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.
Photograph from The late Robert F Mack collection.
Samuel Ledgard 1945 Bristol K6A ECW L27/26R
As featured in “An Arresting Experience” by Chris Youhill on the “articles” page here we have the vehicle in question. This vehicle was ex-United Automobile Services fleet number BAL 8 new to them in 1945 acquired by Samuel Ledgard in 1959 and served a further six years before being withdrawn from service in 1965. The Bristol K series was first produced in 1937 and had the high bonnet line as in the shot above until 1946, when the more familiar lower bonnet line was introduced as in the shot to the right. The above vehicle was one of 251 built after the recommencement of production in 1944 and were the wartime W1 and W2 series all of which had the AEC 7·7 litre six cylinder diesel engine hence the K6A code. As from 1946 the K series was also available with the Gardner 5LW and Bristols first diesel engine the AVW which was a 8·1 litre six cylinder unit. I am not sure what AVW and its successor the BVW stood for, I could guess that the V stood for vertical, if you know please leave a comment. The K series carried on in production until 1950 with over 3000 being built until the one foot longer KS version was introduced.
Photograph contributed by Chris Youhill
Am I right in believing that the difference in bonnet height is the post war “invention” of dropped front axles- and who thought of it first?
Joe
Sorry Joe but, as far as I can glean from publications on the Bristol “K” series, there is no difference at all in the front axles of the low and high radiator “K”s. Dropped front axles were virtually standard on all buses long before WW2. As you say, the apparent dramatic lowering of the radiators and bonnets would suggest some major structural redesign but seemingly not so – the improved appearance must have been achieved by cleverly reducing the clearance above the engine and by a pleasing new radiator design and mountings.
Chris Youhill
As an AEC man, it always struck me that the perfect bonnet line, as aspired to and achieved by London Transport in the RT, was only achieved in the provinces on the post-war Bristols and Guy Arabs.
David Oldfield
And Crossleys, surely?
Peter Williamson
As I signed off the last comment, a Manchester Crossley popped up on a picture and I thought……..and Crossleys!
David Oldfield
There cannot have been any structural difference in the “high” and “low” radiator K chassis, since after the war, many pre-war and wartime utility Bristols were rebodied,and the exercise frequently involved fitting the low radiator to modernize their appearance. Preserved West Yorkshire KDG 26 is a case in point.
David Jones
The ‘low’ radiator is a bit of a trick. The bottom of the working bit of the low radiator is no lower than the high version. If you examine one you will find that the bottom 4 or 5 inches of the low radiator is just decorative. I think I’m right in saying the higher top of the ‘high’ radiator is simply a result of the fact that petrol engines were a lot taller than diesels. When diesels replaced petrol from mid-1930’s there was a lot of fresh air under the bonnet. Hence the line of the bonnet was lowered and with it the top of the radiator.
Bristol’s parts code. The last letter refers to what it is – thus ‘W’ is an engine. The first engine would have been an ‘AW’. In the early 1930’s the ‘JW’ and ‘NW’ were respectively 6-cyl and 4-cyl petrol engines. Once they got to ‘ZW’ then they started again with ‘AAW’ an awful lot of the codes must have been either minor variants or omitted or design studies which were never built. I have no idea how they got as far as ‘AVW’ but that is how the code was arrived at.
Peter Cook
Bristol AVW. the “V” stands for Vertical, and the “W” stands for Water-cooled. The “A” & “B” were the series. AVW’s had dry liners, by far more reliable, and the BVW’s had wet liners, and known for self-destructing, more so when cooled by the diabolical Cave-Brown-Cave system
EE59051
Thanks to the enigmatic EE59051 for his comments. I have a enormous soft spot for Bristol engined Bristols, but it is interesting to note that they seemed to have similar problems to AEC a propos wet liner and dry liner engines.
David Oldfield
Thanks to EE59051 for that very justified comment on the dreadful Cave-Brown-Cave system. In the first place its ugly radiator apertures completely disfigured the vehicles to which it was fitted. More importantly it was absolutely dangerous to drivers in the event of any leakage, especially at full speed, and even at the tiny WYRCC depot at Ilkley there were instances of scalding in the one year that I worked there.
Chris Youhill
I’ve often wondered why companies persevered with the Cave-Brown-Cave system as long as they did, as it never quite seemed to work as the inventor intended. My grandma (a very forgiving soul) would often complain on her family visits, about the freezing cold journeys she had endured from Bingley to Harrogate. The culprits were usually observed to be CBC ‘heated’ Lodekkas. My brother and I would empathise as we often suffered the same discomfort when we visited her, travelling on the same type of bus. Airlocks seemed to be the main culprit, and could give rise to the strange phenomenon of passengers complaining of how cold their bus was, whilst at the same time said bus was observed boiling away merrily at the front end! As a West Yorkshire Central Works apprentice, I spent three months working at Grove Park depot, and if a Lodekka was taken out of service as a result of boiling, it was just parked up in the depot and allowed to cool down. It was then topped up with water, whilst someone else worked the engine to try and circulate it around the system. All being well, it would then be deemed ready for action again. The Lodekka water filler cap was still in its original position just above where the traditional radiator would have been. However, as the CBC radiators were set several feet higher on the top deck, many of us thought this to be the cause of the water circulation problems. Although the BVW engine had its faults – and with hindsight maybe Bristol might have been better staying with dry liners – later versions were generally viewed by West Yorkshire as being decent workhorses. The bottom-end seemed pretty bullet-proof, with many of our examples covering 300,000 miles or more between overhauls, without any crankshaft or bearing problems.
Brendan Smith
Cave-Brown-Cave heating is within my experience, just, but what type of heating was evidenced by a round chrome’y-grill’y protrusion from the front downstairs bulkhead of some buses and coaches and did the system do upstairs, too?
Chris Hebbron
Ah- Memory Lane again: those funny round “heaters” (Clayton Dewandre?- do I imagine that?) on Yorkshire Traction Leylands. Did they ever give off any heat…? Was there a box too under a seat upstairs? They were presumably like the car heaters of the day- a pipe off the cooling system?
Joe
You’re right about the make, Joe. I don’t think that their output was very inspiring, from my limited experience.
Chris Hebbron
The large round heaters with mesh fronts and a chrome “hood” were indeed made by Clayton Dewandre Limited of Titanic Works, Lincoln. They had an electric expulsion fan to blow out the warm air, and warm it certainly was providing that the water circulation was in order, and that the engine was running at a reasonably high temperature. The “boxes under the seats” were usually the excellent and efficient “KL” models, which also had a powerful electric fan. Wiring in both types was usually arranged so that the fans either stopped or slowed while the engines were ticking over at stops. When Samuel Ledgard acquired second hand buses in the later years of the Company it was the practice to install “KL” boxes in both saloons – normally two downstairs and one at the front of the top deck. All of these “retro fitted” heaters were highly efficient and were much appreciated by passengers and conductors alike. In particular I remember the ex Exeter Daimler CVD6/Brush models, where I’ve known passengers plead for them to be turned off in mid Winter – JFJ 55 being the hottest – courtesy of the hot running Daimler engines.
Chris Youhill
Clayton Dewandre indeed, but only for those who sat inside. Sheffield’s first upstairs heating was the horrendously noisy system on 1325 – 1349 (Regent V/Roe).
David Oldfield
I like your ‘inside’ and ‘upstairs’, David. Reminds me when I was young, after the war, there were still a lot of older conductors who shouted at boarding passengers, ‘Plenty of room outside’ even though open-top buses were long gone!
Chris Hebbron
Its an absolute delight reading all these posts about Sammy Ledgard. My memories go back to before Sammy died, and the “exors” were formed. In many ways, this was a more interesting period as the fleet had more “corporate” character, with its “standard” Leylands going way back. This is all in the days before grey came into the livery. Many had Green roofs. It was certainly an enthusiasts paradise after 1953 with the amazing variety of second hand purchases, but I think my most precious Sammy memory is the Butlers scrapyard just below the “Fox and Hounds” near Menston. In 1953/4, and for some time after, this was full of withdrawn Ledgard buses, some going back to the 1920s. They had been stored at Armley for years, Sammy never disposing of “owt” which might come in useful!
John Whitaker
29/03/11 – 07:35
I am pretty sure that the first Sheffield buses delivered with underseat heaters in the top deck were the ECW bodied PD2s of 1957 (1152/3 and 1292-1294). I recall travelling on the 12 to Chesterfield on one when virtually new and being most disappointed that the noise from the heater drowned out the note of the O.600 engine.
Ian Wild
29/03/11 – 13:22
Significant that they were JOC buses. I never remember them on the 12, nor do I remember 1152/3 without doors. Having never travelled on any of these buses, I bow to your superior knowledge.
David Oldfield
29/03/11 – 13:30
I was most interested in John Whitaker’s nostalgia about the Butler scrapyard at Eller Ghyll, Menston where a large number of Ledgard vehicles were dismantled after years of storage. It was a place where mixed feelings were always aroused – revelling in the range of vehicles which languished there, and yet incredibly sad at the same time.
Here is one of my early snapshots (if only digital had been around !!). The larger vehicle is one of the ex B & B Leyland Lion LT1/Burlingham pair, KW 7944/5. No prizes for identifying the other two buses – they are 40% of the fleet of five heroic little Bedford OWBs which served so valiantly at the Yeadon (Moorfield) depot. It is impossible for those unfamiliar with the territory to imagine how much heavy work those little champions handled on two of the most intense and heavily patronised routes – and of necessity overloading was common which made their performance even more remarkable and creditable. I’ve driven OB coaches myself and never failed to marvel at how these tough little classics performed – unashamedly noisily while “getting up to speed” in the first three gears and then with dignified very quiet tones in “top.” I still can’t believe how 28hp petrol engines (many private cars today have greater capacity and technology) could produce such splendid results under heavy pressure. What a crying shame that more souvenirs were not saved from these vehicles as I’m quite sure that Butler’s would have been amenable to the cause. The final sad insult to the little Bedfords was to have to languish there in full view of their successors, as their former lifetime route was less than a hundred yards away on the road above !!
Chris Youhill
30/03/11 – 06:07
1294 and 1295 (the first of the three contemporary Roe bodied PD2/20) were allocated to Leadmill Road Depot hence 1294 turning up frequently on the 12 to Chesterfield. I don’t remember the Roe trio (1295-1297) being delivered with saloon heaters. There was a restricted height bridge at Dronfield on service 12 and not all buses could be used on the Chesterfield service. I suspect the ECW bodies were of slightly lower overall height than the Roe bodies on the similar chassis as I never remember seeing 1295 on the 12 although the standard vehicles for the route at that time were Roe bodied Regent III 1251-1282. Different chassis make, slightly lower build?
Ian Wild
30/03/14 – 12:54
Imagine an engine block in profile and standing next to it a tall radiator. Hot water rising from the engine passes thru a large hose to the top of the radiator. Movement air passing thru the radiator cools the water which slowly sinks returning via the bottom hose to the engine block whence it rises again. This is the simple thermo-syphon system with the of necessity tall radiator which was fitted to most pre-war vehicles. It had many disadvantages. Big improvements were made. At atmospheric pressure water boils off so the cooling system was pressurised to raise the boiling temperature. A cooling fan was fitted to draw air through the radiator even whilst the vehicle was stationary. A thermostat controlled the temperature of the cylinder head. Most importantly, an impeller pump was fitted to increase the cooling water circulation speed thus vastly increasing cooling efficiency. Efficient radiators could be made much smaller and lower. This was a boon to the bodywork designers wishing to offer attractive lower profiles. This is the reason why lower outlines became possible. It has nothing to do with the engine which can be tilted or even, as in the Commer TS3 design, laid flat.
Peter Woods
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
05/02/16 – 06:33
Back to radiator height, I believe on the high radiator access for the crank handle was below the radiators bottom tank, whereas on the low radiator everything was lower because it was possible for the shaft of the crank handle to pass between the radiators tubes. This was not a new arrangement as Tilling Stevens B10s of the late 20s had this style of radiator. Bonnet height was often determined by whether air filters were fitted above the engine.
