Old Bus Photos

Ribble – Leyland Titan PD2 – DCK 219 – 1248

Ribble - Leyland Titan - DCK 219 - 1248

Ribble Motor Services
1951
Leyland Titan PD2/3
East Lancs FCL27/22RD

This vehicle is easily recognisable as one of Ribble’s famous ‘White Ladies’. She has a Leyland Titan PD2/3 chassis, with East Lancs FCL49RD body. She dates from 1951 and, at the time of this photograph, she was with Quantock. I understand she has now passed to Sir Brian Souter. We see her outside the Guildhall, but Prestonians will know that this is not Preston Guildhall. The date of 1st January 2005 gives a clue – she’s in Winchester for a King Alfred running day.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


26/02/16 – 05:32

Back in the spring of 1972 I had read in "Buses" magazine that Premier Travel were about to withdraw the last of their ex Ribble White Ladies, so I decided take a day trip to Cambridge to sample one while I had the chance. I rode from Cambridge to Royston and the youthful conductor (who I now suspect was Paul Carter, later to write the history of Premier) told me that I could catch a bus from Royston to the depot at Chrishall and then another back to Cambridge. I did as suggested and at the depot I found the chief engineer in the process of handing over this very bus to a group of enthusiasts for preservation. It was to be 43 years before I saw it again at the Scottish Bus Museum at Lathlalmond in 2015.

Nigel Turner


26/02/16 – 08:43

Thanks for that, Nigel. I still can’t reconcile the lowbridge seating with coach designation, but there we are!

Pete Davies


27/02/16 – 08:36

These vehicles were often used on service X4 from Manchester to Burnley via Todmorden, which passed under a low bridge at Portsmouth (a suburb of Todmorden.)

Don McKeown


27/02/16 – 09:22

I’m pretty sure that the bridge which barred full-height double-deckers from services X4/X14 was on the A646 between Walk Mill and Towneley. There isn’t a bridge at Portsmouth, but there is one just down the road at Cornholme. This is passable for full-height double-deckers (Yorkshire Rider used highbridge Atlanteans on Halifax depot’s share of service 592, Halifax-Burnley), but, being an arched bridge, it’s still ‘risky’.

David Call


27/02/16 – 12:55

I drove this vehicle a few times for Stephen Morris before he sold it to Brian Souter. It certainly was a lively performer but rolled a lot upstairs.
Great vehicle and lovely to see it.

Roger Burdett


28/02/16 – 06:11

The bridge between Walk Mill and Towneley had a maximum permissible height of 14ft 6in and was passable for full-height double deckers up to and including that height. I remember passing under it on an enthusiasts’ outing with Halifax JOC 377 (BCP 671) and we stopped to photograph it doing so. The bridge was a straight steel one – not arched – so it was not a case of getting the position right. I think in the days before WYPTE diverted the Halifax-Todmorden Burnley route via Mereclough and Pike Hill it was not unknown for full-height double decks to pass under the bridge, though low-heights were the normal allocation. I know Burnley & Pendle had to be careful when their coaching unit received some Volvo CityBus double deckers, as they were 14 ft 9in and had to avoid the bridge.

John Stringer


28/02/16 – 15:22

Bridge heights always a problem as there seems to be some debate regarding this particular vehicle and the necessity for using it here is a suggestion. I seem to recall London Transport Country having problems with RCL Routemasters some where in I think Hertfordshire where the road had been lowered so that the warning sign indicated enough clearance for said vehicle but upon exiting from under the bridge hit the back end of the vehicle.
This is probably more common with HGVs particularly artics where the front of the vehicle rises up before the back and levels out earlier.

Patrick Armstrong


18/11/16 – 11:40

I used to "spot" these beautiful buses as they made their way through Prestwich, north of Manchester. I have also tried hard to interest someone in a die cast model but to no avail as they were only used by Ribble and Premier. What a shame!

Peter Worsley


 

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

 


 

Birmingham City – Leyland Titan PD2 – HOV 685 – 1685

Birmingham City - Leyland Titan PD2 - HOV 685 - 1685

Birmingham City Transport
1948
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Brush H30/24R

Here is a Leyland Titan PD2/1 with Brush H54R body, to Birmingham’s then standard design. She dates from 1948 and we see her in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979. She began her service at Yardley Wood depot and, Malcolm Keeley reports in his book in the Glory Days series, most of the batch so allocated from new remained there throughout their working lives. The others were at Perry Bar. The saga of the Brush bodies is not so happy, however. There had been some earlier disagreements between the builder and the operator, the former managing to convince itself that the product was entirely the opposite of what the operator wanted. This batch appears to have been the last of the Brush bodies for Birmingham.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


22/02/16 – 13:28

Interestingly, at the same time, Brush was building bodies for Manchester on Daimler chassis to Manchester’s post war standard design and there were a number of letters exchanged due to Brush’s "interpretations" which were not acceptable.

Phil Blinkhorn


22/02/16 – 16:14

Well, Phil, this makes me wonder if – by upsetting two of the country’s biggest operators – this saga is the reason Brush got out of building bus bodies not long afterwards.

Pete Davies


22/02/16 – 16:15

In 1949, coachbuilding at Brush employed around 1500 people and contributed £3 million towards the company’s £15 million productive total in that year. Then came the Korean War (1950-53), which brought a flood of armament related orders to Brush, who closed the coachbuilding activity in 1951 to concentrate resources on the more lucrative parts of the business.

Roger Cox


23/02/16 – 05:37

Yes, Roger, that diversion of resources for "War Work" would explain a lot!

Pete Davies


23/02/16 – 05:38

A most elegant vehicle indeed, unashamedly with very traditional appearance and further greatly enhanced by the very pleasing Birmingham livery.

Chris Youhill


23/02/16 – 10:48

And, of course, Chris Y, unblemished by adverts, a Brummie trademark, until the latter days. I confess to getting confused about the chrome/painted and aluminium rads on PD’s. I always thought the former to be PD1’s; the latter PD2’s. It doesn’t seem to work that way, unless the rad surrounds got changed about over the years!

Chris Hebbron


23/02/16 – 13:11

How right you are Chris H about the lack of disfiguring adverts – sadly of course we have to acknowledge that they are a valuable source of revenue but even accepting that some are totally "cheap" and abominable. Regarding PD1/PD2 radiator shells, just off the top of my head I’ve always thought that painted or chrome ones were frequently interchanged on PD1s – I just can’t think of any PD2 fitted with either of those.

Chris Youhill


23/02/16 – 16:46

Oh heck – I was so anxious to answer Chris H’s query that I overlooked the PD2 in the picture having a chrome shell. I wonder if batches of PD2s were therefore so equipped or has this one being "treated" during preservation – any informed answer would be appreciated please.

Chris Youhill


24/02/16 – 05:48

I think the chrome radiator shell was always an option but I can’t think of anybody except Manchester who took it. Even there they then went and painted them red!

David Beilby


24/02/16 – 05:49

All Manchester’s PD2s had chrome radiators but aluminium was the Leyland standard offering.

Phil Blinkhorn


24/02/16 – 05:52

I understand the choice of chrome pressed metal or cast aluminium radiator shells was down to the purchaser’s specification or at least it was for large scale orders. Most of Manchester’s PD2’s for example had the pressed metal shell which was chrome plated as delivered but always painted red at the first re-paint. This I understand was down to the frugal views of GM Albert Neil as the pressed metal version was cheaper.

Philip Halstead


24/02/16 – 05:53

Exeter took delivery of 17 PD2/1 in November and December 1947. They had consecutive registrations but the Leyland bodies of the first ten were in the 472 xxx series whilst the last 7 were in the 480 xxx series. I think the first lot had painted radiator shells and the later ones chrome. Certainly HFJ 144 (No. 17), which is preserved, has and has always had a chrome one. Some of these magnificent buses lasted 23 years in service with Exeter – and looked as smart at the end as when they were new!

David Chapman


24/02/16 – 08:16

Thanks for these informative replies folks, and I’m getting redder by the minute having just recalled that the two Kippax and District PD2s (GWX 823/4) had chrome shells – and I’ve even driven one of them when owned by Wallace Arnold !!

Chris Youhill


24/02/16 – 08:51

Regarding chrome painted radiators on Birmingham PD2’s, and 1685 in particular, more info here. www.wythall.org.uk/vehicles/vhov685.asp

Nigel Edwards


24/02/16 – 09:55

Philip H, Manchester’s PD2’s chrome radiators certainly were not all painted at first vehicle repaint. There was a massive variation across the fleet. There are plenty of photos showing older PD2s, from the early 1950s, in the all red scheme in the mid 1960s, with unpainted radiators and a good number of later vehicles in SELNEC colours still with the brightwork intact.
Radiators were painted if pitted but serviceable. The bulk of those painted was, I was once told, due to time pressure on the spray booth when repaints into the all red scheme were under way. Certainly many vehicles were repainted earlier than would have been the case had the scheme not been changed and one fewer masking job would have saved a little time. Another view was that those so painted were handled by a particular shift which never masked the radiator shell.
Almost all Parrs Wood’s and most of Queens Rd’s PD2s survived until SELNEC with the chrome untouched. Hyde Rd’s vehicles seemed to be mainly painted. A well known story is that a Burlingham bodied PD2 returned to Parrs Wood after being treated to the red scheme including a painted radiator. The batch were Parrs Wood’s pride and joy and the bus was sent back with tart instruction to remove the paint and never paint a Parrs Wood radiator again unless instructed. This certainly seemed to hold good throughout the 1960s.

Phil Blinkhorn


24/02/16 – 16:52

I particularly enjoy little tales like that one, Phil, it puts a human touch to it all, and makes our hobby that much more fascinating. It’s not just about the buses, it’s about the people who operated them and cared for them as well.
Thanks for sharing it.

Dave Careless


25/02/16 – 05:44

I found a photo on Facebook of Tynemouth and District no. 31, an all Leyland PD2/1, new to Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company, complete with chromed radiator shell. I’m unsure of the photo’s copyright so I’m reluctant to reproduce it here.

Richard Slater


25/02/16 – 16:25

PD1’s and PD2’s were all fitted with pressed steel radiator shells until around 1949. Due to material shortages just after the war only a few were able to be chrome plated at first, the majority being painted. Then Leyland introduced the cast aluminium shell which became standard, with the pressed steel version available as an option.
Halifax Corporation had nine PD2/1’s in 1947/48. All had chromed pressed steel shells apart from one which was painted orange. Throughout most of my childhood this was 101 (ACP 385) and it stood out from the others, but an official Leyland Motors photo shows a different one with the painted shell, and latterly in the mid-1960’s it had migrated on to a different bus again, so some swapping must have taken place at overhaul. Todmorden’s earlier PD2/1’s had painted steel shells, then came some chromed ones, then the later ones and the PD2/12’s had aluminium ones. Some later PD1’s – notably those supplied up to about 1952 to Central SMT – had the later aluminium version.
I actually preferred the painted radiator shells on many PD1’s and PD2’s. I often thought that the chromed version tended to look a bit too gaudy, especially on some of those in an otherwise sombre municipal livery, and they also emphasised the slightest dints and imperfections which they tended to pick up quite easily. What I hated was when some operators – notably Leigh Corporation – chose to paint the later aluminium radiator shells, which looked absolutely terrible. By contrast, the chromed AEC radiator always looked superb to my mind, and always looked dreadful if painted over – Leigh Corporation and Liverpool spring to mind as offenders.
I’ve wondered though, when Manchester CT painted their previously chromed shells, how did they get the paint to adhere and not just come off at the slightest scratch. Surely stripping the chrome plating would have been too much of a bother?

John Stringer


25/02/16 – 17:03

Some wonderfully interesting comments here, folks. Thank you!

Pete Davies


26/02/16 – 16:53

Thx, folks, especially John S, for helping to answer my question on "which PD rads when"! Another mystery solved!

Chris Hebbron


27/02/16 – 05:54

Richard, the photo of T&D 31 that you refer to is already on this site. Its in part two of my article about Northern General Transport Percy Main Depot.  If memory serves, I bought my copy from a dealer at the Seaburn Historic Vehicle show.

Ronnie Hoye


28/02/16 – 06:05

Thanks Ronnie. I found it on another site, dedicated to matters Northumbrian. It was unattributed.

Richard Slater


02/03/16 – 06:24

Just catching up on the above after a few days out (due to computer death and replacement), and I can’t see that Phil’s statement about all Manchester PD2s having chromed radiator shells has been challenged. In fact the first 100 (3200-99) had cast aluminium shells, but since they were at Queens Road, I don’t suppose Phil saw much of them! See www.sct61.org.uk/

Peter Williamson


02/03/16 – 10:21

Peter,trying not to rely on memory I have been totally misled by a number of photos of both the Metro Cammell and Leyland bodied examples with shiny radiators when new.
As for not seeing much of them, the 53 provided some sightings and visits to the city centre others, and North Manchester wasn’t a foreign ground to me, the radiator shells just didn’t register!

Phil Blinkhorn


16/03/16 – 05:05

According to Eyre & Heaps Manchester specified the pressed radiator shell because it was cheaper to repair when the dozier brethren ran into the back of something. Personally I would have thought the tin shell would be less resistant to casual knocks than the heavy casting, but the decision was presumably based upon feedback from accident repair statistics. It’s worth noting that Salford specified shorter rads on their CVGs for similar reasons, while Birkenhead and Rochdale just bolted a big lump of angle iron across the grille to protect it!

David Jones


16/03/16 – 08:17

Perhaps, David, if the ‘dozier brethren’ had been required to pay for the repairs out of their wages, they might have been more alert to their surroundings . .

Pete Davies


 

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

 


 

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – LWE 113 – 613

Sheffield Corporation - Leyland Titan - LWE 113 - 613

Sheffield Corporation
1949
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

There’s a bit of a bus jam in Sheffield High Street on 9th October 1965 as 613, one of the large batch of A fleet all Leyland PD2s leaves the stand for a trip to Millhouses. It takes three Inspectors to peruse the Alexander Regent V in the background, hope they move out of the way before the member of the small batch of 1952 all Leyland PD2/10 manages to squeeze past the back of the queue and continue its journey. This little scenario (minus Inspectors) was re enacted last Wednesday in exactly the same place as I passed by – quite a coincidence! Sheffield’s all Leyland PD2s all put in a good innings, at 16 years old 613 looks in fine fettle.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild


04/02/16 – 16:58

Strange how Sheffield used two different liveries for differing bodywork designs. The three blue bands was probably the standard but most of the Roe bodies and these Leylands had blue around the windows. The big city fleets tended to be very standardised and bordering on the boring with large batches of buses that looked more of less the same. Sheffield was the exception as they purchased smaller batches of widely varying vehicle types right up to being absorbed into the PTE. A very interesting and always well turned out fleet. We had civic pride in those days.

Philip Halstead


05/02/16 – 14:54

On the subject of civic/local pride First has repainted buses in Leeds and Bradford into former operators liveries. For some reason these are always immaculately turned out by their respective garages unlike some of the standard liveried stuff Makes you think eh.

Chris Hough


06/02/16 – 06:57

Other Chris H – Have found a Bradford one – //tinyurl.com/h2n27cm  – very smart!

Chris Hebbron


06/02/16 – 18:01

First certainly did Sheffield proud with retro-painted Geminis to celebrate the motor bus centenary in 2013. The superb paintwork depicted both old and new style of livery – a splendid selection of photos can be found at – www.flickr.com/photos/

John Darwent


06/02/16 – 18:02

A great photo Ian, brought back lots of memories! Having spent what might be described as my formative years in Sheffield I can only endorse the comments made about the variety of the fleet, though our local route 61/63 was almost always provided with the Roe bodied Leyland PD3s which replaced the trams. From memory, the buses were usually well maintained and clean inside (apart from the nicotine stained ceiling of the upper deck before smoking was banned)! Perhaps the presence of a conductor made a difference? Now living in Dorset and using First in Weymouth, I have to say that the buses are usually clean inside and out as well.

Stan Zapiec


07/02/16 – 07:17

The images of the First fleet in Sheffield using the older liveries just goes to show how awful the current so-called liveries are. The old ones had style and dignity, and looked good as well.

David Wragg


08/02/16 – 06:33

Nice photo! I visited relatives in Sheffield in the 1960s so delighted to see this. Was the very small plate on the radiators a note that the bus was `antifreezed`? Can’t remember!

Steve Milner


08/02/16 – 16:24

LWE 113_2

The ‘three blue bands’ vs the ‘blue window surrounds’ wasn’t the only variation to be found in the Sheffield livery either. On first repaint, buses had their roofs painted smudge grey instead of the cream they were delivered with, as seen in this photo of the same all-Leyland PD2, 613, laying over in Castlegate, alongside the River Don. I’ve heard it said that the shade of grey was actually derived from mixing the residue of the blue and cream paint tins.
In Ian’s photo of the bus, taken in its later years, the bus is seen to have had its original cream roof restored, part of the modifications made to the livery in the ‘Humpidge’ era of management. When C.T. Humpidge, formerly at Bradford, took over as General Manager from R.C. Moore in 1961, he made moves to do away with the practice of painting the roofs grey, and Roe bodies eventually lost their blue window surrounds, although intriguingly none of the Leyland ‘Farington’ style bodied PD2s so treated ever did, and retained their ‘blue window surrounds’ livery to the end. Humpidge also had matt black applied between the destination apertures to form a so called ‘consolidated display’, a move that still generates fierce debate amongst some older Sheffield enthusiasts even fifty plus years later!!
And yes Steve, that small plate affixed to the radiator read “STD – Do Not Drain”

Dave Careless


10/02/16 – 06:17

If the ‘consolidated’ destination was controversial, why did they not go all the way and just have a single line? Almost all photos that I have seen have one of the two screens showing blank and I have yet to find a reason for two of them being fitted!

David Todd


10/02/16 – 16:32

David – from memory there were a few destinations that required the use of both screens, Dore via Brocco Bank and Beighton Handsworth are two that come to mind. Also I think the lower blind had (generally) City services whilst the longer distance services (generally) appeared on the upper blind. Note that on the photo above from Dave, Shirecliffe is on the top blind (exception proves the rule) whilst on the bus behind, 97 Southey Green used to have via Longley Lane on the lower screen hence its appearance on the top screen.

Ian Wild


11/02/16 – 06:23

Fulwood via Rustlings Road was another, Ian. I remember being fascinated as a kid, on shopping trips into the city, seeing these PD2s storming along Fargate showing Roscoe Bank or Brocco Bank, they seemed like exotic destinations to me at the time, I don’t know why!
Ironically, even though they had the two apertures on the side over the platform, on route 1 they sometimes had to resort to carrying a red board with white lettering in the last nearside lower saloon window, reading ‘via Elm Lane’

Dave Careless


11/02/16 – 06:24

To emphasise Ian’s point, both blinds were used on a number of routes, 61/63 Beauchief and Woodseats Circular with Circular in the lower display spring to mind together with 74 Greystones Norton. So I think both blinds were in pretty frequent use.

Stan Zapiec


13/02/16 – 05:27

Or neither in use – instructions for the Stocksbridge locals were to "show blank" . . . despite "Garden Village" being available. If you follow this link //forum.sy-transport.co.uk/thread/13424/destination-blinds-lists  (South Yorkshire Transport Forum, History, Destination Blinds) you’ll find listings from various destination blinds, including (if you work through the pages) various Sheffield Transport upper and lower and Y-type blind sets.

Philip Rushworth


12/06/19 – 06:37

Sorry, what’s this "B" fleet thing? Was there an "A" fleet as well, why?

Mark Chawner


12/06/19 – 10:53

…and a C Fleet as well! Others can explain better but it was all to do with the involvement of the railway companies.

Joe


12/06/19 – 12:41

Sheffield was a Joint Omnibus Committee where A fleet was wholly owned by Sheffield Corporation and operated within the city boundaries, C fleet was owned by the railways (LMS & LNER) and broadly speaking operated long distance routes often terminating at or near railway stations far afield. B fleet was jointly owned by corporation and railways and usually operated beyond the city boundaries but not so distant as C fleet. As might be expected there were many variations to this and buses from the B fleet especially could be seen on many A & C routes, buses from A fleet would often be seen on C fleet routes and a periodic mileage / income balancing would take place. Popular routes with hikers and ramblers would use vehicles from all fleets at peak weekends and Bank Holidays. See C.C Hall’s "Sheffield Transport" for a more detailed explanation. My very favourite fleet!!

Les Dickinson


 

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