Liverpool City Transport
1956
Leyland Titan PD2/20
Crossley H33/29R

New in November 1956, L255 was one of a batch of 65 Leyland Titan PD2/20 chassis that had been ordered back in 1955, partly to enable the 19 & 44 tram routes to be converted to bus operation. It was originally painted in the Dark green livery with two cream bands.
When new L255 was allocated to Carnegie Road garage, but its stay there was only short lived as it was transferred to Walton in March 1957. There it was used on routes such as 19/44/92/93 serving the new expanding housing estates of Kirkby, Southdene and Tower Hill as well as the Corporations own Kirkby Industrial Estate. where it lives today!
When Walton closed for rebuilding in October 1962, L255, along with the majority of Waltons allocation moved to the new Gillmoss garage . Following overhauls in 1966 and 1971 it returned to Gillmoss.
It then moved to Litherland garage in August 1973 and saw use on services 28,51,52,53,55,55A,56,57,57A,58,59 to Ford, Netherton and Sefton. L255’s stay at Litherland was a short one as it was transferred for the last time in April 1975 to Green Lane. There it was used mainly on peak hour extras and industrial workings until it was finally withdrawn from service in March 1976.
Purchased for preservation in May 1976 and joined the other vehicles in the growing Mersey and Calder Preservation group in 1977. As L255 was in basically good condition it was soon rubbed down and painted back into the early 1960’s livery of green with cream staircase panel and window surrounds.
In 1996 after more than 20 years in active preservation and with more than 25 years since a major overhaul, it was time for some major body restoration. After stripping every external panel off the bus, it was soon found that there was a fair amount of work involved.
Following a flurry of activity in early 2007, L255 was eventually completed finally passing the MOT 2 days before the Mersey Transport Trust’s annual running day in September 2007, proving a popular attraction during the day. During 2009 a rechromed drivers window surround was fitted and in 2010 side adverts were added much improving its appearance. It is seen at the 2014 Kirkby running day.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones

28/10/14 – 07:03

I always thought that the Liverpool bonnet assembly detracted from the overall look of these buses. The flush windscreen and unusual livery application didn’t really help either

Chris Hough

29/10/14 – 07:12

Totally agree Chris. Much better looking examples of what was a PRV design were operated in the North West by Oldham and Stockport.

Phil Blinkhorn

29/10/14 – 15:59

When compared to other tin fronts of the period, the front panel and the area around the windscreen, give it a sort of DIY in-house accident repair appearance, rather than one that was built that way in the first place.

Ronnie Hoye

30/10/14 – 07:16

There is a lot of confusion about Crossley bodies of this period. Despite employing the PRV rear emergency window, I don’t believe this was the PRV design (as supplied later to Stockport and Oldham), and neither does the Crossley book (Eyre Heaps & Townsin). Mind you, that book isn’t foolproof; identical bodies supplied to Darwen are coded as the PRV design, while those supplied to Sunderland are coded as a Liverpool design.
The flat front to the upper deck is something specifically requested by Liverpool and used on Crossley bodies elsewhere. The standard Midland Red assembly would not have allowed this, and in fact later Liverpool bodies with the Midland Red assembly had bow-fronted bodies by Duple and Alexander.

Peter Williamson

31/10/14 – 06:27

As the owner of the bus, I can confirm that the Crossley body is of Park Royal design, I have restored both L255 & Park Royal bodied Barrow 170 CEO 957, the only difference being the window frames. Liverpool using glass mounted from the inside with a window ledge inside as against the Standard Park Royal body on 170 with windows mounted from the outside with a ledge outside. The last true Crossley designed body supplied to Liverpool was L224, L225 to L244 also carried Crossley framework but the coachwork was completed by LCPT at Edge lane works.
I hope this clarifies it more.

Rob Wilson

03/11/14 – 06:34

Thanks for your clarification, Rob. It probably means I’ve been spouting rubbish on various forums for some time, thanks to believing what experts write in books. One thing that fooled me (not clear in this view but there are plenty of other photos around) was the small rectangular windows in the front bulkhead, which Crossley had used on their own-framed bodies. On other Park Royal-framed Crossley bodies the bulkhead is the standard Park Royal type with a deeply arched lower rail to the windows. Perhaps this is again due to the different glazing system used for Liverpool (and Darwen, Sunderland and Aberdeen).

Peter Williamson

03/11/14 – 10:19

A quick scan on SCT61 pages suggests that Liverpool specified that size of front bulkhead window on all their contemporary Leyland deckers be they Saunders-Roe, Duple, Alexander or Crossley bodied.
On Stockport’s Crossley bodied Leyland deckers with PRV frames the bulkhead window bottom rail does follow the line of the engine cover but it, and those on the next batch of Longwell Green bodies, is still a very narrow window (made to look even more so by the top opening vent) compared with that fitted to their later East Lancs bodied St Helens front PD2s.

Orla Nutting

03/11/14 – 16:28

Liverpool made a habit of taking framed chassis from the likes of Weymann and Crossley but then changing the profiles. There were some very odd Weymann/Liverpool bodies on Regent IIs with an upright profile which ruined the general style of the Weymann original – and I believe they also had non-Weymann upper deck tear emergency exits. Even the Met-Camm Orion Regent Vs were not standard Met-Camm. That accolade went to the the famous Nottingham PD2s famous because they were the first Nottingham PD2s.

David Oldfield

04/11/14 – 06:45

…..and of course there were the 1949 all Crossley DD42s that Sheffield acquired new as a cancelled Liverpool order. These were neither the popularly remembered Crossley outline, nor did they have the PRV framed body. These were identical to the Regent IIIs and the first Regent Vs which Liverpool took delivery of and kept hold of. Although L255 is obviously based on the PRV design, there are also elements of the earlier design around the front (especially upper deck).

David Oldfield

05/11/14 – 06:40

Hopefully a rather extensive restoration of Barrow 170 will be completed soon by the Barrow Transport group.
So I hope that when it ventures to our NWVRT Open day at Kirkby (plug 31/5/2015)we can get them parked together to record similarities.
Another Park Royal trait that L255 carries internally is the pressed out lighting mounts along the cove panels in the upper saloon ,just like the ones on 170 & Park Royal bodied Liverpool E1.
The Crossley Bodies AEC’s and the Liverpool PD2’s up to L224 had their lights at the edge of the ceiling . Was this a standard Crossley practice ?

Rob Wilson

11/11/14 – 18:20

I now have to eat some more of my words. Earlier I said that use of the standard Leyland (originally Midland Red) bonnet assembly would not have allowed Liverpool to have their much-loved flat-fronted upper deck. I got this idea from Alan Townsin’s Duple book, which says that the uncharacteristic bow fronts of the Duple bodies on L91-140 were dictated by the design of the Leyland tin-front.
However, I now find that Darwen’s pair of Crossley-bodied PD2/20s managed to incorporate both the Leyland tin front and the Liverpool-style flat-fronted upper deck perfectly well – see www.sct61.org.uk/dw15
I also think I have solved the conundrum of the bulkhead window. Other photos of L255 show it to have a much wider bulkhead window than the Crossley-framed bodies, and the reason for departing from the standard PRV window was almost certainly the rearward-facing seat behind the bulkhead, which I had forgotten about. I have reverted to my earlier belief that other Crossley bodies with the narrow window (Darwen, Sunderland, Aberdeen) were Crossley-framed.

Peter Williamson

04/06/16 – 07:07

I thought I had a photo of a Liverpool Crossley DD42 and have now found it. C642 taken at Pier Head on July 5, 1962, still in cream bands livery and by this time only appearing on school, university and short workings.

Geoff Pullin

08/01/21 – 07:33

I loved the batch of Leylands that replaced the trams.
When I became a bus spotter circa 1962, the fleet still had remnants of pre war buses when it was difficult to buy one.
When Leyland Atlanteans were used on my school route 61 to Aigburth, occasionally in the peak hours you would get a 1947/8 Leyland Titan PD2/1 (L425-428) with Leyland coachwork with moquette seats, very harsh with short kegs (trousers). They were almost posh for their time and its such a shame that none of them were saved.
I believe L316-318 were not painted as A40. Shame they were not saved as well.
I used to go to the Edge Lane depot and walk around the withdrawals, Daimlers, early AEC regent IIIs (grim). Those lovely enamelled AEC badges on the radiators and bell pushes……
I was only 11.

Muckel Price

Western National Omnibus Co Ltd
1967
Bedford VAM 5
ECW B45F

The last Bristol MW’s entered service in May 1967, and the first LH’s in June 1968. In the interim, Western National placed in service a batch of twelve Bedford VAM 5 with Eastern Coachworks bus bodywork. These were numbered 701-712 (KDV 131 -142F). The body design was clearly based on the standard design which had been produced in large numbers for the Bristol MW model, but with a more modern front end grafted onto it. The VAM 5 model had the small Bedford 330 cu in engine and a four speed gearbox. The batch led a full service life of at least twelve years; Latterly the last six of the batch were allocated to Newquay Depot, and could regularly be found working the scenic and hilly route 573 from Newquay to St. Columb Minor, which followed the coast for a few miles before turning inland. Here we see one of the batch negotiating a hairpin bend just west of Watergate bay.
West Yorkshire also had four Bedford VAM with this style of ECW body, but the West Yorkshire examples were type VAM 14, with the Leyland 400 engine and a five speed gearbox. The West Yorkshire batch had a very short operational life. I believe that Eastern Counties also had some of these interesting vehicles.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown

22/10/14 – 18:20

Eastern Counties did have some of these ECW bodied Bedfords one was sold to Primrose Valley of Hunmanby. I rode on it from Filey to Reighton Gap and I have to say never had I been on a more vibration prone vehicle. Although having now had a ride on a preserved Bristol SC!

Chris Hough

23/10/14 – 07:04

I always considered these to be fascinating and businesslike vehicles, combining the classic "no nonsense" ECW lines with a most worthy lightweight chassis. I’ve always had a very soft spot for Bedford "no nonsense" honest and well performing vehicles, and if any vibration was felt look on the bright side Chris – therapeutic vibro massage included free !!

Chris Youhill

24/10/14 – 07:28

I remember encountering these beasts at Dartmouth in the early ’70s. With the benefit of hindsight (as well as driving later examples) I would hazard the opinion that the zenith of Bedford’s existence was with their petrol models. With due deference to Chris, I would say that Bedford diesels were a poor substitute and my operator friend concurs that the VAM5s he operated with Eastern Scottish were a nightmare and grossly underpowered. Likewise, Ribble got rid of its small number of VAM5s after an indecently short time. While the 466 and 500 diesels were a great improvement, there is a general consensus that the VAL14 and VAM14 (Leyland O400) were far better than the VAL70 and VAM70 (Bedford 466). Which makes the short operational lives of West Yorkshire’s VAM14s all the more strange.

David Oldfield

24/10/14 – 18:23

I don’t remember these when growing up in Taunton but I’ve asked for more information from Colin Billington who says "The early ones (700-703) were allocated to Plymouth often passing through Kingsbridge on the 93 route. Don has the numbering wrong, They were 700-711 (KDV 130-141F) not 701-12. 712 was a LH.
Noisy things with the engine next to the driver"

Ken Jones

04/03/16 – 06:45

Don is correct. ECOC had four VAMs with ECW bodies: 2 X Bedford engines and 2 X Leyland engines! SB663 (NAH 663F), with Leyland engine, is seen leaving Norwich Thorpe Railway Station on Sunday May 12, 1968 when it was one of at least 10 new shiny ECOC vehicles (not one displaying any side adverts) taking passengers from the Flying Scotsman excursion on a variety of tours. As delivered, the driver access to the cab was by squeezing between the partial screen behind the driver’s seat and the offside body side. I had them rebuilt so you walked over a more substantial engine cover incorporating the ticket machine mounting. The point to comparing the two engines was a bit academic as NBC bought no more bus versions!

Geoff Pullin

18/10/16 – 07:53

NAH 661/2F had Bedford 330 engines and were VAM5.
NAH 663/4F had Leyland 400 engines and were VAM14.

Steve Paine

22/05/21 – 06:37

I help to look after a Leyland 400 powered Bedford VAM in New Zealand. It is reliable but seems quite under-powered. It is certainly quite loud from the drivers seat, and enough vibration to keep things interesting. Ours has a high speed diff but a conventional (not overdrive) gearbox.
The previous comments about these buses is really interesting, thank you.

Andrew Robinson

Rochdale Corporation Welfare Dept.
1949
AEC Regal III 9621E
Roe B33F

BCP 543 was originally one of twenty-two AEC Regal III 9621E’s with Roe B32R bodies delivered to the Halifax Corporation and JOC fleets in 1949, and was numbered 268. Fourteen of them, including 268, were rebuilt at Skircoat Road workshops during 1953/54 to B33F layout and with modifications made to the front bulkhead to allow for one-man-operation.  These were also for a time repainted into a livery of cream with a single orange band to draw attention to the fact that they were OMO and in connection with them being used for the local Countryside Tours during the summertime and bank holidays, though they were returned to standard bus livery later. Withdrawn in 1964, 268 was sold to the Rochdale Corporation Welfare Department who rebuilt it with a rear tail-lift for the transport of disabled people and numbered it 500. They renumbered it 900 in 1970, and it was withdrawn and sold for scrap in 1972.
Though Roe’s teak body framing always had an enviable reputation for strength and longevity, when Halifax Corporation had carried out its modifications, the cutting of an aperture in the nearside for the forward entrance directly opposite another on the offside for the emergency exit, along with the bulkhead alterations caused a significant weak spot across the bodywork at that point, and the resultant sag in frame stands out quite clearly – particularly in the offside view above. The nine Regals that retained their rear entrances remained sound until the end – which unfortunately came rather early, some going as early as 1958 and the last one in 1962. Lovely little buses.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

21/10/14 – 06:19

Although allocated to the Rochdale Welfare Department this bus received what was then the current Rochdale Corporation bus fleet livery with the exception that the blue band was a lighter shade. This is interesting as when the new predominantly cream Rochdale bus livery was being introduced in the early 1960’s, two vehicles wore this lighter blue band for a very short period before the darker Oxford Blue trim as pioneered on AEC Regent V no.277 was adopted as the new standard. These were Daimler CVG6 no.238 and AEC Regal IV no.12. I seem to recall the light blue only lasted a matter of weeks on these vehicles before the Oxford Blue replaced it.
At the time as a schoolboy spotter I was quite excited about this new livery but once it began to replace the streamlined blue and cream across the whole fleet I came to hate it. It was bland and totally impractical for a northern industrial town where the atmosphere in those days was mucky to say the least.

Philip Halstead

22/10/14 – 07:17

The lighter blue was worn by 12 and 238, and also on delivery by new Weymann bodied Reliances 16 – 20 (3116 – 3120 DK). It didn’t last on these, of course. The blue adopted as standard was the same shade of blue as used on the much lamented "streamlined" livery.

Don McKeown

22/10/14 – 17:59

Daimler CVG6 number 238 was always easily identifiable because the rubbers holding the destination blind glasses were painted cream whereas it was usual to mask them over during repaint so they remained black. By the way 16-20 were 2116-2120 DK.

David Slater

15/11/17 – 07:17

Re rad blankets PD2 exposed rads had a plate about one foot deep but full width. It appeared to be in the middle because that was the bottom of the cooling tubes. The lower section of the rad was a dummy. Also with the blanker fitted on the outside there was a 2 to 3 inch gap to the actual tubes which would seriously reduce the warming effect. In effect as the thermostats were pre wax type generally they failed inside a year so the engines always ran cooler than the designed temperature. Even in summer

Mr Anon