Old Bus Photos

Stockport Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – EDB 547 – 293

Stockport Corporation - Leyland Titan PD 2 - EDB 547 - 293
Copyright Roger Cox

Stockport Corporation
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

I note with some surprise that Stockport Corporation does not feature in the list of operators on the website, so perhaps this picture of two of Stockport’s excellently proportioned all Leyland PD2s might redress this omission. I believe that I took this photograph, which dates from 1969, somewhere in the Manchester area. I have no doubt that our Forum experts will identify the location. No 293, EDB 547, and its fellow parked behind it (No.294, I think) was a Leyland PD2/1 with Leyland H30/26R bodywork delivered in 1951, and was representative of a batch of 44 of such buses taken into stock from 1949 onwards. They were preceded by some 40 Crossley DD42s, all with Crossley bodies, and the Corporation’s experience of these machines was such that the Leylands were chosen for the 1949-51 deliveries. However, Crossley, whose post war factory was in Errwood Park, used the "local employment" argument to secure the subsequent order for 24 DD42/7 buses with Crossley H30/26R bodies, much against the wishes of the Transport Department. Thereafter, however, Leylands reigned supreme in the Stockport fleet. No 293 passed to the new SELNEC PTE in 1969, no doubt ultimately to suffer the appalling indignity of being repainted into the truly ghastly orange and white garb of that organisation. In any list of the worst bus liveries of all time, the SELNEC effort must surely rank near the top, even against strong challenges from the present day privatised crop of aesthetic abominations.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.


06/10/11 – 07:12

Could we have a league table of hideous liveries? South Yorkshire’s bilious yellow & red was pretty bad- Yorkshire Rider wasn’t wonderful as isn’t Fussy First either, but the award surely goes to Lincs Roadcar/Yorkshire Traction (did both have it?) low floor purple and yellow. For sheer design boredom, we have to go back to NBC who also managed to pick some pretty horrid shades, which takes some doing in red and green.

Joe


06/10/11 – 07:13

This photograph is taken in early SELNEC days (they have SELNEC legal lettering). These were the first of a variety of Stockport buses to work from the former SHMD depot in Stalybridge. They were most of the remaining Leyland-bodied PD2s from Stockport – 293, 297-9 and 303-306 (EDB 547/51-3/7-60).
These ran for a couple of years and survived to be given their SELNEC fleet numbers (5913/7-9/23-6). However, for some time two of them (297/8) received SHMD fleet numbers 51/2, using standard SHMD transfers. Remarkably, 52 was fully repainted in SHMD green. (It is perhaps worth noting here that Stockport 302 was transferred to Oldham and repainted in Oldham pommard and cream, in this instance initially being numbered 5202 as if it was a former Oldham bus. This was soon changed to the correct 5922.)
The renumbering took place, from memory in early 1971 so I suspect your shot is from 1970. It is in Stalybridge bus station. For comparison there is a photo of my own on this site in almost exactly the same location at this link.
Whilst I understand your sentiments about the orange livery as it didn’t generally sit very well on older buses, I think it served its political (i.e. neutral) objectives and orange became very successfully synonymous with Manchester area buses for many years.

David Beilby


06/10/11 – 07:14

Quite a number of this batch were sold to Berresfords of Cheddleton and were a familiar sight at Longton Bus Station still in Stockport livery having worked on the service from Leek.

Ian Wild


All Leyland PD2s rank among my all time favourites. I never really came across these, despite being a student in Manchester from 1971 – 1975 (and then ’til 1976 in Warrington).
Living in South Manchester I was very aware of the Stockport East Lancs PD2s (and the Crossley PD2s as well). What immediately struck one was how superbly turned out and maintained they were in stark contrast to the Manchester fleet. The "all red" Manchester livery with painted window surrounds must have been an all time low – pictures of the earlier Red/Cream looked so much better.

David Oldfield


07/10/11 – 13:25

Manchester buses in the early 1960’s (pre-Bennett era) always gave me the impression they were painted by some sort of dipping process. Everything apart from the tyres and glass was red! The fleet at this time really had a careworn appearance.
On the subject of Crossleys, the company seemed to get a lot of business on the basis of the ‘local jobs’ card in the early post-war era. Not only Stockport but Manchester and Oldham took large deliveries and one detects local politicians overriding the wishes of the professionals when these decisions were made.

Philip Halstead


08/10/11 – 05:22

I read recently the phrase "distress purchasing" referring to what people buy that they can afford, or what is available, as opposed to what they really wanted (eg Korean or Communist block cars of time gone by). Just about all post war Crossleys were distress purchases. People bought whatever was available in a bid to buy sufficient vehicles to replace those worn out by war time privation. Very few chose to buy Crossley. It is well documented that Stuart Pilcher (Manchester) always wanted to buy AECs but the Manchester Councillors always blocked it, insisting on Crossleys because they were local. Sheffield’s post war Crossleys were all transferred from orders made by other authorities – their preferred AECs, not to mention Weymann bodies, not available in sufficient numbers.

David Oldfield


11/10/11 – 05:23

I really must spring to the defence of the original SELNEC livery. At the time I didn’t like it either, since it obliterated all those splendid municipal liveries, and there’s no doubt it looked pretty awful when applied to some older types, and when it was badly weathered. However, if you look at the SELNEC Standards, for which it was designed, the proportions of the paint perfectly complement the body style. Looking back forty years on, it was light years ahead of the ghastly insipid schemes adopted by all the other PTEs and NBC, and was a real trend-setter. And (whisper it softly) a few of the older buses actually looked quite well in it: Stockport’s East-Lancs PDs being a notable case.

David Jones


11/10/11 – 05:24

General opinion seems to be that there was nothing wrong with the postwar Crossley except its engine. The same could also be said of that other postwar "distress purchase" the Daimler CVD6, necessitated mainly by a shortage of Gardner engines. Birmingham numbered both types among its tin-front standards, but by the time those Crossleys were delivered, AEC had purchased Crossley and sorted out its engine problems. I once met someone from Birmingham who had worked on both types, and he said that the Crossleys were far superior to the Daimlers!

Peter Williamson


11/10/11 – 12:03

The engine is rather important, though. Sheffield had some distress purchased CV6s as well. Again, the engine was rather critical. [Earlier posts on this web-site tell of the Daimler engines’ weaknesses better than I.] Having said that, all that Peter says is true.

David Oldfield


11/10/11 – 12:05

Certainly the basic Crossley chassis was well engineered, but in addition to the engine, which AEC improved, but could never make into a really sound unit, Crossley steering was always exceedingly heavy, and the three axle Dominion trolleybuses were nigh on impossible in this respect. The characteristic that emerges from Crossley, apparently due in no small part to the personality of Managing Director Arthur Hubble, is the refusal to listen to or learn from customers.

Roger Cox


09/04/12 – 06:42

I agree with the defence of the Selnec livery. I actually quite liked the original orange and white and some buses looked good in it, the Mancunians and Selnec Standards particularly so. I also thought some of Manchesters late batches of PD2s in the 36xx and 37xx series suited it too, in an odd way.
I didn’t like the later GMT livery which incorporated brown however.

David Pomfret


13/05/12 – 08:39

I used these buses regularly in the 1960s on the 92 route mainly but also on the 74 and 40. The Leylands were superb so the drivers of the underdog Crossleys often needed to prove that actually they were better. However sometimes from the back of the depot a couple of Guy Arabs emerged. These had protruding radiators and wartime blackout blinds in their rear upstairs windows. It was almost a privilege to get a ride on one of these. They all seemed like they would last for ever but they are probably all gone now.

Malcolm


12/06/12 – 18:56

As a youngster in Stockport during the 1950’s I was always struck by the different sounds which came from the Leylands and the Crossleys. The Leylands seem to have a ‘breathy, wheezing’ sound, whereas the Crossleys would give out a ‘groaning, grinding’ sound…
That said, there was nothing better than to stand at the roadside and hear (were they the last batch bought by Stockport??) the newer Crossleys on the ‘flagship’ 33 route from Manchester to Romiley – a limited stop route where much higher than normal speeds were evident between stops which were sometimes almost a mile apart….
A bit off track, and apologies, but I wonder if anyone has any pictures or remembers the rather unique ten Leylands purchased by Stockport which had Longwell Green bodies ? I think that they were perhaps the last vehicles ever purchased by Stockport, and eventually replaced the Crossleys on the 33 route before passing over to SELNEC. Vivid memories of using them, although I’ve never been able to track down a picture of them – even here we don’t list Longwell Green amongst the body builders and maybe Stockport’s were the only examples in municipal service.

Stuart C


13/06/12 – 08:06

Stuart there are shots of the Longwell Green PD2s on www.sct61.org.uk dating from 1960 these unusual buses always looked very ECW in appearance to my mind. From 1962 Stockport bought exposed radiator East Lancs bodied PD2s and finally PD3s with front entrance bodywork. They actually ordered Bristol VRs but these were written off in the East Lancs fire.

Chris Hough


13/06/12 – 08:07

Stuart, I’d forgotten about the Longwell Greens until you mentioned them. [I was a student and then worked in the South Manchester area from 1971 – 1980.] The last Leylands for Stockport were PD3/East Lancs in 1968/9. Longwell Green, I believe came from the Bristol area but were very popular for a time with Newport (South Wales) Corporation.

David Oldfield


13/06/12 – 08:10

Ref the comment about Municipal operation of Longwell Green bodies. There were certainly LG bodies on Leylands at Newport and from memory a number of the smaller Welsh municipalities also used this bodybuilder.

Andrew


13/06/12 – 08:11

Stuart…Might this be a picture of the Leyland/Longwell Green buses that you recall? It is quite a handsome design with interesting and unusual details. //www.flickr.com/

Richard Leaman


13/06/12 – 08:12

I have a couple of photographs of these Longwell Green bodies online and visible here  and here  Both show these buses working from Oldham in 1973, but still in Stockport livery. I don’t believe any ran in service in orange but many of the batch did get the orange livery as they became training buses, in which role they ended up being seen all over Manchester. The EDB Crossleys would have been more lively than the earlier examples as they had the later and more effective downdraught engine – probably why they were used on that service. Longwell Green were based in Bristol and did quite a bit of rebuilding as well as new bodies. They seemed to find a market in South Wales with Newport in particular buying a lot of (exposed-radiator) PD2s with their bodies. The last I’m aware of were two 1966 AEC Regent Vs with front-entrance bodies for Pontypridd Urban District Council in 1966.

David Beilby


13/06/12 – 16:58

Thanks everyone….And particularly to Chris for his link to PJA 913….I’ve spent a couple of years trying to find a photo of this batch, and I’d have to say that having seen this one last night they were as elegant as my memory would have it….Different enough to be different enough, if you know what I mean….Does anyone have any idea why, out of the blue, Stockport chose Longwell Green ??
Also on the same page is a wonderful picture of EDB 578, one of the final Crossleys that I was talking about – and wouldn’t you know, operating the 33 route from Manchester to Romiley and ( on this picture ) Greave….I can’t remember if the 33 route was a joint operation with Manchester, perhaps it was, but there also used to be the older Manchester Crossleys which always operated the Manchester only 109 route from Reddish via Gorton to Manchester City Centre….Memories of taking both routes on the same day and even as a youngster being aware of the difference in acceleration and speed between the older Manchester vehicles and the then cream-of-the-fleet Stockport vehicles….
Terrific memories….

Stuart C


14/06/12 – 07:38

Sorry to wander away from Stockport Corporation a little but there’s something odd about the vehicle in Richard’s link. The date of the Longwell Green body is given as 1955 and I took it to be a PD2 at first glance but the registration, EBX, was issued in March 1948. The radiator suggests that it could be a re-bodied PD1. The date of the body would be correct, it’s certainly not a 1948 body. There was an article on here a while ago which I think had a link to a James fleet history but I’m unable to find it now. Does anyone have the details about this vehicle?

Chris Barker


26/09/12 – 06:57

Stockport ordered Longwell Green bodies due to price and the demise of its traditional bodybuilders- Crossley and Leyland. Apart from the English Electric bodied pre-war Tigers, and the wartime Guy Arabs (in that instance Stockport didn’t have a choice) the fleet was traditionally Leyland and Crossley bodied.
From conversations with people in the works and depot in the 1960s the bodies were excellent but no repeat order was made as Stockport’s manager, Eric Baxter,was due to retire in 1962 and wanted to start a fleet renewal policy with a standard vehicle, before he went. He thus ordered PD2s again but, needing continuity of supply and the possibility of large (for Stockport) orders by the middle of the decade, he needed a larger builder than Longwell Green which mixed bus building with its main occupation of van building.
Frank Brimelow replaced Eric Baxter and by 1963 had worked with East Lancs to refine a very traditional body to Stockport’s needs, a lineage that lasted until SELNEC took over. Ironically East Lancs couldn’t cope with Stockport’s needs by the middle of the decade and had to sub let one order to its Neepsend subsidiary.
There are comments that the Longwell Green bodies have an ECW look. This may be so but the story I was told was that the frames were from Burlingham who ceased double deck production in 1960. Stockport had wanted Burlingham to tender as Baxter greatly admired the Manchester Burlingham bodies delivered from the mid 50s. As Stockport had not needed new vehicles between the all Leyland and all Crossley buses of the early 1950s, his only chance to order Burlingham bodies came with the 1957 order for PD2s which higher authority insisted was given to Crossley – a bad decision as Crossley closed down before the order was completed and some of the bodies were finished by the Corporation.

Phil Blinkhorn


26/09/12 – 16:01

Chris B: Well spotted – EBX 663 was a rebodied PS1. According to the PSV Circle fleet history of South Wales Transport, who took over James in 1962, it was new in 1948 to James; in 1954, it was converted to PD1 spec including new chassis frames, by Western Welsh at their Ely Works, then rebodied by Longwell Green. No details of the original bodywork,unfortunately.

Bob Gell


26/09/12 – 17:23

New chassis frames – new body – sounds a bit like Paddy’s original brush, or Caesar’s original penknife. (Accountant’s rebuilds as certain classes of Great Western Railway steam locos were laughingly called!)

Stephen Ford


03/10/12 – 06:12

PHIL…
Thanks for the detailed info/explanation…
I always wondered how and /or why these Longwell Green bodies arrived in Stockport’s fleet…As I said earlier, complete oddballs in the North West of the 60’s…
You say that they were ‘excellent’ although of course, I didn’t really notice or appreciate engineering quality in those days – it was all about the ‘look’…
But any idea what happened to this batch after SELNEC ?? Straight to a date with a blowtorch, or did they live on somewhere, hopefully in a less ‘garish’ livery….
Thanks again…

Stuart C


03/10/12 – 10:18

To the best of my knowledge all the Longwell Green PD2s went to the breakers after further service with SELNEC.
They fell victim to both SELNEC’s reduced life policy and the drive to change all services to OMO around 1973, though 348 (PJA 918) stayed on as TV1 (Training Vehicle 1) in the driver training fleet. I don’t have a date for withdrawal.
As SELNEC maintained a wide range of MCTD policies, almost all vehicles withdrawn went for scrap (a policy which left large gaps in the range of MCTD vehicles available for preservation) and this also reduced the availability of vehicles from other fleets absorbed.

Phil Blinkhorn


15/10/12 – 07:37

There are numerous references in a variety of publications and forum posts to the Stockport Longwell Green PD2 having a look of ECW about them and, in fairness, the output from ECW on Leyland PD1s do seem to have some resemblance. http.www.sct61.org.uk/nw217.
The Stockport bodies were almost the ultimate development of the Longwell Green genre which had been around for half a decade or more.
Before leaving on my trip I tried to research any link between Longwell Green, Bristol and ECW. The only link I can find is that Bristol built bus bodies until around 1955 which, after WW2, resembled ECW products, ECW at that time of course was THE builder on Bristol chassis for the Tilling Group.
At the same time Bristol was building cabs for its trucks. When it closed the Brislington bodyshop it transferred the cab jigs to Longwell Green.
Other than that there seems to be no link.
The Longwell Green/Burlingham link is equally difficult to prove. Apart from what I was told at Stockport the body style looks like a toned down version of the Burlingham product, the spectacle type of rear upper deck emergency exit windows being the major visual link.
As Longwell Green used the style well in advance of Burlingham finishing double decker production, I assume there must be some record somewhere of an agreement.

Phil Blinkhorn


15/10/12 – 09:44

Phil..Could the link between Longwell Green and ECW be as simple as LG Coachworks being in Bristol (about five miles from the Bristol factory) and simply that the designers were surrounded every day by ECW designs and so copied a lot of the detail into their work. ECW bodies were in my opinion beautifully built and highly workmanlike so maybe they thought that was a good one to emulate.

Richard Leaman


15/10/12 – 16:56

Richard,
That is, of course, possible.

Phil Blinkhorn


24/10/12 – 11:19

As Phil Blinkhorn says, the main key to the belief that the Longwell Green bodies are on Burlingham frames is in the rear profile of these buses. Search Flikr for "Stockport Corporation Bus" and a picture of #343 parked up on route #40 should emerge. There are other steers too. The radius on the window frames and more so on the destination and route number frames suggest that there are Burlingham influences there too.
Many prefer the Burlingham bodied batch of PD2’s that Manchester Corporation to the contemporaneous MCW products. Not I, nor the Burlingham bodied CVG’s that Manchester acquired at the same time.
Despite all the problems that Stockport Corporation had in obtaining (and finishing some of) the Crossley bodied PD2’s they remain quite my favourite combination of PD2 bodies for SCTD. 4 bays beat 5 in my book on 27′ double deckers.
And finally, how nice to see a SCTD Crossley bodied Leyland running around Stockport again after all these years. I refer of course to Tiger Cub #403.

Orla Nutting


EDB 547_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


03/06/13 – 06:55

One of the Longwell Greens certainly did run in service in orange – 5947 (347). I remember being surprised in the autumn of 1974 when, after having been the last one remaining in service for some time and I assumed due for early withdrawal(although many others had of course become trainers in orange)it reappeared in the then-new darker orange GMT livery. It then lasted until about October 1978 I think. These bodies may have been excellent but the two things I noticed about them was the finish inside, which wasn’t really up to the later East Lancs standard, no grab rails at the front upstairs for instance, and the extreme degree of body roll when cornering, again compared to the EL ones.

Michael Keeley


03/06/13 – 08:35

I feel that I must speak in favour of the Yorkshire Rider livery. It was bold but professional and very dignified in rich green and cream, and the prominent red fleetname with former districts’ identities was quite masterly – especially since the Company name and the livery had to be devised with indecent haste in the unbelievable confusion leading up to De-regulation Day in October 1986.

Chris Youhill


04/06/13 – 06:46

The Yorkshire Rider livery was bold and contemporary with out being overly so. It had more presence than the PTE livery and was a million times better than the First fading scheme and the current pale pastel which always reminds me of some wartime austerity livery. Although the use of local fleet names is a step in the right direction. But they need to make a bold statement with a strong livery.

Chris Hough


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – RWJ 713 – 713

Sheffield Corporation - Leyland Titan PD2 - RWJ 713 - 713
Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Weymann H32/26R

It’s 27th April 1968 and Sheffield 713 turns from Leopold Street terminus into West Street on another trip out into the country at Rivelin Dams.
713 was one of the batch of 56 (the largest single batch of buses purchased by Sheffield) delivered in March/April 1954 to replace trams on the Ecclesall – City – Middlewood route. Apart from accident victim 707, all the batch were withdrawn in 1967 and 1968 so 713 had only a short service life left by the time of this picture.
Nowadays Sheffield Supertram runs through the middle of this picture on its way to Middlewood but via a different route that 713 and its sister vehicles would have taken countless times during their 13/14 year life.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

———

13/09/11 – 07:53

April 1968 – my last few months in Sheffield as a student and I well remember these PD2s. Service 54 ran to a reservoir/control room just over the border in Derbyshire but was nevertheless a Corporation A route rather than a Joint Omnibus Committee B route, as was generally the case with cross-boundary services. The terminus was at the Norfolk Arms, now no more.

Geoff Kerr

———

13/09/11 – 17:00

Can anybody please enlighten me on the road layout at this point in 1968. On the face of it, there is a roundabout with yellow flowers but behind PD2 No. 713 is a rear engined machine seemingly turning right into Church Street ‘wrong way’. Also, there is a ‘No Entry’ sign at the Leopold Street corner.

John Darwent

———

14/09/11 – 07:43

Would that be The Norfolk Arms at Ringinglow Geoff ?

Roger Broughton

———

14/09/11 – 07:44

You’re not the only one who is intrigued, John. I was in the fourth form at school along the route of 713 when this was taken and cannot remember this odd layout – which is at the confluence of Leopold Street (to right), West Street (where 713 is entering), Church Street (where early Atlantean is heading) and Town Head Street (off to the left). The spire in the background is Sheffield Cathedral.
The Norfolk Arms was always well within the city limits. Even though they are different and wider now, there was always a great deal of countryside on the south and west side. In the post 1974 Sheffield, half the area is countryside, a third of it in the Peak District National Park.

David Oldfield

———

14/09/11 – 07:45

A one way loop had been introduced earlier in the 1960s comprising Leopold St, Church St and Fargate. Coming along Leopold St, traffic could turn left into West Street(as 713), right (wrong side of the roundabout)into Church St(as the Atlantean) or go straight ahead down Townhead St. Similarly traffic inbound on West St could use the roundabout in the conventional way and access Church St merging with the loop traffic from Leopold St. Sounds complicated written down but hope this assists.

Ian Wild

———

14/09/11 – 07:47

Nice buses these, but to me they always seemed slow and ponderous compared to the SWE-registered Regents with the same style of Weymann body, except for the outswept panels.
The AEC’s had that barking exhaust, and would come tearing out of the platforms in the bus station on their way to Hackenthorpe and Hemsworth, making Pond Street sound more like a racing car circuit than a municipal bus station. They had a smarter style of wheel nut ring as well, but I’d better not get going on that topic or there’ll be no end to it. What a splendid city for buses though, in those days.

Dave Careless

———

14/09/11 – 16:56

The Norfolk Arms mentioned above was on Manchester Road. The Norfolk Arms at Ringinglow is still very much in existence.

Stephen Bloomfield

———

14/09/11 – 16:56

What can I do, Dave, but agree with you. I had far more contact with the Regent IIIs than the PD2s – and did not regret it for one minute.

David Oldfield

———

15/09/11 – 09:27

Thank you for the explanation Ian. I worked in George Street from 1961 through 1964 but cannot for the life of me remember the one-way loop. Probably attentions towards the fairer sex had taken over at that time.
Ah well.

John Darwent

———

16/09/11 – 09:26

John, I think the one way loop came in later than 1964 which is why you wouldn’t recall it.

Ian Wild

———

17/09/11 – 08:04

Thanks Stephen, yes I know, we often call in when been out walking.

Roger Broughton

———

18/09/11 – 06:10

Photographs of this batch of buses always make me think of Endcliffe Park in Sheffield; you could see and hear them through the trees at the edge of the park, running along Rustlings Road every few minutes back and forth to Fulwood on the busy 88 service.
I remember going to the park on one of these one summer afternoon with my mother in the early sixties, and on getting off the bus, seeing for the first time in a toy shop window on Ecclesall Road an ‘Exide’ version of the Dinky Toys double decker. I pleaded for one, but it wasn’t in the equation, as despite whining and moaning all afternoon, it was apparent that an ice cream was as good as it was going to get! About four years ago, I finally bought one on eBay; it didn’t have a box, but it was considerably more than the modern day equivalent of 4/2 !!

Dave Careless

———

23/10/11 – 07:43

Hi very interesting site, much enjoyed. On this page, however, there is an error The Route 54 Rivelin Dams ran out of Pinfold Lane. The Route 51 Lodge Moor ran from Leopold Street. Route 51 was my first route as a rookie driver. The buses on that route during the 60s were AECs and on my first ever trip I was unable to get the handbrake off. I never experienced an AEC in driving school and was unaware that it was necessary to put ones foot down on the footbrake in order to release it. See this photo of mine of a PD2 I had driven to Rivelin Dams – //www.geograph.org.uk/

Dave Hitchborne

———

23/10/11 – 08:10

Sorry to argue, Dave, but the 51 and 50 left from Pinfold Lane – not far from Scout HQ and shop. I was a regular on the 51 from a young age, visiting family.

David Oldfield

———

04/12/11 – 07:46

Did the 54 later only go to Wyming Brook?

James Walker

———

15/03/12 – 09:30

Sorry, but I’m going to argue the point on this till the cows come home and my wife/clippie and I remember the Dore 50 and the Rivelin Dams 54 running from Pinfold Street and the Lodge Moor 51 ran from Leopold Street. Another reason for remembering the 51 running from Leopold Street is that it went from town via West Street and came back via Division Street and Barker’s Pool. On one occasion I was waiting to turn out of Barker’s Pool onto Leopold Street with a sports car in front when the driver of a Walkley 95 waived us both to proceed into Leopold Street. The sports car set off and I followed waiving and thanking the 95 driver when I suddenly realised that the sports car had stopped around the corner at the pedestrian crossing and I was inches away from it when I stamped on the brakes. The bus stopped, but my reserve conductor was hurled to the front of the bus where I heard him whack the bulkhead behind me. He then spent about 10 mins in Leopold Street instructing me on his knowledge of the English language. I believe his name was Abdul Roafe and I have a photo of him.

Dave Hitchborne

———

16/03/12 – 12:45

Regarding the debate on the 50, 51 and 54, I have had a look in the STD Timetable and the following is stated;

October 1951 T/T
50 Departs City (Trippett Lane) *
51 City (Pinfold Street)
54 and 55 City (Leopold Street)

May 1960 T/T
50 Departs City (Pinfold Street) *
51 City (Pinfold Street)
54 and 55 City (Leopold Street)

So, apart from the 50 moving a few yards to align with the 51 at Pinfold Street, they all remained more or less the same during this time scale. If there were subsequent alterations in the 1960’s, I can’t say as I don’t have the records but it seems that, at the moment, David O is ahead on points! Perhaps someone has a timetable to confirm departure points and routes taken in subsequent years.

John Darwent

———

17/03/12 – 06:22

Thank you for your defence, John. On reading Dave H’s post, something occurred to me. The 51 eventually became a cross city service to Gleadless/Herdings. At that point it would have travelled along Leopold Street from Gleadless to Lodge Moor. It would then go down Townhead Street and turn up broad Lane. In the other direction it left Broad Lane to end up going down Trippett Lane.

David Oldfield

———

RWJ 713_closeup Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

18/03/12 – 07:46

Regarding Sheffield Corporation buses in the 1950s does anybody remember a bizarre religious sect who took advertisement space with such warnings as ‘The Wages of Sin is Death’ and other warnings. Bringing the subject right up to date I notice that here at Lothian Buses we have a number of buses with the advertisement ‘Try Praying’.

Philip Carlton

———

19/03/12 – 09:18

Interesting observation Philip. Is the advertisement aimed at Edinburgh citizens in general, or just passengers waiting for buses provided by one of Lothian RT’s major competitors do you think?

Brendan Smith


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

Leeds City Transport – Leyland Titan PD2/1 – NNW 380 – 380

Leeds City Transport - Leyland Titan PD2/1 - NNW 380 - 380

Leeds City Transport
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

This Leeds City Transport bus is at the Rivelin Dams, Norfolk Arms terminus of Sheffield service 54 whilst on a tour of Sheffield routes on 19th June 1966 organised by The Leeds and District Transport News (still in production today as Metro Transport News). Sheffield 545 which appeared on this site some months ago accompanied the Leeds bus on the tour. The notes provided with the tour suggest that 380 was one of the last of its batch in service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild


24/07/11 – 10:53

A vehicle very dear to me – NNW 380 was to become number 13 in the Learner Fleet and was used to weigh up job applicants as it had, of course, a "live" gearbox and clutch. In October 1969 I applied for a job as a "direct driver" and reported to the Swinegate Headquarters at 5.00pm one weekday rush hour. The strict but kindly chap in charge of the Driving School, Senior Inspector Albert Bradley, directed me to 380 in the yard, settled himself in the front passenger seat behind the "missing" window, and off we went into the thick of it. The bus behaved impeccably, like a dream, as we went to Beeston, reversing into an awkward side street on the notoriously steep Beeston Hill (air brakes on the trams) and performing a hill start as well. Then into the long flat Old Lane – by now I was very comfortable indeed and enjoying the trip – where Mr. Bradley said "That’s OK, just go straight down Dewsbury Road back to the yard." I said that I was really enjoying the vehicle and so he said "Oh, well then, go up the Ring Road and through Middleton and Belle Isle and Hunslet." That shows what a genuine and respected gentleman he was, in allowing me to spend an extra few of the Department’s shillings in fuel on a pleasure jaunt !! I suppose in a way I was cheating a little, as I had quite a lot of experience in driving PD2s elsewhere, but I got the job and that involved being a "driver/conductor" for six months – although a chronic shortage of willing drivers and the need to accelerate the One Man Operated conversion programme meant that I did slightly less before qualifying for those.

Chris Youhill


24/07/11 – 17:48

The only Leyland bodies bought by Leeds 340-399 entered service in 1949-1950 Mainly allocated to Bramley these were stalwart performers on such routes as the 54 Halton Moor-Rodley and 23 Leeds -Intake for most of their lives. My dad was a conductor for LCT for almost thirty years and always maintained that these were the best buses he ever worked on.
Does any other Leeds bus fan remember the coin tester in the lower saloon ceiling and the huge circulation area at the top of the stairs.
Like a number of AEC Regents these buses retained the old style Leeds blind with via points to the end

Chris Hough


25/07/11 – 08:48

AEC man agrees that there is little to compare with an all-Leyland PD2 and I remember coin testers on Sheffield buses – but I had forgotten about them until you jogged my memory!

David Oldfield


25/07/11 – 09:03

From personal experience I don’t know much about LCT buses but Chris’s mention of the coin tester reminds me of a similar device that Huddersfield Corporation/JOC used. It was a metal bar about an inch and a half long with various sized slots cut into it for testing the authenticity of coins. It was usually located (on rear entrance buses) on the bulkhead underneath the staircase along with a wood and glass holder which contained (if I remember rightly) a booklet with the Corporation/JOC byelaws and regulations. Strangely, I can’t remember either the coin tester or booklet holder being fitted to front entrance half cab buses. However,this may be due to the fact that on rear entrance buses my favourite seat was the long inward facing seat over the rear near side wheel-arch, thus I was facing the staircase bulkhead and its fittings on most journeys, whereas on front entrance half cabs I would sit anywhere in the lower saloon so wouldn’t always be facing the staircase bulkhead to make the same observations. Has anybody else any memories of riding on "proper" buses.

Eric


25/07/11 – 09:04

Well Chris H you certainly have me there !! Having worked on many Leyland bodied PD1s/2s over the years I’ve no idea what a "coin tester" was in the lower saloon ceiling – please let us know. The Bramley vehicles also figured prominently on the 65 Bus Station to Pudsey route, including the days when that service terminated in Rockingham Street. I do, though, well remember the large circulating area upstairs – this was indeed excessive and some operators took advantage of this by putting an extra seat on the offside, thereby increasing the seating capacity to H32/26R. Samuel Ledgard treated most, if not all, of their large fleet of these bodies – new and second hand – in this manner. Even after this the step top area remained adequate for passenger flow. The retention of the original destination blinds caused a wonderful anomaly in later years – Torre Road Depot had a handful of the PD2s and often used them on a teatime peak journey on the 36 route which by then was a different service altogether and went from the Bus Station to Tinshill – still displaying "36 Harehills Oakwood" from the original itinerary in North East Leeds. By the way, although I was at Headingley as a driver and later a "bookman" I did quite frequently work at Bramley and I’m sure I remember your Dad very well indeed – Happy days !!

Chris Youhill


25/07/11 – 15:32

The "coin tester" was a small protuberance in the lower deck ceiling at the front of the bus shaped like half an orange split in two and around the size of a large grape I’ve only ever seen this on the Leeds Titans and was told it was a coin tester as a child Leeds were never lavish with bell provision on their buses until the advent of strip bells in the sixties I’ve seen a full bus started away from stops by a sharp rap from a coin on the driver’s bulkhead window on many occasions! One other LCT idiosyncrasy was the provision of a curtain blind on the passenger front bulkhead window for night time running was this unique to Leeds? The one on the drivers bulkhead window often had a small aperture in the top corner for the driver to see the inside of the lower deck.

Chris Hough


25/07/11 – 20:57

A blind on the passenger front bulkhead? I remember those in Nottingham in the early 1960s. Always annoyed me because I wanted to look out of the window and pretend to be a driver

A Non


25/07/11 – 20:58

Chris, Sheffield had coin testers and the blinds – inside the cab for the driver (with hole) and in the saloon on the nearside.

David Oldfield


25/07/11 – 20:59

As far as I’m aware Chris H, night curtains were legally obligatory on both front windows of the old style vehicles.

Chris Youhill


27/07/11 – 08:00

I am sure that London Transport RT / RM buses had nearside front window blinds – the ones on RMs didn’t go quite the full width of the window – see photo here //www.ltmcollection.org/images/webmax/xs/i00000xs.jpg
I can’t remember them being used in the 70s or later

Jon


27/07/11 – 12:07

This batch of LCT Titans always fascinated me as we drove through the Bramley area from Bradford on a frequent basis, and they always seemed to be concentrated in that area of Leeds.
As a Bradford lad, I was always fascinated by the differences compared to our own BCPT Titans.
The NNW series were almost to Farington style, with flush mounted fully radiused windows, and no rain shields, giving an ultra modern look which seemed enhanced by the 7ft.6ins. width. Most contemporary Titans at that time did not have this modernised "cleaned up" look, and I am wondering if LCT played some part in the development programme which led up to the Farington style which became more common with the advent of the post 1951 longer chassis.
Or did Leyland offer this style at this early date, and, if so, which other fleets received them on PD2/1 or PD2/3 chassis in 1949/50?
They were certainly very handsome vehicles, and, like all Leyland bodies, had a good life span.

John Whitaker


28/07/11 – 06:16

There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the so-called "Farington style" Leyland bodies. The latest thinking is that the name refers to this version rather than the later one. I do agree that it is visually enhanced by the 7’6" width when compared to, say Manchester’s "salmon tins", one of which is seen here //www.sct61.org.uk/mn3290.htm  Southport also had some, see //www.sct61.org.uk/sp106a.htm and Sheffield //www.sct61.org.uk/sh621.htm  and I’m sure there were others.

Peter Williamson


28/07/11 – 15:20

This style IS the Farington – experts now tell us that the final version is NOT. There does not, however seem to be a name for it. Sheffield had two batches of true Faringtons, like these Leeds examples, in 1949 – so they were not an exclusive, nor an experimental model.

David Oldfield


28/07/11 – 15:22

I’ve always understood that this version was known as the ‘Farington style’ Perhaps the reason that many people applied the same name (incorrectly) to the later and final version was simply because no one ever gave it a name of it’s own. I must say that the Southport example looks particularly fine!

Chris Barker


28/07/11 – 15:24

John W mentions he always saw lots of Leyland bodied Titans in the Bramley area. This was definitely home ground to these buses as most of them spent their entire working lives at Bramley depot which for most of its postwar existence was 100% Leyland. It got its first 30ft long vehicles (PD3A/2) in 1962/63
Bramley was a former tram depot which presented some operating problems the main being the fact that being built on a hill the ground sloped away from the original entrance on Henconneer Lane To ease access and manoeuvrability problems a second exit was made but this needed a ramp to ground level.
The original depot was closed and demolished in 1969 being replaced by a large purpose built one a few hundred yards away this is still in use by First.

Chris Hough


30/07/11 – 07:57

Sheffield had 64 ‘Farington’ style Leyland bodies in all, spread over all three fleets, 52 in the ‘A’, 10 sprinkled throughout the jointly owned ‘B’, and 2 in the ‘C’ fleet which was wholly owned by British Railways. Interestingly they were all painted in a variation of the standard Sheffield livery, which for many years came to be reserved for ‘Farington’ bodied Titans and anything with a body from Charles H. Roe!
Ironically, when LCT 380 came to town on its enthusiast’s excursion, it was one of the the first batch of Sheffield PD2’s, dating from 1947, that accompanied it around the city! Despite the body on STD 545 KWA545 being only two years older than the first ‘Farington’s,’ the contrast between it and the very elegant Leeds machine was stark, to say the least.

Dave Careless


08/08/11 – 10:20

MEMORIES !!
I was a "Bramley Lad" in the 60s and these bus’s were VERY close to my heart as my Dad drove for the Bramley Depot!
I have fond and vivid memories of the move to the new Towns End Depot, there was a very exciting open day where we got to ride the new one man bus’s through the Bus Wash !!! We lost Dad 3 years ago, I wish we had found this forum before he went he would have filled this sight with Facts and Figures.

Graham Morton


02/08/12 – 07:22

I’m surprised no one mentioned that some members of the 340-399 batch of Leylands were fixtures on the 38 Moortown-Whitkirk from many years between 1949 and at least 1956; I rode the route fairly frequently, waited for buses and trams at Moortown corner at least twice daily and remember seeing nothing else on that route, though I know other types did show up occasionally.

Andrew Young


02/08/12 – 11:25

There were in fact only a very small handful of the batch allocated to Torre Road Depot – a strange situation really, as you would have thought an "all at Bramley" allocation would have better suited their manual transmission specification. The 38 service, on a half hourly frequency and one hour a round trip, required only two vehicles and so its not really surprising that the "NNW"s gave the impression of being the universal type.

Chris Youhill


NNW 380_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


15/11/15 – 16:14

I worked at Bramley depot and drove on the 54, 65 and 77 routes. It was these routes that helped me learn how to do "snatch" gear changes, especially on Kirkstall Hill. The only problem with these buses was brake fade, after two applications of the footbrake (no air brakes) the vacuum brakes were useless. I can recall having a brand new Mini brake suddenly in front of me, and I hit it from the rear making it a "short wheelbase" Mini. I will always remember the PD2/1s as being a sturdy vehicle.

David Thorpe


16/11/15 – 05:37

I agree with you wholeheartedly David regarding the vacuum brakes on the PD2s – and believe me the brakes on the 30 foot elegant PD3s were even worse. As local folks will know, The Leeds PD3s in their time bore the brunt of the extremely busy Moortown/Roundhay/Middleton/Belle Isle former tram routes and I’ve had some alarming near misses with them when fully laden, and I think I can honestly claim not have been a "nutter" putting timekeeping above all else like some ill advised chaps did. I’ve driven PD2s/PD3s for several operators and the same problem has arisen with them all, and I’m sure that this was n reflection on maintenance – it was simply a characteristic of the Leyland design. In fact a very good friend of mine, a conscientious driver, had his own method of ensuring that the PD3s would stop safely – on approaching every stop he would apply maximum revs and execute a faultless change down from top to third – I doubt if this reflected favourably on fuel consumption but I’m sure that LCT could stand that due to their well known "run ’em on fresh air" policy. Now very oddly, I’ve driven a heck of lot of PD1s – one of my very favourite models and very appealing too – but their brakes always seemed far more up to the job. This is most strange because in size, weight and passenger capacity they were virtually the same as the PD2 and no doubt had similar or identical braking systems. Despite the enormous and widespread success and popularity of the PD2s/PD3s this aspect will no doubt remain a mystery for ever.

Chris Youhill


16/11/15 – 15:22

I paid a visit to the excellent Dewsbury Bus Museum open day yesterday. The highlight for me was a trip on the superbly restored West Riding lowbridge all Leyland PD2/1. What a tribute to Leyland quality – and I’d forgotten that Leyland pre dated the lightweight Orion with no interior panels below the upper deck waist rail. David comments on the all Leylands being a sturdy vehicle, this is borne out by my experience of the Sheffield buses of this type, especially the 1947/8 builds with the polished interior wood finish. Chris Y comments on brake performance on PD2s and PD3s. My experience is that the air braked PD2 was ok, the air braked PD3 less so. Spare a thought for drivers with the sole vacuum braked PD3/3 with PMT (see elsewhere on this site for H811) whilst all its brethren were air braked.

Ian Wild


17/11/15 – 11:01

Most interesting views Ian, and to be honest I’ve never driven an air braked PD2, all mine have been vacuum – apart perhaps for the one "RTL" that I drove, that being one of the ten Leeds City Transport preselector models 301 – 310. I had booked overtime at a different garage to my own in order to enjoy such a drive when the class of ten was down to two of three. I was so delighted by the experience that I don’t recall any issue with the brakes on the three hour piece of rather "gentle" work, consisting of dead mileage and duplicates.

Chris Youhill


17/11/15 – 13:40

I recall a photo of an impeccable SL "RT" on the roof of a garage, some time ago, Chris Y. You’ve also driven an "RTL". What characteristics were different between the two? Or maybe you don’t remember, so relaxing was the experience with the RTL!

Could someone explain what the little white oblong box under the canopy, centre-front was all about?

Chris Hebbron


18/11/15 – 07:18

Chris H – well in simple terms Chris "everything was different" as with any AEC/Leyland comparison. The Leyland steering was far more positive and the AEC steady tickover produced a totally different effect from the flywheel/gearbox than did the delightful "hunting and gentle wobbling" of the Leyland. I don’t know if there was much difference in top speed but perhaps the Leyland might have just had the edge, and certainly had less tendency to alarming leaning when loaded. Both vehicles of course wonderful and highly successful in their different ways, such is the delight of variety. The rooftop garage that you mention would of course be Armley – the rooftop park was exactly the same size as the garage beneath and must have been capable of carrying an unbelievable weight. When Samuel Ledgard died in 1952 practically every withdrawn vehicle from Day One was up there – yes, including the original charabancs from 1912 – if only the preservation funds and movement had been as prolific then !!
Regarding the picture of NNW 380 in this topic, the little white box is the illuminated "Limited" sign – a moderately successful device for discouraging passengers from boarding on certain peak services where boarding and alighting stops were "limited" for the benefit of longer distance passengers. Quite a number of the blighters though were adept at taking a calculated risk by paying the minimum fare applicable but baling out in the heavy traffic which they knew was to be expected – they considered that the dearer fare was worth it for a quicker journey home. This was really anti social in perhaps the same way as people nowadays who operate pelican crossings and then cross against the red man causing traffic to halt for nothing later.

Chris Youhill


18/11/15 – 07:20

I asked this in another forum a couple of weeks ago Chris, and was informed it was to display ‘LIMITED STOP’.

Stephen Howarth


18/11/15 – 07:27

Even I can tell you that the little white oblong box could be illuminated to say "Limited", Chris.
My memories of LCT were certainly these and those bare metal engine covers, which seemed to appear about the time of the tram replacement scheme in the 1950’s. That’s why that similarly treated "classic" Crossley is a mystery: as well as a few cranked seats, did other 50’s Leeds buses have rearward facing front bulkhead seats?
Did you notice, too, that the 1952 Regent III in the Gallery is from Roe’s big window period, whilst the Daimler/Orion shows, by contrast, what a miserable looking design these were. Good Pics though.
What a smart livery, anywhere, any bus. Progress is not inevitable…pink and puce?

Joe


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

All rights to the design and layout of this website are reserved     

Old Bus Photos from Saturday 25th April 2009 to Wednesday 3rd January 2024