Copyright Chris Hebbron

Leicester City Transport
1958
Leyland Titan PD3/1
Willowbrook H41/33R

LCT bought an eclectic mix of chassis and bodywork for its fleet over the decades, but settled on just three (164-166) tin-fronted Leyland Titan PD3/1’s, with attractive Willowbrook bodywork, in 1958. 165 and 166 were withdrawn in 1972 and 1975 respectively, with 164 being withdrawn in 1974. It’s seen here, looking remarkably chipper, aged 19, at the Bristol Bus Show, in 1977.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

29/09/12 – 07:43

And would the gent who looks as if he’s volunteering to become lunch be Mr Hebbron, by any chance?

Pete Davies

29/09/12 – 07:44

This bus is currently under restoration on a farm outside Leicester.

Philip Lamb

29/09/12 – 12:15

I thought it was at Snibston Discovery Park in Coalville, fully restored ages ago, along with a 6 wheel Renown and the 1911 Leicester City Transport Leyland tower wagon used up to the end of LCT Tramways in 1949. The latter is the oldest preserved Leyland lorry.

If the photo is 1974, Chris, and the figure looking in is not you, then it would be Clive; (sorry Clive, but I cannot remember your second name!). He was the regular Leicester Museums staff member who drove the exhibits to various shows when they were stationed at the Corporation Road Pumping Station Museum in Leicester. Probably still does, from Snibston. Other LCT buses are restored, or under restoration, by the Leicester Transport heritage Trust, including tram 36.

John Whitaker

29/09/12 – 18:03

Handsome bus, dignified livery. By the time I went up to university in 1984 the bus fleet had been standardised on MCW Metropolitans and Dennis Domintors with a few Metro-Scanias thrown in: but the fleet still sported the dignified cream and maroon-banded livery, some services were conductor-worked, and tickets dispensed from Ultimates and Solomatics . . . not for long though, the red/white/grey Leicester CityBus identity was adopted as part of the Leicester CityCouncil corporate identity (that’s right chaps, paint your buses the same colour as your refuse waggons so that passengers get the message), and Wayfarer machines came in. Most LCT services (except those worked jointly with Midland Red/Fox?) were cross-city and, I think until a route revision round about the time I went up, used different numbers depending on direction of travel. Leicester, like Trent, used to place front number plates at ‘tween decks level – any suggestions as to why? was this just a midlands foible, or did any other operators adopt this practice? Willowbrook seemed to have a respectable business amongst major operators for both single and double-deck business around this time, but then in the 1970s seemed to concentrate on the lightweight market: I suppose the introduction of the Leyland National killed-off the BET standard business, but why didn’t it continue to chase the double-deck market? And why did Duple buy Willowbrook and then divest itself of the business? Why did it keep the Willowbrook identity when Burlingham and Nudd Brothers & Lockyer became Duple (Northern) and Duple (Midland) – in fact, why wasn’t Willowbrook amalgamated with Duple (Midland)? Anyway, back to the bus: did Leicester pay extra for the Leyland badge? which would explain why not all tin-fronts sported this feature, but not why Leyland didn’t think it worth advertising itself on its products; and why, when the tin-front was adopted for wider use, did Leyland not modify the grill to eliminate the space for the BMMO badge? – surely the costs of re-tooling would have been miniscule when compared to production volumes. So many questions! Hopefully some answers will be forthcoming, in the meantime I’m going to scroll up and drool over the bus a bit more . . .

Philip Rushworth

30/09/12 – 07:57

Number plates between decks was not just a midlands foible Philip as Southdown did up until I think the late fifties when they moved them to below the cab windscreen for some reason although for obvious reasons the double deck coach No 700 with full front Northern Counties body always had it’s plate below the radiator grill.
I think the livery on the PD3 in the photo was far better than the later predominately cream version and the red/white/grey is best forgotten and the Midland Red front although not very stylish was infinitely superior to the St Helens front which was such an ugly brute which never suited any bodywork.

Diesel Dave

30/09/12 – 07:58

Philip Willowbrook did build some VRs and Atlanteans in the seventies principally for the Northern General companies sadly they were not a patch on this example Leicester’s last rear entrance bus an East Lancs bodied PD3 ran in 1982.
Why Leyland kept the tin front design until the early sixties without getting rid of the space for the BMMO badge I cannot say but Edinburgh fitted a version of it to all its Titans finally building a fibre glass version themselves.
The bodies built by Willowbrook were somewhat ersatz copies of ECW (the VR) and MCW products.

Chris Hough

30/09/12 – 10:40

If you go to your web page and type in AFT53 you’ll find a picture of Tynemouth 223 being used as a training bus, it was one of 5 Willowbrook bodied PD2/12’s delivered to Percy Main in 1957. AFT 49/53 – 219/223. The original livery layout was mostly red with cream center band and roof, later on the roof became red ‘I thought they looked best in that livery’ and about 1968 this updated version of the first post war layout was adopted. As far as I know these were the only ones of this type in the NGT group. Northern were never fans of tin fronts, in fact I think the Routemasters were the only ones that came close to that description

Ronnie Hoye

30/09/12 – 12:04

The tin front design question is an interesting one, as the Leyland grille design changed slightly over the years and I see nothing sacrosanct about the part with the space for the BMMO badge.
This photograph also makes clear why Orion bodies (in particular) on tin-front chassis, tapered in so much at the front. This was to match the width of the standard tin-front which was clearly to suit 7′-6" chassis. Willowbrook opted to maintain more body width to the front resulting in a mini dash panel to the offside of the tin front.

David Beilby

02/10/12 – 14:46

Diesel Dave comments on the ugliness of the St Helens front. I’m making the rash assumption here that St Helens Corporation thought it rather pretty!

Pete Davies

02/10/12 – 14:54

The figure is not me, Pete/John and the photo was taken in 1977, so may or may not be Clive. I was worried, myself, about the wisdom of examining the mechanicals in the bowels of the monster, so I kept well clear. One can never be too careful!

Chris Hebbron

03/10/12 – 06:00

Thanks for clarifying! It looks as if that lid could stand duty as a guillotine.

Pete Davies

03/10/12 – 06:01

The later Leyland concealed radiator design was known as the St Helens front, because St Helens was the first operator to take delivery. The design was pure Leyland — a reverse of the situation re the original Leyland tin front, which was developed to match contemporary Midland Red styling.

Philip Lamb

03/10/12 – 06:02

David, the tin front wasn’t designed to suit a 7ft 6in chassis. The original design, as we all know, was for BMMO and the order was for 100 8ft wide PD2s with Leyland bodies. Again, as we know, the standard Leyland 8ft wide body was a widening of the original 7ft 6in wide body.
For some reason Leyland widened all but the the front of the 8ft body. This didn’t cause any design problem with the traditional layout of radiator and front scuttle panel and, as the BMMO requirement for a tin front was expected to be only for them, the tin front was designed to blend with the body.
Whilst the tin front was eventually offered on both 7ft 6in and 8ft chassis, the BMMO order was the only one, in either width, to specify Leyland body work.
Liverpool adopted the tin front and its 1954 delivery of PD2/20s (8ft wide with bodies by Alexander) did not have the narrowing and the tin front on these vehicles was the full width of the bus – as were tin fronts on bodies by other builders for a range of operators using the 8ft wide chassis.
Doug Jack’s "The Leyland Bus" has a range of pictures showing a variety of 8 ft wide tin front PD2s without any narrowing of the body, some with full width tin fronts, some with the 7ft 6in version on 8ft wide bodies.
The question is why 8ft wide Orion bodies narrowed as they did to use the 7ft 6in version of the tin front.
The Edinburgh Holmes designed tin front replacement was unutterably ugly. As for the St Helens front, it was designed to give better visibility and Leyland saw it as being akin to the design on the current Vista lorry cab (which they shared with Dodge), thus giving a form of "house style".

Phil Blinkhorn

03/10/12 – 10:12

One of the attractions of this site is the wide scope of observations from correspondents with differing interests. With my ‘operational’ background, my reaction at the illustration was, as others have commented, of a smart vehicle in attractive livery, but I wondered about the destination display. The route numbers are large and very readable, which was fine for locals who knew where they were going, but the actual destination box itself isn’t too helpful for passengers who needed to check their intended destination, and is out of proportion with the numerical display. The positioning of the number plates is distracting, and doesn’t make things easier for them.

Roy Burke

04/10/12 – 07:22

Philip,
A reference in "Local Transport in St Helens 1879-1974" by TB Maund and MJ Ashton says "St Helens commissioned an unusual asymmetrical front which was subsequently used elsewhere and known as the ‘St Helens front’ ".
As a passenger on St Helens Corporation and Crosville to school from 1961-68, I always assumed that St Helens Titans had fibreglass fronts because Fibreglass Ltd (a subsidiary of Pilkington Brothers) were based in St Helens.
Thus, some Corporation spending was kept within the boundary and kept some local people in employment. This is something long-lost in our economy, much to the delight of Volvo, Scania etc.

Dave Farrier

04/10/12 – 13:35

On the subject of highly placed registration plates it may have been a geographical thing as both Trent and Barton also place them over the cab on double deckers.

Chris Hough

11/02/14 – 07:00

I worked for LCT for 5 years, and my understanding of the positioning of the number plates was that the body fitters were sick to death of having to refit them after minor shunts. So the chief engineer of the day, early 1960s, decreed that the damned things be removed to a higher place of safety. Presumably, other operators took the same view and for the same reason. A minor shunt, that maybe just dented the bottom of the grille, could be ignored until the next repaint, whereas damaged or missing number plates had to be attended to immediately or the vehicle was out of service until fixed.

Rob Haywood

11/08/14 – 07:16

The man looking at 164 is NOT Clive. It’s not me either but I did drive this to rallies when working for Leicester Museums and Clive Stevens worked for me. He still volunteers at Abbey Pumping Station Museum. We also drove the 1939 Renown, once all the way to Brighton.

Bob Bracegirdle

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

02/11/14 – 15:24

As an ex. LCT employee, 1956-61, I can confirm that the positioning of the front number plate between decks came about long before tin fronts – pre WW.II in fact. It was positioned there so that reconditioned radiators could be swapped between buses without the necessity to swap number plates.

Paul Banbury

Stephen Howarth collection

North Western Road Car Co
1955
Leyland Tiger Cub PCUC1/1
Weymann B44F

FDB 586 a Leyland Tiger Cub was new to North Western RCC in 1955.
It was converted, along with the rest of the batch to OMO in 1958/9, as denoted by the ‘A’ suffix after the fleet number.
586 is shown here (in rather a grubby state) working the 1 hour 36 minute duration Service 65 from Ashbourne to Buxton. The picture was taken outside the Devonshire Arms Hotel in the picturesque Derbyshire village of Hartington, a view which has changed little over the years. There was still over 50 minutes to go before it reaches the end of the journey in Buxton Market Place.
It was withdrawn in 1968, and passed to Worth’s Motor Service Enstone, Oxfordshire.

Stephen Howarth collection

Taken from their website “Worth’s were established in 1922 in the village of Enstone by Thomas (Dickie) Edmund Worth who started, like a lot of Bus and Coach Companies of that time by repairing motor bikes, bicycles and lawn mowers. He later progressed to running Ford Model T taxis’, and then on to Char-a-Bancs running day trips to the coast.”
This year the company will be celebrating 90 years in business and continues to be run by the Worth family with the motto still being well known as:- "For a rattling good ride".
There website can be found at www.worthscoaches.co.uk
FDB 586 is shown here outside the Garage in Enstone.

Stephen Howarth collection

I have included a modern day picture of the premises, and as can be seen the garage building, unlike the fleet, has altered little.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth

———

25/09/12 – 16:45

Purely from the "observer" point of view, Worth’s has always struck me as being one of the better operators. Others, of course, may feel or know otherwise! As for North Western, what can one say other than "R.I.P."?

Pete Davies

———

25/09/12 – 18:57

Pete: yes and yes.

David Oldfield

———

26/09/12 – 07:07

The No. 65 doesn’t look overburdened with passengers does it? And to think, until the late 50s this route was paralleled by a railway line, whose stations, on the whole, were nowhere near the villages they purported to serve!

Stephen Ford

From the Tom Robinson Collection

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Mann Egerton H30/26R

There have been many previous references to Sheffield PD2s including those bodied by Leyland, Weymann/MCW, Roe and ECW but as far as I know, the small but rare order for two buses from Mann Egerton hasn’t been mentioned. These buses enjoyed the usual thirteen year life with Sheffield prior to selling on. Tom Robinson of the Sheffield Transport Study Group comments and I quote "362 went via a Barnsley scrapman to Paton’s of Renfrew. Paton was so pleased with the bus he immediately tried to buy 361 which was at the same scrapyard. Alas it was in the course of being scrapped. In time ex 362 was cut down to single deck. The result of a fire, I think, and used as a tow wagon. They really were impressive and heavy vehicles. The saloon woodwork was especially opulent."
Keith Beeden advises that although the original contract called for H30/26R, steps were taken shortly after delivery to change this to H32/26R possibly because Roe were seating H33/25R on their deliveries at the time

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Darwent

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

The Roe PD2s were the first of many bodies from the Crossgate works. They were NWE 586-594 but were delivered earlier, in 1951. I suspect the reason for both bodies being higher seating capacity was that they were (Sheffield’s) earliest vehicles to 27′ rather 26′ length.
Despite many comments to the contrary, even by eminent experts, there was a standard – but not standardised – Sheffield bus. [During most of the ‘fifties it was either a Regent or Titan with either a Weymann or Roe body.] It changed with time and the demise of certain companies but a lot of the post war interest was with the "distress purchases" when, especially Weymann, could not meet demand. Occasionally the distress purchases turned out to be gems – true of these two Mann Egertons. There are two magnificent green London Transport Ts on the Rally Circuit (9.6 powered Regal III – a single deck RT) which attest to the beauty and quality of Mann Egerton’s work.
Mann Egerton were better known as the Norwich Austin dealer and they bodied many early post war Austins as small coaches, but the London Transport work did no harm to their reputation and their balance sheet.

David Oldfield

13/09/12 – 07:05

Here is a picture of 362 with Patons: www.flickr.com

Stephen Bloomfield

13/09/12 – 08:33

Very handsome vehicle, especially in that fine livery. Had no idea that Mann Egerton had ever built d/deckers. Sad that 361 was broken up after such a short life: if they were heavy then they must have been pretty robust too.

Ian Thompson

14/09/12 – 06:29

Ian, they are supposed to be the only deckers they ever built. They did get as far as building underfloor coaches as well – including a pair of AEC Regal IVs for Creamline of Bordon Hants.

Stephen. Can’t find 362 on flickr.

David Oldfield

14/09/12 – 06:32

They were certainly unusual looking, and stood out, especially with that slightly recessed panel at the front where the destination boxes were, which was unique in the fleet. But to my mind, they weren’t nearly as handsome as the OWB-registered PD2/10’s (656-667) alongside which they ran regularly on the 69 service joint with Rotherham Corporation. I seem to recall the two Mann Egerton’s sat down at the back end quite noticeably, especially when they had a good load on, but perhaps that was just a perception.
Ironically, one of the PD2/10’s, 666, was cut down to a gritter/towing vehicle by STD, just like Paton’s ended up doing with the former 362, and in its sheared off form, G56, as it became, was kept busy for many years, considerably longer than the fourteen years it served as a bus, towing all kinds of disgraced rear-engined machines back to Central Works from wherever they’d decided to expire. And it always looked quite happy doing it!

Dave Careless

14/09/12 – 06:34

A smart bus, indeed – but does anyone know why these had the sunken destination screen box? I know some pre-war and early post-war Sheffield buses had this feature, but it was by no means universal. It would be interesting to speculate that, had Mann Egerton ever tried to sell d/d’s to LT following on from their successful PS1s, then this large screen box area would be almost the same proportions as that used for the roof-box RT!

Paul Haywood

14/09/12 – 06:35

A quicker link to the ex- 362 picture Stephen.
Debateable whether the Patons livery does the bus any favours though. www.flickr.com/

John Darwent

14/09/12 – 06:37

Is it just me, or can anyone else see a distinct resemblance to Roberts bodywork (also very heavy!) sct61.org.uk/da86  ?

Peter Williamson

14/09/12 – 06:14

Apparently Glasgow Corporation FYS 494 fleet number D66 was a Daimler CVD6 with a Mann Egerton H30/26R body, new in 1951, scrapped 1960 and rebodied with an Alexander body from FYS 488 fleet number D60 which was a Daimler CD650, (10.6 litre with power steering) but chassis scrapped, not a very popular bus that one.

Spencer

14/09/12 – 06:39

Glasgow Corporation received a Mann Egerton bodied Daimler CVD6 double-decker in 1951 – D66 (FYS 494).

David Call

15/09/12 – 07:08

You’ll be hard pressed to find many of today’s featherweight Eurobuses fit to be preserved in future years and yet in the fifties the professionals were complaining about buses being too heavy. [Please compare fuel mpg of a fifties half-cab with a Euro 5 diesel.]
Why do people eulogise the Mann Egertons and their contemporary Roberts Regent IIIs – let alone their mainstream Weymann and Roe cousins? They were beautifully made, well made and looked good. The lightweight Orion and similar PRV/Roe offerings were the reaction to these heavy bodies. I ask you, what would you prefer?

The recessed destination display was, indeed, a pre-war Sheffield feature. There are echoes in the 1949/50 Cravens/Regent IIIs – featured on this site earlier this year. The most interesting manifestation was on the immediate pre-war all Leyland TD5cs, which had to have non-standard small upper deck screens to accommodate it. It was also a feature of the 1936 Cravens/TD4cs and "broke" the blue line under the upper deck windows. Weymanns managed to get the display in without either recessing the display or breaking the line.
Some post-war bodies managed to "avoid the line" in the Weymann manner but most encroached into the line surrounding the number display without breaking it. Significantly, the 1953/4 PD2/Weymanns avoided the line, like their predecessors, but the subsequent 1954 Regent III/Weymanns "encroached" in the normal post war fashion. Hours of scrutinising photographs has not yielded a satisfactory answer to the question, Why?

Dave. Couldn’t agree more. 656-667 were my favourite PD2s.

David Oldfield

15/09/12 – 07:09

In Classic Bus 110 I asked if Sheffield was the only order for M.E doubledeckers. The reply, and a follow-up in Classic Bus 112 will probably interest those who have responded above.

Les Dickinson

15/09/12 – 07:11

The reason that Sheffield ordered the two Mann Egerton bodies is quite interesting.
In November 1949 a tender was advertised for 30 double deck buses, complete chassis and bodies or chassis only or bodies only.
At the time, all the STD PD2/1’s delivered since 1947, carried Leyland bodywork. The Leyland management advised the transport committee to "look elsewhere for bodywork"
In consequence, an intended order for 30 buses to the forthcoming new regulations of 27′ x 7’6" was varied. The result was that an order for 10 NCB, 2 Roe and 2 Mann Egerton bodies were contracted.
Surprisingly, Leyland offered to supply 16 complete vehicles to the existing 26’x 7’6" PD2/1 standard. Unfortunately, NCB ceased trading, and Roe were awarded another seven bodies. The balance of the outstanding 11 (9 Roe 2 Mann Egerton) were built on the PD2/12 27’x 8′ chassis, authorised in 1950. This batch of 11 replaced 13 trams for the City to Fulwood tramway abandonment. Therefore the original 30 require was reduced to 27. Quite a complicated situation!

Keith Beeden

15/09/12 – 07:13

I understood that Newcastle Corporation also had some Daimler CW’s rebodied by Mann Egerton

Stephen Bloomfield

16/09/12 – 06:50

So, Keith, Leyland were anticipating pulling out of coach-building that early and at the same time were already showing signs of their later take it or leave it attitude. Thanks for the insight.

David Oldfield

16/09/12 – 06:52

Stephen
You may or may not remember me from our time together at BCT, but that’s another story.

Newcastle Corporation had a batch of 5 Daimler CWA6 vehicles delivered between 1945-47 that received new Mann Egerton bodies in October 1950. They had been delivered new with second-hand bodies transferred from 1931 vehicles.

Kevin Hey

14/12/12 – 16:17

It is true that Newcastle had Mann Egerton Deckers , there were I believe three on Daimler chassis, possibly rebodies of chassis that had originally been fitted with pre war Metro Cammel bodies taken from scrapped earlier chassis, and also Glasgow had one Mann Egerton bodied Daimler, D66 I believe

Mr Anon

05/07/14 – 17:34

Mr Anon, Newcastle had 5 Mann Egerton bodied Daimlers, they were fleet numbers 1 to 5, JVK 421 to 425.

Peter Stobart