Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland L27/26R

On the left of this photo taken in PTE days in December 1977 is the last operational ex Todmorden JOC PD2, as Halifax 356 which had been a Driver Training bus since withdrawal from passenger service. On the right is its replacement – ex Halifax 279, a 1965 Roe bodied Leyland PD2/37. This is in its new guise as Driver Training bus T7. By this date the PTE had introduced a dedicated training bus livery.
T7 was later sold to a driving school in the West Midlands. 356 was put on one side for preservation but was eventually scrapped as a lost cause, a sad loss considering what can be achieved nowadays.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

14/05/18 – 07:18

The heaters on Halifax MCW PD2s were very good for about a year. Being under the seats at floor level they sucked in lots of dust which blocked the warm air flow. It was a long job to clean them out. Just blowing the dust out with an air line covered the saloons in dust. The cleaning job was also unhealthy so nobody would do it. The old round Clayton heaters being fitted well above floor level didn’t gather much dust and remained in working order much longer. At Blackburn we used to place wet sacks over the heater unit to catch the dust when blowing it out with an airline, this was not ideal but kept some heat in the saloon during winter!

Mr Anon

17/05/18 – 07:56

The 1965 Roe bodied Leyland PD2s & the CCP registered Park Royal bodied Regent IIIs are my all time favourite Halifax D/Ds, its a great pity that no examples of either type are in running order in the UK. I did see a former Halifax Roe bodied PD2 still in its Metro training bus guise at Winkleigh a few years ago, but I could not tell which one it was.
Another of the Roe bodied PD2s number 62 was put back in full Halifax green, orange & cream attire, but it did not spend long in preservation & it was exported to either the USA or Canada in the early 1980s. Does it still exist?

Andrew Spriggs

02/07/18 – 07:12

In 1974 my wife worked in the personnel dept. of the then newly formed West Yorkshire Metropolitan Transport Executive. She, they had to send a memo out to Ex Tod crews that taking their buses home at lunchtime was no longer permissible.

Geoff Bragg

05/07/18 – 06:21

Wonderful story, Geoff. Big business versus small business destroying the personal touch, as ever!

Chris Hebbron

11/07/18 – 07:17

The 1965 Roe bodied Leyland PD2s of Halifax were wonderful buses, very solid in the best Roe tradition. It is interesting to relate that a very similar batch of buses were supplied to Ashton Under Lyne in the same year & two years later Lincoln received a batch. Lincoln had received two batches of Roe bodied Atlanteans in 1964/5 & then reverted to PDs in 1967. I would say these Roe bodied PD2s were my favourite double deckers, the longer HBU registered Oldham Corporation Roe bodied PD3s of 1964 were also firm favourites, sadly one was lost when it turned over on a roundabout in Rochdale in 1967.

Andrew Spriggs

12/07/18 – 07:18

The Oldham bus which turned over was 108 HBU.
It turned over in Oldham, at the bottom of West Street, after being hit by a tanker, not in Rochdale.
It was operating the Rochdale to Ashton service 9.

Stephen Howarth

13/07/18 – 07:37

I drove a number of these Roe bodied PD2s whilst at Halifax when they were new, and I agree that they were in a greatly superior class to their Weymann contemporaries, except in one particular. Being a quite long legged specimen, I found that the drivers’ seats on the Roe bodies did not go back as far as those on the Weymann examples, making them less comfortable to drive.

Roger Cox

14/07/18 – 07:01

I know that Mr. Hilditch was, shall we say, a traditionalist in his views and requirements but why did he specify holes in the bonnet sides on these vehicles? It seems like a throwback to the 1940s, did they serve any practical purpose?

Chris Barker

GGH inherited this order from the previous (Leyland besotted) GM, Richard le Fevre, who, despite being on the verge of retirement, chose to saddle his successor with his Leyland legacy. Because of the extended strike at Weymann, where some of these PD2s were heled up for months, Geoffrey Hilditch managed to divert those chassis that were still accessible to Roe for bodying. The apertures in the bonnet were for access to the oil filler cap and dipstick, and this was a Leyland option that appeared on all the Halifax PD2s and PD3s.

Roger Cox

17/07/18 – 06:29

Believe me those holes are invaluable for oil checking. I have a couple of vehicles with solid sides and they are a pain. In service you needed conscientious mechanics to avoid engine seizures.

Roger Burdett

Eastbourne Corporation
1928
Leyland Lion PLSC3
Leyland B32R

HC 8643 is a Leyland Lion PLSC3 some sources omit the P prefix for 1930s Leyland single deckers, but I’ve no idea why, new to the County Borough Of Eastbourne in 1928. It has Leyland’s own B32R body – with door – and we see it arriving at Duxford on 28 September 2003.

This second view shows the fleetname and crest.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

24/11/16 – 09:32

The Lion was a very successful model. The initial letter ‘P’ stood for pneumatic, indicating that it was devised from the outset to accept such tyres rather than being a conversion from solids. The 1926 vintage Lion was designed by J. G. Parry Thomas, who very soon afterwards turned his attention towards the car racing world. It was powered by an overhead valve four cylinder engine of 5.1 litres driving through a four speed crash gearbox, all mounted in a dropped frame chassis, though this was not as low as that on the Rackham designed six cylinder Tiger that appeared in the following year, 1927. According to G. G. Hilditch, who had one at Halifax for a time, the Lion had a top speed of about 25 mph, well above the legal limit of 12 mph that was then in force for buses.

Roger Cox

24/11/16 – 16:44

Thank you, Roger, for the explanation of why some had the P and some did not.

Pete Davies

27/11/16 – 07:36

The PLSC lion was replaced in 1929 by the Lion LT1, and at the same time the Lioness PLC was replaced by the Lioness-Six LTB. The Cub Passenger models (except the REC) carried a P as part of the designation, eg Cub SKPZ2, the first three Gnus were TEP1, although the later design with front end as the TEC1 Steer wagon was the TEC2.
P on post-war Leyland models from the Comet to the Titan meant Passenger.

Stephen Allcroft

27/11/16 – 09:30

I think that we’ve had this discussion about the PD/PS Leyland codes before, Stephen. The generally accepted view is that the ‘P’ stood for ‘post war’ in the passenger models, just as the Daimler ‘V’ in CVG/CVD stood for ‘victory’. Having initiated the ‘P’ classification in 1946, Leyland stuck with it for several years afterwards, by which time the understanding may well have changed to ‘passenger’.

Roger Cox

28/11/16 – 13:34

Roger, it was "generally accepted" for many years that the 27ft Leyland Titan body was the Farington: only it has now been found that was the final 26ft style. Doug Jack for one concludes that Passenger was intended. He had access to the Records. If post war was meant then surely it would have been applied to the freight range as well.

Stephen Allcroft

29/11/16 – 07:47

Stephen, this is a debate that, like the meaning of ‘RT’ and ‘SOS’ continues to run and run. The PD1 was originally designated the TD9 (the TD8 was the projected utility chassis that didn’t materialise), so the subsequent use of ‘P’ for ‘Passenger’ seems illogical, as, indeed does the classification ‘Passenger Double Decker/Passenger Single Decker’. The ‘P’ there is surely redundant, since lorries don’t fall into those categories. Unlike the haulage range, for which a variety of names was adopted, the bulk of the passenger range from Leyland in the early post war years consisted of Titans and Tigers, model names that were carried over from 1939. Given the general public and political mood if the time, I remain convinced that the ‘P’ stood for ‘post war. ‘Passenger Double Decker Type 1 makes no sense when seven versions of the Titan had preceded it. John Banks, for another, agrees with the ‘post war’ understanding, but I am sure that this debate will never be finally settled.

Roger Cox

30/11/16 – 06:57

The menmonics were designed, I’m sure you are aware Roger for the convenience firstly of Leyland production staff and secondly to enable the customers to order the right spare parts. In a way it is immaterial what the letters actually stood for, although we all want to know.
The first Leyland peacetime model was the 12.IB ‘Interim’ Beaver with the same drivetrain as the PD1/PS1 which could on your contention have been the ID1/IS1 as they were also intended as interim models until the "O600 TD9" and its single-deck version became available.
The major difference was the frame, which was dropped for a Passenger application, wheelbases and spring rates then determined the differences between the Tiger and the Titan, so if we disregard names they were always variants of the same passenger model.
If you are right then Leyland designated the Comet bus as Postwar and not the Comet Lorry, although both were launched in 1947, that would be bizarre.

Stephen Allcroft

30/11/16 – 15:49

I am afraid that I remain unconvinced, Stephen. In the cases of the Titan and Tiger, I believe that the change in the initial letter from T to P was intended to mean ‘post war’. The Comet was a haulage model that was adapted to passenger functions, and yes, the ‘P’ did signify ‘passenger in the designation CPO1 etc. However, I think you are reading a degree of consistency in model naming that was probably never there. If your theory is correct, the Comet bus/coach should have been called the PCO1. In the Comet, the letter ‘O’ stood for oil engine, but the same letter ‘O’ was used in export Tiger models such as OPS1 and OPS2, in which case it meant ‘overseas’.

Roger Cox

02/12/16 – 07:06

God Forbid I should accuse any manufacturer of consistency in nomenclature! The OPSU1, 2 and 3 were replaced by the ERT2 3 and 1, while the Leyland designed BUT ETB1 ran concurrent with both. The OPSU3 had been forgotten when the 36 foot Leopard became PSU3, and not L3, the RTC and L1/L2 being replaced by PSU4 in 1967 and PSU5 launched in 1968 which is 23 years after the end of World War two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Royal_Tiger_PSU  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Royal_Tiger_Worldmaster  
AEC is presumed to have chosen 2 for semi-automatic transmission and 3 for synchromesh based on the number of pedals, but when a constant mesh gearbox came from Thornycroft, that became 4 (still using three pedals) and the ZF torque converter option on Swift became 5 (still using two). It is more than probable the P used in Swift and Sabre stood for Panther.
Also as the PSUC1 designation came before the Tiger Cub name and that chassis used modified Comet running units rather than anything from the Cub discontinued 12 years earlier that the C originally stood for Comet.
As a purely passenger model, the Tiger Cub had a P at the front, but as demonstrated above, nobody was consistent, the last Comet buses were sold in the early 1970s; here’s a link to one:
//www.sct61.org.uk/lagos1

Stephen Allcroft

Plymouth City Transport
1938
Leyland Titan TD5c
Leyland L53R

The chassis of ADR 813 was new to Plymouth City Transport in 1938, but it received its present Leyland L53R body in 1953. As all I have read about Leyland’s body manufacturing facilities says they finished in 1953, this must, surely, have been one of their last. The chassis is noted in the PSVC listing for 2012 as being a Leyland Titan TD5c, which was probably very useful on Plymouth’s hills! We see it at Winkleigh on 6 October 1996.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

07/07/16 – 09:15

Leyland ceased body production in December 1954. The last coach body was built for Wilkinson of Sedgefield, the last bus bodies were on a batch of PD2s for Trent.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/07/16 – 09:15

This very bus appears in the (now) very ancient book, "Building Britain’s Buses", in which some school boys are given a guided tour of the Leyland works. Ian Allan published it, but there is no publication date. However it is clear from the photos and text that Leyland’s body building plant was operative at the time of writing this book. The caption to the photo, which shows ADR 813 in the Customer Inspection Department, gives no indication that the bus is a re-body. Midland Red LD8’s are in the background. Because of that caption, it was many years before I understood that this was a re-body rather than an all-new bus. It must have been quite un-nerving to see a PD2 look-alike approaching, only to find pure Leyland TD5 sounds as it pulled away! As even the picture in this view is 20 years old, I do hope that this bus still survives.

Michael Hampton

07/07/16 – 16:13

Thank you, Phil and Michael, for your comments. I can’t speak in respect of recent developments, but this bus was alive and well last time I visited Winkleigh, in 2012.

Pete Davies

07/07/16 – 16:13

What a wonderful combination, but are we sure that its a TD5c as the normal Autovac is usually replaced by a much deeper device on torque converter chassis. I may well be wrong in always having assumed that this was universally the case.

Chris Youhill

07/07/16 – 16:14

A further thought. I wonder if the radiator shell was not replaced as part of the rebodying contract because Leyland didn’t want a TD5 totally in PD2 clothing.

Phil Blinkhorn

08/07/16 – 06:32

Many operators removed the torque convertors from their Leyland Titans c.1945-47, replacing them with standard Leyland gear boxes for the TD series. If Plymouth did this, perhaps that would account for the replacement of the deeper autovac by a standard size? I don’t have any lists for Plymouth, so this is just a guess. But Southdown and Portsmouth along with others took this option – possibly Leyland put on a "special offer" to cover this change in the early post-war period.

Michael Hampton

08/07/16 – 06:33

In contrast to Pete’s comment about the hill climbing usefulness of the TD5c, I was always under the impression the torque-converter fitted Leylands were very poor on hills. Many operators removed them and fitted a conventional crash gearbox and that could be the case here. The ‘c’ suffix was not always removed from fleet listings when this occurred. I remember riding on the Lytham St Annes Leyland Lion which was still torque-converter fitted at a Heart of the Pennines Rally at Halifax several years ago. The driver insisted on an alternative ‘low level’ route to the mountainous climbs this event always featured as he knew it wouldn’t make it!

Philip Halstead

08/07/16 – 06:33

Chris, presumably by the time of the rebodying the torque converter had been replaced by a conventional transmission. The deeper Autovac was in fact a dual unit containing the hydraulic converter fluid as well as fuel header tank and, after conversion, would have been replaced by a conventional Autovac.

Phil Blinkhorn

08/07/16 – 06:34

I’ve seen a few mentions on this site of the SCT61 website. A look on there shows that, while ADR 813 WAS a TD5C, the rebodying included replacing the gearbox with a conventional one, so I suppose ordinary TD would be the correct caption now.

Pete Davies

08/07/16 – 07:46

I believe the convention is for the chassis designation to remain as built with a note regarding modifications, for one thing the chassis plate would almost certainly retain the original designation. An example of this would be Halifax’s Daimlers which were fitted with Leyland engines, which remained as CVG6 with Leyland engines and not CVL6, which would be an enthusiasts’ designation as such a model didn’t (to my knowledge anyway) exist.

David Beilby

08/07/16 – 09:06

Thanks everyone for clarifying the torque converter query, and for telling me something I certainly didn’t know – that the large tank also included a normal Autovac – I believe the rather intriguing maker’s name of the converters was "Smiths-Lysholm."

Chris Youhill

08/07/16 – 17:13

In the early 1930s Leyland was looking to ease the lot of driving buses in what was then considered heavy traffic. Up until 1932 all its chassis featured a sliding mesh gearbox/friction clutch transmission but Daimler had introduced its preselector system and transport departments were looking to retrain tram drivers as bus drivers so something different was required.
A semi automatic torque converter which had been patented by Alf Lysholm under the manufacturing name of Lysholm-Smith was experimented with in 1932. Dr Haworth, Leyland’s Chief Engineer adopted the principle and developed it so that, at the 1934 Commercial Motor Show, the Tiger, Titan, Titanic and Lion chassis were offered with automatic transmission as an option, the first time any production bus chassis had been offered with the option anywhere in the world. The system offered a single lever with direct, converter and reverse drives plus neutral.
The vehicles were badged as "Leyland Gearless Bus". The company made its own converters but acknowledged Alf Lysholm’s base patent in its own patents.
The gearless chassis sold well and an interesting experiment took place in 1934 when London Transport sent the chassis of STL221, a standard AEC Regent, to Leyland to be fitted with the system. After several days in Lancashire it returned to London, was subsequently bodied and ran with the torque converter until August 1937. The comments from Southall have either been lost to or censored from the annals of history!

Phil Blinkhorn

08/07/16 – 17:14

ADR 813 certainly still exists. It was part of the late Colin Shears’ West of England Transport Collection, so was resident at Winkleigh. ADL is still listed on the collection’s fleet list.
The usual open day at Winkleigh in October is taking a rest this year, so it won’t be until October 2017 that we will be able to see this old girl again for real.

Petras409

09/07/16 – 06:36

Phil, your little side-issue concerning LT’s STL221 being fitted with a torque-converter between 1934 and August 1937, as ever, shows LT’s illogicality at times! At about the time the decision was being taken to remove STL221’s converter, LT was taking delivery of 100 Leyland TD4’s with Leyland copycat STL bodies, the last 10 of which were fitted with torque-converters! Like STL221, they were soon discarded in favour of crash gearboxes, in 1939, to match the other 90 of the class. To add to this illogicality, if these STD’s were STL clones, why were they not all fitted with pre-selective gearboxes?

Chris Hebbron

09/07/16 – 10:37

All very interesting and valid points indeed Chris H.
Turning now to the immediate postwar period, where supply problems were definitely a feature, I’ve no doubt that the sudden arrival of hired in Tilling Group Bristols and the glorious batch of all Leyland PD1s caused much discontent amongst the drivers involved – after all I doubt if many of them were admiring enthusiasts like me !! I absolutely worshipped the STDs for their unexpected individuality in London. A large number where allocated to Victoria Gillingham Street (GM) and they appeared frequently on the long and arduous 137 route from Highgate to Crystal Palace via Streatham. As a youngster, holidaying in the latter, I was a frequent visitor to the free swings and roundabouts in Norwood Park, which involved stopping the PD1 on the steep of Central Hill – even at that tender age I had a conscience about stopping the driver at such an awkward spot. Never in my wildest dreams then did I imagine that I would one day pass my PSV test on an identical glorious PD1 in Leeds. Oh, why can’t we magically turn the clock back ??

Chris Youhill

09/07/16 – 16:32

Whilst strictly not within the scope of this thread, the mention of Lysholm Smith reminded me that the first Derby Lightweight DMUs of 1954 featured this transmission. To quote from Derby Lightweight DMUs by Evan Green-Hughes, the following may be of interest.
"The West Riding sets were made up of two cars, both of which were powered in view of the heavily graded nature of the territory in which they were to work. The well-established Leyland L600 125hp horizontally mounted six cylinder engine, as used in many buses and trucks, was specified and two were fitted to each coach. Riddles had chosen to fit the Leyland Lysholm Smith torque converter transmission which had been used in an earlier LMS three-car experimental unit. This had a double-acting clutch that either connected the engine output to the torque converter pump or directly to the output shaft and was bolted directly to the engine. The clutch was controlled by the driver who could select one of four positions,off, neutral, converter drive and direct drive.Converter drive was used for pulling away or hill climbing, whilst direct drive would be used when going downhill or when travelling along easy graded sections at speed. However, by the time the units were completed, the Lysholm Smith transmission system was already obsolete and the buses for which it was originally designed were being equipped with pre-selector transmission"

John Darwent

09/07/16 – 17:15

Chris, to answer your question re the lack of preselector gearboxes on the STD class, the STL class through its many variations generally had crash gearboxes though a number had Daimler preselector boxes. AEC and Daimler had formed ADC for a short period in the mid/late 1920s and presumably relations were such that AEC could source from Daimler. Leyland was very much its own man and presumably either would not or could not deal with Daimler and a crash box would not have been seen as disadvantageous at the time.

Phil Blinkhorn