Leeds City Transport
1969
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LXB
Roe H45/33D

Representative of the concurrent Leeds double deck orders in 1969/70 are these two buses photographed in Leeds in April 1970. On the left is Roe H45/33D bodied Daimler Fleetline CRG6LXB UNW 174H, No.174 delivered in September 1969. Standing alongside is similarly bodied Leyland Atlantean PDR2/1 UNW 404H, No.404 which arrived in January 1970. Though seemingly identical to the man on the Leeds, rather than the Clapham omnibus, I wonder how these two types compared in terms of road performance and mechanical reliability.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

01/12/21 – 07:22

Sheffield had similarly contemporaneous batches of vehicles. Whatever the comparative merits, or otherwise, of the competing marques, the Sheffield PDR2/1 Atlanteans were mountain goats whereas the CRG6LXB Fleetlines struggled up the many steep hills. I saw it regularly with Atlanteans on the Outer Circle and Fleetlines on the Hemsworths going up Scarsdale Road.

David Oldfield

03/12/21 – 06:08

What a smart pair of buses! Handsome designs and elegant livery. I only knew the southern fleets, save for the high speed Scotland-London coaches which thundered down the A1 through Stevenage, through the night, which were black and white, if memory serves. Circa 1952-3 (Western Scottish?)
What a platform these pages provide for us all!

Victor Brumby

Leeds City Transport
1968
AEC Swift MP2R
MCW B48D

Pictured in Leeds in April 1970 is Leeds City Transport No.93, MUB 193F, an AEC Swift MP2R bought in May 1968 with MCW B48D bodywork that emulated the forward sloping side pillars of contemporary Alexander designs. A curious feature was the narrow width of the centre exit door. I believe that here was a total of thirty such buses, which were intermixed with deliveries of Swifts with Roe bodywork, also of B48D pattern, some of which arrived in 1967. Swifts continued to feature in the Leeds purchasing programme until 1971. The Swift MP2R was powered by the AH505 8.2 litre engine, and the first Leeds batches, of which No.93 is an example, had the semi automatic Monocontrol transmission. Later examples were fitted with fully auto gearboxes. I am sure that other correspondents with much a greater knowledge than mine of the Leeds system can give details of these buses in service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

26/06/19 – 09:48

The narrow exit door was also a feature of the Roe bodied Swifts delivered in 1967/68.
The biggest batch of Swifts were the 50 delivered in 1969 were bodied by Park Royal and had full size centre doors The last Swifts came in 1971 and had Roe bodywork. In addition to the Swifts Leeds also bought thirty single deck Fleetlines with Park Royal bodywork these were identical to the fifty Park Royal bodied Swifts

Chris Hough

28/10/20 – 05:36

I think there were 5 variants of these.
51 – ? were AEC Swifts with MCW bodywork, vertical window pillars, lights in the roof line and narrow doors, bus seats MUG 4xxF reg.
? – 100 were AEC Swifts with Roe bodywork, they were the slanting window ones as the pic above, coach seats, narrow rear door MUG 1xxF reg.
Not sure of the split I think 51 – 85 were MCW, 86 – 100 were Roe 1966-8.
1001 – 1050 AEC Swift, Park Royal bodies, wide rear doors, dest display at side. bus seats SUB 4xxG 1969.
1201 – 1230 Daimler Fleetline Roe bodies, wide rear doors, bus seats, dest and route no at side, reg UNW 2xxH introduced 1970.
1051 – 1070 AEC Swift Roe body wide rear doors, only route number at side. coach seats AUB 1xxJ introduces 1971.
Please let me know if I have any of this wrong.

Ken

01/11/20 – 06:07

According to buslistsontheweb.co.uk the 51-100 split was rather more complicated than that:
51 (GUM 451D): Roe body, 1966 (exhibited at Earl’s Court).
52-60 (JNW 9xxE): Roe body, 1967.
61-75 (MNW 1xxF): MCW body, 1968.
76-85 (MUG 4xxF): Roe body, 1968.
86-99 (MUB 1xxF): MCW body, 1968.
100 (MUG 100F): same as 86-99.

Peter Williamson

Leeds City Transport
1964
AEC Reliance 2MU2RA
Roe B41D

Seen in April 1970 is Leeds City Transport No. 46, 46 KUA, an AEC Reliance 2MU2RA with Roe B41D bodywork, one of four, Nos. 44 – 47, 44 – 47 KUA delivered in 1964. These followed an earlier order for six similar vehicles in 1962, Nos 39 – 43, 839 – 843 CUM. I understand that all these Reliances had quite a short life of around 8 years or so with Leeds.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

03/12/18 – 07:13

I can’t comment on the others, but 45 and 47 went to Aberdeen. I have a view of each from the late Arnold Richardson’s collection.

Pete Davies

04/12/18 – 06:33

All four were new in August 1964 and withdrawn in December 1970.
44 and 45 went to Aberdeen on 30th June 1971, being followed on 7th July by 46 and 47, retaining the same fleet numbers.

John Kaye

05/12/18 – 07:46

Oh dear, that destination box doesn’t look comfortable, balanced up there.

Petras409

11/12/18 – 07:43

These Reliance’s really came too late. They were in effect an update of the standee single deckers 29-38, to the same 30ft. length when 36 ft. had become available. Getting 41seats into the shorter length, with dual doors meant they had poor access/exit and tight seat spacing. As with many AECs of that design they were not comfortable, or liked by passengers or drivers. Just two years later, the first 36 ft. Swifts with wider doors, easier steps and 48 better spaced seats arrived. They may not have been great, but they were better. In a year or so there were 50 Swifts in operation and 39 to 46 were consigned to relief work and then sale.

Andy Buckland

13/12/18 – 05:53

Several of these also ended up in Scotland with Greyhound of Arbroath.

Chris Hough

07/01/19 – 07:12

I’ve sometimes wondered what was so wrong with the AEC Swift and the Leyland Panther that caused many operators to not get on with them, prematurely retire them (especially London’s AECs) and overall have bad experiences, while the conceptually similar Bristol RE seems to have commonly led a full life with its original operators.
It’s not as if they did not incorporate standard components in use elsewhere.

Bill

12/01/19 – 08:23

In the absence of a more comprehensive reply from someone who knows more, I will say that one of the differences between Bristol’s approach and the Panther/Swift approach was the position of the driveline and its effect on weight distribution. In the Panther and Swift the engine and gearbox were at the extreme rear of the overhang, whereas the RE had the engine further forward, with the gearbox in front of the rear axle.

Peter Williamson

16/01/19 – 07:27

The Panther also had a much weaker frame causing bending and breaking. Even in preservation I can think of a couple where following you can see the curve.

Roger Burdett

17/01/19 – 07:09

The radiator for the Swift was not at the front, as in the Panther or the RE, but tucked away behind a panel in the bodywork behind the offside back wheels.
Although this arrangement probably insured against air locks in the cooling system, it restricted the flow of cooling air over the surface of the radiator and could result in the engine overheating.

John B

18/01/19 – 06:30

My Foden which has the Rad in the same position still airlocks so concur John B comment.

Roger Burdett

18/01/19 – 06:32

In the Bristol RE the drive went forward from the engine to the gearbox located in front of the rear axle, and then back again to the differential. This gave a prop shaft of decent length to accommodate the suspension travel of the rear axle, something that competitive designs (the worst being the Seddon RU) lacked. Contrary to popular belief, the RE did not pioneer this layout. The Rutland Clipper of 1954 used a similar arrangement.

Roger Cox