Copyright Michael Crofts

Potteries Motor Traction
1961
Leyland Atlantean PDR1
Weymann L39/33F

This is one of a batch of 105 Atlanteans delivered between 1959/1961 and the above picture was taken at the water point at the PMT Newcastle under Lyme depot. It was very rare for this type of vehicle to do the Leek route as it was normally worked by Leyland Titan PD3’s and this bus would normally be on the Longton Newcastle Estates route. So it was a pleasure for me and a first to go to Leek in an Atlantean as I liked driving these splendid vehicles unlike the Daimler Fleetline which I detested. The prefix L in front of the fleet number denotes a low height body which was one of the reasons why this type of bus was normally on the Longton service as there was a low railway bridge in Longton.
During the Potteries annual holidays double deck vehicles would be used on the express service’s to Morecambe and Blackpool, the buses would be either Atlanteans or Fleetlines with Alexander bodies the latter being hard work with their hydraulic throttles and having a top speed of 42 mph, the Atlanteans on the other hand would do between 52-55mph.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Michael Crofts

22/02/11 – 10:06

Thanks, Michael, for this interesting picture of another early BET company Atlantean. As you say, they could really motor, but they didn’t half drink the diesel when doing so. That was just one of the reasons why some operators changed to Fleetlines; lower overall maintenance costs was another.

Roy Burke

22/02/11 – 19:54

Good to see this photo of what was the most common type of bus in the PMT fleet in my time working there. Longton Depot had some of the earliest batch and achieved phenomenal engine mileages of 400,000+ between failures. Frank Ling was the Depot Engineer there and maintained a very high standard of maintenance. My first winter there was a cold one and the Atlanteans frequently failed with the air system unloader valve frozen causing the vehicle to lose all air pressure and hence drive. The unloader valve was mounted under the cab in one of the coldest locations on the vehicle. A rag on a steel bar, dipped in diesel and set alight was the quickest means of unfreezing the unloader and restoring normal operation. Flywheel gland failures were another problem coating the engine bay in oil with the consequent fire risk (wiring fires in the Atlantean engine bays were not uncommon not aided by the wiring insulation becoming brittle with age and falling off). Quite a number of Atlanteans had to be rewired, some being dealt with by local Contractors as the level of work exceeded the available labour in Central Works at Stoke. Leyland tried adding a fan bolted to the fluid flywheel (more correctly the fluid-friction clutch) on a number of buses but there was no real improvement. As originally built, the chassis had rear light units fitted on the rear sub frame and which shone through holes in the fibreglass engine cover. PMT later fitted high level rear lights in the rear ‘tween decks panels thus eliminating the wiring to the sub frame lights located as they were in a very oily environment. The main rear lights were fitted to the lift up rear engine cover and the additional lights were necessary to provide rear lights at night if it were necessary to open the engine cover whilst on the road at night. Oh happy days!!

Ian Wild

22/02/11 – 19:55

The early Atlantean in low height form was a modified lowbridge bus in reality on the other hand the Fleetline with its drop centre rear axle was a true lowheight vehicle from the off It took Leyland until 1966 (four years after the first Fleetlines entered service) before they offered a low height chassis which removed the low bridge layout from the top deck. Having said this the Atlantean PDR1/2 was not one of Leylands finest although when it appeared the AN68 was what the Atlantean should have been from the off

Chris Hough

26/01/13 – 06:24

The seating in the forward part of the upper upper deck on these buses was too low in relation to the window line whilst the rear rows of 4 were too high! This is except the initial row of 4 which were mounted straight onto the raised rear platform resulting in an excellent match between seat height and window level.

Ian Wild

Copyright Bob Gell

Yorkshire Woollen District
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/20
MCW H34/29R

The above shot was sent to me by Bob Gell with the following comment:

There is correspondence under the Yorkshire Woollen District Tiger PS1 posting about this vehicle – I took the attached photo in July 1969 at Dewsbury Bus Station.

I’m intrigued by the total lack of opening windows on each side upstairs, with ventilation only from the two vents in the front windows – presumably part of its ‘spec’ as a demonstrator. I wonder if it was built around the same time as the Edinburgh lightweights, the ‘Monstrous mass of shivering tin’, as they were known in Edinburgh?

The vehicle was actually an ex Leyland Motors demonstrator and I think it was built to Edinburgh specification it does look very similar. I am not sure what year the vehicle entered service with Yorkshire Woollen District but my thanks to John Blackburn who informed me that it was renumbered 54 in 1967 and withdrawn in 1970 going to Norths of Sherburn in Elmet in 1971 and presumably scrapped. If you wish to read the comments on the Yorkshire Woollen District Tiger PS1 posting click here.

Photograph contributed by Bob Gell

06/02/11 – 09:12

This former Leyland demonstrator did indeed have an MCW body to Edinburgh specification hence the strip bell (see Tiger comments) It also had an Edinburgh blind layout. I only ever saw it once whizzing up Whitehall Road Leeds at a great rate of knots with its exhaust booming off the surrounding buildings

Chris Hough

06/02/11 – 09:12

With regards to Y.W.D. 773 [later 54] this was a standard Edinburgh Corporation PD2 that was taken from a batch that were being built for them. An Edinburgh Baille once described them as being monstrous pieces of shivering tin. Anyway I always liked it. The crews liked it too because of the Edinburgh style destination box it could show a lazy blind of the two ends of a route.

Philip Carlton

07/02/11 – 20:11

Edinburgh’s Titans may well have been monstrous masses of shivering tin but most of them gave up to 20 years service. Their grey and red interiors were still being used until the advent of low floor deckers in Edinburgh I well remember my first visit to Edinburgh in 1971 when every bus seemed to be one of the Titans. The other gems such as the Alexander bodied Guys just paled into insignificance alongside the Titans

Chris Hough

07/02/11 – 20:37

I had never noticed its lack of upper deck ventilation windows until now. Looking at views of its Edinburgh contemporaries I note that they all had two upper and two lower ventilators. Was the lack of upper deck ventilators on the demonstrator a one-off or was it a YWD alteration?

Paul Haywood

10/02/11 – 05:48

I worked for YWD at the time UTF 930 or 773 as it was known and loved was in service, this was the BEST vehicle on the fleet. As I said in another reply this vehicle was the most reliable vehicle we ever had!. It used to go out on duty and was forgotten until some one remembered it may need cleaning, a liner check, or greasing/oilchange The vehicle was fitted with Vacuum brakes and Leylands RP (Ratchet Paul) brake adjusters which worked perfectly (If maintained correctly) and only came in when it required a reline. Unlike modern day practice of relining an axle set we only relined one corner at a time, with NO problems!! The driver would fight over it!! And it made the most wonderful noise when accelerating (almost like a Ferrari!!!). I just wish someone had had the money to preserve it but alas it went to the big bus haven in Sherburn in Elmet, Norths Scrap Yard.(unless some one can tell me different!!)

Chris Bligh

10/02/11 – 09:07

Chris Hough’s comment on the Edinburgh "shivering masses of tin" took me back many years to when a temporary shortage of buses in Sheffield resulted in a batch of those splendid vehicles being sent south on loan. Visiting the Steel city with a friend one evening we took a random ride on one for the experience and were most impressed by its incredibly good condition. I don’t know the Sheffield routes at all really, but would I be right in thinking that it was on service 75 or 76 to Low Edges ?? The bus was full to capacity and on one very steep street in particular we were treated to one of the most masterly pieces of driving – starting off in first gear and going to full revs the driver changed beautifully into second without a click or a jerk of any kind – and the conductress was an immaculate efficient Caribbean lady with a cultured "BBC" accent and the politest of manners – a lovely journey to recall.

Chris Youhill

10/02/11 – 10:14

I wasn’t living in Sheffield during the "shortage" but still have family there and visit regularly. If it were a 76 Lowdedges then the steep hill would have been Woodseats Road. Had it been a 75 Bradway, it could also have been Meadowhead.
I was brought up in the Lowedges area of Greenhill which was originally serviced by the 38 (later by 42/53), the 75/75 originally serviced by the 59. The stop at the bottom of Meadowhead was a classic test of hill starting with a full bus with a crippling gradient. The 38 was basically an AEC route with Leyland input. The AECs posed no problems by the PD3s sorted the men from the boys with grinds, grauches and lurches! This stop was notorious and was subsequently moved back to a flat approach to Meadowhead, nearer Graves Park’s Woodseats entrance, to avoid the hill start.

David Oldfield

11/02/11 – 06:59

Thank you David for the information on those forbidding Sheffield hills – whichever was the one that I remember so well it was a most creditable performance by the driver – he must without doubt have been one of those chaps with a genuine interest in the job and a real pride in his work.

Chris Youhill

16/04/11 – 05:00

The reason they lasted so long in Edinburgh was the fact that the bodies were rebuilt every 6 years. The quoted phrase was – “They are ungainly, inelegant, monstrous masses of shivering tin. They are modern to the extent of becoming able to produce a perfect synchronization of rock `n` roll. As far as Edinburgh went the bodies were a disaster,with front and back domes breaking free and the odd staircase detaching itself from the top deck among the other numerous problems such as cracking the nearside chassis rail, which resulted in expensive and time consuming body off repairs. The Edinburgh cobbles did these bodies no favours.

Brian Melrose

02/01/14 – 17:24

Most deckers of PD2s and 3s suffered this complaint of broken chassis rails which when you think about it all the swaying with a full top load of passengers over 10 years or more did these buses no favours l hope this may answer your questions on this matter. I am a bus enthusiast and have been for the last 50 years or so.

JohnE

03/01/14 – 07:55

Sheffield had their own almost identical batch of 20 Weymann/ PD2/30 but with more ventilation. The bodies were a nadir – and most unworthy of the name Weymann. Later deliveries were to a higher standard – more like earlier Weymanns. Going back to Chris Y’s earlier comments; in retrospect, my memories of STD drivers in the PD2/PD3 era are that they were well trained and generally drove very well.

David Oldfield

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

24/09/14 – 08:38

I congratulate all those who knows which bus is made by who, all I was interested in was getting from A to B; never trusted any of the service busses, there was never any guarantees I would finish with the same bus I started with!
From Frost Hill, I did Batley/Birks, Dewsbury/Cleckheaton, Halifax/Leeds, Dewsbury/Bradford, but that was a story of its own, Huddersfield/Leeds, Elland/Leeds including Rastrick, but by gum, I don’t know or remember anything about bus types, models or the likes, I just drove them, so God bless those who remember so much. To me, they were Leyland with a cab, Leyland Atlantean, Leyland air/auto, Guy bronze box and crash box, and that includes double and single deckers; but, does anyone remember the new coach we got at Frost Hill in 1968 that was all electric push button geared, now that was a coach worth taking to the footy matches, but I made sure I was last there and first out, especially when Leeds played at home!

Donald Campbell

25/09/14 – 16:11

What was a Guy Bronze box?
Was it anything to signify the H pattern being different for gear changes?

John Blackburn

26/09/14 – 05:41

The original Guy Arab of 1933 had a four speed sliding mesh (crash) gearbox with "right to left" upward gear selection positions, and this box was used in the wartime Arab utilities. Towards the end of 1945, Arabs were delivered with a new constant mesh gearbox which had conventional gear selector positions. I would think that Donald was unlikely to have experienced the old Guy crash gearbox.

Roger Cox

27/09/14 – 07:09

Roger.I had the pleasure of driving former Burton Corporation Guy Arab 111/Massey no 18 when first preserved and this also had the right to left gearbox. YWD also re-bodied many wartime Arabs so they could still have this gearbox.

Geoff S

Copyright Robert F Mack

Williamson’s (Bridlington)
1938
Leyland Titanic TT5c
Roe H32/28R

Here is the picture of Williamson’s ex Doncaster Titanic (76 – DT 9643) in action in Queen Street.  Unfortunately the destination blind is obscured by the sun but would say either "The Quay and Queensgate" or "Old Town and The Quay", depending on whether it was quarter to or quarter past the hour, or on the hour or half past. It was a 1938 Titanic TT5c and served only one year in Bridlington, from July 1949 to July 1950. Possibly its Titanic running costs, maybe aggravated by the torque converter, resulted in this short career. In view of the notorious maritime disaster of 1912 I’ve always thought it either brave or cavalier of Leyland to give the model this particular name !!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill

18/03/12 – 11:28

Slightly off our normal bus subject – hard labour of a the non driving sort. In Nov 1907 a man called Arthur —- was charged on remand with stealing the tin box containing the fares collected on one of the ‘busses plying between Old Town and the Quay (note the old plural spelling for buses) the thief got 2 months hard labour – obviously not soft on crime in Bridlington!

Ian Gibbs

19/09/13 – 17:57

Doncaster had nine Titanics, some of which were passed to other operators – one even ending up with Yorkshire Traction. Some lasted until the early 1950s.
Sheffield’s Titanics had a reputation for poor-hill climbing, and I believe they were used mostly on the relatively flat 57 route to Stocksbridge.

Geoff Kerr

20/09/13 – 18:38

Geoff – I believe Sheffield’s Titanics were known as ‘Dragonflies’ on account that they would ‘drag’ themselves slowly up the hill and ‘fly’ down the other side!

John Darwent

03/10/13 – 17:37

I recently came across this picture of Doncaster’s "Titanic" No 65. This was evidently taken outside the Charles H.Roe works prior to delivery. According to the accompanying text "It seems likely that this imposing bus was the only TT2 Titanic other than the three supplied to City and taken over by the L.P.T.B., of which the chassis numbers were 2288-90".
The photograph was credited to ‘Mr G. Warnes’

Nigel Edwards

04/10/13 – 06:14

These might not have been the earliest Titanics, for I have a feeling that I once saw a photo of a Western SMT TT1 Titanic which dated back to about 1928. So they were in the catalogue for a long time, even if they only sold in penny numbers.

Chris Hebbron

04/10/13 – 08:39

I know I’ve mentioned this before, but whatever were Leyland thinking of to use this model name when you consider the appalling shipping disaster of 1912 ??
Perhaps level headed operators paid no heed to this, but who knows if the insensitive name played perhaps just a little part in the low sales achieved??

Chris Youhill

04/10/13 – 15:04

Yes, Chris – it is indeed strange that they used the name Titanic so soon after the tragedy, but I suppose the then more recent Great War memories made this event almost trivial in comparison. However, I find it strange that, today, the Titanic disaster has become something almost to be "celebrated" as in Belfast. Sorry – not a bus related comment. However, it’s good to know that the AEC equivalent had a more positive and inspiring name – Renown, albeit with the same poor sales.

Paul Haywood

04/10/13 – 18:08

Of course, it was LGOC/LPTB who boosted the otherwise meagre sales of the pre-war AEC Renown; 1488 LT’s and 22 LTC’s, plus the true coach taken onboard from Edward Hillman (LT1489). The only other ones that readily come to my mind are the 25 bought by Leicester Corporation in 1939-40. As for the Titanic, the WWI torpedoing of the Lusitania might have made the Titanic sink into the background of folks memories. I’ve just realised the Freudian slip, but will leave it as an example of the way the mind innocently works at times!
As an aside, I’ve only ever seen photos of Leicester’s Northern Counties-bodied Renowns (one preserved)- I assume that the MCCW versions were a different design.

Chris Hebbron

05/10/13 – 08:24

The famous Mr Rackham – who designed both the Leyland Titan and the AEC Regent – was vociferous in his dislike of what we now call tri-axle designs and disapproved of the LTs. Leicester’s MCCW Renowns were specifically delivered to a Northern Counties like outline to make all the Renowns look similar.

David Oldfield

05/10/13 – 08:25

65 was a 1934 TT2c withdrawn in 1947 (Peter Gould)
Williamsons was Doncaster 76 a TT5c new in 1938 withdrawn in 1949. What a huge difference in appearance over 4 years. 76 would pass for a post war bus, but 65 looks almost 20’s.

Joe

28/02/16 – 15:19

My grandmother Doris was Ruben Williamson daughter, who married Samuel Bolton & lived across the road from the garage at 22 Havelock Crescent & my dad often told me about Williamson buses when he was 14 before school he used to help his dad Samuel bring the buses out (abo 1935).
My dad was Arthur Williamson Bolton

Graham Bolton