Southport Corporation
1965
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Weymann O37/27F

New to Southport Corporation in 1965, with fleet number 54. She is a Leyland Titan PD2/40 with Weymann O64F body, converted from H64F. When Southport was absorbed into Merseyside, there was uproar among the natives, who wanted to remain in Lancashire. The place does, after all, have a Preston postcode rather than a Liverpool one! Do the residents still hold – as many in Bournemouth and Christchurch do in respect of Hampshire and Dorset – that they live in Lancashire, but Merseyside is allowed to look after certain aspects of life? We see her on Southampton’s Itchen Bridge on 6 May 1979, while taking part in the local operator’s Centenary celebrations.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

22/12/15 – 07:11

Regarding the open top Leyland currently on site, please find attached a photograph of the bus? OR an identical one. It is seen on Trans Pennine 2015 and is in the William Hunter collection.

Tracked your picture down to 154 reg, my picture is of 151 !
How many did they get?

Roy Dodsworth

22/12/15 – 08:57

Hello, Roy! Thank you for your thoughts. I’m afraid I can’t help you, as the BBF ‘Lancashire Municipal’ book I found a few years ago doesn’t include this batch. I am, however, very confident that at least one of the other readers will be able to advise us both!

Pete Davies

22/12/15 – 08:58

Take a look here //web.archive.org/web/southport3.htm

Peter

23/12/15 – 13:53

There’s almost a Beverly Bar tumble-home to CMW 151C’s upper deck glazing, distinctive I suppose.

Stephen Allcroft

24/12/15 – 06:24

Yes, Stephen, there is. I hadn’t noticed on the view of 154. Can anyone tell us if they were converted at the same time? The fleet list noted above suggests they were still H rather than O at the time of transfer to Merseyside.

Pete Davies

24/12/15 – 06:25

Oh, Southport’s resistance to Merseyside has taken many forms over the years. In bus terms red wheels were one of the first signs, then the use of municipal livery on open toppers and more recently on park and ride buses.
As for the town itself since the abolition of the county council I suspect it’s less of a problem although sharing Sefton Borough with parts rather close to Liverpool has been a problem.
I believe they managed to get Merseyside off the postal address a while back but in these days of ceremonial and postal counties and fragmented political counties it’s all a mess. I prefer to go with geographic counties which spares poor old Middlesex and puts my old home town of Widnes firmly back in Lancashire.
On the Wirral they managed to get their postcodes changed from L to CH with a positive effect on insurance premiums….

Rob McCaffery

25/12/15 – 08:05

Prior to 1974 Southport was a County Borough: County Boroughs were created in 1889, when administrative County Councils were established, for larger towns/cities for which it was felt that administrative control by the County would be inappropriate/impractical – they were abolished by Peter Walker’s Local Government Act (1972). It’s my understanding that Southport was offered the option of incorporation as a Borough within either Lancashire or the Metropolitan County of Merseyside: the former would have allowed it to retain it’s transport undertaking but would have meant responsibility for education passed to Lancashire County Council, whereas Metropolitan Boroughs retained control of education (but lost control of transport to the PTE) – clearly the Aldermen and Councillors of the County Borough of Southport knew where their priorities lay. Initially it was proposed that the 1974 County boundaries would apply solely for administrative purposes and that existing County boundaries would be retained for postal and ceremonial purposes, but . . .

Philip Rushworth

25/12/15 – 09:40

I know exactly what Philip R means! In Southampton, there were moves to have the whole of Southern Hampshire – including Portsmouth – declared a Metropolitan County, so the local districts could maintain control of Education which, otherwise, would go to ‘those idiots at the County Council’. Gosport was what was called an "Excepted District" for Education, and Fareham was only an Urban District. It was, however, pointed out that a Metropolitan County would control the buses through a PTE, so the idea was dropped in favour of keeping the buses under local control and losing the Education.

Pete Davies

31/12/15 – 07:23

Along with at least two dozen fellow enthusiasts, I spent the best part of a week in the Spring of 1988 on holiday with 0651 as our principal mode of travel, the group having hired it, with several holding PSV licenses so that we could drive it ourselves.
It was a fine week, with plenty of time spent on the upper deck in the sunshine, and I shan’t ever forget the crackling roar the old PD2 made as it pounded surefootedly up the steep Matlock Bank on the way to Chesterfield and Sheffield on the last night of the holiday. What a fine tribute that superb machine is to the designers and workers who spent their careers at the Leyland factory.

Dave Careless

31/12/15 – 12:22

Dave C, I think someone had clearly attended to the governor on your vehicle. I remember joining a tour of West Yorkshire in 1977 which used similar but earlier PD2/44 and thinking that it couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding! I was used to the performance of Halifax’s almost-identical vehicles and the comparison was stark. I always assumed that Southport’s were governed down severely as they only ran on very flat routes.

David Beilby

31/03/16 – 06:35

Note this vehicle up for sale as of April 2016

Roger Burdett

25/11/16 – 07:27

I was an apprentice fitter at Southport Corporation, Canning rd. Depot in the late 60’s.
The batch of buses you were asking about were numbered from 43 – 57 and they all had vacuum brakes as opposed to air brakes and manual gearboxes not semi automatics and the 01 prefix numbers were only applied after the MPTE takeover.
The later batch nos. were converted to OMO operation by moving the drivers N/S cab window outwards over the bonnet and the driver had to literally turn round to the left and face backwards to collect the fares, something of a feat even in those days!
The Drivers who opted to become OMO drivers were paid the princely sum of 3d an hour more (note not decimal pence btw) to become OMO drivers!
Mr Alan Westwell (now Dr. Alan Westwell) designed the cab window arrangement conversion when he was ‘The Rolling Stock Engineer’ at Canning Rd., note the title of RSE as opposed to Chief Engineer, as the title was from the old tramway days of long ago!
The next batch of vehicles were Leyland Panthers which were numbered from 58-70

Norman Johnstone

25/11/16 – 10:38

When London Country came into being in 1970, it, too, set up the post of RSE (Rolling Stock Engineer). He was then supplied with an Assistant, so entitled, until the unfortunate acronym thus created subsequently led to the renaming of the post as ‘Deputy’.

Roger Cox

25/11/16 – 13:14

At Derby Borough/City Transport we had a Chief Engineer (the late Gerald Truran), and, a Rolling Stock Superintendent, and an Assistant Rolling Stock Superintendent.
The latter two posts being a throw back to Trolleybus days.

Stephen Howarth

25/11/16 – 14:08

I can assure you that the title of Rolling Stock Engineer is still alive and well in the tramway field. I am one!

David Beilby

25/11/16 – 14:17

I am a volunteer at The North West Museum of Transport in St. Helens.
We are at present in the process of restoring Southport Corporation 62 a 1946 Daimler Utility CWA6 which apparently is one of only a few surviving CWA6’s with genuine wartime utility bodies by Duple.
We have just fitted a replacement AEC 7.7 engine which by all accounts are as scare to say the least.
This particular vehicle finished it’s life at Aintree Racecourse as a Stewards Bus on the racecourse when the museum acquired it many years ago.
If anyone has any more information regarding this bus please can they get in touch as we do have some very limited information on it as it is a genuine wartime utility bus bodied by Duple.

Norman Johnstone

27/11/16 – 07:40

I am glad Ronnie Cox didn’t let him convert Glasgow’s 229 forward entrance Double decks for OMO and I am sure the surviving drivers from early GG PTE days are too!

Stephen Allcroft

27/02/18 – 05:58

In the foregoing comments there is a reference to a PD2/44. I am not acquainted with such, thinking that PD2 variants ceased at No 41.
Was 44 a special to Southport?

Orla Nutting

28/02/18 – 07:41

Blame the typist!
I was wondering who would claim it was a PD2/44 then realised who wrote the post….

David Beilby

28/02/18 – 07:42

Re. Southport 62, the Utility Daimler. I was a volunteer at Steamport in Southport when 62 arrived. It was exchanged for Birkenhead 15, a PD2. It had been used as a sort of grandstand for the motor racing circuit at Aintree and was possibly a commentary position though I can’t be certain of that. When there was a clear out of some vehicles at Steamport there was a danger that it would be scrapped. Fortunately, I was able to arrange for it to be towed to the former Large Objects Store in Liverpool where it remained for some years. Upon the closure of those premises I assisted in removing the bus to a position outside the building to await removal to St Helens. During this operation 3 out of the 4 of us who were involved were attacked by cat fleas, presumably rather upset that the wild cats that had been living on the bus had fled the scene!
Good luck with the work on 62. I was impressed all those years ago that the bodywork was so solid despite it being a Utility. If it still has a lot of blue seat frames stored upstairs, they are from Birkenhead 15, not being required for its role taking over from 62.

Jonathan Cadwallader

01/03/18 – 05:59

Typo notwithstanding, it isn’t true that PD2 variants ceased at 41. In the final "rationalised" range, the former PD2A/24, PD2A/27, PD2A/30, PD2/34, PD2/37 and PD2/40 were replaced respectively by PD2A/44, PD2/47, PD2/50, PD2A/54, PD2/57 and PD2/60. However, only the PD2/47 was actually built, for St Helens, Lowestoft and Darwen.

Peter Williamson

02/03/18 – 08:13

Thanks for that. I had a nagging feeling that I’d read about the PD2/47 somewhere.

Orla Nutting

10/06/18 – 08:38

Just an update on the Southport Daimler 62.
The replacement engine has now been fitted and runs extremely well and lo & behold only a couple of months ago we actually moved 62 in the museum to another space next to where it was parked, albeit basically10ft the the right in the shunt, but it actually was ‘driven’ to the next space after well over 28 years of having no engine in it and although the brakes were shall we say not exactly functional the handbrake worked perfectly (except for the ratchet which was sticking) and so did all the pre-select gears including reverse!

Norman Johnstone

22/06/20 – 06:52

43-46 UWM43-46 Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1961
47-50 WFY47-50 Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1962
51-54 CWM151-154C Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1965
55-58 GFY55-58E Leyland PD2/40 MCCW 1967
All looked identical but some detail differences: red or black radiator grilles front top deck opening vent windows or not side opening windows – some sliders, some rill type lower skirt panel near side immediately after door – some single panel with a slight curve to transition from the straight down door post to curved lower pane – some curved panel with no transition from straight down door post.

Trevor Wilson

Lancaster City Transport
1957
Leyland Titan PD2/30
Massey H33/28R

998 AKT is a Leyland Titan PD2/30, was new to Maidstone Corporation in 1957, with fleet number 8. She has Massey H61R body. In 1975, she and three sisters returned to their birthplace in the north west to join Lancaster City Council’s Transport Department, after the merger with Morecambe & Heysham in 1974. The new Council had a flurry of buying used vehicles in 1974/5, and Maidstone 8 followed the old Lancaster pattern of matching the fleet number with the registration, becoming 998. In this view, taken on 13 September 1975, she is westbound near the Grand Hotel, on Morecambe Promenade.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

20/11/15 – 06:54

There seemed to be something about Massey bodies and the seaside. Operators on or near the coast that had them that come to mind are Morecambe & Heysham, Lytham St Annes, Birkenhead, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Barrow-in-Furness. Chester, Colchester, Ipswich and Exeter aren’t that far off the sea either being on tidal estuaries.

Philip Halstead

20/11/15 – 06:54

Lancaster City Council had been told by the Traffic Commissioner that the 1940s and early 1950s AEC Regents inherited from Morecambe were unacceptably old and that was the main reason for the secondhand buys. Maidstone around the same time had a new broom General Manager who was convinced that the town didn’t need heavyweight double deck buses and the same job could be done by a fleet of lightweight single deck Bedfords.

Stephen Allcroft

20/11/15 – 14:20

Thank you for your thoughts, Philip and Stephen. If I remember rightly, what Stephen says would account for the views I have seen of Maidstone Atlanteans with operators in the Glasgow area.
Incidentally, the building site in the background, in the process of becoming a block of apartments, was rather controversial, being at the Promenade end of Princes Crescent. There were rumblings at the time of ‘deals’ between the developer and Morecambe & Heysham’s Town Clerk, who was about to become redundant through the Reorganisation. He had long been in dispute with his employers over his address. He was supposed to live within the Borough, but lived just outside it, in Hest Bank. His mother lived within the borough, and he had his post delivered there.
The Captcha code seems vaguely akin to a Rochdale registration: RDK7 . . .

Pete Davies

20/11/15 – 14:21

This vehicle had been on hire to Alder Valley at Reading the previous year.

Paul Robson

20/11/15 – 14:22

What a superb livery! This livery would certainly lift modern double deckers, as opposed to the random ramblings that pass as liveries today.

Allan White

21/11/15 – 06:06

Let’s not forget Southend-on-Sea, too, Philip, with the livery colours of both fleets not being too dissimilar!

Chris Hebbron

21/11/15 – 06:06

Further to Allan White’s comment. At the time the fiesta blue and cream Maidstone livery was new, having been introduced with the trolleybus Replacement Atlanteans.
After a green and cream livery, the GM’s choice, was rejected the Lancaster city fleet was painted Trafalgar Blue and white.

Stephen Allcroft

21/11/15 – 06:07

Yes, Allan, it certainly beats Maidstone’s previous brown.

Pete Davies

21/11/15 – 06:08

In the mid-1970s I knew both the Lancaster Chief Engineer and the depot foreman at Morecambe, and did not hear any suggestion that they were under orders to get rid of the Regent IIIs. I was told that the local examiner was inclined to ‘pull a face’, but that was as far as things ever went. If the relevant bus met the required standards, there wasn’t much anyone could do.
Of course, the Regent IIIs weren’t getting any younger, and no doubt costing more to maintain as time went by. I was one of four enthusiasts who purchased No.72 (MTC540) for preservation in 1975, and (for our own interest) we were given a copy of a list of jobs which would have needed to be done for a recertification, which Lancaster had apparently considered. It was an uncomfortably long list, for a vehicle with a very limited life expectancy.

David Call

21/11/15 – 06:09

The traditional livery at Maidstone was an attractive brown and cream worn by buses and trolleybuses alike. Trolleybus replacement began in 1965, and the new buses introduced the pale blue and cream livery shown in the photo above. In 1974 things changed dramatically at Maidstone when Alan Price became Manager of the transport dept. In that year local government reorganisation saw Maidstone Corporation become the extended Maidstone Borough Council with control over the old rural district councils to the south and east of the former Corporation boundaries. Maidstone then sought run bus services in its new extended area which had hitherto been the province of Maidstone and District, and under the NBC Market Analysis Project, integration did occur under the name "Maidstone Area Bus Services". Until 1974 Maidstone had operated a high quality all double deck fleet. Under its new manager this was quickly replaced with OPO Bedford Y type lightweight single decks and all double deckers had gone from service by 1979. In that year, to commemorate the 75 years of Maidstone municipal transport, a bus was repainted in the old brown/cream livery, and, for a while, this became the new standard again. In the meantime, surplus double deckers that had not been sold were hired out to other operators in that period when British Leyland was falling catastrophically short in the supply of new vehicles and spare parts. As the Maidstone fleet expanded to meet its enlarged aspirations, many second hand vehicles were pressed into service still in the liveries of their previous owners. Then, in October 1986 came deregulation, which, amongst its numerous stupidities, outlawed area operating agreements as being "uncompetitive". Thereupon, Maidstone and M&D became competitors, with the Maidstone business relaunched as Boro’line. A new Best Impressions livery of blue and yellow with red and white trim (to my eye as every bit as grotesque as it sounds) came in at the same time, and double decks, new and second hand, reappeared in the fleet. In entering the new competitive environment, M&D adopted practices that later became the subject of the highly critical Competition Commission enquiry of 1993. To further its expansion, Boro’line succeeded in winning some London Regional Transport contracts. Unfortunately, Boro’line was not entirely adept at costing its operating activities, and began accruing very large debts. The whole business was offered for sale by Maidstone Borough, and Kentish bus took the London contracts early in 1992. A receiver was appointed to sell off the remaining operations but very few takers could be found. Discussions with more than 30 prospective buyers fell through. In the meantime, several buses were repossessed, though services struggled on. The end came in June 1992 with the sale of the of the residual business to Maidstone & District.

Roger Cox

21/11/15 – 06:09

The stories of the happy marriage of Maidstone & Morecambe fall into the category of "you couldn’t make it up". They replaced 25 year old (and more) buses with 17 year old buses…? Maidstone were embracing the mini fashion which has swung to the opposite end now, with oversized buses on urban streets. I think a good compromise would be a 26ft double decker, 7ft 6in wide and carrying 56 passengers. A rear loading platform would speed travel, as would employing apprentices or "conductors" who could train as drivers once they had learnt the routes. It would never catch on…

Joe

22/11/15 – 11:34

Joe, you comment on the ‘happy marriage of Maidstone & Morecambe’. I think you mean the very unhappy, shotgun, marriage of Lancaster and Morecambe. So far as the thoughts about open rear platforms, apprentices helping to load the bus and learn the routes go, well, RADICAL isn’t in it!
I did some afternoon conducting on some of Southampton’s preserved buses (the operation had by then become Southampton Citybus) during afternoons off from my job with the Council, and was amazed at how many folk said much the same thing: it was nice to have a bus with a conductor, and the engine and entrance where they ought to be. I mentioned this to the MD and he declared the thought to be economic suicide. You’re right, Joe – it won’t catch on!

Pete Davies

22/11/15 – 11:35

There is an excellent article in Classic Bus 135 (Feb-Mar 2015) on the Lancaster undertaking written by Thomas Knowles who was GM of the combined Lancaster – Morecambe & Heysham operation from its outset. Mr Knowles gives a fairly candid view on some of the problems he encountered in running the newly combined outfit. There are also some excellent photos illustrating the article.

Philip Halstead

23/11/15 – 06:27

No, Phil- the happy marriage of convenience of Maidstone & Morecambe- one with too many buses and one with too few!
Not conductors, mind… interns or…runners… pupils… there were/are plenty of jobs where you do or did earn next to nothing for the privilege of learning the job. I don’t think the unions ever saw it this way..

Joe

24/11/15 – 13:48

Trafalgar blue is used by Lancaster City Council to this day to paint shelters and stops perhaps they are trying to tell Stagecoach something!

Chris Hough

Barrow In Furness Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Park Royal H33/28R

CEO 956 is a Leyland PD2/40 with Park Royal H61R bodywork from 1958. She was built for Barrow In Furness Corporation (fleet number 169) and we see her parked on Middle Walk, Blackpool, on 29 September 1985. This is a date some of the readership will recognise, as being Blackpool’s Tramway Centenary day and she was taking part in a rally as part of the celebrations.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

03/09/15 – 07:17

What a handsome bus – helped by an attractive livery.

David Wragg

04/09/15 – 07:17

Thank you, David. I’ve always thought the livery bore some affinity with the Birmingham one, likewise that of St Helens (only in red).

Pete Davies

11/09/15 – 07:07

This vehicle along with No.170 (CEO 957), passed to the Furness Transport Group in the late 1970s, subsequently passing on to the Mersey and Calder Group.
On Saturday 25th October 1986 it was hired back for one day by Barrow Corporation Transport and operated the final service journey (11pm Town Hall – Abbey Road – Harrel Lane – Washington – Town Hall), thus marking the end of 66 years of municipal transport in the Borough.

Larry B

12/09/15 – 14:22

Honourably bringing up the rear, behind this fabulous Barrow vehicle, is surely one of the splendid Lytham St Annes Leylands too. Those were the days indeed.

Chris Youhill

13/09/15 – 05:49

There’s a name I’m glad to see here again – not Leyland or even Park Royal… or Barrow – but Youhill!

Joe

13/09/15 – 11:15

Thank you so much Joe , that is very kind indeed. I have been through the mill to some tune this last couple of months but am now making the best of it – what else can one do ?? I am definitely not one of those to burden everyone else with my difficulties as this does neither party any good I always feel, so no morbid details here. Thank you once again though for your greatly appreciated concern – I have had many good wishes from various quarters and forums (fora I suppose for Latin aficionado’s) and these of course mean a lot.

Chris Youhill

13/09/15 – 11:15

Enthusiastically seconded, Joe!

Chris Hebbron

15/09/15 – 06:41

Correct, CY, and welcome back. The vehicle concerned is GTB 903. I feel the original is too close-up for submission for Peter to consider.

Pete Davies