Sheffield Corporation
1960
AEC Regent V 2D3RA 
Roe H39/30RD

This was part of another big order that Sheffield placed with AEC in this case for a total of 71 Regent V 2D3RA model, all delivered in 1960.
1331 was part of the B fleet contingent of 25 buses all of which had this style of Roe bodywork whilst the A fleet received vehicles bodied by Weymann and Alexander.
Items to note in comparison with Roe bodied Leyland PD3 fleet number 462 delivered the year previously is the reduction in the number of sliding windows by two in each side of each deck but the inclusion of vents in the front top deck windows plus of course the addition of platform doors. These were manually operated by the conductor and would no doubt be appreciated on some of the longer services such as the 72 to Castleton in the Peak District. I have a watercolour painting done for me many years ago by a good friend of one of this batch operating on service 72 between Bamford and Hathersage.
Comparing this bus with Roe bodied Regent III fleet number 1265, the change of livery to include a cream painted radiator surround gives the bus a lighter appearance whilst in this case the legal owner is Sheffield Transport Department.
Although many of this batch were withdrawn in 1972 (maybe at the expiry of their second CoF – 7 years initially plus 5 years recertification), my PSV Circle fleet list shows this bus as still in service in October 1973.
This is another Coachbuilders official photograph taken at the Roe premises in Crossgates, Leeds.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

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

———

04/05/11 – 11:49

Here we have it, Ian. My absolute favourites from my Sheffield childhood. Although, for the most part, built at the end of 1959, only about half were delivered on 1 January 1960, the rest were delivered on 1 April with the residue of Weymann and Alexander buses.
There was a minor difference in that one sub set had an extra slider (on each side) just behind the bulk-head inside. I think these were what I called the Leadmill set – found on the 12, 22 and 59. The East Bank set were delivered in April and were put to work on the 38. It leads me to surmise that 1331 was an April, East Bank, bus. [Often, lower fleet numbers seemed to arrive before higher ones.]
I’m still hoping that 1330, at Aldwarke, will eventually be rebuilt and take to the road.

David Oldfield

———

05/05/11 – 07:05

A classic photograph, with the fluorescent lights fully on in what was apparently the Roe drawing office in the background, where these wonderful bus bodies were designed and detailed!
1331 as it happens was the last Roe bodied Regent V in service at Sheffield, being finally withdrawn on 13 May, 1976. The other three of the batch which accompanied 1331 into that last year of back loader operation were 1332, 1336 and 1339, the three of them coming off the previous month. For the record, 1331 completed a full last day in service on that May day, shuttling back and forth between Sheffield Lane Top and Bradway on the 76; a fine testament to a superb vehicle.

Dave Careless

———

05/05/11 – 12:16

Bradway (75)? or Lowedges Road (76)?

David Oldfield

———

06/05/11 – 06:59

To all, interest in the Sheffield Transport/SJOC matters are certainly gaining momentum!
The comments on the later intake of Leyland PD2/20 and 30, followed by the longer PD3/1 vehicles is a very interesting point. Undoubtedly, the problem of the Leyland change in the gearbox specification was a hard blow, particularly with respect to the newly trained, ex tram drivers. Possibly Leyland thought that Sheffield would turn to the Pneumocyclic option. The 40 PD2/20 Roe bodied batch in 1956 were taken into the A fleet, featuring the latest constant mesh/synchromesh gearbox. They were mainly replacement buses and would be driven by experienced drivers. Conversely, as time went by, the former tram men gained more driving experience and were able to master the buses lacking synchromesh on 2nd gear. Very definitely the 30ft long PD3/1/Roe buses, much heavier than the PD2 versions,were a problem to many skilled drivers,on steeply graded routes. To this end, the Chief Driving Instructor Charles Deamer devised a method of "Snatch changing" (a brutal change from 1st to 2nd gear) when starting on steep hills and this method was also used on the PD2’s. However, the driving staff preferred the easier life when in control of the AEC Regent Mark 111 and Mark V versions of 27ft and 30ft buses. Manager C.T.Humpidge re-introduced fluid transmission/Monocontrol to Sheffield A,B,& C fleets in 1964/5 and no further synchromesh buses entered service.

Keith Beeden

———

06/05/11 – 07:19

Well David, it was a long time ago! Perhaps it did a stint on both, but all I can say is that it was out all day, didn’t break down, and definitely wasn’t on the 33 from Lane Top to Hemsworth!!
1331 had a spell at Bramall Lane garage early in its career, as it shows up there in the allocation list dated 11th January, 1963, (with eight of its sisters, 1325-1330, 1332 and 1349) but that garage closed later that year, so presumably was an East Bank bus after that for most if not all of its working life. Fascinating hobby this, isn’t it!

Dave Careless

———

06/05/11 – 15:36

Certainly is and its good to know there are other Sheffield expert/enthusiasts out there. We may be outnumbered by the West Yorkshire lot and we can’t post as long as East Yorkshire but we will fly the flag for the People’s Republic of South Yorkshire (!!!).

David Oldfield

———

07/05/11 – 06:06

At PMT all the Leyland Titans, both PD2 and PD3 had the Leyland GB83 constant mesh second gearboxes. The driving school there taught the snatch change method of getting from 1st to 2nd on a hill start. Although not in the same league as Sheffield, the Potteries area did have a number of steep hills to negotiate. Once you got the hang of it, the snatch change was quite easy. The gear lever travel on the GB83 was much shorter than on the synchromesh second unit (think that was a GB74) which made the buses so fitted that much easier to drive. I queried the non use of synchro 2nd gearboxes at PMT and was told that the constant mesh 2nd gearbox had a generally longer service life between repairs. Even the Matador recovery vehicle had acquired a Leyland 0.600 engine and a GB83 gearbox!

Ian Wild

———

09/05/11 – 08:16

The Sheffield thread is fascinating. My brother-in-law-to-be was doing a practical stint at Laycock’s in 1960, so I went up to join him for a couple of days and we went merrily tram-riding only months before closure. My very favourites were the 1937 batch, but they were all very stylish, so it’s fitting that the 1959-60 Regents (which I assume were the tram-replacement batches) were so handsome. Even the Bridgemaster (not usually a favourite of mine) is well-proportioned—with the bonus of a prodigious seating capacity.
Keith Beeden’s point about hardened gearwheels is an eye-opener: I knew that many variables affected the music of the same gearbox in different vehicle types, but I never realised that mere (!?) metallurgy could play such a part. But it makes sense: cardboard gearwheels wouldn’t sing. Could the hardened teeth that Keith mentions have been used in the NTG…-reg 1954 Rhondda Regent IIIs? They certainly had a distinctive whine.
I’ve never driven a PD2 (except for an RTW) so I don’t know whether a clutch stop was fitted or not, but it certainly should have been! A clutch-stop would save wear on the cones when engaging 1st or 2nd from neutral, but I guess the builders judged that synchromesh had made that wonderful, simple device redundant.

Ian Thompson

———

09/05/11 – 08:19

A driver at Manchester once told me that the problem with the snatch change from first to second on the half-synchro PD2s was that every bus was different. Some required more skill than others, and some would not accept a snatch change no matter what. He found it more reliable to move the lever out of first, across the gate and gently forward, slowing the clutch down on third gear synchromesh, and then snick it quickly back into second.

Peter Williamson

———

10/05/11 – 07:13

A very ingenious solution, Peter!

Chris Hebbron

———

10/05/11 – 07:15

Ian, I agree with you about the Sheffield Domed trams (1936 – 1939 + war-time rebuilds). The majority of the tram replacement buses were 27′ Regents and Titans and I think, strictly, the only 30′ Regent V tram replacement buses were the Weymann and Alexander examples (A fleet). The Roe were B fleet – and there were no B fleet trams!
I also agree with you about the Bridgemaster which looked good in Sheffield colours and with the traditional back end. It was the front loader which looked all wrong.
Was never aware that the Bridgemasters caused any problems with reliability. That being the case, what was really the problem with it? Interesting to think of a comment I read that AEC pondered the possibility of replacing the Regent V AND the Bridgemaster with the Renown. Again, never heard of reliability problems with them either. …..unless anyone out there knows otherwise.

David Oldfield

———

12/05/11 – 9:39

Thanks for the clarification, David. I’ve never understood the Sheffield A-fleet/B-fleet distinction though, so perhaps you could outline that for me as well.

Ian Thompson

———

A Fleet: wholly owned by Sheffield Corporation for routes entirely within the City bounds, including those which replaced tram routes.

B Fleet: owned jointly by Sheffield Corporation and the Railway Companies or Boards. [Sheffield expanded its borders progressively from about 1920 until 1974. B fleet routes included some on the outer edge of the City which had previously been in Derbyshire or the West Riding and some which went over the borders.]

C Fleet: owned entirely by the Railway Companies or Boards. These routes included some Derbyshire routes but also all the long routes, including Manchesters and Retford/Gainsboroughs. For most, although not all, of its existence, C Fleet buses shared the same livery and generally similar types to the A (and B) Fleet.
Management of all three fleets and routes was common, types of vehicle were similar (although platform doors and different seats may differentiate) and, of course, coaches would be B and C Fleet.
The JOC (Joint Omnibus Committee) was set up in 1927 principally with the LMS and LNER Railways. With Nationalisation in 1948 these became Midland and Eastern Regions. The formation of NBC in 1969 caused the disbandment of the JOC – which had in effect performed as a regional bus company such as, and in the territory of, Yorkshire Traction and North Western. Many C Fleet buses were then, at this time, dispersed among NBC subsidiaries, notably Yorkshire Woolen. JOCs seemed to be a very Yorkshire thing – Halifax, Todmorden, Huddersfield – although Railways always had a stake in BET and Tilling companies as well prior to NBC formation.
Although the Corporation retained most Derbyshire work, the remaining Manchester route (48) became a North Western operation and many of the others became joint with operators with whom they had previously work anyway.

David Oldfield

———

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

16/01/12 – 16:34

A somewhat belated response to the comment on snatch gear changes with Leyland PD2’s and PD3’s. I learned to drive in a PD1 in 1962 and was taught the technique at that time, as this was with Eastbourne Corporation there being no serious hills to contend with I can’t remember having to use it. However I joined Southdown in 1969 at Eastbourne and soon had cause to brush up the trick especially on the 12 route to Brighton which also included trips to estates at West Dene and Tongdean on the outskirts of Brighton which were very hilly (one reason the PD3/5’s went west). Probably the worst stop was at Downs Golf club 2/3rd’s of the way up the hill out of Eastbourne, not something you looked forward to with a good load of holidaymakers in the summer. I’ve never heard of the trick told to Peter Williamson, of using the synchro on 3rd gear to slow the gearbox when changing 1st to 2nd but I did use the same method but using 4th to make selecting 2nd gear when stationary much easier and quieter otherwise 2nd would grate noisily, I read this somewhere but can’t remember where. The same technique worked equally well when used with the direct air operated Pneumocyclic box as it cut out the jolt when engaging 2nd when stationary.

Diesel Dave

Sheffield Corporation
1955
AEC Regent III 9613S
Roe H33/25R

Sheffield bought 86 AEC Regent III in 1955/6 incorporating the new look front more usually associated with the Regent V model.
The first to arrive were a batch of 32 for the B fleet numbered 1251 – 1282 with handsome Roe bodies. 1265 is shown outside the Roe premises at Crossgates, Leeds prior to delivery. I wonder if this was the first of the batch to be completed hence the official photograph? I always felt that these were a bit heavy looking with the blue radiator surround, I believe they were referred to as ‘bluebottles’.
The total batch for the B fleet numbered 41 buses but what were to have been Roe bodied 1283 – 1291 were delivered to the A fleet as 736 – 744 and an equivalent number of the original A fleet order (bodied by Weymann) were fitted with lowbridge bodywork and took the numbers 1283 – 1291 in the B fleet. These were used to double deck the Dinnington services 6 and 19 which operated under a restricted height bridge at South Anston. Roe were quite capable of building lowbridge bodies (see other Roe product photos on this site) and I wonder why Roe didn’t simply supply the last nine as lowbridge vehicles? No doubt there was a reason for it at the time.
Although this particular bus was withdrawn in 1969, 1251 and 1254 lasted until 1973 – at 18 years old, a fair age for what was by then a low capacity obsolete (open rear platform) design. All ended up with various Barnsley area scrapmen.
A few points to note in the photograph: the difference in shading between the 12 and 65 of the front and side fleet numbers and the legal ownership by the British Transport Commission, also the missing fog lamp and the semaphore trafficator arm in front of the nearside front window.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

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

———

30/04/11 – 06:59

I would like to help with the Sheffield J.O.C query regarding the 1955 intake of AEC Regent III buses.
At the time of the order, SJOC required 41 chassis with 9.6 litre engines and synchromesh gearboxes. An important requirement was for the "New Look" bonnet structure. At the time, the Mark V model featured a revised bonnet design, but only with the 7.75 litre engine. To meet the Sheffield request, AEC agreed to supply 41 Regent III chassis, to incorporate the "New Look" structure. C.H.Roe were to supply 41 bodies to H33/25R layout, to a height of 14ft 2 1/2ins. The modified design featured a lower deck framed in teak and upper deck in light alloy.
A problem arose when SJOC wished to increase fares on the category B services.The Yorkshire Transport Authority refused the application and the reason was that there were too many single deck services, some needing duplicate buses. The YTA suggested that more efficiency was needed, suggesting that some low height double deckers should be acquired. To this end Sheffield asked C.H Roe to modify nine of the outstanding contract to be built to low height 55 seaters. Although nine of the 41 chassis had not been delivered ALL the bodies had been built, some placed on trestles to await the chassis delivery. The result was that Weymann were asked to change an order for 45 similar Regent chassis, from H32/26R layout to L27/28R on 9 of the chassis. In consequence, Roe lettered the 9 completed buses to category A finish and the Weymann 9 lettered for the B fleet.

Keith Beeden

———

30/04/11 – 15:25

Thank you for the explanation Keith. Clear and concise as always.

John Darwent

———

30/04/11 – 20:50

Thank you Keith for that really interesting explanation about the highbridge/lowbridge body supply swap.

Ian Wild

———

02/05/11 – 12:59

Why haven’t you heard me pontificating about this picture? I’ve been away! Keith certainly answers the question of why they weren’t Regent Vs. Subsequent D3RV Regent Vs were almost identical to these Regent IIIs. It’s a shame that Roe didn’t build the low heights. The Weymann Regent IIIs and Vs were the nadir of the coach-builders art (stripped back and single skinned) and 1283 – 1291 were by far the ugliest non Utility buses ever operated by STD. Roe would have made a far better – or at least far more attractive – job of it.

David Oldfield

———

03/05/11 – 08:17

Wonderful looking vehicles these, especially in this Roe version of the Sheffield livery, and even after first repaint, when they acquired a grey roof. Perhaps the nicest sounding buses ever in the fleet, as well.
Although not visible in this view, I feel pretty certain it was this batch at least that had a white stick with a small red ball on top, attached to the top of the nearside wing, to aid drivers when pulling into the kerb, considering these ‘new look’ fronts did not afford the same view from the cab that the traditional narrower bonnet and ‘stand alone’ mudguard arrangement did. Could these have been fitted at Queens Road after suggestions from driving staff, perhaps?

Dave Careless

———

03/05/11 – 16:42

Dave, you are absolutely correct about the markers. I suspect it was a Queens Road affair because I seem to recall a few, but not all, of the Weymann Regent IIIs with markers. You can’t beat AEC/Roe for me, but these combined the musical (pre-war style) manual gearbox with the throaty exhaust. The latter disappeared with the Regent V but there were odd members of both the Regent III and V Weymanns (such as 751 and 792) which had a different gearbox which was "even more musical" – almost like the crash boxes in Guy Arab IV/V and Daimler CCG6.

David Oldfield

———

04/05/11 – 06:35

Interesting comment David, re-AEC music. I visited Paignton in 1960 when most of the Devon General services were operated by Regent/Weymanns of, I guess, about 1950 vintage. The sound was neither the melodious pre-war type crash gearbox, nor the "wail" of the manual Regent V (I know I’m liable to get lynched for calling it that), though it is some resemblance to both. It was certainly not the classic pre-selector sound either. I never came across it anywhere else, though I guess it must have been a standard transmission option.

Stephen Ford

———

04/05/11 – 06:37

I don’t remember Roe lowbridge bodies of this particular style being very numerous on AEC Regents, of course West Riding had them aplenty on Guy and Leyland. But if the Sheffield ones had been supplied by Roe, we can have a good impression of how they would have looked from the view of UWT 876 in the United Services posting, perhaps without the platform doors, but very handsome!

Chris Barker

———

04/05/11 – 06:42

I share your appreciation of the fine standard of Roe elegance coupled to the inspirational sounds of the Regent 111 9613S vehicles.751 and 792 (a D3RV type) may have been fitted with hardened gear wheels, which resulted from the earlier synchromesh problems. This modification did endow a similar whine to the Guy Arab 1V.Incidentally, at least one of the three Regal 1V/Roe single deckers, OWE 12-14 received this modification to emit Guy type sounds.
There is one more significant fact to report which relates to the 45 Regent 9613S chassis with Weymann Orion bodies, which were altered to nine to low height buses. Originally, 45 Leyland PD2/20 chassis were ordered with Orion bodies to the new "Tin Front" style. They were for the Walkley-Intake tramway conversion, due in 1956. Previously, the Leyland synchromesh gearbox featured constant mesh for 1st gear and Synchromesh on 2nd,3rd and 4th. After the contract had been signed and sealed, the Contracts engineer C.C.Hall discovered that second gear had constant mesh engagement, only 3rd and 4th having synchromesh. This was disastrous, as the Walkley and Intake routes featured some very steep hills and many of the drivers would be ex tram men. An easy change from 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 2nd was essential. Sheffield offered to pay extra to include an easy change 2nd ratio. Unfortunately, Leyland refused to provide this facility.
The outcome was that the PD2/20 order was cancelled and AEC were asked to supply 45 more 9613S chassis, in addition to the 41 already on order.
This situation was resolved by good old competition, where an alternative supplier was available!

Keith Beeden

———

05/05/11 – 06:48

As an AEC man from a boy (!) riding to aforementioned Weymann Regent IIIs and Vs on both the 95 and the 51, it shocked me to read in C C Halls excellent book that Sheffield were in fact Leyland operators who dual sourced from AEC rather than either an AEC operator or a 50/50 operator.
As I’ve said before, old age and maturity have also made me a Leyland man, but definitely second to AEC. This Leyland lack of syncro on second was very evident on the PD3s (recently posted) when setting off from rest at the bottom of Meadowhead – especially with a full load.
Interesting, though, that 43 self-same PD2/20 were delivered (with Roe bodywork) in 1957 and then 40 PD2/30 in 1957/8 divided equally between Roe and Weymann – the latter being of the type you mentioned in the cancelled order.

David Oldfield

———

05/05/11 – 06:50

It is interesting to consider different operators views on the ‘new look’ front from within the same county. Sheffield specified Regent III’s with the Regent V type front to give the vehicles a modern appearance at a time when Britain was emerging out of post-WW2 austerity. In contrast Doncaster, Leeds and Huddersfield bought Regent V’s but specified the Regent III style exposed radiator. It seems the view of these three operators was the very reverse of Sheffield’s. These three Yorkshire operators were sticking to tradition and apparently having nowt to do with modernity!
On the other hand this being Yorkshire – was the Regent III type radiator cheaper? (Provocative comment from a Lancastrian – couldn’t resist!)

Philip Halstead

———

05/05/11 – 12:16

Aye, but we’re a rum lot in Sheffield – being on the edge of outer darkness with Derbyshire. Canny wi’ brass but appreciating the finer things in life!?

David Oldfield

———

06/05/11 – 06:44

Nottingham also went for the old look exposed radiators on its 65 Regent V/Park Royals (209-273) delivered 1955/56.

Stephen Ford

———

06/05/11 – 07:04

In reply to the two David’s comments on the AEC Regent 111/Mark V with bonnet markers, I can confirm that they were fitted at Queens Road works. Some drivers complained of poor visibility to the nearside when approaching stops or close passing. During the early and mid thirties, AEC fitted this type of marker on Regent and Regal vehicles. This knowledge would be known by the engineering staff, to be produced in house.

Keith Beeden

———

06/05/11 – 07:07

Leeds took both AEC and Leyland chassis with exposed radiators for ease of maintenance. It took a change of GM to bring in enclosed radiators on both chassis and only 20 Leylands were delivered with this layout. To the very end Leeds AECs had a polished bonnet an anachronism maybe but a sight to set the juices flowing for this (then) teenager. Absolute poetry in motion!

Chris Hough

———

11/12/11 – 07:01

what about MANSFIELD DISTRICT TRACTION? Nobody hardly ever mentions these buses,also very few coloured photos about.They shared the same depot on Sutton Road Mansfield Notts.

gren

Copyright ‘unknown’ if you know please get in touch

Sheffield Corporation
1959
Leyland PD3/1
Roe H39/30R

This was one of the first 30ft long double deckers for Sheffield and was one of a batch of 30 similar buses. In a typically perverse way these buses, all for the A fleet, were numbered 461-476 and 901-914. Logic suggests they should have been 901-930 but gap filling seemed to be a Sheffield speciality. Following the closure of Northern Coachbuilders and the body building facility at Leyland Motors in the early 1950s, Sheffield dual sourced bodywork for their new double deck deliveries from Weymann and Roe until Alexander and Park Royal came into favour. The Roe body in this 30ft rear entrance form and with the elegant Sheffield livery was a design classic. I wonder if anyone can explain why Roe bodies for Sheffield were painted in this style whilst those from other bodybuilders had the more conventional three blue bands. 462 was new in March 1959 and is seen outside the Roe factory premises prior to delivery. Similar vehicle 904 is preserved.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

30/03/11 – 10:00

Before becoming the 42/53 route with Atlanteans, the 38 was primarily and AEC route. For a short while, in the mid sixties, the 901 – 914 suddenly replaced AECs overnight. [It was years before I realised that there were proportionally more Leylands in the fleet.] There must have been a reason, but I never discovered what it was.
I was, and remain, an AEC man and was most displeased. Old age and experience have placed Leyland as a much loved second – but these vehicles had the mitigating feature of those beautiful Roe bodies. The 38 was East Bank, the 461 – 476 were from another garage and I rarely came upon them except "in town". …..and I don’t know why Roe, and certain Leyland bodies, had their own special livery either.

David Oldfield

30/03/11 – 14:38

What a great photograph Ian and what a lot of memories it evokes from when we both lived in Sheffield and travelled up Greystones Road on the "74" between our respective homes. I guess the 74 was an unusual route for Sheffield in that it didn’t cross the city but meandered around the southern suburbs. Like you in one of your earlier comments I remember the winters in Sheffield with snow on the ground but the buses kept running, always got us to school. How things change!

Stan Zapiec

31/03/11 – 16:00

I agree wholeheartedly with Ian and David that the proportions and original livery of the PD3/Roe produced one of the finest looking buses to grace the Sheffield fleet. On the question of livery style, Keith Beeden has stated that in the case of the original batch of PD2/Roe 386-394, the Roe design did not offer an easy adoption of the STD cream and azure blue with three bands and that it was agreed that the livery should be of the ‘simplified style’ quite similar to the Farington scheme as seen on the all Leyland PD2s of 1949. This resulted from the difficulty at the time of accommodating the standard Sheffield destination display which of course with early Roe deliveries was of a side by side style. Presumably, this livery was considered appropriate for all future Roe deliveries despite the standard display being accommodated in due course with effect from the Regent 3’s of the 168 series. We know of course that subsequently, many Roes were repainted in ‘standard’ livery but to my mind, it was nowhere near as elegant. My personal opinion is that in painting the ‘bars’ black between the destination display in the early 60’s, disfigured the look of Sheffield buses in one fell swoop although I believe the general manager of the day also reinstated the cream roof for which credit is due. I cite the present livery scheme of preserved 904 as an example of ‘disfigurement’ but as I said, it is purely my opinion and others will no doubt like it.
Whilst we are on the subject, does anyone remember that AEC/Regent No. 8, FWJ 808, also wore a version of the Farington livery in the late 40s or early 50s.

John Darwent

01/04/11 – 07:28

Sheffield 904 as preserved carries the later cream with bands livery and looks superb. A slightly earlier Roe bodied Titan PD2 II56 is also preserved and wears the blue window livery. This is a high backed seat bus used on C fleet long distance services.
As well as 904 in the final livery with cream bands Leyland Titan PD2-Roe 1156 3156WE of 1058 is also preserved and carries the livery with blue window surrounds on both decks.

Chris Hough

01/05/11 – 07:48

In reply to John and Ian, I can add further information to the Roe style of livery applied to Sheffield double deck buses.
The query about AEC Regent No.8 actually is the start of the case in question. Leyland Motors Ltd. delivered a large fleet of PD2/1 chassis with the new Farington body design. The former lower waistrail feature was eliminated, as was other external beading. Leyland advised Sheffield T.D. to the effect that it would be difficult to apply the usual cream livery with three blue bands. Possibly a suggestion that extra cost would ensue if the standard livery was still required, led to Sheffield looking to simplify the painting style.
Regent FWJ 808 was chosen to explore the possibilities and was out shopped in a bland style of all over cream with blue window surrounds. This eliminated the blue bands but the overall image was poor. A slight improvement, that included a little more blue, led to the adoption of the new style for all the Farington PD2’s. A similar situation arose with the Roe bodies, where the patented waistrail did not adapt to the three blue bands style and also lack of upper beading. Therefore, it was deemed expedient to apply a similar livery to the Farington style.
I hope that this will clarify matters.

Keith Beeden

23/03/13 – 07:56

I believe the reasoning behind the different paint schemes in use on Sheffield buses was purely financial. Some bodies had beading in different places to others and thus the joint between different colours were easier to apply on some rather than others. The placing of masking would add extra cost which on a big batch of vehicles could amount to quite an amount of money which some authorities would be averse to spending on buses!! The characteristic Roe waistline bulge is one awkward bodybuilders addition in question.

Brian Lamb