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.
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Samuel Ledgard 1948 AEC Regent III East Lancs H33/26R
Here is a happy picture of yours truly enjoying my work immensely with Samuel Ledgard at Otley Depot. I am returning from the Estate on one of the local town services and have just crossed the River Wharfe bridge. Before I am reprimanded for “incorrect destination” I must explain that the display was officially shown in both directions as “Weston Estate” to avoid passenger confusion with the other town service which shared the river crossing – a little local quirk which suited everyone. GDK 401 was one of a batch of five (GDK 401 – 5) which came from Rochdale in February 1962 and had most handsome and functional East Lancashire bodywork. Notable features were the superior quality blue leather seats and the spacious very safe platform and “easy” staircase. The entire batch retained gold Rochdale fleet numbers (201 – 205) in both saloons – a nice little touch I thought. The vehicles were also the first that we had with air operated brakes and gearboxes. A nice little anecdote, and a true one, goes with 401. When the batch was acquired this vehicle alone was sent to Otley depot for complete and prompt overhaul for early entry into service with the others at Armley Head depot. However its appeal and charms were instantly apparent to all, and in a very uncharacteristic “Luddite” operation the normally highly efficient overhaul process was delayed by a myriad of “difficulties” for a very considerable time. When the bus was eventually ready for certification the powers that be at mighty Armley, normally unbending in any way, for some reason capitulated and lovely 401 remained with us at Otley till the end of the Company. The initial very basic plans for the West Yorkshire Road Car Co takeover contained the allocation of WYRCC numbers for the whole Ledgard fleet – this scheme as we know was completely revised before the day, and so our Rochdale friend never became “DAW 1” (Double, AEC engine, Wide) after all.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
Such a shame that Samuel Ledgard sold out. It would be interesting to see what vehicles they would be running today.
Terry Malloy
Yes, it is a shame, Terry – the buses look fantastic in full livery – but fifty years down the line, is it not possible that we would be looking at them in Barbie colours? Lots of mistakes made in the industry, but death and other things have always enforced change!
David Oldfield
Quote: (Double, AEC engine, Wide)
I assume that the Wide means that it had an 8′ wide body. It certainly appears to have one, in a surprisingly obvious way, just like LT’s RTW class.
Nice to see a Ledgard vehicle in colour; it’s my first time of seeing one of them in all its glory!
By the way what is an ‘easy’ staircase?
Chris Hebbron
I’m sure Chris Youhill will fill us in about the easy staircase. Is it like the Roe safety staircase and the Birmingham staircase – straight, or with 90% bends, with no “dangerous” curves during its length?
David Oldfield
Yes Chris, the “W” in the West Yorkshire fleet numbering system did indeed mean 8 feet wide – just as an interesting point, they had some vehicles with 8 feet wide bodies on 7’6″ chassis – as did a good few Bristol/ECW customers.
Chris and David, the word “easy” was just my own way of describing these vehicles – the stairs were of the 90 degree pattern and were wider than usual and were situated safely well away from the edge of a generous sized platform – somewhat difficult to explain, but splendidly designed.
Chris Youhill
A query for Chris: my hazy recollection of “Exors of Samuel Ledgard” buses- as it legally proclaimed- was that the were a dark navy blue- not this jaunty colour: 1. am I wrong? 2. does the camera lie? 3. is it anything to do with its former existence in Rochdale?
Joe
Well this is indeed an interesting point, and memory does play tricks as we all know. However I have to say that the answer lies somewhere between the shades of blue in the picture of GDK 401 and that in the link for RT MXX 148. The only fair comment I can make is that, as Peter says, the colour in the picture of GDK 401 is a bit light and bright due to the sun etc. Certainly though the shade shown in the view of the RT is far darker than the actual, and I can confidently say that the Otley picture is much nearer to being spot on than the Bradford one. The Rochdale livery is not relevant at all, as every acquired bus was thoroughly rubbed down, primed and undercoated to remove any trace whatsoever of previous ownership. The attached view of newly acquired BCK 427 from Ribble in the paintshop at Armley Head Depot is as good a sample as we could wish for – despite the different light aspects the lower saloon panels are exactly as the livery was. Hope this helps clear the mists of time for those interested.
Chris Youhill
…..and there is also the splendid RLH (forget which number) which was rallying last year in full Ledgard colours. Quite a bright blue – neither royal nor navy.
David Oldfield
The purpose of the photo may well have been to clarify SL’s livery, but this is a nice photo in itself and shows off this attractive vehicle’s bodylines very well, aided by the total lack of adverts. Good to see a rear’ish view for a change. It may be a trick of the light, but has the rear lower body panel been well punched by a very cross 10 year old?
Chris Hebbron
I see what you mean – the panel seems well and truly “waffled”, but I think it is in fact just a mirror image of activity nearby in the garage what lloks like the floor can be seen, and possibly a mechanic’s overall legs. It is a strange optical effect, but please do rest assured that the panel will have been perfect before painting.
Chris Youhill
Hi David – the magnificent vehicle to which you refer is RLH 32 – MXX 232. It is part of the heritage fleet of Time Bus Travel of St. Albans and the proprietors, the Pring Family, did the Samuel Ledgard Society an immeasurable and generous kindness by having the bus professionally and immaculately painted in Samuel Ledgard colours for our 40th Anniversary Re-enactment running day on Sunday 14th October 2007. I was humbled and highly honoured to conduct it almost all the time it ran on Samuel Ledgard routes giving free rides to delighted and nostalgic passengers – I wore my original Samuel Ledgard uniform and used my Otley Depot Setright ticket machine – SL 40.
Chris Youhill
Re Chris Youhill’s latest comment about RLH 32 under the heading of AEC Regent III GDK 401, here’s a photo of the bus in question on the day in question.
Peter Williamson
Thank you Peter W for that lovely view, which captures the atmosphere of that wonderful day perfectly. Judging by the load, the RLH is about to leave for Guiseley and the driver is Mr. Ewan Pring who handles the vehicle magnificently and sympathetically, as you would expect from the owner of such a cherished gem. While you took the photo I will have been on the platform, about to issue the authentic souvenir tickets to the passengers. I can’t begin to explain my feelings on that day which was fifty years exactly since I eagerly started work for the Company – a day on which the RLH will still, of course, have been hard at work in London !!
Chris Youhill
I’ve always been fascinated by the myriad variations on the theme of how to get passengers upstairs, so Chris Youhill’s reference to the East Lancs “easy staircase” tickled my curiosity. I imagine that, as on post-war ECW highbridge bodies until about 1957, the top step will have caused a 9″x9″ protrusion into the lower saloon, above the offside transverse seat. The loss of headroom would be no more than that entailed by a lowbridge side gangway: a very small price to pay for the virtue of having the bottom step 9″ farther in from the platform edge. Until the mid-1920s it seems that body designers tried to get the bottom step as NEAR as possible to the platform edge, presumably so that passengers could leap straight up top from the street, leaving the platform free for those timid souls who preferred to travel inside. I’ve never understood why this hazardous arrangement persisted so long with some makers. Lowbridge bodies needed only 7 steps (6 treads), yet Leyland and MCW, for example, never took advantage of that, preferring their top step to stop about 9″ back from the bulkhead or (Leyland) to give the top two steps 13.5″ treads instead of 9″. Was standardisation of parts between lowbridge and highbridge a factor? I love the Roe Safety Staircase: by intruding into the lower saloon you can bring the bottom step well inboard and therefore have a seat for three right at the back upstairs with no risk of bumping your head on the underside of that seat. Perfectly logical: you lose a seat downstairs and gain one on top. Much rarer was the pattern found on Burnley, Colne and Nelson deckers: the 9″x9″ box was moved 4″ forward and the step below it protruded downstairs just enough to fill the space above your shoulder but not enough to compromise headroom. With a bit of angling of the bottom few steps the stairs still touched ground far enough from the platform edge to allow a 3-seater at the back upstairs. Do any of these survive? I fancy I came across a similar arrangement on a bus in Yorkshire (Rotherham) but my wires may be crossed. Then there was the West Bridgford arrangement, and Alan Townsin’s mention of “semi-straight”and “side” staircases in his book on Park Royal, but I’d better not get carried away…
Ian Thompson
Why not get carried away, Ian. It’s fascinating. It’s what real enthusiasm is – not just “bus spotting”! I can bore for Britain over Roe – my favourite builder – but it is interesting to discover that they weren’t the only builder doing a variation on safety staircases.
David Oldfield
wow… talk about nostalgia. When going to Leeds I would often take “Sammy’s” route through Pudsey rather than the Leeds/Bradford joint route (72) through Stanningley Bottoms. I used the route the day after the closure. It just wasn’t the same with green municipal buses and a route number (78). Do you have any images of my favourite Ledgard Regents, 1949/50 U before they assumed their West Yorkshire identities, DGW 11-12? Charles
Hello Charles – fear not, there are literally dozens of pictures around showing your two favourite vehicles at all ages – by the way with respect they became DAW 5/6. DGW 11/12 were the two Daimlers XUG 141 and SDU 711.
Chris Youhill
Thanks for putting me right on the WY fleet numbers for 1949/50-U. I lost interest in these vehicles once they donned Tilling red but I still think Roe/AEC combos were vehicles made in heaven. I marked my 57th year as a bus enthusiast when I hit the big 67 recently. Over the last 40 years I have observed the British scene from Australia so I am pleased that a young(er) member of the fraternity can take time out to refresh the ageing grey cells
Charles
Ian, I can only echo David’s wise words and there is no harm at all in being “carried away” by mature detailed discussion on any public transport topic. I have to admit that you have completely “baffled me with science” about the upper reaches of many staircases and, in all honesty I cannot remember what happened “up aloft” on GDK 401 – 405. However I am pretty certain that the top flight ended exactly at the bulkhead and that you then made use of the space behind the rear offside seat to proceed into the upper saloon – this was definitely the norm with Leyland bodies and also with the Park Royal relaxed utilities on the ex London D class Daimlers. I think the particular success of the East Lancashire formula arose from the fact that each tread seemed very generous and safe in depth and in lateral dimensions, hence my term “easy.”
Chris Youhill
I am trying to match the blue and cream colours of the Ledgard busses for somebody. Does anybody know the exact colour code? I’ve crossed checked RAl and British standard colours of the day but unfortunately cannot get it exactly right.
Kevin Harvey
Rochdale withdrew AEC Regent III’s 201-205 out of sequence as the older Weymann bodied 7ft 6in Regent III’s 31-48 were kept for several more years. It was reported that the East Lancs 4 bay body design had inherent weakness and this could have been the reason. I remember riding on one of the batch shortly before they disappeared to Yorkshire and there was evidence of severe corrosion of the window pans inside the vehicle. East Lancs standardised on 5 bay designs afterwards and this reputedly solved any problems. Rochdale’s final five Regent III’s had 5 bay bodies by East Lancs and these had full service lives. One is preserved.
Philip Halstead
You are absolutely right about the window pans Philip and in fact Samuel Ledgard had them all replaced with newly manufactured ones – my picture at the top of this feature shows GDK 401 so fitted.
Chris Youhill
25/04/11 – 17:57
Blue colour paints – you have to bear in mind that until the advent of purely chemical paints, blue was particularly prone to change of colour in its life, becoming darker and acquiring a purple sheen – this may explain the different views of the colour tone. I’m sure an expert in paint could explain this far more accurately.
Anon
26/04/11 – 07:10
Further thoughts and hazy remembrance of silk screen printing… blue is a “translucent” colour and therefore the final colour may also depend on what is underneath. The darker the primer….
Joe
27/04/11 – 07:20
It’s not only dyed-in-the-wool enthusiasts that wax lyrical over Samuel Ledgard. On Easter Day I met a Leeds man who was down here visiting his family, and when I was introduced as a bus fanatic he immediately began to reminisce about his prewar schoolboy trips on Ledgard buses. Unfortunately there wasn’t time to go into detail, but then there never is…
Ian Thompson
04/10/11 – 14:18
Just had to thank Chris Youhill for his comments regarding the book, Beer and Blue Buses, of which I have managed to track down a signed copy. Thanks again Chris, I look forward to reading it.
Roger Broughton
12/10/17 – 07:01
Wasn’t sure where to put this comment, but the pic here is a classic (and that’s just Chris) The Yorkshire Evening Post (Leeds) has a little feature to tell us that its 50 years since Ledgards closed. It is thin on detail but does mention that Saml was a publican from a family of publicans whose business developed from a pub in Armley and the practice of charabancing your lorries at weekends. The rest, I suppose is history.
Joe
20/10/17 – 06:55
Lot of coverage in local papers about Ledgard’s 50th- closure that is- anniversary. Try this link which includes a photo gallery, and guess who is in the first picture? I also saw a First bus this week in a sort of Ledgard’s livery.
Joe
24/10/17 – 06:40
Joe – The first photo, with Chris Y in it, is not what it one might surmise. HLW 159 was never an SL bus, but was sold to Bradford and seems to be in their livery, although we’ve argued about photo colours before. Other clues are that the front blind display seems to be original (SL reduced them to one smaller one) and that Bradford were the only successor who, bizarrely, went to the trouble of removing the plate on the bonnet side which originally surrounded the RT fleet number, which, in this case, was RT172. This range of buses were a bargain, for most of them were overhauled only around 12 months before disposal by LT. More silly money-wasting nonsense from the London giant!
Chris Hebbron
25/10/17 – 07:26
HLW 159 is ex Bradford and was the only one of 25 to retain its roof box throughout its time at Bradford. The other roof box-bodied buses and most of the non-roof box-bodied buses had eventually, the normal Bradford indicators fitted. A picture of 410 is on //www.sct61.org.uk/bf410c
Stuart Emmett
25/10/17 – 07:30
Chris H- quite right. How the bus and Chris Y came to be cosied together, only he can tell us. I am caught posting Fake News or Noos as the man himself says. The slip in the window doesn’t say Saml Ledgard but On Hire to… Blue can be of its nature a variable colour as we have discussed, but this is indeed Bradford- the sign written number plate? Does it live in the transport museum?
Joe
28/10/17 – 16:54
I have read the very interesting contribution that Stuart Emmett has made in ‘Buses Yearbook 2018’ telling the story of the Bradford RT buses. Credit due to him. I was unaware that some were painted in a ‘quick fix’ Bradford livery featuring less cream relief.
David Slater
27/07/19 – 09:45
Here is a 1965 shot of fellow ex Rochdale Regent GDK 405 leaving in the company of a Hebble Reliance amid the wanton destruction of historic Bradford to facilitate the encroachment of soulless architectural excrescences.
Roger Cox
29/07/19 – 06:37
Regarding this latest shot added I think you will find that the “Hebble Reliance” is actually a Ribble Leopard on service J1.
John Kaye
29/07/19 – 06:38
Roger, I may be wrong but the “Hebble Reliance” looks to be Ribble Leopard.
John Blackburn
29/07/19 – 06:39
A great action shot of two most handsome vehicles Roger, as they no doubt vie for pole position on their way to Chester Street Bus Station. I totally agree with you regarding the wanton destruction of historic Bradford. Many wonderful gems have been lost over the years and even the lovely view of Forster Square with its Victorian Post Office and Cathedral backdrop can no longer be seen from the bottom of Cheapside, as the new all-encompassing Broadway shopping complex completely blocks it. Now sorry to nitpick slightly Roger, but that Hebble Reliance looks suspiciously like a dual-purpose Ribble Leopard to me…
Brendan Smith
30/07/19 – 07:36
Thank you for the corrections, gentlemen. I should have looked more carefully at the Hebble vehicle. You can’t get away with sloppy work on OBP.
Roger Cox
Further to my previous abject apology, a very close study of the original slide reveals that the vehicle behind the Ledgard Regent is, indeed, Ribble Leyland Leopard PSU3/4R, Marshall DP49F No.831, CRN 831D.
London Transport 1952 AEC Regent III 9613E Weymann L53R
Just a short contribution but I thought you may be interested in the above shots of ex London Transport RLH 32 which looked a real treat at the Oxford bus rally last Sunday 16th October. As you can see it is still in the Samuel Ledgard livery which it received in 2007 for the 40th Anniversary of the Samuel Ledgard Society Re-enactment running day on Sunday 14th October of that year. The vehicle has been owned by Time Bus Travel of St. Albans since 1997 fortunately it narrowly escaped being converted into a mobile home in 1975
Ah, the RLH, one of my favourites! Looking forward to seeing RLH 48 later today at Cobham/Brooklands Museum’s first major event at the new museum site. RLH 32 will gladden the heart of Chris Y.
David Oldfield
23/10/11 – 11:27
……and it gladdens my heart to see one, too, David, since I recall them, in my three years spent in London, running on the South Wimbledon circular 127 route. The strange thing is, that although they were originally bound for Midland General, I have never actually seen a photo of one in that company’s livery. It certainly looks smart in SL’s livery, though. Nice post!
Chris Hebbron
23/10/11 – 11:30
I had the honour, and I mean that most seriously, of conducting RLH 32 all day and evening on the day of the Samuel Ledgard commemoration – the beautifully restored vehicle represented the four RLHs which Samuel Ledgard operated (RLH2/4/6/8). Free public journeys, massively supported, were operated on Ledgard routes. I wore my genuine uniform which I’ve kept all these years, and used Setright machine SL 40 (I bought it some years ago) and real SL tickets. The day was even more memorable for me, as it was fifty years almost to the day since I started work as an eager young conductor in October 1957. SL 40 was also at our Otley and Ilkley depots throughout its existence. Just to add the final touch of nostalgia to the day preserved ex Bristol Leyland PD1/ECW LAE 13 was present – my first Ledgard bus in passenger service when I started driving in 1961 was LAE 12 !! Its scarcely possible to express sufficiently our gratitude to the gentlemen Messrs Pring for their expensive and superb restoration of MXX 232 and for bringing it all the way north to star in the Day’s events. You can see me in my smart conductors uniform and a shot of RLH 32 whilst way up north at this link.
Chris Youhill
24/10/11 – 07:44
Brooklands was the “very best of London Buses” – and it certainly was. Everything seemed to be in showroom shine condition and there was an excellent cross section of vehicles with a good route network. …..and yes, RL48 was in excellent condition and on top form out on the road. Chris H – I’m not sure any of them actually got to Midland General. They, along with Notts & Derbys, got some rather splendid KSW6G/ECW instead in 1953. They weren’t AEC/Weymann but they rather fine nonetheless.
David Oldfield
24/10/11 – 07:45
Lovely photos. The Weymann bodied Regent III was certainly a classic and an all time favourite of mine. I travelled home from school daily on Rochdale’s highbridge versions in the early 60’s. Just also noticed the Ford 100E behind in both views was exactly like my first car, a 1956 model acquired in 1965 – ah nostalgia!
Philip Halstead
24/10/11 – 13:44
Here is a picture of RLH 32 taken in 1970 at Woking early in London Country days. It was then allocated to Addlestone Garage, but it didn’t last much longer with LCBS as it was withdrawn in July 1970. The Ledgard RLHs were Nos 2,4,6 and 8, KYY 502/4/6/8, which arrived at Armley between December 1964 and February 1965.
Roger Cox
25/10/11 – 06:55
Nice to see the bus in Woking, Roger C, a place I had and still have connexions with. They were based not just at Addlestone, but also Guildford Garage, but many of the routes didn’t need lowbridge vehicles at all. always felt that the red livery suited them best. My understanding, David O, was that Midland General ordered thirty, but only took ten in the end, the other twenty going to LTE.
Chris Hebbron
25/10/11 – 06:59
RLH 2/4/6/8/ were purchased by Ledgard specifically for the Horsforth to Otley services, operated from Yeadon Depot, which required lowbridge vehicles. Funny though how “needs must”, and on Saturday nights Otley depot operated three dance specials from Ilkley Town Hall, one of which was to Yeadon. Allocation of drivers for these appeared on the typewritten weekly master sheet at Otley and Ilkley Depots and in red block letters was shown as :-
DOUBLE DECK – KEEP TO CENTRE OF ROAD UNDER HENSHAW BRIDGE !!
Chris Youhill
25/10/11 – 07:01
I’m afraid this subject always arouses a little hostility in me because I never seem to see these vehicles ascribed correctly. In 1948, Midland General ordered thirty of these vehicles but it was decreed by the British Transport Commission that ten would have to suffice and when they were delivered in 1950, being registered ONU 630-639, the remaining twenty were diverted to London Transport. Midland General received payment from LT for them. The correct description should therefore be (in my opinion!) ‘London Transport’s Midland General type Regents’ Alas, I don’t hold out much hope of this but I’m as nostalgic about one sadly missed blue operator as Chris Y is about another!
Chris Barker
25/10/11 – 07:02
Before being taken over by the BTC, Midland General ordered 30 Regent/Weymann lowbridge buses when they only needed 10, in the hope of staving off the Bristol invasion for as long as possible. BTC was having none of this, and diverted 20 to London Transport, where they became the first 20 RLHs. That left 10 at Midland General, one of which is seen here //www.sct61.org.uk/mg426.htm
Peter Williamson
25/10/11 – 11:34
I believe there were one or two routes in the Chesterfield/Alfreton area that required lowbridge buses. In addition the B8, Nottingham – Mansfield (by a peculiar circuitous route) also required them on account of a railway bridge near Bestwood Colliery. Despite being deprived of the remaining 20 lowbridge Regents, I think I am right in saying that no Bristols reached Midland General until the Lodekkas in 1954. The 15 KSW6Gs delivered in 1953 were actually designated Notts & Derby Traction, to replace trolleybuses on the A1 Nottingham – Ripley service. Actually, when the trolleybuses were withdrawn, the A1 (via Basford) ceased to be the main Riply service, and the KSWs operated on the parallel B1 (via Bobbersmill), displacing, in the main, highbridge preselector Regent IIIs of around 1949 vintage.
Stephen Ford
25/10/11 – 11:35
One of my not very good shots I’m afraid the original is very very dark but it is in colour.
Peter
26/10/11 – 05:50
Thx, folks, for the full story (with link and colour photo) of these interesting buses. How different the MG ones look from their LTE cousins, with different destination display, upstairs roof ventilators and square number plate below windscreen. LTE did not change the side windows from the sliding version, though. I only saw MG vehicles when visiting relatives in Chesterfield and don’t recall seeing these at all. MG buses seemed to lurk in this town. Maybe, from the brief glimpses of their vehicles, I didn’t recognise them for what they were.
Chris Hebbron
26/10/11 – 15:51
It occurs to me that although Midland General became a constituent part of BTC in 1948 (and failed in its ploy to stave off Bristols for as long as possible!) it managed to keep its livery for many years. What other BTC companies, if any, retained their individual liveries? I exclude London Transport.
Chris Hebbron
26/10/11 – 16:53
MG was part of Balfour Beattie – who of course still exist in transport infrastructure (i.e. railways). They generated their own electricity for Notts and Derby and were thereby nationalised under the nationalisation of the power industry. It has not occurred to me until this recent post that MG had deliberately over ordered so that they could have as many of their beloved AEC/Weymanns as possible. [Pity they were rumbled.] Red and White and Cheltenham and District were also Balfour Beattie and retained their own distinctive liveries until NBC days – just that reds and whites didn’t stick out so much. Even so, there was still a greater element of freedom of liveries with BTC/Tilling than with NBC. [United and Crosville coach liveries not to mention Brighton and Hove.]
David Oldfield
26/10/11 – 17:48
With respect, I don’t think that the Red and White group of companies was associated with Balfour Beatty. Balfour Beatty certainly owned Notts and Derby, Midland General and Mansfield and District, but Red and White United Transport was a separate group which included, apart from Red and White’s own services, those of Cheltenham District, Newbury and District, South Midland, United Welsh and Venture of Basingstoke. The group sold out its British bus operations to the BTC in 1950, but retained its overseas interests under the name United Transport Company, until it disposed of these to the BET group in 1971.
Roger Cox
26/10/11 – 18:20
Glad my photos of RLH32 have given pleasure. I was particularly interested in Roger’s photo of RLH32 working out of Addlestone Garage (WY). In the late’60s, I was working at Plessey Radar in Addlestone and spent many a happy lunch hour around the garage. I am sure I must have seen her then, but regrettably have no photos.
Allan Machon
27/10/11 – 07:23
I have a feeling that the Red & White Group were always independent until voluntarily selling out to the BTC – how they must have cursed, because they were (to the best of my knowledge) the last company to succumb (at least voluntarily) before the Labour Government fell. Cheltenham District were owned by Balfour Beatty until Red & White bought them out a short time before the outbreak of war. It was stupid of me to have forgotten about C & D, which were on my doorstep. As you say, David O, they didn’t stick out so much (and I’m colour-blind)!
Chris Hebbron
27/10/11 – 07:24
Cheltenham District had been a Balfour Beatty company but was sold to the Red & White group in 1939. Another BB company was Llanelli & District which was absorbed by South Wales in 1952. Interesting comments about the ordering of these vehicles, Midland General had some very lucrative services and also some very hilly routes. Perhaps the thought of fully loaded buses going up steep hills led them to conclude that the 9.6 litre Regent was a better prospect than what they were destined to receive from Bristol!
Chris Barker
27/10/11 – 12:08
Yes, Midland General can’t have been over-impressed by their first experience of Bristols – in my earlier posting I had forgotten that in 1953 they received three second hand lowbridge K5Gs from Hants & Dorset (two 1939 and one 1940 vintage). Thrashing one of them up the hill from Langley Mill to Heanor market place would have been a slow and noisy experience! About 1963, the 7.7 litre crash gearbox Regent IIs only came out on Saturdays on the Nottingham – Alfreton run (B3/C5). Yet I recall hearing a driver express his strong preference even for these over the everyday Lodekkas. His comment was, “Put one of these [Regents] in first and it’ll climb up the side of a house.”
Stephen Ford
30/10/11 – 06:26
I was always told that Red and White was started by the Watts family who I believe are still in business as tyre fitters.
Philip Carlton
30/10/11 – 17:35
Correct: Watts of Lydney, Glos., are a very large tyre company with a global presence,including aircraft, fork lift truck and industrial tyres.
Chris Hebbron
23/03/12 – 06:46
Reading Chris’s story about drivers of double deckers being strongly advised to keep to the centre of the road under a certain bridge reminded me of at least one other notice. When much younger I liked to sit in the seat behind the driver, I was fascinated by a notice in the cab of Maidstone & District double deckers which read ” This a highbridge double decker not to be driven into Bexhill, Sittingbourne or Tenterden garages”. As none of the local companies operated lowbridge buses in the area I was at that time unsure of the difference between the two types this being around 65 years ago. I know that at a later date an extension was built onto Bexhill garage to allow highbridge buses into that part only, I only drove coaches into Tenterden garage so I am sure if any alterations were made there and never even saw Sittingbourne garage
Diesel Dave
23/03/12 – 16:38
London Transport had to pick their bus garages carefully when they received their austerity buses during the war, as they were taller than the usual LT spec. Their garages were inherited from a motley collection of past companies and fortunately some had high-enough entrances to cater for them. Most Guys finished up in East London and most Daimlers in Merton/Sutton Garages.
Chris Hebbron
26/05/12 – 07:01
This might be one for Chris Youhill (who’s postings I’ve followed on other sites): why work for Ledgard’s, as opposed to LCT, BCT or WYRCC? I suppose location might be a factor: only Ledgard had a depot in Otley or Yeadon, but in Bradford surely BCT offered better working conditions? Similarly in Ilkley wouldn’t WYRCC have offered better conditions than Ledgard? And couldn’t Armley-based staff have travelled on the frequent LCT services to LCT’s Bramley depot? WYRCC/BCT/LCC all ran more modern fleets . . . What was it that tied staff to Ledgard’s? And, for that matter, why did staff in any town with both a company and “corpo” depot (Halifax for example) choose the former over the latter – location of depots? or what??
Philip Rushworth
26/05/12 – 09:30
Well there’s another cat put among the pigeons, Philip!
David Oldfield
26/05/12 – 16:48
While Chris Y is getting steam up (for which I am waiting with baited breath!), I’ll throw in my pennyworth. All sorts of reasons. Leaving aside the political “labour/public versus conservative/private” debate, different operators created different impressions and reputations for themselves. “Xyz is a lousy company and I wouldn’t work for them if they were the last employer on earth” etc. You will know from my comments elsewhere that I was a fan of Nottingham City Transport – it always seemed efficient and competent, and its buses were usually well-kept – even the older ones. BUT NCT had a reputation – they waited for nobody. With the conductor on the platform, they would ring off with you no more than three paces away, and a pre-selector Regent , second gear engaged and held only on the footbrake would take off like a greyhound. You stood no chance! Barton’s on the other hand, and South Notts too, would wait for any runners, and their conductors were generally more considerate, helping with pushchairs, luggage etc. Obviously there is more scope to re-coup time on longer interurban journeys, so in a way this is understandable. On the other hand, Barton as an employer had a reputation for being high-handed. The company belonged to the family, and any driver who damaged a bus got his marching orders. Obviously staff who were also enthusiasts might have their own reasons for wanting to work for this, rather than that operator – especially those that ran varied and interesting fleets. And don’t forget that in the 1950s and 60s there was a degree of government control over pay through the Ministry of Labour’s Wages Inspectorate – so it was not necessarily a case of small private operators paying significantly lower wages.
Stephen Ford
26/05/12 – 20:33
Many full-time employees of smaller, private companies started as part-timers, something not countenanced by most of the larger companies – except in Scotland.
Alan Hall
26/05/12 – 20:41
In the Halifax case, Philip, and very probably in other Corporation v Company scenarios, the influencing factors were the higher standards of wages and conditions on the municipalities.
Roger Cox
27/05/12 – 06:38
Stephen mentions the high handed attitude to staff from the Barton management the same autocratic attitude was practised by Samuel Ledgard prior to his death in 1952. There are many apocryphal stories about his attitude to staff. One is of a guard being sacked after Mr Ledgard saw him riding a motor bike and told he was not paid enough to have such a machine and he was sacked! Another is when an elderly passenger told a crew they were running early. The guard told the passenger it was”nowt to do with thee” The next day the man was summoned to see Mr Ledgard aka the old man. Leeds Corporation were also strict although higher pay was the norm with numerous stringent fines and restrictions for transgressors.
Chris Hough
30/05/12 – 07:25
I was most amused by Stephen’s accurate expectation that I shall be “getting steam up” and he won’t be disappointed !! However I’m going on holiday for ten days or so and therefore I’ll write it when I get back. The matter of staff loyalty to independent operators is a complex one and I should be able to outline many aspects which will, I think, surprise Philip.
Chris Youhill
12/06/12 – 07:09
In answer to Philip’s query of the 26th Ultimo (as “last month” used to be referred to in the days of quills and ink) I think that, to avoid writing a complex book here on OBP, I can sum up the subject in two simple words – “JOB SATISFACTION.” In the case of the Samuel Ledgard undertaking it was of course not the usual small independent operator but was a large concern with five depots, or to be strictly accurate four depots and one “running shed.” The Firm was a very good employer indeed and paid wage rates well above what was necessary, but quite reasonably in return insisted rigidly that “the job was done properly” – as a minority who thought otherwise soon found out as they queued at the Labour Exchange !! The network of busy tightly timed services was an interesting one, varying between well patronised interurban routes through local town facilities to medium length outer district forays. Comprehensive rotas were in force at all depots and all staff worked interestingly on all routes operated from those premises. The Contract, Private Hire, Express Service and Excursion functions were thriving and varied. The fleet was quite magnificent in its variety of chassis and bodywork makes and models – new and, after the demise of the Founder Samuel, second hand. A duty could easily involve a new synchromesh AEC, followed by a new or second hand manual Leyland PD and, later in the day a preselector Daimler (new or “previously owned”) – and perhaps an Albion Valkrie or a 1930 ex Birmingham Regent 1 very successfully posing as a Burlingham veteran luxury coach/maid of all work thirty years “new.” Well, enough of the nostalgia which really made the job so very enjoyable and varied. It must be stressed that the Firm’s services were so totally reliable, and greatly appreciated by the Public, that such a level has never been seen in the area since and is still greatly missed. The vehicles, regardless of pedigree, were superbly maintained by very proud craftsmen staff and well treated by drivers with a pride, and ANY lost mileage (which was so rare as to be a sensation followed by a searching enquiry) was regarded as a very serious matter indeed and was virtually never caused by a breakdown. Yes, the Municipal and Group operators may have appeared to offer better conditions and in some ways did, but some of their modes of operation were the road to boredom and insanity. I have also worked for Leeds City Transport where OPO drivers or crews lived on the same route year in year out and, in the case of the crews, with the same “mate” day in day out. This system encouraged widespread work dodging as a science by those so inclined of whom there were plenty (classed conceitedly by themselves as “fast men” which in reality meant gearbox, flywheel and diff wreckers) and double the work for those who wouldn’t lower their standards. I also worked for West Yorkshire at Ilkley which was better, as you did all the routes and had a different colleague every week. I finished my career for the last fourteen years with the Pontefract family owned firm of South Yorkshire – in effect a miniature version of Samuel Ledgard’s – where good wages were paid and the vehicles were also superbly maintained, and everyone worked all the routes long and local. By the way Philip, just a small point, but West Yorkshire did in fact have a depot in Yeadon High Street. So, there you have it, I’ve tried to explain as briefly as possible “Why work for Ledgard’s” – believe me I wish I could turn back the clock to October 1957 and start all over again – as Mr. Sinatra famously sang “I did it my way.”
Chris Youhill
12/06/12 – 18:47
Nice to see you on the platform of D213/HGF 690, which Sam’l Ledgard had from 1954 to 1960. I’d like to have seen them in SL’s excellent livery. Did you start as a conductor and work up to driver? I think your reply was very appropriate. Within reason, pay is less important than job satisfaction and a good employer encourages a loyal and stable workforce. And you were lucky to have lived in an era of buses of various ages, makes and technical differences. It needed skill and empathy to drive a vehicle with a crash, then synchromesh gearbox, then a pre-selective gearbox, and make a good job of it.
Chris Hebbron
13/06/12 – 09:30
Sorry, I meant HGF890. My abiding memory of these buses was how imposing they looked from the outside, being very tall at 14′ 6″, and spacious inside, due, I suppose, to their high roofs. they sported LT’s three-piece indicators, which was unattractive at the rear, seemingly stuck on with glue! Looks as if SL unstuck them from the above photo!
Chris Hebbron
13/06/12 – 09:33
Chris Y s comments on LCT are interesting when my dad was a guard from 1953-1984 he had a total of three drivers in that time For much of the period different garages worked allocated routes although this changed as OMO spread and crews moved to the remaining 2 man routes and the use of universal rostering meant that all depots eventually worked all routes. There also existed a “senior rota” for long serving crews whereby they did not have extremes of starting and finishing times Like many bus operators LCT had to take what it could get in terms of recruits when people were reluctant to work unsocial hours in a time of full employment this did not in many cases lend itself to good customer relations and the service and the publics perception of the service suffered As a result a whole phalanx of potential passengers were lost for good
Chris Hough
13/06/12 – 09:34
Thanks Chris Hebbron – yes the London Sutton depot “HGFs” were a fine model full of real character. One hundred of them were delivered between May and November 1946 – Daimler CWA6/Park Royal. In 1953/4 we acquired no less than twenty two of them at a time when the prewar fleet had to be replaced – they performed heroically and handled heavily loaded services punctually and reliably on very harsh roads. They retained a lovely London feature in the cabs above the windscreens, in Gill Sans lettering, “DOUBLE DECK- HEIGHT 14’6” To my utter amazement they were apparently the first London buses to feature a continuous cord bell in the lower saloon – I was always under the impression that this had been a London feature !! The sound emitted by the cab roof buzzer to indicate that the upper saloon bell push was being used was sheer joy, and bestowed a most beneficial free foot massage on the front seat passengers up there. The picture was taken at Ilkley in December 1957 in my second month as a conductor. The Firm did not teach people to drive, and so I obtained my PSV licence elsewhere before eagerly returning to where my heart lay, and my first duty as a driver was a late turn on a Friday on the very busy Leeds – Guiseley – Ilkley service. The bus was ex Bristol Leyland PD1/ECW LAE 12 which behaved like a dream and performed like a trooper.
Chris Youhill
13/05/13 – 07:34
Chris et al, sorry! I’ve only just stumbled on your replies to my question: the answers were, quite frankly, staring me in the face.
Philip Rushworth
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
09/03/19 – 06:01
Thank you all for all these wonderful postings … and a special thank you to the delivery driver of one ex LT RT, who stopped and rescued me and other hitch-hikers from freezing to death at the side of the A1 back in November 1963. He dropped me at the baths on Kirkstall Road having turned left on his way to the Armley Depot. It was a slow ride in thick fog.
