Old Bus Photos

Samuel Ledgard – Bristol K6A – GHN 840

Samuel Ledgard Bristol K6A
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fleet number BAL 8 new to them in 1945 acquired by Samuel Ledgard in 1959 and served a further six years before being withdrawn from service in 1965.Bristo K radiator  
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.

3-in_scrap

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


GHN 840_lr 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


 

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

 


 

Samuel Ledgard – AEC Regent III RT – NXP 764

Samuel Ledgard AEC Regent III RT
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Samuel Ledgard
1953
AEC Regent III RT
Park Royal H30/26R

Here is a nice shot of a couple of ex London Transport Regent RTs in service with Samuel Ledgard the fleet number of the one in the foreground was RT 4410 unfortunately I can not make out what the registration of the one behind. I think the Samuel Ledgard livery makes the RT look better than the London Transport more or less overall single solid colour especially on black and white shots. The Samuel Ledgard fleet was taken over by West Yorkshire Road Car in October 1967 but this vehicle was not operated by them, did it go to scrap or was it sold on, it would be interesting to know what happened to the Ledgard RTs, if you know please leave a comment.

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

———

NXP 764 carries the body of RT 307 registration HLX 124 built 1947.
This was done as part of a 4 year service overhaul whilst in London.

Further details for NXP 764:
New: 1st December 1953
Purchased by Ledgard: 25th May 1963
Chassis No: 7491
Body No: L 156
In stock with Ledgard until the end it was sold to W. North at Sherburn in Elmet April 1968 (dealer).
No further info after that.

Terry Malloy

———

NXP 764 was disposed of by North’s to Johnson, Goldthorpe, a dealer, in June 1969 sadly for scrap.
The disposal of the Ledgard RTs was very complicated indeed but many saw further service both in this country and in Belgium and Holland.
NXP 764 was the first RT to enter service from Armley Depot, and NXP 864 similarly at Otley – where, on a Saturday late turn, I persuaded the garage man to let us take it on its maiden voyage – 8.10pm Otley to Leeds and back twice.  Of course it was all newly ready for service but otherwise would not have gone out probably until Monday morning.
I think its not generally known that all the Ledgard RT bodies were old ones from around 1947, originally fitted with roof route number boxes – the very neat "operation scars" where these were removed by SL can clearly be seen on photos.  During overhauls they were fitted, of course, to chassis of every age ranging from 1947 (HLW 181 etc) to 1954 (eg OLD 705).
The London Transport policy was to withdraw the oldest bodies first- understandable.  Having said this, they were all without exception if first class order – a good looking and well constructed design indeed.
Some good news to this very day – LYR 915 is still beautifully preserved and rallied, although in its original green LT Country Area livery.

Chris Youhill


 

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

 


 

Samuel Ledgard – AEC Regent III RT – MXX 148

Samuel Ledgard AEC Regent III RT type

Samuel Ledgard
1949
AEC Regent III RT
Weymann H30/26R

In 1937-8 London Transport got together with AEC to jointly design and produce a new double deck chassis with AECs large 9.6 litre oil engine with air operated gearbox and brakes. From what I can gleam the prototype entered service in 1938 as ST1140 (EYK 396) but it had a body taken from a scrapped Leland Titan TD 111 or 118 seems to be a bit of a dispute on that. But in July 1939 it was given a brand new body and was then renumbered RT1. London Transport then ordered 150 more, RT2-151 which were delivered by the time production ceased in 1940 because of the war those 150 were bodied by London Transport themselves.
I have another dispute here and that is by the end of production in 1954 according to one source nearly 7000 RTs had been delivered to London Transport but another source says that the highest fleet number was 4825 that’s a difference of 2000 or so. Maybe the 7000 is for total build but I do not think there was that many delivered new to other operators do you know leave a comment.


There were 4825 RT’s but the RT Family included RTL’s and RTW’s so the figure of nearly 7000 is probably correct.

Anonymous


The RTL was a Leyland Titan PD2/1 chassis with Leyland O.600 engine but with AEC preselect gearbox and bodied by Park Royal 1149, Metro-Cammell 450 and Weymann 31 all to a London Transport design.

The RTW was as the RTL except they were PD2/3 and all bodied with 8 foot wide bodies instead of the normal 7’ 6” and all 500 were bodied by Leyland.

There was also the SRT which were 1939 AEC Regent STLs rebodied with brand new RT bodies there was 160 built in total.

So that makes 4825 RTs 1630 RTLs 500 RTWs which makes 6955 so there is the approx 7000 and if you add in the 160 SRTs this will give a total of 7115.

Spencer


New 7/12/1952
A.E.C. Regent III RT 0961  Chassis No: 6758
Engine Type: AEC 6cyl. A204  9.6ltr
Weymann H30/26R
Body No: W269
Entered Ledgards service 5th November 1963
Withdrawn: 14/10/67
Sold To Dunn (A1 Service) 02/68
Withdrawn: 11/71

Terry Malloy


What a nostalgic shot-a Sammie RT alongside some of West Yorkshire’s finery, and set in Chester Street bus station. There always seemed to be an RT parked up either there or in Otley bus station, as they were so numerous in the fleet. They had a lovely reassuring tickover, plus a delightfully tuneful transmission (fluid flywheel/pre-selector gearbox) and seemed to have an aura of indestructibility about them. Shame West Yorkshire didn’t keep a few running after takeover. It would have been interesting to see some in red and cream, almost harking back to their London days….

Brendan Smith


Brendan it is not generally known that, in the very hurried arrangements for the WYRCC takeover of Samuel Ledgard, West Yorkshire fleet numbers were allocated for most if not all of the Samuel Ledgard vehicles.  The entire RT class, at least one of which (MLL 920) received a new C of F in the final week, were to be DA 1 – 34.  I was lucky enough to be the first driver of the very first Otley Depot RT – NXP 864, RT 4611.  It was overhauled and ready for use in the garage one Saturday night and I just couldn’t contain my excitement so pestered the late garage man to let us use it for the last two trips of our late turn. 8.10pm Otley – Leeds, 8.55pm Leeds – Otley, 9.50pm Otley – Leeds, 10.35pm Leeds – Otley.
As expected it swallowed up the long ascent of the A660 to Bramhope in very fine style and comfort.

Chris Youhill


12/01/17 – 11:21

I think one or two comments on Spencer’s post (above) are appropriate.
The chassis of the RTLs and RTWs differed from PD2/1s and PD2/3s in having a longer wheelbase (16’4" instead of 16’3") and air brakes (instead of vacuum) – there may have been other differences. I don’t think Leyland ever called the RTL/RTW chassis PD2/1 or PD2/3.
There were 32 RTLs supplied new with Weymann bodies (RTL1307, 1601-31), making the RTL total 1,631 and the RT/RTL/RTW total 6,956.
The SRTs came about by virtue of there being more new bodies available than chassis, so 160 ‘RT’ bodies were placed on existing STL chassis to make the SRT class. When the supply of chassis caught up the SRT bodies were transferred to new RT chassis, but those are included in the RT total of 4,825 – so to get the total of ‘RT’ family buses up to 7,115/6 you’re counting the SRT bodies twice.

David Call


13/01/17 – 06:41

The picture shows MXX 148 on Ledgard’s longest stage carriage route, one taken over with B & B Tours in the mid 1930s. The destination shown is "Bradford via Otley and Manningham Lane" and the display for the return journey is just visible "Harrogate via Manningham Lane and Otley." I was always surprised that Menston Village was not mentioned, this being the chief "attraction" of the service compared with the WYRCC direct 53.

Chris Youhill


13/01/17 – 06:42

David Call is right about the why of the SRT but although the frame modifications were extensive, amounting to a complete re-profiling of the side members of the chassis,what was not upgraded was the engine (7.7) gearbox (spring-operated) and brakes (vacuum).

Stephen Allcroft


13/01/17 – 06:42

I agree with David in his view that the RTL and RTW classes were not classified as members of the PD2 breed. Ken Glazier, whose knowledge on London Transport matters I have always found to be impeccable, gives the RTL as type 7RT and the RTW as type 6RT. The SRT was purely a stop gap to present a modern looking fleet in the early ‘fifties when chassis deliveries lagged behind bodywork supplies. In typical LT fashion, the STL type chassis under the RT type body was ‘modernised’ at ridiculous expense, and the whole project foundered when it became apparent that the brakes were decidedly incapable of stopping the bus effectively. By that time, chassis supplies were outpacing body deliveries, which is why LT turned to Cravens and Saro, so the whole SRT programme was a fiasco in every way. As for the 7000 total figure for RT/RTL/RTW classes, OK, but there were never that many in service at the same time.

Roger Cox


13/01/17 – 10:09

……and they had to move the fuel tank to the other side of the vehicles too, Stephen! The other tragedy was that the STL’s selected for conversion to SRT’s were the 1939 15STL16’s, the most modern STL’s in the fleet and pretty-well up to RT standards in many respects, having automatic chassis lubrication, amongst others. And why not, for London Transport had hoped that this batch of STL’s would be RT’s which, in the end, turned out to be wishful thinking.

Chris Hebbron


 

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

 


 

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

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