Old Bus Photos

Sheffield Corporation – Crossley – JWJ 737 – 237 & KWA 776 – 576

Sheffield Corporation - Crossley - JWJ 737 - 237 & KWA 776 - 576

Sheffield Corporation - Crossley - JWJ 737 - 237 & KWA 776 - 576

Sheffield Corporation
1947
Crossley SD42 & DD42
Crossley B32R & H56R

Following the end of the war, Sheffield Corporation A fleet took a small number of Crossleys (28 in all) over three years. First to arrive were six single-deckers 237-242 (JWJ 737 – 742) in 1947. In the same year eight double-deck vehicles were added, they were 573 – 580 (KWA 773 – 780). They were followed in 1948 by another ten and in 1949 by four more. The two pictures show examples of the earliest deliveries, but look at the different styling around the front ends. The doubledeck version is probably more typically Crossley with the window line dipping to meet the line of the windscreen. The singledeck version has a straight window line at the front but still meeting the line of the windscreen. Most Sheffield doubledeckers would have two route blinds, these one-liners were in a minority but taken at a time when getting new buses was a higher priority than "calling the shots".

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson


20/06/13 – 16:44

I think all Crossleys were distress purchases, in time of great need, and that they were diverted orders. That explains the non-standard features. Certainly the four 1949 Crossleys were diverted from a Liverpool order, albeit they seemed to have Sheffield specification – down to destination blinds.

David Oldfield

PS: The 1948 ten were interesting in that they had NCB bodywork. Were they unique?


21/06/13 – 08:10

I believe the single deckers were a diverted order from Chesterfield Corporation and the batch of eight double deckers 573-580 diverted from a Lancaster order.
Numbers 573-580 seemed to spend most of their lives on the Inner Circle routes 8 and 9.

John Darwent


21/06/13 – 08:11

A picture of a former Lancaster City Transport SD42 showing the straight windscreen is on this site at the People’s League for the Defence of Freedom page.The straight lower line of the windscreen was standard on the single deck Crossley bus body (the Dutch Crossleys are a completely different species). This feature was maintained right up to the very last single deck SD42/7 Crossley bodies, two of which were delivered to Southport Corporation in 1951, though these lacked the stepped waistrail. Southport had earlier also specified the straight windscreen line on its pair of DD42/7s with downdraught engines supplied in 1950.

Roger Cox


21/06/13 – 08:11

Here’s one of the DD42/3’s with NCB bodywork you mentioned, David O. Certainly nothing I’ve ever seen before. www.sct61.org.uk/sh595

Chris Hebbron


21/06/13 – 16:45

crossley_ad

Above is an advertisement put out by Crossley that is quite appropriate.

I was always intrigued how neighbouring Rotherham more or less kept their Crossleys hard at work on the flat terrain as much as possible, mainly on the joint service 69 to Sheffield, whereas STD seemed to deliberately seek out some of the fiercest hills, such as several encountered on the Inner Circle, on which to run theirs!
Division Street obviously had more faith in the Crossley’s climbing abilities than Frederick Street!

Dave Careless


22/06/13 – 07:55

The mention of the double deckers being diverted from a Lancaster order goes a long way to explaining the style of indicator display.

Pete Davies


22/06/13 – 07:56

I don’t think it is true to say that all Crossleys were distress purchases. AFAIK there were only two problems, the engine and the steering, neither of which were known about when the first ones were ordered. The engine problem only became serious under stress: I have never heard any complaints about it in single deckers, even in double deckers it was worse in hilly terrain than on the flat, and it was eventually fixed by AEC engineers. As for the steering, it too could be fixed (I don’t know if Manchester were alone in doing this) and although it sounds brutal, it was something that only affected drivers and not the balance sheet. So unless an operator actually cared about its staff, or had a strong trade union presence, the problem could be ignored.
Those two things apart, I seem to remember Geoffrey Hilditch being quite complimentary about Crossleys.

Peter Williamson


22/06/13 – 09:43

Depends what you mean by distress, Peter. Given a clear field, untrammelled by Government intervention, Sheffield would have continued to buy only Leyland and AEC – presumably continuing the pre-war body orders to Leyland, Weymann, Craven and Roberts. Like everyone else, they couldn’t get enough from their preferred suppliers and in times of "distress" went where they could to find sufficient vehicles. This included the said diverted orders of Crossleys but also included deliveries of Daimler CVD6s as well as going to unusual suppliers of bodywork – NCB; Cawood; Wilks and Meade. When things settled down in the ’50s, a simple dual sourcing policy returned – Leyland/AEC and Weymann/Roe.

David Oldfield


23/06/13 – 08:16

A further point of interest is that on receipt, the six SD42’s diverted to Sheffield had only a single destination aperture at the front (as found on similar Chesterfield vehicles) and this was not wide enough to incorporate a route number as well as a place name. Sheffield therefore effected their own modification and cut out a separate aperture alongside for the route number but presumably the restricted space for this exercise was only sufficient for a two digit display. I doubt this would have been a problem since, as far as I can remember, they spent the majority of their lives on such routes as 37 and 40 to Bakewell via Baslow and via Carver Sough.

John Darwent


23/06/13 – 08:17

Leeds had dual sourced AEC & Leyland pre war and were allocated utility Daimlers during hostilities. Such an impression did these make that Daimler continued to supply chassis for the next thirty years. They bought one Crossley which impressed enough to be followed by 20 odd others all of which lasted until the early sixties. Indeed they outlasted some of the postwar Daimlers which were far more standard than they were. Perhaps as Leeds was a major AEC customer they got help with the Crossleys from that quarter.

Chris Hough


23/06/13 – 08:17

As a small boy in Sheffield I remember being taken by my uncle on more than one occasion for a ride all the way round on the "Outer Circular" service. From memory and it is a long time ago, the bus was invariably a Crossley. Again, from memory, it was never very full so maybe "Division Street" did keep these buses to the lighter used routes?

Stan Zapiec


23/06/13 – 17:23

Like Stan, I also used Crossleys on the 2 / 3 Outer Circle. My trips were shorter, being from Gleadless Town End to Graves Park, or Abbeydale Road where we would get the tram to Millhouses Park. The Crossleys never seemed very happy on this run, especially on the uphill return journey, to my young mind.

Les Dickinson


25/06/13 – 17:04

I used the 8/9 regularly from Broadfield Road to Newbould Lane to get to school from 1964 – 1971. The Crossleys had gone by then. I only had cause to use the Outer Circle after some nit had changed it (and the route) to 2/59! [They were PDR2/1 Atlanteans. Actually quite good, but outside our purview.]

David Oldfield


03/07/13 – 15:13

The double-decker`s were used on the 8&9 routes, along with the 69 Rotherham. They would only have needed single destination blinds for these routes. Later PD2s on the 69 route also had 1 destination blind that had the route & number in one box, as you lads have explained to me before.

Andy Fisher


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

Sheffield Corporation – AEC Regent III – KWE 258 – 258

Sheffield Corporation - AEC Regent III - KWE 258 - 258

Sheffield Corporation
1948
AEC Regent III
Weymann H30/26R

The three batches of Weymann bodied AEC Regent III’s, comprising forty vehicles in all, were, to my mind at least, arguably the most attractive of all the double deckers taken into stock by Sheffield Transport Department in the immediate post-war period. The initial batch of ten, 527-536 (JWB 727/828/729-736) probably had the edge, with their half drop windows instead of the top sliders fitted to the other two deliveries of fifteen vehicles each, 558-572 (JWE 858-872) and 250-264 (KWE 250-264), one of the latter batch which is seen here. The rear ends of these buses always looked particularly attractive to me, with the well radiused top corners to the platform window, not to mention that classic of an emergency window upstairs. And of course, the outswept bottom panels of these Weymann bodies only added to their overall elegant appearance.
It was an overcast afternoon in July, 1961 when 258 was recorded on film, having just swept through the doors of Herries Road garage, about to take up service on one of the 94 group of workers services from the large Southey Green and Parson Cross housing estates to the miles of steelworks at Brightside and Templeborough. Later that same year, 258, along with sister Regents 251/2/4, were withdrawn and sold to Grimsby-Cleethorpes Transport for further service, a couple of the quartet lasting a further seven years, not being finally withdrawn from the seaside until 1968, having given a very creditable twenty year service life.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Dave Careless


04/06/13 – 18:05

The transfers became Grimsby-Cleethorpes Transport numbers 41 (KWE 258), 48 (KWE 251), 49 (KWE 252) and 50 (KWE 254). The intervening numbers 42-47 were occupied by similarly Weymann-bodied Regent IIs ex London Transport (HGC 233, 222, 227, 228, 219 and 225 respectively).

Stephen Ford


04/06/13 – 18:06

Classic AEC, classic Weymann, classic Sheffield, shear perfection; or am I prejudiced? Ah, so what?

David Oldfield


05/06/13 – 06:07

527 – 536 also didn’t have the out-swept skirt and were delivered without the smudge roof. Regrettably, I had little contact with these fine beasts as Herries buses didn’t penetrate our corner of Sheffield until the 38 was replaced by the 42/53 cross city service. Occasionally the Roberts and Cravens did rush hour duty. Where would these Weymanns have been originally? Town Head Street? [Herries Road depot was not built until 1952.]

David Oldfield


05/06/13 – 18:04

David, when they were new, the initial batch 527-536 were at Leadmill Road, and all the others went to Bramall Lane garage. I remember riding on the 558-572 batch a lot around the time I took the picture, when they were working on the Petre Street-City-Graves Park service 34, some of my most enjoyable bus rides ever!

Dave Careless


06/06/13 – 06:16

Now that you mention it, I do remember them on Graves Park 34s. [Who would have done 74s? Wasn’t there some inter-working?] I was only 8 when that picture was taken. I wasn’t let loose, on my own, on a bus for another two years – and then only under controlled circumstances.

David Oldfield


06/06/13 – 17:08

Many of these Weymanns were indeed at Bramall Lane Depot. They serviced among others, 34 Graves Park/Petre Street (Reform Chapel) which was a replacement tram route from about 1925. The AEC 111s mostly on this route were normally with Northern Coach Builders squarer profile, which I personally preferred. I preferred them because of the interior lights, (which were ribbed squarish), the top deck emergency window (shaped like a loaf of Hovis) & the fact my dad drove this route daily for many years! The route 35 to Holythorpe Rise used the Weymanns pictured. The 33 route to Hemsworth (in my time), were what I thought were AEC 111s Park Royal with nice interiors, including a 1" ish green band between windows & roof downstairs. This was my favourite at the time. Since getting back into buses, they could have been Cravens. The 36 route was a rush hour duplicate to Heeley Green. On this route you had anything with 4 wheels & an engine. This was my preferred transport to school. It could be pre-war, post war, single or double deckers. You never had the same bus 2 days running, heaven. The other route on the via Bramall Lane route was the 38 to Norton.

Andy Fisher


06/06/13 – 17:08

Upstairs front offside, of course, was always the preferred option, but a close second was the lower saloon nearside front seat, peering over into the cab and watching every action of the driver, manhandling the pre-selector lever through the gears as we bowled along the Wicker. Leaping off just before we came to a stop at Reform Chapel terminus at the Petre Street end of the route, and watching the conductor lean out and wind the blinds over the platform round to City and Hollythorpe Rise never ceased to fascinate. Happy summer days.

Dave Careless


07/06/13 – 05:50

No Park Royals between 1935 and 1955 (Monocoaches) or 1963 (Regent V front loaders). Could be Cravens but the Roberts had a more Park Royal profile. The 38 was originally Lowedges Road. It only became Norton when the 42/53 were redirected to Lowedges Road from Woodseats and Graves Park. I’m sure Bramhall Lane had closed by the time Norton took on the 38 route number. I think my favourites were Cravens and Weymann in that order. It would be another four or five years before my all time favourite (Roes) appeared for the first time. This time of year (summer) I would make a trek to the 38 (Lowedges Road) terminus at about this time (1800) to do the same, Dave. They were principally the OWE, RWB and SWE Regent IIIs – Roe, Roe and Weymann.

David Oldfield


08/06/13 – 07:56

Andy, square ribbed light fittings – yes, we had them in Nottingham too (and indeed Bartons no. 906, a second hand Leyland PD2 acquired from Yorkshire Woollen about 1961, had them as well). I’m away from home on holiday at the moment, but on my other computer at home I have a selection of "light" pictures (a strange but innocent fascination of mine!) and will post a photo when I get home.

Stephen Ford


08/06/13 – 17:50

My fascination does not stop at lights. The flat wheel rims of many buses compared to the dished ones on Leylands, (preferred) the Leyland wheel chrome rims compared to the AECs & Crossleys. The fact buses without chrome rims look awful & dated, shapes & styles of opening windows, different dashboards & last but not least rear emergency exit windows upstairs. Does this make me weird?

Andy Fisher


09/06/13 – 15:27

Andy. Weird? Not in the least. Emergency windows and wheel nut rings are the stuff of legend. For instance, not only the classic Weymann emergency window in the picture, which I referred to in the caption, but perhaps my all-time favourite, the two-piece rear upstairs window on the post-war Leyland bodies, to go along with the Leyland wheel trims to which you refer. As always, the devil is in the details. If somebody was to put out an expensive hardback volume on emergency window design, I’d be first in line to buy it. Or perhaps you would; hopefully they’d sell more than two copies.
Agreed that buses without wheel trims tend to look unfinished somehow. Oddly enough, even though LT painted both wheels and trims brown, a Routemaster with brown wheels and no wheel trims, even though they weren’t chrome, just doesn’t look right. Thank goodness the LT trolleybus department operated under a different set of rules, and maintained the chrome wheel trims on those magnificent vehicles right to the end.

Dave Careless


17/06/13 – 06:47

Just having a look in my books, both Leyland & AECs did have rear centre hub adornments, instead of the 6 or 8 nuts. The Leyland was especially nice with rings & the Leyland logo. The AECs seem to just have the AEC triangle & letters similar to the radiator badge.
Looking in my tram book, there is a picture of Haymarket from around 1936. Quite identifiable were the Weymann emergency exit, but also in the picture were rear emergency exit windows in the sausage shape windows similar to later Roes. If we did not have Roes in 1936, can anyone help me identify them please?

Andy Fisher


KWE 258 Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


19/06/13 – 08:00

jellymould

jellymould_2

As promised, here is an interior picture showing the square fluted light fittings. Sadly these are mounted upside down (!) as they always were on Nottingham’s big fleet of 1950 trolleybuses, and the later Park Royal AEC Regents. The correct way was with the securing recess at the bottom edge – or at least, I always thought they looked more balanced that way.

Stephen Ford


19/06/13 – 14:33

Correct again Steven, these were the lights I remember. Going back to the sausage shape emergency exits, could these be Cravens or Roberts?

Andy Fisher


20/06/13 – 07:13

Either, but at at a guess more likely to be Cravens.

David Oldfield


20/06/13 – 07:15

Strange how there is a natural order of things and it’s not always the way things were designed to be! Whatever the ‘designed’ way here, I agree with you, Stephen!
Of course, you can’t argue with ’round’ which is how I recall covered lights! However, shades were always better than bare bulbs. It was always a course of annoyance to me when they took the shades off the 1938 UndergrounD stock. Each one of those must have been a time-consuming conversion, when studied.

Chris Hebbron


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

Sheffield Corporation – AEC Regent I – BWE 526 – 208

Sheffield Corporation - AEC Regent I - BWE 526 - 208
Copyright R H G Simpson

Sheffield Corporation
1935
AEC Regent I
Weymann H56R

Another R H G Simpson photo which I think is worth sharing. Sheffield livery as you’ve never seen it before? Although many vehicles were taken into stock in 1935, this one was not part of a batch, and is possibly the only bus to appear this way in the fleet.
It would appear to be an attempt at streamlining, indeed the front seems to be raked back more than usual, that might just be an illusion caused by the livery application.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson


05/04/13 – 05:59

A similar AEC Regent also with Weymann body albeit fully fronted was exhibited at the 1935 show in Leeds livery. This was later converted to half cab and was lent to London in the second world war.

Chris Hough


05/04/13 – 05:59

This was one of a pair – the other for Leeds – with this streamlined design which were, I believe, also show exhibits. This Sheffield example, at least, was originally full fronted but Sheffield had it converted to half-cab for the obvious and usual access reasons before it entered service.
Weymann’s first double decker in 1931 was a demonstrator which became Sheffield No66 in 1932. 85 Regent/Weymann deckers followed until 1940 (208 a one off, the rest related to and culminating in the well known classic style). Apart from penny numbers from Park Royal, 10 Cravens and 19 from the Corporation Tramways works at Queens Road, all AEC Regents pre-war came from Addlestone. 197 post war Regent III and V came from Addlestone – along with 102 PD2s.

David Oldfield


05/04/13 – 09:01

…and then we complain about modern liveries! I suppose it was a one-off, but it does suggest that the continuing Hull livery came from another era.

Joe


05/04/13 – 15:34

Joe:
It certainly wasn’t a one-off. Manchester for a period went the same way, and the influence persisted in the standard liveries of Huddersfield Corporation and Rochdale.
In practice, we were very fond of swooshes back in the 1940s and 50s. Virtually every coach builder had their own pattern of shapes which allowed us to recognise whose body it was; of course in those days we simply called it ‘trim’. The ultimate development of livery application that bore no relationship to the lines of the body undoubtedly came from the Yeates works!
I think we can get too rose-tinted about the liveries of that era. Where I grew up as a child – north Somerset – buses all looked the same, and as we took early holidays down in Cornwall there was no difference there either. Nothing really to arouse the interest, so it wasn’t until many years later that I started to develop an interest. Even then – I had moved north by that time – there was Crosville on the doorstep . . .
I do feel that our affection for the old liveries is as much a longing for the variety of those years; the individual liveries were often themselves pretty boring – Liverpool, Manchester all red, London – but they did distinguish the operators from their neighbours. We used to admire those operators who took the trouble to continue to use a separate colour on the beading between the main colours, or apply the odd gold lining, but is this really any different from the way bits of colour are applied in today’s liveries?
A post elsewhere makes the point that today’s young people will doubtless grow up with the same attitude towards the style of today as we did 50 or so years ago.

Alan Murray-Rust


06/04/13 – 07:35

Perhaps "streamlining" was an attempt to bring the new science of lowered wind resistance from planes, cars and even trains…. to the appearance of buses. We even had streamlined buildings, looking like ships. The fifties brought a new functionalism, but this, as you say, was lost on some municipalities, so intent on making a swish transition from the front of the bus to the sides… but wavy lines? I suppose it’s all a bit dorsal fin: but in 1935 that was in the future with vinyl, half tones, ads covering up windows and route branding….. at least we don’t paint the doors in fluorescent colours (much- or only the drivers?) …yet: but wait till the helfansafety experts get there.

Joe


06/04/13 – 16:45

As well as the Weymann bodied "streamline" AEC Regent in Leeds colours with a livery application very like the Sheffield one but in dark blue and turquoise Leeds also had a Roe bodied "streamline" bus at the same show. This too was painted Blue and turquoise but looked very different to the Weymann example with an almost tear drop shape and very stylised appearance.
We forget today how big an impact the railways had on style at the time both LNER and LMS were starting to run streamlined locos like the Gresley Pacifics and such styling was common in both Europe and the USA.

Chris Hough


07/04/13 – 07:53

Like many of us, I also abhor the meaningless modern vinyl "imaging" on today’s buses and applaud the attempts by some 1930s operators and builders to try to make their buses look "modern". However, I can’t think of any instances where trams had these "go faster" liveries applied. Some, of course, didn’t need them as they were superbly designed to look modern (eg. Glasgow’s Coronations, Liverpool’s Green Goddesses, etc). The master of industrial design at this time was Raymond Loewy whose US company opened an office in London in the mid-30s. Did Weymann approach them I wonder?

Paul Haywood


07/04/13 – 07:55

Joe, OK they weren’t fluorescent but LT painted entrance doors on dual door buses yellow until late 80s(?), and in the run up to the formation of WYPTE Leeds painted Atlantean 447 and Swift 1065 in an experimental "Leeds District" livery incorporating yellow entrance doors and red exit doors.
The 30s streamlined liveries may not always have fitted the lives of the buses to which they were applied – but what I think makes them forgivable is that they were identifiably local/distinct, and they used strong/bold/deep colours unlike the flat and/or wishy-washy pastels used by two of the big groups today. But, picking-up on a point Alan made, I’ll stick my neck out and say that gold lining-out was just too fussy once rocker-panels had ceased to be a feature of bodywork.

Philip Rushworth


07/04/13 – 07:56

Joe Although not florescent London Transport painted entrance doors yellow for many years.

Chris Hough


07/04/13 – 09:52

Paul, I know I’m biased, but for me the mention of ‘modern-looking’ trams really has to start with the Sheffield Roberts ones.

Les Dickinson


07/04/13 – 16:54

Point taken, Les – yes, the Sheffield Roberts cars were smart indeed and I enjoyed riding on them in their final years, but for me, being four-wheelers, they lacked the majesty of the streamlined bogie cars. The whole 1930s period (before my time) fascinates me. For many, the sight of a streamlined tram or bus, or a visit to an art deco cinema, represented a vision of the future. We’ve all seen those early artists impressions of "How we will be living in twenty years" etc. where travel by monorail, gyrocopters and airships was assumed. When this bus was built, those visions would still be valid. The quest for increased speed on land, sea and air influenced designers throughout this period and this bus is a wonderful example.

Paul Haywood


07/04/13 – 16:54

I personally like the look of this bus. Did you notice the wind down windows. I only noticed these on a few Weymann AECs, (which also had a "booming" exhaust) on the 101 Arbourthorne route, climbing the very steep hill up East Bank Road, & some PD2s on the 69 route to Rotherham. The PD2s also had a complete destination & route number in the same big oblong route destination board. I have seen similar on other companies buses. They may be pre 1950s, with all Leyland bodies.

Andy Fisher


08/04/13 – 15:20

Andy, the PD2’s with the one destination box for route number and destination were the three so-called ‘stock sale’ PD2’s, that Leyland built on spec. for quick delivery to operators willing to forego their regular requirements such as standardized destination layouts in order to obtain buses quickly. The three that Sheffield managed to get, 601-3 (LWB 301-3), were put to work on the 69 service to Rotherham when it was decided not to relay the tramlines on the new road bridge at Tinsley, and thus abandoning for good the Sheffield-Rotherham tram service. The Sheffield trams ran no further than Vulcan Road after that, while the Rotherham single-enders ran only to Templeborough, and even they finished six months later, in November 1949.
City, Sheffield, Templeborough and Rotherham, with the applicable route numbers, were, I think, the only destinations that the trio had on their blinds, so they were more or less route-bound to the 69 or the 169 to Templeborough. A friend has told me that apparently one of them quite often showed up to run a ‘cinema-extra’ to Nether Edge late of an evening, when the picture houses were turning out (before the days of television!) before running into the garage after working on the 69 all day, but just what it showed on the blind I’m not certain. I’ve got a photo of one of them on a stand in Castlegate showing just ‘City’ in big letters, but I don’t know what route is would have been on.

Dave Careless


09/04/13 – 06:41

And while we’re on the theme of streamlining in the 1930’s, let’s not forget those Flying Bananas on the Great Western Railway. For a railway that remained strongly wedded to steam traction, this batch of AEC (and later BUT) engined diesel railbuses had a charm and character all of their own.
I know this is a bus blog, but I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself from eulogising about these splendid rail buses !

Petras409


14/05/13 – 07:57

Andy. Only the first post war Regent III/Weymanns (527 – 536) had half drop windows. The others (1947/8) had sliders.
Petras409. Strictly speaking, DMUs had underframes built by BUT with engines supplied by either AEC or Leyland – and in a minority of cases Rolls Royce.

David Oldfield


14/05/13 – 17:22

BUT (British United Traction) was a joint sales organisation set up by AEC and Leyland for the purpose of supplying railway and trolleybus equipment, in order to give the companies a more realistic presence in what were quite limited markets. It was a similar arrangement to that of MCW, formed by the one-time totally independent companies of Metro-Cammell and Weymann.
As far as railway equipment goes, the BUT contribution was almost invariably engines and transmissions – but these were always proprietary (or suitably modified proprietary) items, BUT never having had any manufacturing plants. The engines supplied (for use in DMUs and railbuses) were manufactured by AEC, Leyland, or (in at least one instance) Albion – itself owned by Leyland at the time.
The exception to the above appears to concern early DMUs 79740-50, given as of BUT manufacture. If this is correct, the underframes and bodies must have been built somewhere (there were several likely locations within the Leyland or ACV – parent of AEC – groups). Oddly, Park Royal (itself part of ACV) supplied the bodies for some DMUs and railbuses, apparently independently of BUT.
As for Rolls-Royce engined DMUs, it may be that BUT was given the task of supplying the entire driveline and itself sourced the engines from Rolls-Royce – this is the impression given by the wording of current internet descriptions of the various DMU classes.
The supply of trolleybus chassis by BUT effectively continued the erstwhile AEC range, and trolleybus chassis building at Leyland was dropped.
As BUT was created in 1946, and the last GWR railbuses were constructed in 1942, it could not be said that there was any BUT input to the latter. The original engines were definitely of AEC manufacture, but replacement engines fitted later may well have been considered to be BUT, rather than AEC, products, of course.

David Call


19/05/13 – 15:28

Thanks for the update on the windows & route box. I am just an observer, not really knowledgeable. Now I have taken much more interest in researching Sheffield buses, I do appreciate your knowledge on these matters. You may find some of my comments a bit silly, but it is my lack of knowledge. I also do not come online that often, so you may not get an immediate thanks from me.

Andy Fisher


21/05/13 – 15:01

Following on from your information, I had a look in my tram book. The last tram from Sheffield to Rotherham was in 1948 , so presumably, these PD2s must have been of 1948 vintage. There was another PD2 all Leyland in the book, on another route. It had normal layout destination board, but with opening front upstairs windows. Can any of you people identify it for me please? I must confess to being an AEC fan, Leylands were not local untill the 1960 tram replacement tin fronts. That is unless we visited my auntie at Southy Green. The 97 & 98. They were also all Leylands. One had rounded ended opening lights, with interior lights covered in round, fluted lightshades, really smart. The other route was standard PD2s all Leyland design. They must have been 1940s buses, as it never was a tram route, so must have always been serviced by buses. I think the estate was built just after the war. Any help in identifying these busses would be appreciated.

Andy Fisher


22/05/13 – 07:21

The PD2s with opening windows would have been 656 – 667 – 1952 all Leyland PD2/10s. The three odd PD2s were indeed 1948 and doubly strange for being standard Leyland bodies in among Faringtons.

David Oldfield


24/05/13 – 14:04

light fittings_2

Andy Fisher – regarding the smart interior lights with round fluted covers, I assume you mean like this – in this instance fitted in the preserved Crosville AEC Regal with Strachans body (seen here at the 2010 Kingsbridge running day). This sort of light fitting was also virtually universal on Trent’s many Willowbrook bodied double deckers.

Stephen Ford


25/05/13 – 08:26

In the main the engines supplied by BUT to power BR’s DMUs were horizontal versions of the AEC A221 of 11.3 litres or the Leyland 0680 of 11.1 litres. The transmission consisted of a fluid flywheel and a four speed Wilson epicyclic gearbox. These were very much ‘bus engineering’.
It’s not true to say that the formation of BUT as a marketing organisation for trolleybuses saw the end of Leyland based trolleybuses. Whilst the majority of home market trolleybuses were based on AEC designs that were closely allied to the contemporary Regent bus chassis (the six wheel BUT used the front end of the Regent Three in conjunction with an updated version of rear end of the pre-war 664T), Glasgow did receive single deck trolleybuses based on, I believe, the Royal Tiger chassis or its Worldmaster equivalent.

Michael Elliott


25/05/13 – 17:15

Thanks for the info guys. Yes Stephen those lightshades were indeed the ones I remember.

Andrew Fisher


BWE 526 Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


13/10/15 – 06:11

With regard to the Petre Street routes 34 and 35, these originally were Nos. 17 and 10 just post war. Incidentally, Petre Street was/is pronounced ‘Peter’ by locals ! ‘Hunsley Street’was also featured on the destinations. The terminus at the Wesleyan Chapel was of interest due to the alleyway by the side of the stop having an ancient water pump on it, painted green if memory serves me right. The tramway these routes replaced terminated at Petre St./Carwood Road, around half a mile or so before the Wesleyan Chapel bus terminus. There was a fatal accident outside the Ellesmere Road school in the 50’s when a man threw himself under a city bound Regent III (I seem to remember that it was 567 ?)

Mike C


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

All rights to the design and layout of this website are reserved     

Old Bus Photos from Saturday 25th April 2009 to Wednesday 3rd January 2024