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fleet number BAL 8 new to them in 1945 acquired by Samuel Ledgard in 1959 and served a further six years before being withdrawn from service in 1965.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.

Bob Cooper

The City of Oxford Motor Services
1956
AEC Regent V MD3RV
Weymann H30/26RD

City of Oxford I think were one of AECs most loyal customers. According to my 1963 British Bus Fleets South Central book it states that as from 1927 apart from a batch of 5 Dennis Loline Mark IIs delivered in 1961 with AEC engines by the way, all their vehicles were AECs. Interestingly enough the next batch of vehicles ordered after the Lolines were AEC Bridgemasters. What I find strange, and I hope someone can explain why it was that the Bridgemaster had been available from 1956, why wait until December 1961 to take delivery of their first batch. Not to mention the fact that they took delivery of 15 lowbridge Regent Vs as well as the 5 Lolines in the 56 – 61 period. As a matter of interest they also took delivery of 30 highbridge Regent V MDs and 16 LDs in the same period of which the vehicle in the above shot is one of the first. It was chassis number 29 of the MD variant and had as can be seen an exposed radiator rather than the more recognisable concealed version more associated with the Regent V. All City of Oxford 27ft Regent Vs were MDs (Medium Weight) having the smaller AEC AV470 7.68 litre six cylinder diesel engine. But they were not quite so loyal when it came to body builders Park Royal and Weymann were the norm for the double deckers, apart from a batch of 5 Regent Vs and the Lolines that had East Lancs bodies and the first batch of front entrance Regents that had bodies by Willowbrook. I am afraid that is where my information ends but if you know something that maybe of interest to others your comments are more than welcome.

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

I think you’re a little unfair about loyalty with bodywork. When you buy one car or bus at a time you can be loyal to one maker. When you bulk order you have to be aware of the capacity of the supplier – which is why most large operators (even London Transport) dual sourced. At least COMS managed fidelity to AEC – with which I would fully concur – and the two bodybuilders were among the acknowledged best at their craft at the time. [Lolines were only available late in Weymann’s life but maybe they were arguing with Dennis for an AEC option when the body style and finish of the Bridgemaster was truly dreadful.]
Whatever the reasons; maroon, cream and duck-egg green AECs – that is the heyday of a superb operator.

David Oldfield

P.S. Re-reading Alan Townsin’s chapter on the Bridgemaster in his "Blue Triangle"…..
The original version was attractive with curved profile and aluminium body but BET were likely to be the model’s biggest customer. They wanted steel frames and single skin domes, like the MCW Orion, and a wholesale re-think had to be made.
Very few of the original Crossley built Bridgemaster’s were made before it was totally retooled and production moved to Park Royal from whence came the uglier production model. This probably helps answer why COMS didn’t buy Bridgemasters before 1961 – that and being on the end of a queue which would involve PRV vehicles for other customers. The Bridgemaster was now firmly based in London and would, or could, not be sub-let to Crossley or Roe.

I don’t know who took this photograph but I know the setting is Gloucester Green Bus Station in the heart of Oxford.
Oxford Bus Co’s livery was absolutely gorgeous, restrained and stately but still gorgeous!!

George Taylor

23/03/13 – 08:02

Eventually this ended up with Wallace School of Transport as a driver trainer bus – I took my PSV test on it in 1970

Brian Lamb

23/03/13 – 12:28

Coming from a Leyland/Daimler Orion bodied stronghold on my visits to Oxford with my father in the late 1950s/early 1960s I always thought this batch had a certain refined air about it. Again, coming from the a place where the Orions were coated in acres or red or green the Oxford livery was to my eye very attractive.
A few words on the Bridgemaster. Alan Townsin is, of course, correct regarding the BET demands for the Bridgemaster. The original bodies were developed from a specification drawn up at Park Royal but the final design and build was by Crossley at Errwood Road using the basic outline and many of the panel sizes of the then current Park Royal design it was also building. It is interesting to see that a few of the design touches of the original were incorporated into some orders throughout the production run see: www.brindale.co.uk/  
Whilst Graham Hill’s information on the site is a little suspect e.g. his contention that the Lodekker (sic) had saturated the market leading to poor Bridgemaster sales, the pictures show well the versions of the final design though, as it is a Park Royal site, omit pictures of the Crossley version shown here: www.sct61.org.uk/  
I was told by an ex Crossley employee who was there to the end that the transfer of the Bridgemaster to Park Royal, which was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of Crossley, would not have been so final had there been a commercially viable demand from non BET operators who would have specified the original body, leaving Park Royal to deal with the BET revamped design. As it was, no significant interest was shown and the shut down went ahead.
Regarding Oxford’s order, whilst BET companies could deviate from group policy, at the time the group was pressurising its constituents to take the Bridgemaster. With a very much AEC dominated fleet Oxford found it hard to resist unlike Ribble, North Western and other fleets which had either a Leyland dominance or a more diverse fleet.

Phil Blinkhorn

26/03/13 – 06:38

While the redesigned Bridgemaster is widely regarded as a styling disaster, it is often forgotten that some of the rear-entrance examples were nothing of the kind, as is well illustrated by the photos of the Sheffield buses on Graham Hill’s site (see Phil’s brindale link above).

Peter Williamson

30/10/16 – 06:28

Watching a 1963ish Youtube video on the Outwell and Upwell Tramway I saw a familiar sight: a 1949 City of Oxford AEC Regent III with 56-seat highbridge Weymann bodywork stopping to pick up a lady—and here’s the less familiar bit—who was standing on the railway track. The by then diesel-hauled farm-produce trains that ran along the roadside made only a handful of trips a day so using the tracks as a bus-stop posed little danger.
I couldn’t make out an operator’s name, but I’m sure someone here knows!

ps.
I should have said that the film is Huntley Archives no 521. OFC 383 here appears to have platform doors, which I thought were fitted by Smiths of Reading on acquisition. Could this bus have passed from Smiths to a third life on the Fens? If so, that would date the picture to about 1966-67.

Ian Thompson

30/10/16 – 14:41

I think that the Regent III is OFC 390 which was acquired by Smith (Bluebell) of March in February 1962 and was fitted with doors for them. It lasted until March 1966.

Nigel Turner

30/10/16 – 16:21

I thought that the Oxford "Country Buses" – out of town services like Kidlington – of that eras had doors from new?

Joe

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation
1965
Leyland Panther Cub PSRC1/1
Park Royal B43D

Not the best shot in the world I think it was the first shot on the film and suffered from a touch of light getting into the cassette. Anyway there are not many shots of duel entrance vehicles on site so I think it is worth showing. The engine on the Panther was positioned horizontally under the floor at the rear and inline with the chassis as apposed to the Atlantean which had a transverse vertically mounted engine. As can be seen in the above shot the seats behind the centre door had to be raised to go over the rear axel and engine compartment. But having the engine at the rear did as can be seen enable it to have a very low step into the vehicle all though there is a step up immediately behind the driver. The coach version of the Panther had a one level raised floor but with having the engine at the rear it meant it had 120 cubic foot (3·4 cu.m.) underfloor storage for suitcases and the like. The engine was the reliable Leyland O.600 six cylinder diesel developing 125 b.h.p. in the bus chassis and 130 b.h.p. in coaches with a four speed epicycle gearbox with fingertip electric change and air suspension was offered as an option.

———

I know you are not meaning to mislead, but you haven’t mentioned that the Panther Cub (as opposed to the Panther) had the well regarded, but noisy, 0.400 engine.
This was the final version of the 0.300/0.350/0.375 Comet/Tiger Cub engine. The 0.400 was better known in the Bedford VAL/VAM14 and Bristol LH applications. It was necessary to fit this compact unit to the Panther Cub as it has a shorter rear overhang than the Panther.
The power output, at 125 b.h.p, was the same as the 0.600 but the torque (pulling power) and therefore potential life span was less.

David Oldfield