Leeds City Transport
1957
AEC Regent V MD2RA
Roe H33/27R

Leeds was one of several operators initially not persuaded by the AEC “new look” front end (a preference with which I entirely concur), and its first Regent V deliveries retained the classic radiator design and hence the outward general appearance of the Regent III. These buses were of the MD2RA air braked specification of which Leeds became the largest customer, being powered by the AV470 7.7 litre engine driving into the four speed Monocontrol transmission. They were delivered in two batches, all with handsome, traditional Roe H33/27R bodywork. WUA 760 to 839 (with corresponding fleet numbers) came into service from January to November 1956, and XUM 840 to 894 arrived between March and October 1957. In the photo above, XUM 888 is seen in April 1970, four years before Barbara Castle created the heavy and inefficient hand of the West Yorkshire PTE that was to fall upon the municipalities of Bradford, Calderdale, Huddersfield and Leeds. I understand that these buses did not long survive in PTE ownership. Geoffrey Hilditch paints a revealing picture of the dire financial performance of the PTE in his “Steel Wheels and Rubber Tyres, Volume 3”. Later still, of course, another dogma driven politician of the opposite persuasion, a certain N. Ridley was to wreak even greater devastation upon the entire bus operating industry outside London, a saga that has previously been discussed at length on this forum.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

21/05/18 – 06:39

These buses were all withdrawn before PTE days.
The last of the WUA batch had gone by April 1973.
The XUM batch had perished earlier, all bar one (accident damaged) in 1971.

Dave Towers

23/05/18 – 06:44

These small AECs flattered to deceive they had an attractive body but were of light weight construction and when idling in later years the rattles were almost syncopated In addition because Leeds were frugal with fuel a fully laden example could really struggle on the most gentle of inclines For some reason they always seemed to really lean into corners perhaps due to their lightweight construction I well remember one occasion when one really heeled over at the bottom of New York Street in the city centre so far over did it go that the platform was causing sparks to fly from the road surface and was leaving gouges in the roadway!

Chris Hough

24/05/18 – 07:34

Chris, I recall that our highly respected and informed contributor, Chris Youhill, once commented on this forum about the distressing propensity of Leeds City Transport to cut down the engine fuel pump settings on this fleet of Regent Vs. These buses, with their modest AV 470 power units, must have been truly pathetic performers after the fuel pumps had been reset to "economy" levels. Yes, for years, a great many Bristol double deckers got along (albeit steadily) with the 94 bhp 5LW, but, in my experience, AEC motors were never remotely in the same low speed torque league as the Gardner.

Roger Cox

24/05/18 – 07:36

A feature of Leeds buses of yesteryear which always mystified me on visits to the city as a young lad was the unpainted bonnet cover on PDs & Regents of LCT. Nobody has ever given me a proper explanation as to the reason for this, somebody said it was so the fitters did not scuff the paintwork if the bonnet had been painted when working on the engine, but I do not know how true this is.

Andrew Spriggs

28/05/18 – 06:42

This was always given as the reason It survived three managers so was certainly a proper policy rather than a managerial whim and was in use in prewar days. Even the last batches of enclosed radiator AEC Regents with enclosed radiators had the feature The nineteen fifties and afterwards Daimler’s and the PD3As had green bonnets oddly the Crossleys also had painted bonnets.

Chris Hough

Huddersfield Corporation
1960
AEC Regent V 2D2RA
East Lancs. H37/28R

192 (PVH 992) was an AEC Regent V 2D2RA with East Lancs. H37/28R bodywork, one of a pair (192/3) added to the Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee fleet on 1st February 1960. They had the AV590 engine and Monocontrol semi-automatic gearboxes. The traditional exposed radiator arrangement had remained an option for the Mk. V and the JOC had taken eight Roe-bodied examples (182-189) a couple of years previously, but this pair must have been amongst the last examples before the option was withdrawn. With their sturdy and well finished East Lancs bodies they were in my opinion the most handsome of buses, so typical of the Huddersfield fleet in that period – oozing real quality.
The Corporation/JOC system at Huddersfield had worked in a different way to the one at neighbouring Halifax, not being based on whether the services operated outside the borough or not, but on what type of vehicles were used. Tram and then trolleybus routes had all been run by the Corporation whilst all motorbuses were the responsibility of the JOC. However when trolleybus abandonment in favour of motorbuses began in the early 1960’s the old arrangement would have eventually meant the JOC would have operated all the routes so a new agreement was reached such that former trolleybus routes would remain in Corporation hands and a separate fleet of buses was gradually built up carrying a more streamlined trolleybus-like livery and numbered from 101 upwards.
From the 1st October 1969 the Corporation took over the former railway company’s share of the JOC (by then owned by the NBC) as well as the local stage service of Hanson’s Buses, and from then until the formation of the West Yorkshire PTE in April 1974 all services were Corporation operated. 192 and 193 passed into the PTE fleet as 4192/4193 and were withdrawn shortly afterwards and scrapped.
193 is seen here in Huddersfield’s Manchester Street Bus Station in the latter all-Corporation days having just been treated to a magnificent repaint.

Photograph Peter Berry – Copy John Stringer

20/09/17 – 06:08

The exposed radiator AEC Regent V seemed to be very much a Yorkshire thing. In addition to the Huddersfield examples, Leeds, Doncaster and East Yorkshire also had them. The only non-Yorkshire examples I can recall were some for City of Oxford and Rhonda. As we’re talking Yorkshire here where the natives have a reputation for thrift, could it have been that the exposed radiator version was cheaper!

Philip Halstead

20/09/17 – 08:22

But in Sheffield we had 86 Regent III with Regent V fronts!

David Oldfield

20/09/17 – 08:24

Thrift, nowt wrong wi that lad, after all, it is easy for anyone to identify a Yorkshire man abroad; he is the one at the till saying loudly "How Much"?
However, the real reason for the exposed radiators is some Yorkshireman appreciate beauty more than tin fronts (the manager in Bradford who bought hundreds of tin fronted Regents, was not, after all, a native thee knows).

Stuart Emmet

20/09/17 – 14:34

I suspect that it was more an accessibility issue. I can remember in my far off preservation days what an awkward and painful experience it was just trying to remove and refit the lift-pump on my AEC Renown, standing precariously on a step ladder slumped over the wing with the bonnet edge trying to crush my ribcage as I reached down into its innards. With the exposed radiator you just lifted the bonnet and there it all was, and if the job was a bit bigger you just unbolted the wing, lifted it off and you could get right in there and reach everything with ease.

John Stringer

20/09/17 – 14:36

Nottingham City Transport had a little matter of 65 exposed radiator Regent Vs – nos. 209-273 (UTV 209-238 and XTO 239-273). Park Royal 62 seat bodies. Delivered 1955-56.

Stephen Ford

20/09/17 – 14:37

Huddersfield also had two Guy Arab IV with exposed radiators, and nearby County Motors had four.

Don McKeown

20/09/17 – 14:42

A small correction to the caption – motorbus deliveries to the Corporation fleet were numbered 401 up, 101 being reserved (at that time) for JOC double-deckers.

David Call

22/09/17 – 07:20

Don’t forget the elegant Guy Arabs of Exeter Corporation which took delivery of 20, all with exposed radiator, between 1956 and 1960.Five had Park Royal bodies, five had MCW, but the best looking were the Massey-bodied ones – the first five and the last five. Fotunately number 50, TFJ 808, the first of the Masseys, survives in superb condition. It was chosen for preservation by Colin Shears as it was ‘the most musical’!

David Chapman

23/09/17 – 07:07

An exposed-radiator Mk.5 that is easy to overlook is the most individual one of all, Longwell Green bodied PWO783, number 9 in the fleet of Bedwas & Machen UDC.
Of the fleets that have been mentioned, only Doncaster and Nottingham failed to go on to buy concealed-radiator equivalents.

David Call

25/09/17 – 13:36

True, David: Doncaster returned to Daimler in the 60’s and had to buy concealed radiator CVG6’s but amongst its last half-cabs were some exposed radiator PD3s around 1963. I used to wonder if exposed radiators were seen as more macho in the Council Chamber- like Atkinson coal lorries or even Peterbilts. There was not a lot else Macho about a PD3 and Doncaster transport seemed to be about eking out, so cost was probably the answer: although making an exposed radiator look respectable cannot have been so cheap compared to a glass fibre moulding.

Joe

27/09/17 – 06:19

As John Stringer says the exposed radiator arrangement made it much easier to access the engine and its ancillaries than with a tin (fibreglass or aluminium) front. Also the view of the nearside kerb from the driver’s seat was better.
The big snag was, I suspect, the exposed radiator was deemed old fashioned in the eyes of the fashion police of the time. Plus the fact accident damage was probably easier to repair on a "tin" front with the use of plastic filler.

John Anderson

02/10/17 – 07:29

In Manchester the issues were certainly engine accessibility and driver sightlines, to the extent that, when Daimler refused to supply chassis with exposed radiators, Manchester worked with them to redesign the alternative.

Peter Williamson

Southampton Corporation
1967
AEC Regent V 3D2RA
Neepsend H40/30R

KOW 909F was in the last batch of AEC Regents delivered to Southampton, in 1967. It is of the 3D2RA variety and the body was built by Neepsend, to the H70R formation. It was decorated in the early 1980s as being the Transport Department’s last rear entry bus, but then came Deregulation and it was returned to service. In this view, it is in Highfield Lane, on a special running day to mark the closure of Portswood Depot. It’s 30 May 2010.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

27/02/17 – 07:54

When all the perfect ingredients come together you get the perfect end result as in this case, having the best chassis of it’s type with elegant well balanced bodywork finished with a simple and tasteful livery, to me proves the point. All that is missing, understandably are the sound effects of the AV691 engine and the Monocontrol gearbox the thought of which brings me over all nostalgic.
AAAh happy days.

Diesel Dave

27/02/17 – 16:000

Glad you liked it, Dave!

Pete Davies

27/02/17 – 16:02

I could not agree more with Diesel Dave, with one exception. Who came up with the idea of those front indicators above the mirror line. I can see the logic of not reflecting in the mirrors, but those particular light units were the same as Duple fitted on later model Super Vegas (I think) – one on the side & one on the lower front corner. They were not very efficient on the coach, & next to useless on the Regent V on a sunny day (we used to get those in Southampton, don’t know about now though!)

David Field

27/02/17 – 16:46

Those indicators worked on my Dinky VAL!

Joe

28/02/17 – 16:37

The reason I asked was that, Southampton being quite conservative (small c) in it’s view to change (Late model Arab III’s, etc), it seemed an odd thing to do when the rest of the fleet (Arab III’s, Arab UF, PD2, PD2A, Regent V) were fitted with a different type of side indicator, mounted at waist height, just behind the cab door. These lights were quite ornate in shape, and had been used since the first buses were fitted with flashers (on the front only as I recall). I think they might have been made by Rubbolite, they were the same as fitted to Dodge 500 series trucks. I can imagine the Stores having boxes of these in stock, looking up at the new buses & saying "there goes the budget"!! I think the next change must have been to the teardrop shape Lucas flashers on the Atlanteans.

David Field

01/03/17 – 06:35

Comparing this with a photo of an earlier example, I notice that an emergency window has appeared immediately aft of the cab. It could be that the relocation of the flasher from that position had something to do with that. Alternatively it might just have been a a belief that the flashers would be more noticeable on the front of the bus than at the side, possibly following some sort of incident. And of course nobody would have known that they were going to be useless on a sunny day when they ordered them from the catalogue!

Peter Williamson

01/03/17 – 06:36

The indicators were one of two versions offered by East Lancs/Neepsend at the time. The other type was fitted at the same height but on short arms protruding from the body with round orange plastic covers so the indicator could be seen from both front and rear. An exception were Reading’s East Lancs bodied Lolines which had the traditional side indicators fitted on the very front of the between decks panels.

Phil Blinkhorn

02/03/17 – 07:11

The comments about the type and positioning of the front indicators reminds me that Eastbourne Corporation’s two batches of PD2’s had different types, the 1966 batch No’s 71-80 BJK 671-680D had two a teardrop shaped fitted at lower deck window level behind the cab door and a round flat lense mounted on a shaped housing low on the front wing, the latter looking something of an afterthought. The second batch No’s 81-85 DHC 781-785E had the same type of high mounted type as the Southampton Regents I don’t recall any problems with them.

Diesel Dave

21/12/17 – 11:40

I remember the Ramsbottom East Lancs PD3s had that arrangement of flashing indicators.

David Pomfret