Copyright Michael Crofts

Leicester City Transport
1966
Leyland Titan PD3A/1
MCW H41/33R

I became a bus driver in 1965 and was driving for PMT Stoke driving Regents, Guy, Daimler, Reliance and of course Leyland PD/3s. So as time went by I ended up working for Midland Red North. I was promoted to Driving Instructor in 1989 and to my delight was given a Leyland PD3 ex Leicester to do my training with. I would drive great distances with this vehicle for example Crewe to Oswestry to pick up trainee’s of course this was the best part of the day when I was driving. Happy days, Does anyone know if this vehicle was saved from the scrapman?

Photograph and Copy contributed by Michael Crofts

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

———

06/11/12 – 17:11

1966 would make it an early example of a genuine MCW – as opposed to Met Cam or Weymann. Not bad looking but it would be even better in its genuine Leicester guise.

David Oldfield

———

07/11/12 – 06:59

The registration looks to me like GRY50D – and checking it out has confirmed that is indeed the correct registration.
I’m a bit intrigued as to what David defines as a ‘genuine’ MCW product. MCW as a joint venture existed for decades (I presume similarly to ‘BUT’ of AEC & Leyland) – for many years the place of build being established by reference to the maker’s plate, Weymann bodied vehicles showing ‘Metropolitan-Cammell-Weymann’, and Metro-Cammell bodied ones showing ‘Metropolitan-Cammell Carriage and Wagon’. This changed sometime in the mid-1960s, when Metro-Cammell bodied buses started appearing with MCW builders plates, as the Weymanns. I can’t now remember exactly when this happened, but I do recall it as being well before there was any question mark over the future of the Weymann factory. At some point I think Weymann and the bus-building side of Metro-Cammell merged as MCW, but, here again, I can’t remember exactly when this was, but I do recall it as being before the losing of the separate identities, as you might say.
After a protracted strike the ex-Weymann works were closed and production concentrated at the former Metro-Cammell factory in Birmingham. I believe some bodies which were commenced at Addlestone (Weymanns) were completed in Birmingham.
Having lost significant capacity MCW then found itself unable to complete orders within the required timescales, the result being that some were cancelled (I presume by mutual agreement) and the intended customers were required to take their custom elsewhere. I remember one affected batch being Bradford 301-15 (which finished up with Alexander bodies) but I believe there were others. So at what point did ‘genuine’ MCW bodies appear?
In the example above, I notice that the lower deck seating capacity is given as 33 rather than the usual maximum of 32. Was there a rearward-facing seat for five behind the bulkhead?

David Call

———

07/11/12 – 06:59

Michael, nice views but she isn’t mentioned in the 2012 PSV Circle listing of preserved buses. Unless there’s a gap, I suspect the answer to your question has to be ‘no’.

Pete Davies

———

I have corrected the registration.

Peter

———

07/11/12 – 08:48

David. MCW was a joint marketing company. Weymann and Met-Camm had entirely different owners until 1966 when Weymann went under and Met-Camm (Cammell-Laird) bought what was left. MCW plates were put under the stairs of both manufacturers products certainly from the ’50s – leading to the ongoing confusion. MCW as a manufacturer is post 1966 – despite industrial relations problems leading to many Weymann orders post 1963 going to Met-Camm (either before or even during the production run).

David Oldfield

———

08/11/12 – 11:09

These MCW bodies always looked much better than the ones which tapered to the bonnet assembly which remained at 7ft 6ins wide, this gave the buses a severe look. The problem was overcome by adding around 6 inches to the front width of the bus on the offside as seen here.

Chris Hough

———

08/11/12 – 15:00

Chris, wasn’t it 3 inches either side? As far as MCW and its constituents are concerned MCW was formed in 1932 to produce bus bodies from the Elmdon works of Metro-Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company and the Addlestone works of Weymann.
Both companies produced bodies to their own designs which they marketed separately and to joint designs where they saw markets which neither factory alone could supply in quantity, for instance BAT (later BET) which became a major customer.
The Weymann name and the Metro Cammell names were dropped after the 1966 closure of Addlestone, MCW becoming the new name.
Enthusiasts, (myself included), publications and the internet are sometimes guilty of calling pure Metro Cammell designs MCW as it became a short hand. I’ve done it on this site, referring to various Manchester bodies, supplied by Elmdon pre the arrival of the Orion bodies, as MCW when they (such as the post war Standard, the Phoenix and the unique 44xx batch of CRG6Ks) were pure Metro Cammell.
Interestingly few pure Weymann bodies are wrongly referred to as MCW.
For my own part, I’ve put myself on the naughty step for 15 minutes and have promised to be more careful in future!

Phil Blinkhorn

———

08/11/12 – 15:01

The prolonged strike at Weymann was responsible for Halifax ordering Roe bodies for the 1965 PD2s. The chassis were driven from Weymann to Halifax and then despatched to Cross Gates. Leeds ordered 10 Weymann bodied Atlanteans for 1965 Nine duly appeared while the last one 340 CUB 340C was finished by MCW and eventually arrived in 1966. It had dual headlights and wrap around windscreens on both decks neither feature was on the original 9. It also had green window pans for the interior instead of the more usual aluminium finish. It was in many ways a one off and remained unique in the Leeds fleet Later MCW bodied Atlanteans had wrap round windscreens but single headlamps and standard interiors.

Chris Hough

———

09/11/12 – 07:49

Whilst GRY 50D doesn’t seem to have survived to the present day, two of its sisters have.
Identical twin GRY 48D has been restored by the Leicester Transport Heritage Trust.
And Park Royal bodied GRY 60D is likewise saved for posterity at the Transport Museum, Wythall.

Peter Murnaghan

———

23/11/12 – 15:18

I’m Vice Chairman of Taybus Vintage Vehicle Society in Dundee and we had a request from a lady in France a couple of years ago for a clutch for an ex-Leicester PD3 which still carried its original registration. I actually e-mailed the Leicester preservation Group and told them about it. From memory, I think the bus was GRY 55D, so it still survives. We were also able to point her in the right direction for a clutch so I’m hoping the bus is still running.

Mike Assiph

Copyright Victor Brumby

Spiers Tours Birmingham
1939
Daimler COG5 – re engined COA6
BRCW H30/24R – MCCW H30/24R – Burlingham FC37F

Yet another great shot from Victor of another ex Birmingham Daimler CO5G with the following note.

“FOF 251 – Ex Birmingham Corporation no 1251 rebodied and operated by Spiers Tours Birmingham. Daimler.”

Victor is defiantly correct with his rebodied comment but with the aid of my BBF 14 and Peter Goulds excellent website it would appear the body in the shot above on FOF 251 is its third.

1251 – FOF 251 received a MCCW H30/24R body from 939 – COH 939 in 1948/9. A comment in BBF says against the 919-963 batch ‘Many bodies interchangeable 1948-49’. This comment appears time and time again with different dates against batches of COG5s one has to ask the question did Birmingham have the same system as London Transport had with interchanging RT bodies when the vehicle were being overhauled?

After a little more research it gets more interesting and starts to dismiss the interchanging at overhaul theory because 939 was withdrawn in 1949 but what is even more interesting so was 1251, so why interchange the bodies then withdraw them both?

Photograph and Part Copy contributed by Victor Brumby

———

08/12/11 – 06:27

…..and that’s a Burlingham coach body.

David Oldfield

———

08/12/11 – 06:28

The new body is by Burlingham. Yelloway of Rochdale had a pair of identical ones on Leyland PS2/7 chassis with FC37F layout. They were HDK 801/2 of 1951.
This was probably Burlingham’s last attempt at modernising the body design for front engined chassis before the onslaught of the underfloor engine and the introduction of the Seagull.
There is a photo of HDK 802 in the book ‘The Yellow Road’ which covers the history of Yelloway from its rise, heyday to the sad decline in the post-deregulation era. But that’s another story.

Philip Halstead

———

09/12/11 – 10:36

Please see Harper Bros AEC Regal III posting – including comments today (9.12.11) – for the half-cab version of this body. To make life easy here is a quick link.

David Oldfield

———

10/12/11 – 07:23

Yet another fascinating subject! If it was withdrawn as a double decker in 1949 (didn’t Birmingham vehicles usually have longer lives?) It’s fair to assume that this body was fitted in that year or 1950. It’s always a source of wonderment to me, not living in those times, that operators did such things, presumably it would have provided a slow and loud ride, but then there were no motorways or by-passes in those days! One thing occurred to me, I know that the COG5 was a fairly common choice for coaching before WW2 but I don’t remember hearing of any examples of CVG5’s as coaches post 1945. Weren’t all Daimler coaches post war of the CVD6 variety?

Chris Barker

———

10/12/11 – 08:47

As far as I know, you are correct about CVD6 coaches.

David Oldfield

———

10/12/11 – 12:25

Was it the case then that TVD (Daimler) would only supply CV chassis with their own engines when they produced these post war? Gardner only seemed to return later with the various "tin front" CVG6’s, which then seemed to eclipse the Daimler engine & fluid flywheel. Anyone know more?

Joe

———

10/12/11 – 15:05

Salford certainly had a fair sized batch of post-war CVG6s (as opposed to CVDs)with exposed radiator and the quadrant-style pre-selector change.

Stephen Ford

———

10/12/11 – 15:07

With Gardner under pressure to supply several other bus and lorry manufacturers, Daimler sought to relieve this constraint on its output, and increase in house value by offering its own oil engine. The Daimler 8.6 litre engine was developed immediately prior to the outbreak of WW2, prototypes having being constructed in 1936. The destruction of the Radford works in the heavy air raids of 1940 and 1941 put back the production process until 1945. The design emulated the feature used successfully by Dennis (and later by Meadows also) of employing timing gears at the rear of the engine rather than a front mounted timing chain as used by Gardner and others. This resulted in a compact unit, but meant that the engine had to be removed from the chassis to allow access to the timing gears. Had the engine been as outstandingly reliable as the Dennis designs, then this would not have been a problem. Sadly, the CD6 unit soon became noted for its fuel thirst, and a marked variability in quality between individual engines, the best being good, but the worst examples being considered as bad a the Crossley HOE7. London Transport, having had experience of a batch of thirteen(!) CWD6 buses taken in 1945, refused to take any more Daimler engines, and replaced the thirteen it had with AEC 7.7s in 1950. Like the Crossley, the smooth running CD6 engine seemed best suited to coach work rather than the heavier demands of double deck or stop start stage carriage duties, and most CVD6 chassis were bodied as coaches. There were exceptions, such as the large batch of CVD6 double decks operated by Birmingham. By the mid 1950s, with bus and coach travel beginning to suffer from private car competition, the Daimler engine largely vanished as an option, one of the last examples probably being the turbocharged unit fitted experimentally in a Halifax CV ‘decker in 1964, by which time it was a rarity. Interestingly, the prototype Fleetline had a Daimler engine, and one wonders if the firm ever seriously considered this for production. The Freeline single decker also had a Daimler engine option. Gardner engines continued to be offered in CV chassis throughout the brief reign of the CD6, and, of course, beyond, where they became standard in the Fleetline.

Roger Cox

———

11/12/11 – 06:52

Not a lot to say after Roger’s comprehensive and knowledgeable post. The AEC was the standard war-time engine on the CW version and was popular and reliable enough to survive into CV time (as indeed did the Bristol K6A). Most CVD6 deckers were, like the Crossley DD42s, delivered because operators were desperate and they were available. [The Salford CVD6s were diverted from Chester.]
Sheffield were never a Daimler operator until the Fleetline effectively replaced the AEC Regent but their only post war Daimlers were CVD6/NCB. There were no further orders for half cab Daimlers.

David Oldfield

———

11/12/11 – 06:53

According to Peter Gould’s site it was 1252 and not 1251 which received the body from 939. 1252 then survived until 1954.
My (admittedly limited) experience of COG5s suggests that FOF 251 would have been far from noisy. I only had one ride on a Manchester one, but it was every bit as sweet and refined as the CVG5s built more than 15 years later, and in fact with eyes closed the riding experience was identical. Slow it might have been, though, especially as with 37 seats it must presumably have been extended beyond its original length. Prewar COG5-40 coaches had five-speed gearboxes and probably lighter bodywork.

Peter Williamson

———

20/12/11 – 10:24

FOF 251 was fitted with an AEC 7.7 engine some time after it received its Burlingham coach body as this would have been a much smoother unit for coaching duties. This was before it joined Spiers tours so in the photo it is, in effect, a COA6!
It was scrapped in 1964.

Steve Calder

Copyright Bob Gell

Yorkshire Woollen District
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/20
MCW H34/29R

The above shot was sent to me by Bob Gell with the following comment:

There is correspondence under the Yorkshire Woollen District Tiger PS1 posting about this vehicle – I took the attached photo in July 1969 at Dewsbury Bus Station.

I’m intrigued by the total lack of opening windows on each side upstairs, with ventilation only from the two vents in the front windows – presumably part of its ‘spec’ as a demonstrator. I wonder if it was built around the same time as the Edinburgh lightweights, the ‘Monstrous mass of shivering tin’, as they were known in Edinburgh?

The vehicle was actually an ex Leyland Motors demonstrator and I think it was built to Edinburgh specification it does look very similar. I am not sure what year the vehicle entered service with Yorkshire Woollen District but my thanks to John Blackburn who informed me that it was renumbered 54 in 1967 and withdrawn in 1970 going to Norths of Sherburn in Elmet in 1971 and presumably scrapped. If you wish to read the comments on the Yorkshire Woollen District Tiger PS1 posting click here.

Photograph contributed by Bob Gell

06/02/11 – 09:12

This former Leyland demonstrator did indeed have an MCW body to Edinburgh specification hence the strip bell (see Tiger comments) It also had an Edinburgh blind layout. I only ever saw it once whizzing up Whitehall Road Leeds at a great rate of knots with its exhaust booming off the surrounding buildings

Chris Hough

06/02/11 – 09:12

With regards to Y.W.D. 773 [later 54] this was a standard Edinburgh Corporation PD2 that was taken from a batch that were being built for them. An Edinburgh Baille once described them as being monstrous pieces of shivering tin. Anyway I always liked it. The crews liked it too because of the Edinburgh style destination box it could show a lazy blind of the two ends of a route.

Philip Carlton

07/02/11 – 20:11

Edinburgh’s Titans may well have been monstrous masses of shivering tin but most of them gave up to 20 years service. Their grey and red interiors were still being used until the advent of low floor deckers in Edinburgh I well remember my first visit to Edinburgh in 1971 when every bus seemed to be one of the Titans. The other gems such as the Alexander bodied Guys just paled into insignificance alongside the Titans

Chris Hough

07/02/11 – 20:37

I had never noticed its lack of upper deck ventilation windows until now. Looking at views of its Edinburgh contemporaries I note that they all had two upper and two lower ventilators. Was the lack of upper deck ventilators on the demonstrator a one-off or was it a YWD alteration?

Paul Haywood

10/02/11 – 05:48

I worked for YWD at the time UTF 930 or 773 as it was known and loved was in service, this was the BEST vehicle on the fleet. As I said in another reply this vehicle was the most reliable vehicle we ever had!. It used to go out on duty and was forgotten until some one remembered it may need cleaning, a liner check, or greasing/oilchange The vehicle was fitted with Vacuum brakes and Leylands RP (Ratchet Paul) brake adjusters which worked perfectly (If maintained correctly) and only came in when it required a reline. Unlike modern day practice of relining an axle set we only relined one corner at a time, with NO problems!! The driver would fight over it!! And it made the most wonderful noise when accelerating (almost like a Ferrari!!!). I just wish someone had had the money to preserve it but alas it went to the big bus haven in Sherburn in Elmet, Norths Scrap Yard.(unless some one can tell me different!!)

Chris Bligh

10/02/11 – 09:07

Chris Hough’s comment on the Edinburgh "shivering masses of tin" took me back many years to when a temporary shortage of buses in Sheffield resulted in a batch of those splendid vehicles being sent south on loan. Visiting the Steel city with a friend one evening we took a random ride on one for the experience and were most impressed by its incredibly good condition. I don’t know the Sheffield routes at all really, but would I be right in thinking that it was on service 75 or 76 to Low Edges ?? The bus was full to capacity and on one very steep street in particular we were treated to one of the most masterly pieces of driving – starting off in first gear and going to full revs the driver changed beautifully into second without a click or a jerk of any kind – and the conductress was an immaculate efficient Caribbean lady with a cultured "BBC" accent and the politest of manners – a lovely journey to recall.

Chris Youhill

10/02/11 – 10:14

I wasn’t living in Sheffield during the "shortage" but still have family there and visit regularly. If it were a 76 Lowdedges then the steep hill would have been Woodseats Road. Had it been a 75 Bradway, it could also have been Meadowhead.
I was brought up in the Lowedges area of Greenhill which was originally serviced by the 38 (later by 42/53), the 75/75 originally serviced by the 59. The stop at the bottom of Meadowhead was a classic test of hill starting with a full bus with a crippling gradient. The 38 was basically an AEC route with Leyland input. The AECs posed no problems by the PD3s sorted the men from the boys with grinds, grauches and lurches! This stop was notorious and was subsequently moved back to a flat approach to Meadowhead, nearer Graves Park’s Woodseats entrance, to avoid the hill start.

David Oldfield

11/02/11 – 06:59

Thank you David for the information on those forbidding Sheffield hills – whichever was the one that I remember so well it was a most creditable performance by the driver – he must without doubt have been one of those chaps with a genuine interest in the job and a real pride in his work.

Chris Youhill

16/04/11 – 05:00

The reason they lasted so long in Edinburgh was the fact that the bodies were rebuilt every 6 years. The quoted phrase was – “They are ungainly, inelegant, monstrous masses of shivering tin. They are modern to the extent of becoming able to produce a perfect synchronization of rock `n` roll. As far as Edinburgh went the bodies were a disaster,with front and back domes breaking free and the odd staircase detaching itself from the top deck among the other numerous problems such as cracking the nearside chassis rail, which resulted in expensive and time consuming body off repairs. The Edinburgh cobbles did these bodies no favours.

Brian Melrose

02/01/14 – 17:24

Most deckers of PD2s and 3s suffered this complaint of broken chassis rails which when you think about it all the swaying with a full top load of passengers over 10 years or more did these buses no favours l hope this may answer your questions on this matter. I am a bus enthusiast and have been for the last 50 years or so.

JohnE

03/01/14 – 07:55

Sheffield had their own almost identical batch of 20 Weymann/ PD2/30 but with more ventilation. The bodies were a nadir – and most unworthy of the name Weymann. Later deliveries were to a higher standard – more like earlier Weymanns. Going back to Chris Y’s earlier comments; in retrospect, my memories of STD drivers in the PD2/PD3 era are that they were well trained and generally drove very well.

David Oldfield

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

24/09/14 – 08:38

I congratulate all those who knows which bus is made by who, all I was interested in was getting from A to B; never trusted any of the service busses, there was never any guarantees I would finish with the same bus I started with!
From Frost Hill, I did Batley/Birks, Dewsbury/Cleckheaton, Halifax/Leeds, Dewsbury/Bradford, but that was a story of its own, Huddersfield/Leeds, Elland/Leeds including Rastrick, but by gum, I don’t know or remember anything about bus types, models or the likes, I just drove them, so God bless those who remember so much. To me, they were Leyland with a cab, Leyland Atlantean, Leyland air/auto, Guy bronze box and crash box, and that includes double and single deckers; but, does anyone remember the new coach we got at Frost Hill in 1968 that was all electric push button geared, now that was a coach worth taking to the footy matches, but I made sure I was last there and first out, especially when Leeds played at home!

Donald Campbell

25/09/14 – 16:11

What was a Guy Bronze box?
Was it anything to signify the H pattern being different for gear changes?

John Blackburn

26/09/14 – 05:41

The original Guy Arab of 1933 had a four speed sliding mesh (crash) gearbox with "right to left" upward gear selection positions, and this box was used in the wartime Arab utilities. Towards the end of 1945, Arabs were delivered with a new constant mesh gearbox which had conventional gear selector positions. I would think that Donald was unlikely to have experienced the old Guy crash gearbox.

Roger Cox

27/09/14 – 07:09

Roger.I had the pleasure of driving former Burton Corporation Guy Arab 111/Massey no 18 when first preserved and this also had the right to left gearbox. YWD also re-bodied many wartime Arabs so they could still have this gearbox.

Geoff S