Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Olympic HR44 
Weymann B44F

Sheffield bought three early Leyland Olympics in 1951 and followed up two years later by the acquisition of this former Demonstrator. It put in a good service life lasting until 1968 when it was sold to Dodd, (Dealer) in Dromera, Ireland. I wonder if it found a buyer or whether it was scrapped? The bus was originally fleet number 211 being renumbered as shown in the 1967 scheme. This photo was taken on 10th June 1967 at the Hillsborough terminus of the 31 Lower Walkley service which was characterised by narrow streets and steep hills.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

25/04/12 – 05:16

I think I remember these in Sheffield: were they the "integral" versions? Some had an Olympic torch badge on the front, I think. They always seemed high-floored (the opposite to what you could expect) and a bit awkward, but presumably suited the route.

Joe

25/04/12 – 05:17

From 1952 until 1956 I lived on the 31 and travelled on these and the back loader Royal Tigers. This is now a terminus for Stagecoach 52 and is also close to where the Malin Bridge branch leaves the main Supertram line to Middlewood.

David Oldfield

25/04/12 – 08:36

Can anyone tell me what size engine were in these Olympics please. I believe the King Alfred Olympic that is currently being restored and nearing completion was rescued from Ireland. I always thought it was a great shame that one of the Halifax Corporation Worldmasters were not saved for preservation especially fleet No1 – KCP 1 what a great registration number! Two of these vehicles ended up in Ireland with Keneallys coaches.

Richard McAllister

25/04/12 – 09:20

The Olympic was the integral predecessor of the Royal Tiger and shared all the same mechanical units – including the 9.8 litre 0.600. They were high floored and probably awkward – but what else would you expect of an early underfloor vehicle? [The open backed Royal Tigers 222/223 were even more awkward.] As for suiting the route, they only suited it for the operator (dimensions and power for a hilly route) certainly not passenger friendly – especially the aged and infirm. Passenger comfort only became a priority from about ten years later when technology and new designs allowed it.

David Oldfield

25/04/12 – 15:27

Yes- they looked like the ugly sisters in the sixties- especially as you say, the Tiger rear loaders. My point is that I assume in an integral bus you are not fixing a body to a one-size-fits-all chassis and could therefore make some allowance for the passengers… or what’s the point (I think that was the problem- there wasn’t one…?… or was weight reduced?) What were the advantages? You were presumably stuck with the basics of the original body for good?

Joe

25/04/12 – 16:33

Modern integral buses are monocoque, just like cars (which also used to have separate bodies/chassis)and, I think, are almost universal nowadays. You’re right, though, Joe, you picks your body length, they bold on all the mechanicals and you’re stuck with it. London Transport’s tram/trolleybus department, separate from its bus department, created integral trolleybuses around 1937, using several companies to build them, including Brush and Leyland. Strange how long it took for this system to begin to become popular, around the time when Olympics were coming off the lines and said trolleybuses were starting to go to the scrapyard!

Chris Hebbron

25/04/12 – 16:37

Leeds single deck requirements were few in post war years indeed they only bought 10 saloons in the fifties but managed to have three chassis types! These were 5 AEC Reliances 3 Leyland Tiger Cub and a pair of Guy Arab LUFs. All had the same body layout which was B34C + 14 crush load standees in a central vestibule opposite the doors. Like Sheffield’s Royal Tigers the steps were vertiginous and deep most off putting for intending passengers. Getting a push chair aboard was a major logistical exercise! The overall body shape was common to all ten but the final pair of Reliances had a more upright profile. They were mainly confined to two routes one of which passed under a low bridge and another which crossed the canal on abridge with weight restrictions.

Chris Hough

25/04/12 – 17:39

Joe, the intention with all early integrals was to save weight – it was impossible to be passenger friendly until the dawn of the rear-engined bus. Unfortunately, all of the major manufacturers found that the weight saving margin was no where near enough and that, quite the opposite, there were major weaknesses – often around suspension mountings. This was certainly true of the Bristol LS which transformed after five years into the almost identical MW chassis. Similar problems beset the AEC Monocoach which died out in favour of the Reliance. The other problem was that British operators preferred, and still do, to choose their own bodywork – cf the Leyland National of later years. Ironically the change from LS to MW and Monocaoch to Reliance were not so evident as the separate body chosen for the separate chassis tended to be identical, in all other respects, with the earlier integral body. [Come to think of it, many moved over to the Royal Tiger with identical Weymann coachwork!]

David Oldfield

25/04/12 – 17:39

Just wait until someone discovers the advantages of "demountable" bus bodies: bodies can be changed or swapped on a "chassis", giving greater flexibility, more opportunities for upgrading, and cutting service times. Why didn’t anyone think of that before?

Joe

26/04/12 – 06:14

1904 is beyond most people’s memories, Joe.

David Oldfield

26/04/12 – 11:39

There were demountable bodies in the early twenties, Joe, although they were usually in the form of exchangeable lorry/charabanc bodies. It never carried over, though into exchangeable bus bodies, to my knowledge, at least, not in a big way.

Chris Hebbron

26/04/12 – 11:40

Nice one, Joe. However, the idea of demountable bodies does actually go back a long way. Maidstone and District started in 1911 with three Gilford chassis; these had bus bodies during the day which were changed for lorry bodies at night. I believe the lorries were used to carry vegetables to and from Covent Garden. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples elsewhere, too.
No doubt David is right when he talks about weight saving being a factor in the development of integrals, but I rather suspect that other motives in early post-war attempts were to use parts from pre-war chassis, and to generate extra work for the maker. Beadle, of course, were prominent in this field; others included Harrington and Saunders-Roe.

Roy Burke

27/04/12 – 07:22

I remember this bus from my student days and wondered why there was an odd one with a Surrey registration.
It would have demonstrated for Weymann, who were based at Addlestone. Evidently it was never fitted with standard Sheffield blinds. I never rode on the 31 although I had "digs" near Crookes on the 52 route.
The open-platform Royal Tigers used on the same route looked odd and a bit reminiscent of Edinburgh; I think the local Inspectorate had something to say about the arrangement.

Geoff Kerr

27/04/12 – 08:39

Yes, Geoff, there were responsible for the fitting of the odd looking emergency door at the rear – NEXT to an open rear platform!
Roy, what said is true but Weymann and Park Royal never did a Beadle with second-hand parts.
I type this about my home town of Sheffield from two miles up the hill from Addlestone. Funny old world.

David Oldfield

27/04/12 – 09:34

And I, a Surrey-ite, who long ago moved away, still visit my brother in Ottershaw, just across the M25 from you, David. Incidentally, whatever happened to Weymann’s works? I assume it no longer exists.

Chris Hebbron

27/04/12 – 10:35

Well, for the initiated Chris, I’m typing IN Ottershaw itself! [Funny AND small world.] Until I retired a year or two back, I passed it on the way to school – St George’s College – but ever since the turn of the millennium it has been a deserted, speculative, office block awaiting tenants. All glass and security guards with nothing to do! You must know that Addlestone Garage is a gated development (yes, in Addlestone) and the Co-op long ago made way for Tescos.

David Oldfield

28/04/12 – 08:48

A remarkable coincidence, indeed, David!
Pardon my irony when I say that the changes you mention pass, nowadays, as progress. The supreme one, though, is the gated development!
My abiding memory of Ottershaw is the Aldershot & District Dennis Lances passing by to and from Woking and the occasional ride on them as part of my journey from Portsmouth by rail.
Lovely buses. The whole area was a hotchpotch between London Transport and A&D and you could never be sure what company’s bus would pop out from some side turning.
Also, Ottershaw was the last/first telephone exchange in the London Area and I would use a callbox there to make calls to my London relatives at local call rates. Some would say miserly, I call it ‘being careful’! Happy days.

Chris Hebbron

28/04/12 – 14:47

You could have been a Yorkshireman!!!

David Oldfield

20/07/12 – 15:48

One of the benefits of the open platforms was that passengers could "hop off" whilst the vehicle was approaching the stop, preventing the driver having to do steep hill starts. The conductor would be ready with his finger on the bell to let the driver know he did not have to stop. No H&S in those days, conductors encouraged it. I got very good at jumping off buses coming up Haymarket to turn right up high street on my way home from school. I believe that is why London kept the Routemasters so long, people could hop on & off where they liked, speeding journey times.

Andy Fisher

21/07/12 – 07:38

Is that Haymarket, Sheffield, Andy?

David Oldfield

21/07/12 – 12:10

While the subject of bell-ringing comes up (not campanology, silly!) I recall, post-war, the LT conductors giving three rings to signify to the driver that the bus was full up and he could ignore queues at future stops until some passengers got off. Standing was unlimited post-war, I seem to recall, or the limit was ignored, then became eight, and eventually five. Admittedly, buses engines/brakes are more powerful (the latter more vicious, too!) but it was amazing how much more fluid passenger movement was then. They moved around the vehicle, up and down stairs and got on/off the platform effortlessly ‘whilst the bus was in motion’, moved around the vehicle. Despite my advanced years, I’m still fit, yet wouldn’t do those things now, apart from moving to the exit before the bus stops and that with great care and a tight grip on stanchions!
I used to love travelling on worn-out LT/ST’s, overloaded beyond belief. Juddering clutches, slow acceleration in waves, the vehicle leaning alarmingly round any corner. Despite all that so-called gentleness, an aunt of mine failed to stop me, as a baby, from falling out of her arms when she was climbing the open staircase of an LT and being caught by a surprised man, unharmed, so they say! Some of you might regret this, boring you with such tales!

Chris Hebbron

23/09/17 – 07:02

Regarding the bells, I was a conductor in Sheffield, with a good driver you became a good team and could trust each other, so not just quick bells for passengers getting off but when the last passenger had one foot on the platform and one hand on the pole it was ding ding, if in doubt assist them on with their spare arm. Yes for us three bells was full up and a shower of bells was emergency stop. We didn’t like the passengers using the bell because it sometimes confused things, we preferred the request of next stop please verbally.

Pete

Copyright Peter Williamson

J Fishwick & Sons
1957
Leyland-MCW Olympian
Weymann DP40F

This should go nicely with the Fishwick Olympic already posted.  The Olympian was to the Tiger Cub what the Olympic was to to the Royal Tiger – in other words it was a lightweight integral with Tiger Cub running units and an MCW Hermes body built by Weymann.
According to Bus Lists on the Web, only 60 of these were built: most were supplied to Western Welsh, while Fishwicks had six and a few went abroad.
This one was finished to dual-purpose standard, and by the time it was photographed at Newtown on a PSV Circle tour of Shropshire and mid-Wales in June 1968, it had been refurbished (by Burlingham or their successor Duple Northern) to include a flashy mock grille proudly incorporating the Olympian badge.  It was painted in Fishwicks coach livery of the day, which I think was something like lilac and grey – I’m sure someone will be able to confirm or correct that.
Sister vehicle 521 CTF is preserved – see details in the discussion under the Olympic posting at this link.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Peter Williamson

22/04/12 – 07:28

The coach colours were described as Guildford Blue and Arundel Grey. It was in this livery from 1964 to 1969, when it reverted to standard bus colours.

Dave Williamson

Copyright Ian Wild

West Midlands PTE
1950
Leyland Tiger PS2/1
Weymann B34F

PMT went through various vehicle shortages in 1969/70 mainly as a result of the unreliability of the Roadliner fleet which was sucking maintenance resources from the rest of the fleet. East Midland and Trent loaned Tiger Cubs but a real surprise was the hiring of up to nine of these quite antiquated looking buses from West Midlands PTE. They were absolutely immaculate inside and out and with plenty of power from the 0.600 engines in such a small vehicle. This particular bus had three periods on hire of which this was the third, earlier it had the Birmingham coat of arms rather than the WMPTE logo on the side. They were unsuitable for OMO so ended up in many cases on heavily loaded urban services normally operated by 72 seat Atlanteans or Fleetlines – not ideal. The bus is pictured outside Stoke Depot on 19th April 1970.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

———

16/02/12 – 07:07

Fortunately a number of these splendid and reliable vehicles have been preserved. This example looking resplendent at the Wythall Museum in 2010.

Nigel Edwards

———

16/02/12 – 07:08

Strange how these vehicles had chromium plated radiators as late as 1950. I believe Manchester Corporation specified them also.

Chris Barker

———

18/02/12 – 07:14

Manchester Corporation had chromium plated radiators on their PD2 Titans right up to the final batch delivered in the mid-sixties. These were invariably painted red at the earliest opportunity completely ruining the appearance of the elegant Leyland exposed radiator and giving a very tatty appearance to the vehicles.
I believe the pressed metal chromium plated radiator cost less than the cast aluminium unit which by this time was the norm. Previous posts on this site have referred to the then GM, Albert Neal having a frugal approach to vehicle purchasing.

Philip Halstead

———

27/09/12 – 07:19

I have to disagree about Manchester painting the chromium plated radiators red "at the earliest opportunity"
Certainly there were many examples of over use of the spray gun but the majority of the PD2s were not so abused. Parrs Wood depot in particular, which had a majority complement of PD2s, was known for "spit and polish" and it wasn’t until very late in the 1960s that the standard dropped, with the exception of a couple of the Northern Counties bodied PD2s of the 1953 batch which received their 1958 spray booth scheme second repaint in the mid 1960s when loaned out to another depot (Sharston if I remember) and were left looking less than happy compared to their stable mates.

Phil Blinkhorn

———

28/09/12 – 08:01

I always used to think that chromium plated radiators were painted into fleet livery at some later date but surely this cannot be. It would be virtually impossible to apply paint on top of chromium plating and it would very quickly come off anyway. The necessary treatment, I imagine, would be to immerse the thing into a sort of acid bath to remove the plating prior to applying paint. Does anyone know if this was the case, or if the radiators were simply replaced as complete units?

Chris Barker

———

28/09/12 – 14:36

The radiators weren’t replaced. Albert Neal, under whose regime the so called overall red scheme came in and during which period most of the Leyland radiators were painted, was far too frugal and beset with the problem of balancing the books for that.
The Leylands that were so treated were generally allocated to primarily Daimler garages, or received their treatment whilst on loan to them. From 1953 all Daimlers had tin or fibreglass fronts and were all red and were just put through the bus wash. The Leylands were supposed to have had their chrome work wiped off after passing through the wash, so presumably the Daimler garages wanted to skip this step.
The method used to spray MCTD vehicles from 1957 onwards was a hot spray method which baked the paint on as it was applied. This may have helped the paint to stick to chrome, I don’t know, but I do know that, in general, the paint was extremely shiny when new and even the all red scheme looked good – for a couple of weeks – but the paint rapidly dulled and that on the radiators certainly chipped.
Over the last few days I’ve looked at dozens of pictures of MCTD PD1s and PD2s, in books and on the Net as well as using my memory. The vast majority of photos show chrome radiators unpainted, even after the second all red repaint in the mid 1960s.
Exceptions are 3000-3049, 3050-3099, 3100-3199 where many of the batches received painted radiator cowls as they had aluminium cowls which pitted and were dull.
A couple of the 3300-3329 batch had their chrome overpainted red, as previously mentioned. 3318 at one time had a black cowl which was horrible. One or two of the 3471-3520 Burlingham batch were overpainted later in life – and were then overpainted orange in SELNEC days, so the paint must have stuck OK.
The greatest number of examples of chrome overpainting on PD2s happened to vehicles in the batches numbered from 3521- 720, but even these were in the minority.

Phil Blinkhorn