Copyright ‘unknown’ if you know please get in touch

Sheffield Corporation
1959
Leyland PD3/1
Roe H39/30R

This was one of the first 30ft long double deckers for Sheffield and was one of a batch of 30 similar buses. In a typically perverse way these buses, all for the A fleet, were numbered 461-476 and 901-914. Logic suggests they should have been 901-930 but gap filling seemed to be a Sheffield speciality. Following the closure of Northern Coachbuilders and the body building facility at Leyland Motors in the early 1950s, Sheffield dual sourced bodywork for their new double deck deliveries from Weymann and Roe until Alexander and Park Royal came into favour. The Roe body in this 30ft rear entrance form and with the elegant Sheffield livery was a design classic. I wonder if anyone can explain why Roe bodies for Sheffield were painted in this style whilst those from other bodybuilders had the more conventional three blue bands. 462 was new in March 1959 and is seen outside the Roe factory premises prior to delivery. Similar vehicle 904 is preserved.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

30/03/11 – 10:00

Before becoming the 42/53 route with Atlanteans, the 38 was primarily and AEC route. For a short while, in the mid sixties, the 901 – 914 suddenly replaced AECs overnight. [It was years before I realised that there were proportionally more Leylands in the fleet.] There must have been a reason, but I never discovered what it was.
I was, and remain, an AEC man and was most displeased. Old age and experience have placed Leyland as a much loved second – but these vehicles had the mitigating feature of those beautiful Roe bodies. The 38 was East Bank, the 461 – 476 were from another garage and I rarely came upon them except "in town". …..and I don’t know why Roe, and certain Leyland bodies, had their own special livery either.

David Oldfield

30/03/11 – 14:38

What a great photograph Ian and what a lot of memories it evokes from when we both lived in Sheffield and travelled up Greystones Road on the "74" between our respective homes. I guess the 74 was an unusual route for Sheffield in that it didn’t cross the city but meandered around the southern suburbs. Like you in one of your earlier comments I remember the winters in Sheffield with snow on the ground but the buses kept running, always got us to school. How things change!

Stan Zapiec

31/03/11 – 16:00

I agree wholeheartedly with Ian and David that the proportions and original livery of the PD3/Roe produced one of the finest looking buses to grace the Sheffield fleet. On the question of livery style, Keith Beeden has stated that in the case of the original batch of PD2/Roe 386-394, the Roe design did not offer an easy adoption of the STD cream and azure blue with three bands and that it was agreed that the livery should be of the ‘simplified style’ quite similar to the Farington scheme as seen on the all Leyland PD2s of 1949. This resulted from the difficulty at the time of accommodating the standard Sheffield destination display which of course with early Roe deliveries was of a side by side style. Presumably, this livery was considered appropriate for all future Roe deliveries despite the standard display being accommodated in due course with effect from the Regent 3’s of the 168 series. We know of course that subsequently, many Roes were repainted in ‘standard’ livery but to my mind, it was nowhere near as elegant. My personal opinion is that in painting the ‘bars’ black between the destination display in the early 60’s, disfigured the look of Sheffield buses in one fell swoop although I believe the general manager of the day also reinstated the cream roof for which credit is due. I cite the present livery scheme of preserved 904 as an example of ‘disfigurement’ but as I said, it is purely my opinion and others will no doubt like it.
Whilst we are on the subject, does anyone remember that AEC/Regent No. 8, FWJ 808, also wore a version of the Farington livery in the late 40s or early 50s.

John Darwent

01/04/11 – 07:28

Sheffield 904 as preserved carries the later cream with bands livery and looks superb. A slightly earlier Roe bodied Titan PD2 II56 is also preserved and wears the blue window livery. This is a high backed seat bus used on C fleet long distance services.
As well as 904 in the final livery with cream bands Leyland Titan PD2-Roe 1156 3156WE of 1058 is also preserved and carries the livery with blue window surrounds on both decks.

Chris Hough

01/05/11 – 07:48

In reply to John and Ian, I can add further information to the Roe style of livery applied to Sheffield double deck buses.
The query about AEC Regent No.8 actually is the start of the case in question. Leyland Motors Ltd. delivered a large fleet of PD2/1 chassis with the new Farington body design. The former lower waistrail feature was eliminated, as was other external beading. Leyland advised Sheffield T.D. to the effect that it would be difficult to apply the usual cream livery with three blue bands. Possibly a suggestion that extra cost would ensue if the standard livery was still required, led to Sheffield looking to simplify the painting style.
Regent FWJ 808 was chosen to explore the possibilities and was out shopped in a bland style of all over cream with blue window surrounds. This eliminated the blue bands but the overall image was poor. A slight improvement, that included a little more blue, led to the adoption of the new style for all the Farington PD2’s. A similar situation arose with the Roe bodies, where the patented waistrail did not adapt to the three blue bands style and also lack of upper beading. Therefore, it was deemed expedient to apply a similar livery to the Farington style.
I hope that this will clarify matters.

Keith Beeden

23/03/13 – 07:56

I believe the reasoning behind the different paint schemes in use on Sheffield buses was purely financial. Some bodies had beading in different places to others and thus the joint between different colours were easier to apply on some rather than others. The placing of masking would add extra cost which on a big batch of vehicles could amount to quite an amount of money which some authorities would be averse to spending on buses!! The characteristic Roe waistline bulge is one awkward bodybuilders addition in question.

Brian Lamb

Copyright Ian Wild

Stevensons of Spath
1960
Leyland Leopard LI
Burlingham DP41F

Sheffield Joint Omnibus Committee was an early user of the Leyland Leopard L1 taking six Weymann Fanfare bodied vehicles for the B fleet in 1959 and then five identical for the C fleet in 1960. Later deliveries in 1960 were nine with what I always thought were very attractive Burlingham dual purpose bodies (four for the B fleet and five for the C fleet). The bus in the photo was originally fleet number 1307 renumbered as 1007 in the 1967 renumbering. They originally had single piece hinged coach type doors, lever operated from the cab but were modified for OMO with power operated bus doors later in the 1960s. The Leopards were regular performers on the Peak District services and also on the 48 to Manchester. Not many Sheffield buses escaped the scrap man but during 1972 Stevensons of Spath (near Uttoxeter) bought five Leopards from Sheffield, two with Weymann bus bodies, two with Burlingham bodies and a single Weymann Fanfare example. Stevensons fleet number 18 looks very smart here on 29th August 1972 in their yellow and black livery and what a superb registration number!!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

———

02/03/11

I always thought it was a nice body, simple and smart. Somehow, it never seemed to make the big time, though, at least not in my part of the world.

Chris Hebbron

———

02/03/11

Could never, as a kid, understand why these were only classified as DP41F, not C41F. Can only assume that it is because the body is basically the Burlingham bus with a Seagull front grafted on. (…..but it is isn’t that much different from the Seagull VI ordered in volume by Ribble). A point to consider, though. Duple took over Burlingham in about 1960 – and the factory continued first with Burlingham designed Duples and then their own designs. Is it too fanciful to think that these were constructed of left over parts, to use them up – rather like the Plaxton 321 some thirty years later, using up Duple 320 parts in a like manner?
Over to you, Mr Mercer – esteemed Burlingham guru!
There were more Weymann Fanfares and the ECW Leopards to follow. An incredible collection of high quality and interesting non-mainstream vehicles for basically a local operator – albeit railway owned and for long distance routes. They were good, but its a pity JOC never bought any AECs for coaching. (Unless you consider the pre-war Regal/Roberts for the Gainsborough route!)

David Oldfield

———

03/03/11 – 09:01

Thanks for the compliment David! Burlingham’s standard bus body for underfloor engined chassis first appeared in 1951 and went through various updates until it was discontinued in 1960. The first major change came at the 1956 Commercial Motor Show when the entire front-end was redesigned to give a more modern appearance. To many of us this was the best version of the body and was in production from early 1957 to late 1958. Sales were generally poor by this point (the best known examples of the 1956 design were probably those operated by famous independents such as Clyde Coast and Tor Bus) and at the 1958 Show Burlingham presented the version shown in this photograph. Sheffield’s were among the first production examples and (as far as I know) the only other "big fleet" to buy them was Northern General.
As you suggest the window pans were identical to those used on the Mark 6 Seagull as was the lower panel on the front end. I suspect that this was an economy move by Burlingham to standardise on fewer parts. By late 1958 the company was already in dire straits and I’ve heard it suggested by one former employee that all those full-fronted PD3 Titans they built for Ribble were actually delivered at a "below cost" price in a desperate attempt to recover the prestige lost by the later Seagull variants. A classic example of large numbers of units coming off the production line but no money going into the bank in exchange. The obvious parallel is with the early Mini which appeared to be a success but nearly bankrupted its manufacturer.
As a regular traveller on these vehicles back in the 1960s I can assure you that the seats were nowhere near as luxurious as those fitted to Seagulls – although much better than those fitted to North Western’s contemporary "Black Tops" which barely qualified as anything other than buses in a really nice colour scheme! I’ve done the trip from Manchester to Sheffield in both types on many occasions and the Burlingham vehicles were perfectly adequate from a comfort point of view whereas NWRCC’s Willowbrook "DPs" were as bottom-numbing as a regular service bus. The livery made us forgive them….

Neville Mercer

———

03/03/11 – 10:20

Some of Sheffields Burlingham bodied Leopards also ran for Halifax/Calderdale these being 5875-5879 W The Halifax Dual Purpose livery of cream orange and green gave you the ideal a good bus in an equally good livery!

Chris Hough

———

04/03/11 – 07:38

As recorded before, I am a huge Burlingham fan but always defer to Neville’s comprehensive knowledge. (Thank you, as ever.) Such a shame that things bombed out a mere decade after the launch of the Seagull.
It is also significant that Manchester bought 50 PD2s and a similar number of CVG6s in 1958 with Burlingham bodywork, at the same time as Ribble’s PD3s, and they were highly regarded vehicles.
A friend of mine, a well respected professional bus man, reckons that the weight of Burlingham bodies was a disincentive to many cost and fuel economy conscious operators. I always thought this a short sighted attitude – which still prevails today. [Van Hool bodies are "heavy" but their quality is self evident. Iberian bodies, of varied manufacture, are lighter but are rot boxes which fall apart long before the Van Hools.]

David Oldfield

———

05/03/11 – 06:40

I have always been rather puzzled about the designation "dual purpose". It seems that it settled down at some point to identify a vehicle with a bus shell and coach seats (or occasionally, possibly, vice versa). But originally it must have meant a vehicle which could equally serve as a bus or a coach. So why exactly is a bus shell more suitable for bus work than a coach shell would be? We have to bear in mind that this started before one-man operation, so it can’t have been anything to do with fare collection equipment.
Lancashire United’s DPs of the early 60s were particularly well appointed I remember, more so in fact than the laminate-infested coaches which replaced them. I always preferred the term "service coach".

Peter Williamson

———

05/03/11 – 08:25

I would hardly call the Duple Dominant E (with bus seats) dual purpose. It’s obviously a convenient short-hand but, if there are coach seats, it’s not terribly suitably for bus work as there is always less circulation room in gangways. [You still have to navigate down a coach almost sideways on to avoid getting stuck.]
I can think of a number of DPs which were at least as well appointed as some so-called full coaches – often with extremely comfortable seating.
Three examples:
i) Scottish RE/Y types (originally London coaches)
ii) Ribble BET Leopards (Marshall, Weymann and Willowbrook) – also seen elsewhere.
iii) East Midland RE with full coach seats in bus body.
These are probably equivalent to the LUT vehicles and what I think of as DPs – not bus seats in a coach or pretty paintwork (as at North Western). Coach standard of comfort, destination equipment and, latterly, ticket equipment must be the pre-requisites for use on longer or long distance services.

David Oldfield

———

11/03/11 – 16:26

Nottingham City Transport had a fleet of Duple Dominants called ‘Lilac Leopards’ which were coach bodies with bus seats.

Roger Broughton

———

12/03/11 – 07:00

They were examples of the aforementioned Dominant E.

David Oldfield

———

29/03/11 – 07:38

In fact Stevenson’s bought three of the Weymann Fanfare-bodied Leopards from Sheffield – 1500 WJ, 1501 WJ and 1914 WA. And what with two PD3s and a Regent V from the same source, a large chunk of Stevenson’s fleet in the late 70s originated from Sheffield. I took my test with Stevo’s in 1978 and drove most of these buses on school contracts.

Tim Jeffcoat

———

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

11/01/13 – 14:18

I have discovered this lurking in my slide collection.
5907 W when still with Sheffield as its 1007, seen leaving Halifax along Skircoat Road and approaching HPT’s Skircoat Garage on the 68 slow stopping service to Sheffield in March 1971.

John Stringer

———

14/01/13 – 07:16

I’ve just caught up with Roger Broughton’s comment on Nottingham’s Lilac Leopards. In fact, Nottingham’s Dominant E vehicles came in two variants. Those painted in the lilac livery, the true ‘Lilac Leopards’, did have coach seats, and were intended for the park and ride services introduced as part of the short lived Zone and Collar traffic management scheme in the city. The idea was that coach seats would help to attract car drivers to the park and ride services. They were never considered to be more than semi-luxury vehicles, so the seats were not to touring specification. There were originally 18, but most were disposed of after the abandonment of the scheme, just 3 remaining as coaches in the fleet, although they were generally to be found on bus services.
There were a further 24 Dominant E buses, with essentially the same shell, but less chrome trim and with standard bus seats. These were painted in the reverse version of Nottingham’s green and cream, and were always known as ‘White Leopards’. They appear to have been accorded DP status in fleet lists on the basis of the body being a coach shape, but they were never treated by NCT as anything other than service buses.

Alan Murray-Rust

———

16/01/13 – 05:10

Thanks for the photo of 1007, John. Interesting to see it with the later Sheffield Transport fleet name after the abolition of the B and C fleets. Didn’t Halifax acquire some of the C fleet batch 5875-5879W about this same time?

Ian Wild

———

16/01/13 – 07:14

…..and eagle eyes will see the folding power doors – these were new with full (and heavy) coach doors.

David Oldfield

———

16/01/13 – 13:08

Yes, they had all five Ian.
5877-5877 W had passed to Hebble as their 160-162 (soon after renumbered 656-658). They were acquired by Halifax J.O.C as part of the Hebble takeover, and numbered 305-307.
5878/5879 W had passed to Yorkshire Woollen as their 293/294, but were also transferred to H.J.O.C. as part of the Hebble takeover, and numbered 308/309.
All passed to Calderdale J.O.C. on its formation at the time of the Todmorden takeover, and were withdrawn in 1972, passing to operators in the Irish Republic.

John Stringer

   Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1953
Leyland PD2/12
Weymann H32/26R

Sheffield operated a number of occasional services to small villages and hamlets to the north west of the City. Ewden Valley Village lay about a mile off the main Sheffield to Stocksbridge route 57 via a Sheffield Corporation Waterworks private road and was primarily home to workers at the adjacent reservoir. Service 164 was sparse but included this Saturday morning journey taken in February 1963 with a few villagers complete with shopping leaving Weymann bodied Leyland PD2/12 at the terminus in the snow. The bus which was allocated to Herries Road Garage was one of the 1953 B fleet batch of 26 such buses originally numbered 142-167 but renumbered later in 1963 with the addition of 2000 to their fleet numbers.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

24/02/11 – 08:10

Coincidence. Was just looking at 687 on the South Yorkshire site before I came here to find 158.
Ewden Valley is part of the beautiful Sheffield "Lake District" of reservoirs (and forestry) to the north of the city. Originally part of the West Riding, the area came into the city with the 1974 Local Government reorganisation.
Note the treacherous conditions with "raw" snow. At least the driver had a manual gearbox to help him cope. I drove part time for Reading Mainline in the ’90s and remember a happy Saturday morning in Reading when none of the side roads had been gritted. [I had never been skating before this…..]

David Oldfield

24/02/11 – 09:19

I worked in Sheffield during that winter. I can’t remember the buses ever stopping, but perhaps they did. I don’t think I missed a day’s work. This bus has- it seems- reversed into its terminus gritless. Presumably with a gentle bit of clutch work it will set off on that lock? Are today’s buses not gritless but gutless- these people wouldn’t have seen one for weeks? Despite the weight at the rear, does the transmission stop them getting a grip or are they just too long to control and the rear weight just makes them jack-knife?

Joe

24/02/11 – 10:11

Joe, I lived through some pretty harsh Sheffield winters in my childhood – notably 1962. Once the ploughs and gritters had been out, the buses emerged. The STD buses very rarely failed the burghers of Sheffield.
With a clutch there is far more control than any sort of automatic gives. This is one reason that all STD buses from 1951 to 1959 were manual. (The advent of "no-choice" on Atlanteans and Fleetlines put an end to this – and possibly the fact that the Atlantean killed off the last trams and was easier to convert tram drivers.)

David Oldfield

24/02/11 – 10:13

Joe – Many of us older drivers know that, in snow, you need grip, not power. The answer is to pull away and accelerate in a higher gear than usual, easy with a manual gearbox.
Also, modern buses have smaller wheels, I’m sure, so a smaller ‘footprint’ in the snow.
There may be other considerations, too, of which I can’t think offhand.

Chris Hebbron

24/02/11 – 21:33

What a handsome body was this penultimate Weymann style, before the advent of the "Orion". I believe that this style was heavier than the Orion, and that it continued after the 1954 Orion body and was known as "Aurora", availability continuing until the late 50s. In fact, Bournemouth`s MF2B trolleys owe much to this design. Not sure about my facts here, if anyone can clarify, but, as an enthusiast, I remember their gradual demise with some regret. They were, in my view, the most handsome of all bus bodies, and were a real "classic", their ancestry being traceable back to the first Weymann metal bodies of 1933. A truly evocative photograph!

John Whitaker

24/02/11 – 21:58

In reply to Joe, I am pretty sure that the bus as pictured had driven in to that position, it would reverse to the right of the photo before returning to the main A616 and the City down the private road which is to the left of the picture.
The nearest bus route to my home was on a pretty steep hill and I can remember in the snow drivers would go as slow as possible at the bus stop whilst the passengers jumped on the rear platform. Rarely did the buses miss in those days. My first two winters at work were 1962 and 1963. The first I was at Rotherham, the second on the edge of Sheffield City Centre, as well as two nights a week at night school. I cannot remember missing either work or night school during those winters due to the weather. I remember the single skin upper saloon domes with ice on the inside – no saloon heaters in those days!

Ian Wild

25/02/11 – 08:38

Rochdale received the Aurora on Regent Vs until 1959 (including the famous Gardners in about 1956) and Bournemouth was receiving the Sunbeams until 1962. The Bournemouths were the same design – except they had five short bays – just as the Rotherham CVG6s, contemporary to 158, had five short bays (and were also 7’6" wide).
The Orion is much maligned – often unfairly – but there is no doubt that this is a far better and more attractive design. Only the roof of the domes was single skinned on the Aurora. Around the front (and front side) windows was double skinned, as was the area around the rear emergency exit. All of this area was single skinned on the Orion.
As I’ve said before, the first upper deck heating on STD buses was the 1325-1349 Regent V/Roes of 1960.

David Oldfield

25/02/11 – 09:37

I can’t quite work it out on the photo, and it might be a trick of the eye with dirt/snow along the bottom, but does this body have the Weymann flair? If so, it would be quite late to have this feature.

Chris Hebbron

25/02/11 – 11:18

Yes, 158 had the Weymann flaired skirt. Also, PD2’s 668 to 687 of 1953 and 688-723 of 1954 had the flair. Straight ‘skirts’ were fitted to this body style for the Regent 3’s of 1954, nos. 178-199, 724-735 and 1154-55. Further deliveries thereafter were Orions.

John Darwent

28/02/11 – 06:59

This body design came out in 1952 or 1953. I have been aware for some time that Croft of Glasgow built similar-looking bodies, and have always assumed that they were Weymann-based – until I discovered that Croft were actually building them several years before Weymann! The one at this link must have looked incredibly modern in 1949.

Peter Williamson

02/03/11

Thanks for the Albion-Croft link, Peter W. The Croft body’s modern look is emphasized by the wonderfully thirties-looking Albion chassis–especially the radiator!

Ian Thompson

06/03/11 – 08:18

The Rochdale 1959 Regent V’s were probably the final incarnation of the Aurora design and what magnificent vehicles they were. When originally delivered in Rochdale’s majestic blue and cream streamlined livery they looked superb. The last four 319-322(TDK 319-322) had platform doors, believed to have been added to the spec so as not to be outdone by Bury Corporation whose Orion bodied PD3’s had this feature and operated on the joint routes 19 and 21T between the two towns. Compared to the Bury vehicles which I always found noisy and rough, the Rochdale Regent V’s with their semi-automatic gearboxes, were much more refined.
One of these vehicles was preserved at Sheffield Bus Museum. Is it still there? One of the 1956 Gardners is in the collection at Boyle Street, Manchester.

Philip Halstead

06/03/11 – 09:09

Yes, it’s still at Rotherham. [The museum moved!]

David Oldfield

07/03/11 – 09:27

I remember the Rochdale Regent Vs (and the preceding Daimlers with basically similar bodies) very well as I used to use the 17 service in Manchester regularly. What impressed me even more than the features Philip mentions was the interiors. They were fairly basic really, with leatherette seats and painted metal window cappings, but who would have thought that two shades of blue, together with a strangely translucent white on the ceiling, could be so restful? With those colours, the smoothness of the drive train and the soporific crooning of the transmission, a 12-minute journey on one of those was almost enough to induce an altered state of consciousness!

Peter Williamson

12/03/11 – 08:00

I agree with Peter, the Rochdale interiors were plain but very clean and fresh feeling. As a child I was a bit susceptible to travel sickness and somehow the Rochdale interiors seemed to calm my problem. It is surprising how interior features stick in ones mind from those childhood days. Manchester’s ‘standard’ bodies were very dark and oppressive inside with dark moquette seats and dark varnished woodwork. In the days of almost universal adult smoking the moquette seating seemed to soak up the stale tobacco fumes even in the lower saloon. We used to travel into Manchester from Rochdale on the 24/90 service, jointly worked by Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale corporations and I would always hope our bus would be a Rochdale vehicle.
The Oldham buses had some distinctive internal features I well remember. Hanging leather straps in the lower saloon with handles similar to horse-riding stirrups. A row of domestic style Bakelite light switches with porcelain fuse holders on the front lower saloon bulkhead above the driver’s cab window. The words ‘Oldham Corporation’ were emblazoned across the front bulkhead in gold lettering – civic pride still existed in those days! And finally the ‘Honesty Box’ on the rear platform. Did anybody ever put anything into it, I wonder? I also remember the Oldham Roe bodies were a bit short on bell pushes in the upper saloon and conductors would give the starting signal from the front with a couple of heavy stamps of the foot on the floor above the cab!
We seem to concentrate our interest in the exteriors of buses but not much is written or photographed about the insides.

Philip Halstead

13/03/11 – 08:05

Philip, I fully agree regarding bus interiors. That was the environment in which you travelled, and it was often very distinctive – location and style of bell pushes (or cords or strips), pattern of light fittings (before the arrival of standard fluorescent strip lights), seats and upholstery – even smells. Perhaps there are a few more interior shots out there to add another dimension?

Stephen Ford

04/06/18 – 07:03

This is a few years after Stephen’s comment which I’ve only just read, but with regard to ‘smells’, I used to love getting a green West Riding tin-front Guy from Sheffield to Ecclesfield back in the 1950’s. Unlike the STD buses, they were cleaned with a pleasant, perfumed disinfectant which I can still ‘smell’ to this day.
At that time, I think both West Riding and Yorkshire Traction buses carried posters on the windows stating ‘Cut the fuel tax. We don’t like it, you don’t like it, it must GO!’. Anyone else remember that ?

Mike C