would allow it a sizeable booklet could be written on this aspect alone – and its possible that a study of the vast number of photographs available would allow an accurate and detailed account to be assembled. Most entered service initially with the London displays masked in a variety of individual ways and often with the tiny “mean” destination blinds from prewar Titan TDs and the like. Four, however, were comprehensively overhauled from the start and were fitted with very professional platform doors and a freshly designed single front aperture, with new large size roll, and the Company name in an illuminated glass above. By contrast every one of the twenty two buses had the platform destination window fitted with paper advertisements, with a variety of advertisements for the Company’s activities. Likewise all the rear London displays were removed and impeccably panelled over. JUB 649 gave stirling front line service on extremely arduous and busy routes until withdrawal on 31st March 1960.
Richard, you are quite right in that “brass” was critically short for a couple of years after Sammy passed away – in fact its nothing short of a miracle that the Firm survived that spell to recover and eventually become smarter and finer than ever before the end loomed. We are still baffled, however, as to why HGF 948 wasn’t left alone – and the chassis of JUB 649 mated with the coach body of CUB 1 – we shall never know now shall we ??

Chris Youhill


21/04/11 – 06:08

I would imagine that transferring the coach body to the Daimler would not have been without difficulties.
I believe the Maudslay SF40 was an underfloor engine chassis with a set back front axle and would have had a straight floorline throughout and as it was centre entrance, would have had two seats beside the driver. Presumably, a hole would have been cut for engine intrusion and a bonnet would have been required to cover it and then a bulkhead added where there hadn”t been one previously.
I guess the wheelbase of the two vehicles would have differed also.
Certainly one of the most fascinating creations I’ve ever seen!

Chris Barker


21/04/11 – 11:45

A bit of confusion here Chris B I’m afraid. The Maudslay SF40 was a front engined chassis, with prominent and ugly starting handle to prove it. The transfer of the body to a Daimler CWA6 chassis was indeed a difficult – outlandish even – performance, but this was achieved by Rhodes of Bingley (a coachbuilder and repairer) who made the necessary modifications to the Brush coach body. The procedure could have been carried out in exactly the same manner though if JUB 649 had been chosen (having a chassis identical to HGF 948) and so the mystery of why the Londoner was interfered with in this interesting saga remains unanswered and I fear always will. The upside of the strange affair is a bonus though, as enthusiasts were treated to two literally unique vehicles.

Chris Youhill


21/04/11 – 11:56

Look at the relationship between the steering position/wheel and the front: we are surely looking at quite a space in front of the where the front should be: was the driver barbequed, or was the coach like one of today’s “luxury” service bus rattlecans where the driver does not seem to know how to regulate the heating?

Joe


22/04/11 – 06:44

Chris Y, yes of course the SF40 had a front engine, the number of times I’ve looked at pictures and seen the starting handle as you say, and the large grille but its one of those rarities which gives a false sort of impression, I think its because the entrance was (usually) ahead of the front wheel!
With regard to Joe’s comment, I hadn’t noticed the steering wheel does seem quite a way back from the windscreen, would the conversion have involved alteration of the driving position?

Chris Barker


22/04/11 – 11:44

Joe and Chris B have raised an amazing issue which I had never noticed before – shame on me as one of the most avid of Ledgard devotees !! Firstly, I’m quite confident that no alteration whatever was made to the Daimler chassis of HGF 948. This being the case, comparison of the Brush body in Maudslay and Daimler days reveals some far more dramatic coachwork alterations than I’d ever noticed.
On the Maudslay the front axle occupied the first two bays ahead of the centre exit, but not the front section – on the Daimler the bay ahead of the exit has become uninterrupted while the CWA6 front axle occupies most of the front section. Whether or not the length of the front/windscreen section has been slightly increased is debatable – possibly it has a little, and this would account for the quite unusually large distance between the driver and the windscreens. It seems likely that the Daimler chassis members have been lengthened slightly, possibly to allow the radiator to be mounted immediately behind the front panels, explaining why the driver is so far back. One thing I’m sure about – if Sir Edward Elgar had been around he would certainly have written an extra “Enigma variation” in honour of this fascinating vehicle, and I wonder what the Sutton commuters would have thought if they could have seen the unique career which awaited their motive power in its later years !!

Chris Youhill


23/04/11 – 08:13

It seems to me that the front end of the chassis was left unaltered and I would expect to find the original Daimler fluted radiator under there, with all that was used of the SF40 chassis front end being the grille. What has happened is that the body overhangs the front of the chassis after modification, giving the effect that the steering wheel has been set back. To change the geometry of the steering would be a very complex job and easy to get wrong.
I need to swot up on my maximum legal vehicle lengths. Although the chassis proportions have been altered, there is no issue with overall length as single-deckers had a longer maximum permitted length than double-deckers and by the time this had been modified thirty foot long single-deckers were legal.

David Beilby


23/04/11 – 08:14

As you’ve already alluded to, what a lot of effort to go to, especially as the body alterations were out-sourced! I’d love to have ridden on this mongrel, or maybe hybrid would be a better word!

Chris Hebbron


23/04/11 – 08:15

The camera angle can be deceptive, but if you look at JUB you can see the difference: the driver is no longer sitting “on” the front axle. This is not, I think, unusual in a coach of that vintage. My idea was that you had a hot Daimler engine, reeking of diesel cooped up in the passenger “saloon” but of course it’s not, it’s an AEC! Yes- it looks as if the radiator could have been brought forward to the front of the (extended) chassis.
Who, by the way, installed that “Bentley” radiator grille on JUB?!

Joe


23/04/11 – 08:16

Clearly Ledgards could have selected a doner vehicle for the coach which would have made for a much simpler conversion – and a newer one too, the decision to rehabilitate a seventeen year old coach body was astonishing to say the least but perhaps the Maudslay was chosen because they wanted the end product to have a full front.
As for HGF 948, if as you say Chris Y, the body was sound and it had a current Certificate of Fitness, this is pure speculation but is it possible the CofF would have expired in a relatively short time and the need for serviceable deckers was desperate? The coach appears to have been fitted with a half bulkhead behind the driver, just up to waist level, is there a photo of the Maudslay before the conversion?
It occurred to me how wonderful it is that Ledgards unwittingly provided two creations which are a source of interest and fascination to us nearly sixty years later, something which will never happen in future!

Chris Barker


23/04/11 – 16:39

I’m surprised at how much interest this matter has aroused, and so many theories also. So here is a photo of the Maudslay CUB 1 when new (source unknown but presumably Brush Works). Also the original posting shot is with it for comparison.

Chris Youhill

CUB 1_lr
HGF 948_lr

24/04/11 – 07:21

Thought for the day. Why did AEC buy Maudsley and Crossley in 1948? They were both lame ducks and financial disasters. [Yes, I know, they were also innovative engineers but they never followed through with practical or commercial successes.] What was in it for AEC? They derived far more benefit from Park Royal – Roe a year later in 1949.

David Oldfield


24/04/11 – 07:25

Thx for the ‘before’ photo, Chris Y. I have to say that the original product looked better and surprisingly modern for 1935. It would have passed muster as new in 1948, IMHO. The starting handle slightly mars the sleek effect, though! Interesting that the quarter bumpers survived the rebuild!

Chris Hebbron


25/04/11 – 06:52

Yes thanks indeed, even more interest! The rebuild appears to be even more substantial than I imagined.
Just like those ‘spot the difference’ competitions, I notice that the outward flare of the skirt panels was removed, BOTH wheelarches were re-positioned and altered, the nearside front window appears to be the same length but droops more at the corner and the front dome seems to be different also, all this and the considerable alteration to mouldings, amazing!

Chris Barker


25/04/11 – 13:18

As you say Chris B, this saga gets ever more fascinating. While I was aware that the outward flare of the skirt had disappeared I hadn’t noticed until you pointed it out that the Daimler rear axle caused the rear half of the body to be “adjusted forward” by about one bay width. Without detracting from the many fascinating operations embarked upon by my grand old Firm it has to be said that the scope of this particular scheme becomes ever more astonishing, and no doubt expensive ?? – for a result which went directly against the “modern look” craze which was all the rage at the time.

Chris Youhill


25/04/11 – 17:57

I can guess at the Maudslay/Crossley takeover- AEC wanted more capacity for anticipated post war orders which could not be provided in austerity Britain- so buy it in and use the best of the resources you have acquired, plus factory capacity.
As for the “new” coach, do you think the coachbuilders wanted some practice, again with a view to post war expansion & had no chassis to work on? It’s the sort of job you set the apprentices on!

Joe


27/04/11 – 07:41

One further comment then I’ll cease! The original vehicle (the Maudslay) was a very handsome coach of which Ledgards were no doubt justifiably proud. It achieved a very creditable sixteen or seventeen years service (including a world war!) and as Chris H says, it would have stood up well against many an early underfloor engined coach of the early fifties.
I hadn’t realised that there is a photo of it in the ‘Prestige’ volume, which tells us that it was fitted with a Leyland 8.6 litre diesel unit in 1948. Presumably, by 1952, the Maudslay chassis was beyond redemption mechanically, especially as that company had sold out by then. It made me wonder if it would have been a cheaper option to transfer the Daimler running units into the Maudslay chassis but I know little about such matters.
Perhaps Ledgards went into the venture thinking that the fine looks of the original would be retained but as we see, the rebuild, whilst being something to marvel at, rather lost the gracefulness of CUB 1.

Chris Barker


28/04/11 – 06:34

Please Chris B , no need to cease commenting at all!! I had completely forgotten about CUB 1 having its Maudslay engine replaced by an 8.6 litre Leyland unit and, while there’s a year or so discrepancy in various accounts, I imagine that it would be the engine removed from 1936 TS7 Tiger/English Electric CUG 844 which was prematurely and very surprisingly withdrawn with a cracked chassis.

Chris Youhill


29/04/11 – 06:55

Well ok! No doubt the Maudslay engine was life-expired by 1948 but could it have been that after fitting the Leyland 8.6 unit, problems arose with massive engine overhanging the front axle? (does that remind you of anything?) There was something I just couldn’t put my finger on when looking at the two pictures, then I realised. Erase the grille and starting handle from CUB 1 for a moment and like I said, it could easily be taken for an underfloor engined coach of the early fifties. In its second incarnation, it was very obviously a front engined vehicle with full front.

Chris Barker


30/04/11 – 06:53

Bearing in mind that this was a bus built as a decker, as a coach, it must have had quite a lively performance.

Chris Hebbron


30/04/11 – 06:55

Yes Chris B, I daresay the Leyland engine was much heavier and, although I never heard of any difficulty arising from that, its quite feasible that it was a problem. I chuckled when you asked if that reminded me of anything – only a few weeks ago I was privileged to be allowed to sit in the cab of the preserved West Riding Guy Wulfrunian, and even though it was safely in a depot shed with the engine off, I almost reached for the travel sickness tablets on remembering that four way swaying and hissing of air valves from all those years ago !! As is widely known the excess weight on the front was ultimately partly relieved by removing eight upper saloon seats – that’s the end of this diversion from the topic.

Chris Youhill


30/04/11 – 15:27

Amazing, Chris Y. I suggest that someone posts a photo of a Guy Wulfrunian, which would probably generate a record number of posts! I believe it would just qualify on age grounds!

Chris Hebbron


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


20/01/17 – 14:13

I was wondering if anyone knew why some of the fleet had green roofs?

Jeff Lawton


21/01/17 – 07:25

No problem at all there Jeff – the saga of the green roofs is a delightful one. When Mr. Ledgard’s first double deckers arrived in 1930, all Leyland petrol Titan TD1s, they had wooden roofs covered in green canvas. This appealed to Samuel who immediatlely decreed that all future double deckers would have green roofs and indeed they did, right up to the 1957 AEC Regent Vs with Roe bodies. Also possibly for a short while after that second hand vehicles did so as well – ex Bury Daimler/Roe EN 8408 was certainly one.

Chris Youhill

Samuel Ledgard – AEC Regent III RT – KYY 868

Samuel Ledgard AEC Regent III RT type

Samuel Ledgard
1950
AEC Regent III RT
Park Royal H30/26R

Before this bus arrived at Samuel Ledgard it was owned by Super Coaches of Upminster who acquired it from of course London Transport. The fleet number whilst at London Transport was RT 4265.
All the information for this entry came from Peter Goulds excellent website, I hope he doesn’t mind, to visit his site click here

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

Samuel Ledgard – AEC Regent III RT – MXX 148

Samuel Ledgard AEC Regent III RT type

Samuel Ledgard
1949
AEC Regent III RT
Weymann H30/26R

In 1937-8 London Transport got together with AEC to jointly design and produce a new double deck chassis with AECs large 9.6 litre oil engine with air operated gearbox and brakes. From what I can gleam the prototype entered service in 1938 as ST1140 (EYK 396) but it had a body taken from a scrapped Leland Titan TD 111 or 118 seems to be a bit of a dispute on that. But in July 1939 it was given a brand new body and was then renumbered RT1. London Transport then ordered 150 more, RT2-151 which were delivered by the time production ceased in 1940 because of the war those 150 were bodied by London Transport themselves.
I have another dispute here and that is by the end of production in 1954 according to one source nearly 7000 RTs had been delivered to London Transport but another source says that the highest fleet number was 4825 that’s a difference of 2000 or so. Maybe the 7000 is for total build but I do not think there was that many delivered new to other operators do you know leave a comment.


There were 4825 RT’s but the RT Family included RTL’s and RTW’s so the figure of nearly 7000 is probably correct.

Anonymous


The RTL was a Leyland Titan PD2/1 chassis with Leyland O.600 engine but with AEC preselect gearbox and bodied by Park Royal 1149, Metro-Cammell 450 and Weymann 31 all to a London Transport design.

The RTW was as the RTL except they were PD2/3 and all bodied with 8 foot wide bodies instead of the normal 7′ 6″ and all 500 were bodied by Leyland.

There was also the SRT which were 1939 AEC Regent STLs rebodied with brand new RT bodies there was 160 built in total.

So that makes 4825 RTs 1630 RTLs 500 RTWs which makes 6955 so there is the approx 7000 and if you add in the 160 SRTs this will give a total of 7115.

Spencer


New 7/12/1952
A.E.C. Regent III RT 0961  Chassis No: 6758
Engine Type: AEC 6cyl. A204  9.6ltr
Weymann H30/26R
Body No: W269
Entered Ledgards service 5th November 1963
Withdrawn: 14/10/67
Sold To Dunn (A1 Service) 02/68
Withdrawn: 11/71

Terry Malloy


What a nostalgic shot-a Sammie RT alongside some of West Yorkshire’s finery, and set in Chester Street bus station. There always seemed to be an RT parked up either there or in Otley bus station, as they were so numerous in the fleet. They had a lovely reassuring tickover, plus a delightfully tuneful transmission (fluid flywheel/pre-selector gearbox) and seemed to have an aura of indestructibility about them. Shame West Yorkshire didn’t keep a few running after takeover. It would have been interesting to see some in red and cream, almost harking back to their London days….

Brendan Smith


Brendan it is not generally known that, in the very hurried arrangements for the WYRCC takeover of Samuel Ledgard, West Yorkshire fleet numbers were allocated for most if not all of the Samuel Ledgard vehicles.  The entire RT class, at least one of which (MLL 920) received a new C of F in the final week, were to be DA 1 – 34.  I was lucky enough to be the first driver of the very first Otley Depot RT – NXP 864, RT 4611.  It was overhauled and ready for use in the garage one Saturday night and I just couldn’t contain my excitement so pestered the late garage man to let us use it for the last two trips of our late turn. 8.10pm Otley – Leeds, 8.55pm Leeds – Otley, 9.50pm Otley – Leeds, 10.35pm Leeds – Otley.
As expected it swallowed up the long ascent of the A660 to Bramhope in very fine style and comfort.

Chris Youhill


12/01/17 – 11:21

I think one or two comments on Spencer’s post (above) are appropriate.
The chassis of the RTLs and RTWs differed from PD2/1s and PD2/3s in having a longer wheelbase (16’4″ instead of 16’3″) and air brakes (instead of vacuum) – there may have been other differences. I don’t think Leyland ever called the RTL/RTW chassis PD2/1 or PD2/3.
There were 32 RTLs supplied new with Weymann bodies (RTL1307, 1601-31), making the RTL total 1,631 and the RT/RTL/RTW total 6,956.
The SRTs came about by virtue of there being more new bodies available than chassis, so 160 ‘RT’ bodies were placed on existing STL chassis to make the SRT class. When the supply of chassis caught up the SRT bodies were transferred to new RT chassis, but those are included in the RT total of 4,825 – so to get the total of ‘RT’ family buses up to 7,115/6 you’re counting the SRT bodies twice.

David Call


13/01/17 – 06:41

The picture shows MXX 148 on Ledgard’s longest stage carriage route, one taken over with B & B Tours in the mid 1930s. The destination shown is “Bradford via Otley and Manningham Lane” and the display for the return journey is just visible “Harrogate via Manningham Lane and Otley.” I was always surprised that Menston Village was not mentioned, this being the chief “attraction” of the service compared with the WYRCC direct 53.

Chris Youhill


13/01/17 – 06:42

David Call is right about the why of the SRT but although the frame modifications were extensive, amounting to a complete re-profiling of the side members of the chassis,what was not upgraded was the engine (7.7) gearbox (spring-operated) and brakes (vacuum).

Stephen Allcroft


13/01/17 – 06:42

I agree with David in his view that the RTL and RTW classes were not classified as members of the PD2 breed. Ken Glazier, whose knowledge on London Transport matters I have always found to be impeccable, gives the RTL as type 7RT and the RTW as type 6RT. The SRT was purely a stop gap to present a modern looking fleet in the early ‘fifties when chassis deliveries lagged behind bodywork supplies. In typical LT fashion, the STL type chassis under the RT type body was ‘modernised’ at ridiculous expense, and the whole project foundered when it became apparent that the brakes were decidedly incapable of stopping the bus effectively. By that time, chassis supplies were outpacing body deliveries, which is why LT turned to Cravens and Saro, so the whole SRT programme was a fiasco in every way. As for the 7000 total figure for RT/RTL/RTW classes, OK, but there were never that many in service at the same time.

Roger Cox


13/01/17 – 10:09

……and they had to move the fuel tank to the other side of the vehicles too, Stephen! The other tragedy was that the STL’s selected for conversion to SRT’s were the 1939 15STL16’s, the most modern STL’s in the fleet and pretty-well up to RT standards in many respects, having automatic chassis lubrication, amongst others. And why not, for London Transport had hoped that this batch of STL’s would be RT’s which, in the end, turned out to be wishful thinking.

Chris Hebbron

Samuel Ledgard – AEC Regent III RT – NXP 764


Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Samuel Ledgard
1953
AEC Regent III RT
Park Royal H30/26R

Here is a nice shot of a couple of ex London Transport Regent RTs in service with Samuel Ledgard the fleet number of the one in the foreground was RT 4410 unfortunately I can not make out what the registration of the one behind. I think the Samuel Ledgard livery makes the RT look better than the London Transport more or less overall single solid colour especially on black and white shots. The Samuel Ledgard fleet was taken over by West Yorkshire Road Car in October 1967 but this vehicle was not operated by them, did it go to scrap or was it sold on, it would be interesting to know what happened to the Ledgard RTs, if you know please leave a comment.

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

NXP 764 carries the body of RT 307 registration HLX 124 built 1947.
This was done as part of a 4 year service overhaul whilst in London.

Further details for NXP 764:
New: 1st December 1953
Purchased by Ledgard: 25th May 1963
Chassis No: 7491
Body No: L 156
In stock with Ledgard until the end it was sold to W. North at Sherburn in Elmet April 1968 (dealer).
No further info after that.

Terry Malloy

NXP 764 was disposed of by North’s to Johnson, Goldthorpe, a dealer, in June 1969 sadly for scrap.
The disposal of the Ledgard RTs was very complicated indeed but many saw further service both in this country and in Belgium and Holland.
NXP 764 was the first RT to enter service from Armley Depot, and NXP 864 similarly at Otley – where, on a Saturday late turn, I persuaded the garage man to let us take it on its maiden voyage – 8.10pm Otley to Leeds and back twice.  Of course it was all newly ready for service but otherwise would not have gone out probably until Monday morning.
I think its not generally known that all the Ledgard RT bodies were old ones from around 1947, originally fitted with roof route number boxes – the very neat “operation scars” where these were removed by SL can clearly be seen on photos.  During overhauls they were fitted, of course, to chassis of every age ranging from 1947 (HLW 181 etc) to 1954 (eg OLD 705).
The London Transport policy was to withdraw the oldest bodies first- understandable.  Having said this, they were all without exception if first class order – a good looking and well constructed design indeed.
Some good news to this very day – LYR 915 is still beautifully preserved and rallied, although in its original green LT Country Area livery.

Chris Youhill

Samuel Ledgard – AEC Regent III – GWY 157

 
Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Samuel Ledgard Ltd
1948
AEC Regent III
Roberts H30/26R

This bus started life with another independent operator, Felix Motors of Hatfield near Doncaster and was number 26 in there fleet, it was new to them in 1948 and was sold on to Samuel Ledgard in 1962.
Samuel Ledgard were different to other bus operators in the fact that they did not have fleet numbers, I don’t know why, maybe you do? if you do please leave a comment.
If you want to know what the livery of Samuel Ledgard looked like there is a colour shot here
This bus has a Roberts body of which I know absolutely nothing, and the only thing that comes up on “Google” is as quoted below which is from the Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society website regarding Colchester Corporation Daimler CVD6 No. 4, if you know anything about Roberts bodies please leave a comment.

“Roberts were an unusual choice of bus body builder – they were more commonly associated with railway vehicles and occasional trams. The body is unusually heavy – weighing about half a ton more than most buses of similar size. This affected the fuel consumption of these vehicles and may have been a factor in the decision to cancel the second batch of five”
To see more regarding the above quote go here

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

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

Charles Roberts of Wakefield built this and many other bodies, including Sheffield’s last trams and Blackpool’s Coronation cars.

John Hibbert

“It is no wonder that the Roberts bodies were so heavy as the quality, both in structure and in fittings, was of the very highest. They also managed to present a comforting vintage appearance and ambience but without looking “old fashioned.” Superb varnished woodwork was everywhere, and the top quality heavy leather seats were of the best. GWY 157 was a fine machine but ended its Ledgard career rather strangely allocated to Yeadon Depot – normally a lowbridge stronghold – and therefore only realistically available for school journeys avoiding Henshaw Lane.
Why there was never a fleet numbering scheme I have no idea, but certainly the firm managed very well without one. Any confusion was normally avoided by allocating vehicles with similar registrations to different depots – there were quite a few cases of this over the years. However, in the run up to the West Yorkshire takeover most of the fleet were allocated fleet numbers before the last minute decision was taken to re-licence many of West Yorkshire’s own withdrawn vehicles instead. For example, PNW 91/2/3 were to be DLW 1/2/3, the RTs were to be DA 1-34 etc etc. What a shame this never came to be!!

Chris Youhill

New 1/9/48
AEC Regent III 0961
Chassis No: 1684
Entered Ledgard fleet 19/01/62

Terry Malloy

Although it was unusual for a bus company not to use fleet numbers, I seem to recall that East Kent Road Car also managed to operate successfully without them. Presumably staff simply referred to their buses by the digits on the registration plates?

Brendan Smith

26/03/11 – 07:25

Burton upon Trent Corporation operated 6 Guy Arab 111 5LW’s with lowbridge Roberts bodies, delivered 1947. See photograph on p51 May 2009 issue of Vintage Roadscene.
These vehicles also had heavy leather seating and varnished interior timber trim – painted over by the Corporation mid 50’s. They developed a sagging roofline quite early in their lives.

Clive Baker