Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Manchester Corporation
1954
Daimler CVG6
Metro Cammell H32/28R

In 1965 Manchester had 398 Daimler CVs all rear entrance. Out of the 398 158 of them had the 7·0 litre 5 cylinder Gardner 5LW diesel engine the rest having the more powerful 8·4 litres, six cylinder Gardner 6LW. They also had one CLG5 registration PND 490 fleet number 4490 which was delivered in 1955 it must of been one of the last of the CL models as production ceased in 1955. The CL was a lightweight version of the CV it was in fact 10cwt lighter but most of its weight saving features were either available or incorporated into the CV so in 1955 it was the end of the CL. The last five in the last batch of front engined Daimlers delivered to Manchester were CCG6s the middle C stood for the Constant mesh gearbox that was fitted, this made a total of 404 it would of been 405 but for some reason GVR 336 – 4034 had been withdrawn, any one know the reason why? Along with the Daimler CVs Manchester also had 160 Crossley DD42s and 570 Leyland Titans all of which were rear entrance vehicles, But at the same time rear engined front entrance Atlanteans and Fleetlines were being bought in large quantities, so the switch to front entrance vehicles did not involve a front engined vehicle. I thought that was a little strange. So I checked out Liverpool corporation they also switched the same way, though they did have one front entrance Regent V which was classed as experimental. On checking Leeds City Transport I think they also only had five front entrance front engined vehicles Daimler CVG6LX-30s which it would appear were bought for one specific route anyway. So the switch from front engined rear entrance to rear engined front entrance double deckers does not appear to be that strange after all, it may have something to do with the size of the fleet!!!

In 1971 I went up to music college and CVG6s, like the one in the picture, were still very much around. They trundled around the flat-lands of South Manchester and the Cheshire plain with no problem, despite their age – particularly on the 44 to Ringway Airport (Manchester International now) and 46 to Styall (just short of Wilmslow).
They were not as sprightly as the PD2s, nor especially the North Western Renowns, which charged down the Wilmslow Road and Palatine Road. I read recently somewhere that, despite their manual boxes, many drivers preferred the PD2s.
The CCG6s were "foisted" on both Manchester and Salford Corporations in equal small numbers. They had the Guy "crash" box (at a time when Daimler and Guy had been brought together under Jaguar ownership) and were hated as much as the Leylands were revered. They were, however, offered at a knock-down price to sweeten the pill. [Pity, because they had the musical quality beloved of enthusiasts on contemporary Guy Arabs.]
I cannot remember whether it was here on this site, or elsewhere, that I recently read that putting a forward entrance on a front engined chassis caused an unforeseen weakness in body structure not evident with the entrance behind the rear axle. The Liverpool bus mentioned about was part of their experimental fleet and Sheffield had only around 30 forward entrance vehicles. I seem to think the Leeds buses were for the 72 and one of them survives in preservation.
Engineers actually knew what they were talking about and they would talk to each other. Often gricers only find out with the benefit of historical hindsight. [It took nearly fifteen years for Leyland to get the Atlantean right with the AN68! That was probably another, better reason, to stick with the "old".]

David Oldfield

The five Leeds forward entrance Daimlers were originally intended for and were employed on the 72 service to Bradford, jointly operated with the latter Corporation, where they were of a similar layout to the blue vehicles on the route. When Bradford went "rear engined" the Leeds buses were firstly used on the services to Garforth, Kippax and Ledston Luck which had been taken over from Kippax and District (Wallace Arnold). Later the Leeds five saw more general use, although predominantly on the services from Moortown and Meanwood via City to Morley. Immediately after the formation of the WYPTE all five were transferred to Huddersfield (Kirklees) where they "fitted in better" and I took a picture of one in Longroyd Bridge Depot boasting the idyllic destination "Salendine Nook." One of the five is indeed in preservation but I believe not yet fully restored.

Chris Youhill

The 5 Leeds front entrance Daimlers were CVG6LX-30 models and were bought for the joint 72 Leeds Bradford service, Bradford were using AEC Regent Vs with MCW bodywork at that time. The Leeds buses were later used on the Garforth services. Following the advent of the PTE they moved to Huddersfield

Chris Hough

Chris Youhill is normally reliable in everything he says, so maybe there are two! The Leeds Daimler I refer to was, until recently, running – resplendent in Huddesfield livery – in Steve Morris’s preserved fleet at Quantock Motor Service. [I drove for last year’s Minehead event where it performed all day.] I think it is one of those which was up for sale because of his downsizing.

David Oldfield

Although Manchester 4490 was often described as a CLG5, later wisdom has it that this was a model that never actually went into production. Either one or two prototypes were completed (in Alan Townsin’s book on post-war Daimlers, ‘The Best of British Buses No 11’, the text appears to conflict with the photograph captions on this point), but operators were not happy to accept all of the features. As a result, a number of experimental lightweight CVs were built with some but not all of the features of the CL prototypes, and it appears than 4490 was one of these.

Peter Williamson

Thank you indeed to David Oldfield for that most welcome piece of news, as I’m almost certain that the "Steve Morris" one of which I was unaware is not the one I mean. The one that I mentioned has fairly recently been acquired by a Leeds preservationist (a friend of mine who I see very little lately) but I’m pretty certain it had been a playbus fairly near here. I shall ring him at a civilised hour in the morning and find out for sure. So all being well this will be a rise from 20% to 40% in the members of this interesting batch still around. It is to my lasting regret that I was done out of a drive in one of these by a "photo finish." I was spare one day at the LCT central Leeds Sovereign Street Depot (5 minutes walk from town) and the Inspector told me to go quickly to the Corn Exchange where a bus for Morley was waiting with a full load as the relief driver had not turned up. It was "one of the famous five" and I was thrilled, but I was beaten to the cab door by a short head when the absentee turned up. I was just formulating a plan to offer him £10 to disappear for a few minutes when he set off leaving me in the middle of the road like a lemon. So I never did have a drive in a front entrance CVG6LX. Oh, I did once move one around the City centre, empty, when it was out of service for a staff shortage, but that’s not quite the same thing as a live service journey is it ??

Chris Youhill

A follow on from Chris

Excellent news this morning – two of the famous five are still with us !! The one my friend owned – 574 – was sold by him some time ago to a work colleague who was eventually unable to complete it. It is now safe in the hands of the excellent Aire Valley Group at Keighley, who will no doubt fully restore it to a very high standard. The one in Huddersfiled livery – 572 – has indeed been offered for sale and we don’t know yet where it is but presumably it will remain pristine and active in a new owner’s care.
This batch statistic must surely give a whole new meaning to the term "proportional representation.

Chris Youhill

Glad to bring the tidings and that there are now two!

David Oldfield

I read with interest the comments about 5 cyl Daimlers on Princess Pkwy from Northenden (Sharston) Depot and the fact that 5 cyls were not used on the road for all day services due to their lack of power.
This is strange as the post war batch of Damilers (4000-99) many of which were included in the Northenden allocation and 4510-4549 (many of which were included in Northenden) were used in all day service for many years.
Indeed the 45xx were mainly used on the Limited Stop services such as the 101 and 103 and I remember how drivers would throw them round the roundabout at Wythenshawe Road, the buses leaning over at quite an angle.
That these 5 cyl buses were short on power is not in doubt. The performance of the early post war batch was very poor but then the Leyland PD1 was also not a very good performer with its 7.4 litre engine.
However fuel consumption on such buses was rather better than that of modern buses!

Malcolm Crowe

While puzzling over the reluctance of certain operators to adopt front entrance bodywork on halfcabs, what about the strange reluctance in Manchester to adopt 30ft halfcabs? Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield and Halifax all adopted them very quickly, London had its ugly "cut & shut" RML Routemasters, but Manchester, along with Ashton, SHMD and Stockport stuck with the 27ft length to the end (apart from Stockport’s very last batch) even though others in the conurbation experimented with bigger buses. Hasn’t it always seemed odd that Manchester went so quickly from being a city of small buses to one infested with the vast Mancunians?

David Jones

The change from ancient to modern isn’t quite that surprising since it coincided with the arrival of Ralph Bennett from Bolton and a new boss will always make his/her mark on an organisation.
As for PD2/PD3. I have never been an operator, but I once read that the PD3 was never considered to be quite up to PD2 standard. [Could have been power to weight ratio or the strain of extending drive gear a further 3′.] PD2s were always regarded as a quality product and in theory the only difference with the PD3 was the length. PD2s in Manchester were highly regarded by everyone and were more than man enough for the job in hilly North Manchester. In mountainous Sheffield, PD3s could make heavy work of the job!

David Oldfield

Halifax may have adopted the thirty-foot PD3 very quickly, but notably they reverted to the shorter PD2 for many later deliveries. Having seen some of the termini it is not entirely surprising, but the number of PD2s bought later is more than would be warranted for this reason. I suspect performance on gradients also had something to do with it, there are certainly plenty of those in Halifax!
Although it’s hard now to think of them that way, 30 foot long buses were once bigger than normal and the extra length of such buses would have caused problems in busy termini such as Manchester Piccadilly if there had been large numbers in the fleet. Obviously that issue was eventually addressed but looking at the current congestion in Piccadilly Gardens is it easy to see how critical this issue can be.

David Beilby

Unlike many operators, Manchester specified maximum capacity (65) for its 27-footers, and could only have got another 8 in a 30-footer. You then have to consider industrial relations, which weren’t easy in Manchester and were negotiated on a garage-by-garage basis. Conductors would have either objected to the extra work or wanted more money, so it probably wasn’t worth the hassle.
Eventually 10 Atlanteans were purchased, with 12 extra seats and the advantage of the driver looking after the platform. Even these sat around for ages while the management and the Northenden union did battle (Northenden had the most difficult union and was chosen deliberately, on the basis that once that nut was cracked, the rest would follow more easily).
I would also make the point that by the time Ralph Bennett arrived in 1965, Manchester had already abandoned half cabs and been buying Fleetlines steadily for 3 years. All subsequent deckers were 30 feet long (including the first Mancunians) until the very end of 1968 when the first 33-footers arrived.

Peter Williamson

I was a driver in the mid-late 60’s (Birchfields road) and remember seeing a photograph of a double decker standing on eggs. Does anybody have a copy of this? At that time, there was an ‘old bus restoration’ shop in one of the disused entrances.

Peter Dorricott

04/10/11 – 17:17

It’s not strictly true that only Stockport’s last batch were PD3’s. In fact all new double deck vehicles after 1967 were PD3’s which gave a total of 27 in all. There’s a school of thought that the Transport Dept only ordered these because PD2’s were no longer available. The PD3’s did not handle as well as the PD2’s, the steering was exceptionally heavy whilst the performance was no great shakes on Stockport’s hills.

Chris Flynn

04/10/11 – 21:11

Re the debate about front entrance half cabs. I always think that it was peculiar that Grimsby- Cleethorpes specified hinged cab doors on their Daimler CVG/Roe and on the AEC Regent Vs/Roe when the general norm was for sliding doors. Surely with the latter buses could be parked up closer together.

Philip Carlton

06/10/11 – 07:25

It cannot be true that Stockport only ordered PD3s because the PD2 was no longer available – unless Leyland planned to withdraw the PD2 and then changed its mind. According to //www.buslistsontheweb.co.uk/  the last PD2s were delivered to Darwen in April 1969, two months after Stockport received its final PD3s.

Peter Williamson

01/11/11 – 06:40

Manchester Corporation Daimler CVG5 No 4034 referred to above in original text was irreparably damaged following a collision with a lorry in 1951.
Lorry emerged from Raby Street and knocked the bus over.
(Info extracted from "The Manchester Bus" by Michael Eyre & Chris Heaps)

Andrew Scholes

12/04/12 – 06:13

I was a conductor, then driver from 1959 to 1978 at Birchfields Rd. Depot. I well remember some of the ‘workings out’ we got on Circular (53 Cheetham Hill to Brooks’s Bar/Old Trafford) especially if we had a Princess Rd. Daimler in front! I remember too the ‘crash box’ Daimlers, which were ok to drive on the quiet routes, 85, Chorlton/Albert Sq., or the 20, Chorlton St./Woodford. But they were no match for other Daimlers, and particularly Leylands in the fleet. 3550, although well worn, was a favourite! I particularly enjoyed driving the few 3400’s we had at Birch.
I read with interest, Peter Dorricot’s question re the Double Decker standing on eggs. Sorry I can’t offer any info on that, but I do remember the name.
Unfortunately, so many years on, I cannot put a face to the name.
Those were good days behind the wheel with a conductor, not so great as one man operation took over. But that was progress – I suppose!

Bill Parkinson

28/09/12 – 07:56

The 4400 batch of CVG6s were unique to Manchester. The body was a stopgap between the MCW Phoenix, of which both Manchester and Salford had large batches and were very long lived, and the Orion.
The close co-operation between MCTD and MCW led to yet another long lived batch. Delivered from Nov 1953 to July 1954 they survived well into SELNEC days, at least one receiving SELNEC livery, most attaining 19-20 years and many being in all day service all their lives.
At least one example inherited a complete rear axle from one of the previous Phoenix bodied Daimlers and the batch had the "distinction" of having one of its number selected as the trial bus for the spray booth scheme which eliminated the cream surrounds of the upper deck windows.

Phil Blinkhorn

29/09/12 – 07:34

To pick up David Beilby’s comment on the Halifax PD2 versus PD3 question, it is true that the later Halifax Titans were all PD2s. The restricted terminal working arrangements at some of the outer destinations was only part of the story. As a Traffic Clerk in Halifax in the mid 1960s, I regularly covered the second half of late turns on the road, and my preference was for the 48/49 Brighouse – Hebden Bridge routes, which were the regular haunt of the 30 footers, PD3 and Regent V. The PD3 was certainly less lively than its shorter stablemate, though the very low first gear would eventually get it up even the stiffest Halifax gradient. I can state from personal experience that the serious shortcoming of the PD3 was its distressing reluctance to stop – it would seem that the braking system was identical to that of the lighter PD2. The synchromesh Regent V (in my view, a pretty unsophisticated piece of machinery – sorry David O), whilst less than ideal in the braking department, was decidedly more reassuring when it came to stopping the thing. The first double deck bus in my experience that had really decent brakes was the Dennis Loline.

Roger Cox

29/09/12 – 12:39

So? The syncro Regent was an unsophisticated machine – especially by today’s standards – but it didn’t make it a bad bus, and AEC brakes were always better than Leylands.

David Oldfield

29/09/12 – 12:39

I was interested to read Roger Cox’s comments about the Halifax’s PD3’s brakes versus the PD2’s. I too worked as a Traffic Clerk at Halifax – though in the early 1970’s – and like him I regularly worked the second half of late turns driving in the evenings, and nearly all day on Saturdays. The 48/49 had been split up into separate routes and converted to OMO just before I started, and since I only did Crew Driving at the time I rarely covered those sections, but worked fairly randomly on all the crew routes. Later I transferred to Driver and have done that until the present time – although now only part-time in semi-retirement. So I drove them on a regular basis until the last one was withdrawn.
I must say that although the PD3’s naturally felt a bit heavier to drive than the PD2’s and were a bit harder work to get going, I never really found their brakes to be any less adequate. However, when WYPTE took over we soon afterwards received quite a number of ex-Huddersfield PD3A/2’s with Roe bodies, and these certainly could exhibit a ‘distressing reluctance to stop’, and I had quite a few heart-stopping experiences with some of them. They also used to squeal really loudly.
A number of the original Halifax Regent V’s had already been withdrawn by then, and the remaining ones were rather tired and hard work to drive, giving the impression of being not as durable as the Leylands. There were however three ex-Hebble examples and rather unexpectedly these were considerably better and were really nice to drive. In my experience (I also later drove several ex-Bradford ones in service, and others in preservation) Regent V’s could vary tremendously from one operator to another according to their specification.
Back to the original topic – Manchester CVG6’s. Before I was at Halifax I was a Schedules Clerk at SELNEC Central, based at the former Salford depot at Frederick Road. Some of these 44xx series Daimlers had been allocated there and I rode on them on a number of occasions. Though like most CVG6’s they were steady plodders (I hate to think what the CVG5 was like), they were highly regarded for their total reliability, and to me seemed to be really solid buses for their age.

John Stringer

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

21/02/14 – 06:50

I came across the 2012 correspondence re Manchester’s old Daimler CVG5 and -6 buses and I can remember their presence in the south of the city. The 4000-99 batch were always on the 101 service in the early ’60s and also seemed to do the rush-hour extras and school contract work. It seems that the body-weight/engine size combination meant that they could only work ‘flat’ routes such as those around Wythenshawe, but it was a surprise to come across a colour image of one of them running on one of the city’s sink estates-built at the end of a long climb from the city-centre-against a background of houses that were built ca. 1968. The bus had good-looking paintwork and was carrying blinds for a local service (the ‘211’ [now the 201]) but was ‘off-route’ and the number-blinds had the non-standard ‘2-11′ mix instead of the Hyde Road ’21-1’ (based on the former trolley-bus route-number sequence ‘210’ to ‘219’), so it seems to have been pulled from the scrap-line for a special photo-session. It’s hard to believe that the Hyde Road management would condone the release of even a scrap bus for anything as frivolous as this, and the CVG5, given its alleged poor performance would never have worked the area (which only saw the odd, end-of-life, Crossley (2078 was one example) being given an optimistic morning duty that would give it a mostly-downhill trip carrying a full load of passengers. These Daimlers had/have been special to local bus anoraks because of their peculiar exhaust sound-effects, and it’s possible that the picture had some connection with a last-minute attempt to preserve one of them. Does anyone know any more?

John Hardman

Photograph from The late Robert F Mack collection.

Samuel Ledgard
1945
Bristol K6A
ECW L27/26R

As featured in ‘An Arresting Experience’ by Chris Youhill on the ‘articles’ page here we have the vehicle in question. This vehicle was ex-United Automobile Services fleet number BAL 8 new to them in 1945 acquired by Samuel Ledgard in 1959 and served a further six years before being withdrawn from service in 1965.  
The Bristol K series was first produced in 1937 and had the high bonnet line as in the shot above until 1946, when the more familiar lower bonnet line was introduced as in the shot to the right.
The above vehicle was one of 251 built after the recommencement of production in 1944 and were the wartime W1 and W2 series all of which had the AEC 7·7 litre six cylinder diesel engine hence the K6A code. As from 1946 the K series was also available with the Gardner 5LW and Bristols first diesel engine the AVW which was a 8·1 litre six cylinder unit. I am not sure what AVW and its successor the BVW stood for, I could guess that the V stood for vertical, if you know please leave a comment. The K series carried on in production until 1950 with over 3000 being built until the one foot longer KS version was introduced.

Photograph contributed by Chris Youhill

Am I right in believing that the difference in bonnet height is the post war "invention" of dropped front axles- and who thought of it first?

Joe

Sorry Joe but, as far as I can glean from publications on the Bristol "K" series, there is no difference at all in the front axles of the low and high radiator "K"s. Dropped front axles were virtually standard on all buses long before WW2. As you say, the apparent dramatic lowering of the radiators and bonnets would suggest some major structural redesign but seemingly not so – the improved appearance must have been achieved by cleverly reducing the clearance above the engine and by a pleasing new radiator design and mountings.

Chris Youhill

As an AEC man, it always struck me that the perfect bonnet line, as aspired to and achieved by London Transport in the RT, was only achieved in the provinces on the post-war Bristols and Guy Arabs.

David Oldfield

And Crossleys, surely?

Peter Williamson

As I signed off the last comment, a Manchester Crossley popped up on a picture and I thought……..and Crossleys!

David Oldfield

There cannot have been any structural difference in the "high" and "low" radiator K chassis, since after the war, many pre-war and wartime utility Bristols were rebodied,and the exercise frequently involved fitting the low radiator to modernize their appearance. Preserved West Yorkshire KDG 26 is a case in point.

David Jones

The ‘low’ radiator is a bit of a trick. The bottom of the working bit of the low radiator is no lower than the high version. If you examine one you will find that the bottom 4 or 5 inches of the low radiator is just decorative. I think I’m right in saying the higher top of the ‘high’ radiator is simply a result of the fact that petrol engines were a lot taller than diesels. When diesels replaced petrol from mid-1930’s there was a lot of fresh air under the bonnet. Hence the line of the bonnet was lowered and with it the top of the radiator.

Bristol’s parts code. The last letter refers to what it is – thus ‘W’ is an engine. The first engine would have been an ‘AW’. In the early 1930’s the ‘JW’ and ‘NW’ were respectively 6-cyl and 4-cyl petrol engines. Once they got to ‘ZW’ then they started again with ‘AAW’ an awful lot of the codes must have been either minor variants or omitted or design studies which were never built. I have no idea how they got as far as ‘AVW’ but that is how the code was arrived at.

Peter Cook

Bristol AVW. the "V" stands for Vertical, and the "W" stands for Water-cooled. The "A" & "B" were the series. AVW’s had dry liners, by far more reliable, and the BVW’s had wet liners, and known for self-destructing, more so when cooled by the diabolical Cave-Brown-Cave system

EE59051

Thanks to the enigmatic EE59051 for his comments. I have a enormous soft spot for Bristol engined Bristols, but it is interesting to note that they seemed to have similar problems to AEC a propos wet liner and dry liner engines.

David Oldfield

Thanks to EE59051 for that very justified comment on the dreadful Cave-Brown-Cave system. In the first place its ugly radiator apertures completely disfigured the vehicles to which it was fitted. More importantly it was absolutely dangerous to drivers in the event of any leakage, especially at full speed, and even at the tiny WYRCC depot at Ilkley there were instances of scalding in the one year that I worked there.

Chris Youhill

I’ve often wondered why companies persevered with the Cave-Brown-Cave system as long as they did, as it never quite seemed to work as the inventor intended. My grandma (a very forgiving soul) would often complain on her family visits, about the freezing cold journeys she had endured from Bingley to Harrogate. The culprits were usually observed to be CBC ‘heated’ Lodekkas. My brother and I would empathise as we often suffered the same discomfort when we visited her, travelling on the same type of bus.
Airlocks seemed to be the main culprit, and could give rise to the strange phenomenon of passengers complaining of how cold their bus was, whilst at the same time said bus was observed boiling away merrily at the front end!
As a West Yorkshire Central Works apprentice, I spent three months working at Grove Park depot, and if a Lodekka was taken out of service as a result of boiling, it was just parked up in the depot and allowed to cool down. It was then topped up with water, whilst someone else worked the engine to try and circulate it around the system. All being well, it would then be deemed ready for action again. The Lodekka water filler cap was still in its original position just above where the traditional radiator would have been. However, as the CBC radiators were set several feet higher on the top deck, many of us thought this to be the cause of the water circulation problems.
Although the BVW engine had its faults – and with hindsight maybe Bristol might have been better staying with dry liners – later versions were generally viewed by West Yorkshire as being decent workhorses. The bottom-end seemed pretty bullet-proof, with many of our examples covering 300,000 miles or more between overhauls, without any crankshaft or bearing problems.

Brendan Smith

Cave-Brown-Cave heating is within my experience, just, but what type of heating was evidenced by a round chrome’y-grill’y protrusion from the front downstairs bulkhead of some buses and coaches and did the system do upstairs, too?

Chris Hebbron

Ah- Memory Lane again: those funny round "heaters" (Clayton Dewandre?- do I imagine that?) on Yorkshire Traction Leylands. Did they ever give off any heat…? Was there a box too under a seat upstairs? They were presumably like the car heaters of the day- a pipe off the cooling system?

Joe

You’re right about the make, Joe. I don’t think that their output was very inspiring, from my limited experience.

Chris Hebbron

The large round heaters with mesh fronts and a chrome "hood" were indeed made by Clayton Dewandre Limited of Titanic Works, Lincoln. They had an electric expulsion fan to blow out the warm air, and warm it certainly was providing that the water circulation was in order, and that the engine was running at a reasonably high temperature. The "boxes under the seats" were usually the excellent and efficient "KL" models, which also had a powerful electric fan. Wiring in both types was usually arranged so that the fans either stopped or slowed while the engines were ticking over at stops. When Samuel Ledgard acquired second hand buses in the later years of the Company it was the practice to install "KL" boxes in both saloons – normally two downstairs and one at the front of the top deck. All of these "retro fitted" heaters were highly efficient and were much appreciated by passengers and conductors alike. In particular I remember the ex Exeter Daimler CVD6/Brush models, where I’ve known passengers plead for them to be turned off in mid Winter – JFJ 55 being the hottest – courtesy of the hot running Daimler engines.

Chris Youhill

Clayton Dewandre indeed, but only for those who sat inside. Sheffield’s first upstairs heating was the horrendously noisy system on 1325 – 1349 (Regent V/Roe).

David Oldfield

I like your ‘inside’ and ‘upstairs’, David. Reminds me when I was young, after the war, there were still a lot of older conductors who shouted at boarding passengers, ‘Plenty of room outside’ even though open-top buses were long gone!

Chris Hebbron

Its an absolute delight reading all these posts about Sammy Ledgard. My memories go back to before Sammy died, and the "exors" were formed. In many ways, this was a more interesting period as the fleet had more "corporate" character, with its "standard" Leylands going way back. This is all in the days before grey came into the livery. Many had Green roofs.
It was certainly an enthusiasts paradise after 1953 with the amazing variety of second hand purchases, but I think my most precious Sammy memory is the Butlers scrapyard just below the "Fox and Hounds" near Menston. In 1953/4, and for some time after, this was full of withdrawn Ledgard buses, some going back to the 1920s. They had been stored at Armley for years, Sammy never disposing of "owt" which might come in useful!

John Whitaker

29/03/11 – 07:35

I am pretty sure that the first Sheffield buses delivered with underseat heaters in the top deck were the ECW bodied PD2s of 1957 (1152/3 and 1292-1294). I recall travelling on the 12 to Chesterfield on one when virtually new and being most disappointed that the noise from the heater drowned out the note of the O.600 engine.

Ian Wild

29/03/11 – 13:22

Significant that they were JOC buses. I never remember them on the 12, nor do I remember 1152/3 without doors. Having never travelled on any of these buses, I bow to your superior knowledge.

David Oldfield

29/03/11 – 13:30

I was most interested in John Whitaker’s nostalgia about the Butler scrapyard at Eller Ghyll, Menston where a large number of Ledgard vehicles were dismantled after years of storage. It was a place where mixed feelings were always aroused – revelling in the range of vehicles which languished there, and yet incredibly sad at the same time.

Here is one of my early snapshots (if only digital had been around !!). The larger vehicle is one of the ex B & B Leyland Lion LT1/Burlingham pair, KW 7944/5. No prizes for identifying the other two buses – they are 40% of the fleet of five heroic little Bedford OWBs which served so valiantly at the Yeadon (Moorfield) depot. It is impossible for those unfamiliar with the territory to imagine how much heavy work those little champions handled on two of the most intense and heavily patronised routes – and of necessity overloading was common which made their performance even more remarkable and creditable. I’ve driven OB coaches myself and never failed to marvel at how these tough little classics performed – unashamedly noisily while "getting up to speed" in the first three gears and then with dignified very quiet tones in "top." I still can’t believe how 28hp petrol engines (many private cars today have greater capacity and technology) could produce such splendid results under heavy pressure. What a crying shame that more souvenirs were not saved from these vehicles as I’m quite sure that Butler’s would have been amenable to the cause. The final sad insult to the little Bedfords was to have to languish there in full view of their successors, as their former lifetime route was less than a hundred yards away on the road above !!

Chris Youhill

30/03/11 – 06:07

1294 and 1295 (the first of the three contemporary Roe bodied PD2/20) were allocated to Leadmill Road Depot hence 1294 turning up frequently on the 12 to Chesterfield. I don’t remember the Roe trio (1295-1297) being delivered with saloon heaters. There was a restricted height bridge at Dronfield on service 12 and not all buses could be used on the Chesterfield service. I suspect the ECW bodies were of slightly lower overall height than the Roe bodies on the similar chassis as I never remember seeing 1295 on the 12 although the standard vehicles for the route at that time were Roe bodied Regent III 1251-1282. Different chassis make, slightly lower build?

Ian Wild

30/03/14 – 12:54

Imagine an engine block in profile and standing next to it a tall radiator. Hot water rising from the engine passes thru a large hose to the top of the radiator. Movement air passing thru the radiator cools the water which slowly sinks returning via the bottom hose to the engine block whence it rises again. This is the simple thermo-syphon system with the of necessity tall radiator which was fitted to most pre-war vehicles. It had many disadvantages. Big improvements were made. At atmospheric pressure water boils off so the cooling system was pressurised to raise the boiling temperature. A cooling fan was fitted to draw air through the radiator even whilst the vehicle was stationary. A thermostat controlled the temperature of the cylinder head. Most importantly, an impeller pump was fitted to increase the cooling water circulation speed thus vastly increasing cooling efficiency. Efficient radiators could be made much smaller and lower. This was a boon to the bodywork designers wishing to offer attractive lower profiles. This is the reason why lower outlines became possible. It has nothing to do with the engine which can be tilted or even, as in the Commer TS3 design, laid flat.

Peter Woods

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

05/02/16 – 06:33

Back to radiator height, I believe on the high radiator access for the crank handle was below the radiators bottom tank, whereas on the low radiator everything was lower because it was possible for the shaft of the crank handle to pass between the radiators tubes. This was not a new arrangement as Tilling Stevens B10s of the late 20s had this style of radiator. Bonnet height was often determined by whether air filters were fitted above the engine.

Bob Cooper

The City of Oxford Motor Services
1956
AEC Regent V MD3RV
Weymann H30/26RD

City of Oxford I think were one of AECs most loyal customers. According to my 1963 British Bus Fleets South Central book it states that as from 1927 apart from a batch of 5 Dennis Loline Mark IIs delivered in 1961 with AEC engines by the way, all their vehicles were AECs. Interestingly enough the next batch of vehicles ordered after the Lolines were AEC Bridgemasters. What I find strange, and I hope someone can explain why it was that the Bridgemaster had been available from 1956, why wait until December 1961 to take delivery of their first batch. Not to mention the fact that they took delivery of 15 lowbridge Regent Vs as well as the 5 Lolines in the 56 – 61 period. As a matter of interest they also took delivery of 30 highbridge Regent V MDs and 16 LDs in the same period of which the vehicle in the above shot is one of the first. It was chassis number 29 of the MD variant and had as can be seen an exposed radiator rather than the more recognisable concealed version more associated with the Regent V. All City of Oxford 27ft Regent Vs were MDs (Medium Weight) having the smaller AEC AV470 7.68 litre six cylinder diesel engine. But they were not quite so loyal when it came to body builders Park Royal and Weymann were the norm for the double deckers, apart from a batch of 5 Regent Vs and the Lolines that had East Lancs bodies and the first batch of front entrance Regents that had bodies by Willowbrook. I am afraid that is where my information ends but if you know something that maybe of interest to others your comments are more than welcome.

A full list of Regent V codes can be seen here.

I think you’re a little unfair about loyalty with bodywork. When you buy one car or bus at a time you can be loyal to one maker. When you bulk order you have to be aware of the capacity of the supplier – which is why most large operators (even London Transport) dual sourced. At least COMS managed fidelity to AEC – with which I would fully concur – and the two bodybuilders were among the acknowledged best at their craft at the time. [Lolines were only available late in Weymann’s life but maybe they were arguing with Dennis for an AEC option when the body style and finish of the Bridgemaster was truly dreadful.]
Whatever the reasons; maroon, cream and duck-egg green AECs – that is the heyday of a superb operator.

David Oldfield

P.S. Re-reading Alan Townsin’s chapter on the Bridgemaster in his "Blue Triangle"…..
The original version was attractive with curved profile and aluminium body but BET were likely to be the model’s biggest customer. They wanted steel frames and single skin domes, like the MCW Orion, and a wholesale re-think had to be made.
Very few of the original Crossley built Bridgemaster’s were made before it was totally retooled and production moved to Park Royal from whence came the uglier production model. This probably helps answer why COMS didn’t buy Bridgemasters before 1961 – that and being on the end of a queue which would involve PRV vehicles for other customers. The Bridgemaster was now firmly based in London and would, or could, not be sub-let to Crossley or Roe.

I don’t know who took this photograph but I know the setting is Gloucester Green Bus Station in the heart of Oxford.
Oxford Bus Co’s livery was absolutely gorgeous, restrained and stately but still gorgeous!!

George Taylor

23/03/13 – 08:02

Eventually this ended up with Wallace School of Transport as a driver trainer bus – I took my PSV test on it in 1970

Brian Lamb

23/03/13 – 12:28

Coming from a Leyland/Daimler Orion bodied stronghold on my visits to Oxford with my father in the late 1950s/early 1960s I always thought this batch had a certain refined air about it. Again, coming from the a place where the Orions were coated in acres or red or green the Oxford livery was to my eye very attractive.
A few words on the Bridgemaster. Alan Townsin is, of course, correct regarding the BET demands for the Bridgemaster. The original bodies were developed from a specification drawn up at Park Royal but the final design and build was by Crossley at Errwood Road using the basic outline and many of the panel sizes of the then current Park Royal design it was also building. It is interesting to see that a few of the design touches of the original were incorporated into some orders throughout the production run see: www.brindale.co.uk/  
Whilst Graham Hill’s information on the site is a little suspect e.g. his contention that the Lodekker (sic) had saturated the market leading to poor Bridgemaster sales, the pictures show well the versions of the final design though, as it is a Park Royal site, omit pictures of the Crossley version shown here: www.sct61.org.uk/  
I was told by an ex Crossley employee who was there to the end that the transfer of the Bridgemaster to Park Royal, which was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of Crossley, would not have been so final had there been a commercially viable demand from non BET operators who would have specified the original body, leaving Park Royal to deal with the BET revamped design. As it was, no significant interest was shown and the shut down went ahead.
Regarding Oxford’s order, whilst BET companies could deviate from group policy, at the time the group was pressurising its constituents to take the Bridgemaster. With a very much AEC dominated fleet Oxford found it hard to resist unlike Ribble, North Western and other fleets which had either a Leyland dominance or a more diverse fleet.

Phil Blinkhorn

26/03/13 – 06:38

While the redesigned Bridgemaster is widely regarded as a styling disaster, it is often forgotten that some of the rear-entrance examples were nothing of the kind, as is well illustrated by the photos of the Sheffield buses on Graham Hill’s site (see Phil’s brindale link above).

Peter Williamson

30/10/16 – 06:28

Watching a 1963ish Youtube video on the Outwell and Upwell Tramway I saw a familiar sight: a 1949 City of Oxford AEC Regent III with 56-seat highbridge Weymann bodywork stopping to pick up a lady—and here’s the less familiar bit—who was standing on the railway track. The by then diesel-hauled farm-produce trains that ran along the roadside made only a handful of trips a day so using the tracks as a bus-stop posed little danger.
I couldn’t make out an operator’s name, but I’m sure someone here knows!

ps.
I should have said that the film is Huntley Archives no 521. OFC 383 here appears to have platform doors, which I thought were fitted by Smiths of Reading on acquisition. Could this bus have passed from Smiths to a third life on the Fens? If so, that would date the picture to about 1966-67.

Ian Thompson

30/10/16 – 14:41

I think that the Regent III is OFC 390 which was acquired by Smith (Bluebell) of March in February 1962 and was fitted with doors for them. It lasted until March 1966.

Nigel Turner

30/10/16 – 16:21

I thought that the Oxford "Country Buses" – out of town services like Kidlington – of that eras had doors from new?

Joe