Sheffield's Titanics by Keith Beeden (Torque 44)

(Written with greatly appreciated assistance from Tom Robinson and Paul Fox, and additional information added by Mike Sutcliffe.  It has proved very difficult to find good in-service photographs of the Sheffield Titanics but included here are some rare snapshots which have proved invaluable)

Background - Seating capacities and tyre technology

In September 1924, Sheffield’s first top covered double decker, AEC 504 type number 56, was put into service. Although of higher seating capacity (52 seats compared to the 34 on a typical open topper of the 1913-21 period), mechanically, this latest forward control chassis from AEC was little different from the earlier design. The main attraction was the additional seating that could be provided and, although the single deck buses were now being equipped with pneumatic tyres, the 504 type still retained solid rubber tyres. Accordingly, the single deck bus was still used in large numbers and gave a much better quality of ride.

Nevertheless, No.56 was the forerunner of things to come and was put to work on the recently converted Petre Street tramway route, though due to its poor performance was redirected to the less arduous route 57, the Stocksbridge service. The Sheffield General Manager, A.R.Fearnley, was regarded as an ardent tramway man, but he realised that improvements in the motorbus design, were of significance. Furthermore, he could see that  the bus was slowly approaching the capacity of a tramcar. The double deck bus was to become a decided competitor to the railed transport in Sheffield. Similar buses to 56, Nos.57-64, of AEC type 507, were delivered in 1925.

In some managerial quarters, there was the opinion that the pneumatic tyre would never be capable of carrying the weight of a laden double decker and this was widely publicised at the time. To this end, Guy Motors Ltd. was currently working on the concept of applying pneumatics to a double deck bus. The idea of a paired set of wheels at the rear was discounted, because of poor reliability and wheel changing difficulties. The Guy Company approached the problem in a new way. By the provision of a bogie-set of four wheels, located at the rear, instead of the usual single axle, and the additional weight of a double decker could be accommodated. The idea was progressed, with encouragement from the Municipal fraternity and the company introduced the six-wheeled double deck CX model in 1926.

Experiments with six-wheelers

Arthur Fearnley was anxious to provide more seating in the double deck bus, to compare with the sixty plus of a tramcar. The opening of the new council estate on the Manor area was to be the instigator of higher capacity buses to connect with the Darnall shopping centre. This was before the Prince of Wales Road tramway was laid, between Manor Top and Darnall. Accordingly a Guy CX normal control bus, was put on order, and this vehicle seated 60 in its Short Bros built body (H32/28R). It arrived in 1927 and took the number 131, WE 40, chassis number CX22521, and entered the fl eet in 1927. Noteworthy is the fact that the 130s series of numbers was utilised for experimental buses in the late twenties and early thirties. No further examples of the CX or its forward control successor (the FCX) were ordered from Guy by Sheffield Corporation Tramways & Motor.

An evocative view in the background at Townhead Street depot, beyond the Roberts bodied AEC Regal AWA 996, is a line up of Leyland Titanic buses, with Leyland, Cravens and Cowieson bodies. If the original of this picture is enlarged the identities of some of the buses is revealed – on the back row, against the wall of the garage on the extreme left is a Cravens bodied Titanic, second left No.136 (WE 4381) with Leyland lowbridge body, next to this can be seen 111 (WJ 7039) the Cowieson example, beside which is one of the 106-110 (Leyland bodied batch). (C.C.Hall Collection.)

A similar design to the Guy FCX was developed by Karrier Motors of Huddersfield, which firm was honoured by Sheffield with vehicle requirements of both single deck and double deck types of model WL6. Two double deckers, 132, WE 200, chassis 45023 with Short Bros. H66R, and 133, WE1467, chassis 47002, with a Karrier-built body seating 60 arrived in 1927/28. A further Karrier, a single deck WL6 was No.127, WE 3169, chassis 42102, bodied by Hall Lewis seating 37, came in 1928. These were followed by two more WL6s, in 1929, 139, WE 3892. chassis 42108 and 140, CX 9598, chassis 42029. Both were single deck type bodied by Hall Lewis, to B37? and B40? respectively.

Although the Karriers were more numerous, their reliability regarding engine and transmission was lamentable. The only one to achieve any credibility was No.139, when chosen to be the “Guinea Pig” for oil engine trials in 1930. Mr Fearnley was a very early manager to promote the potential advantages of the oil engine, for economy in operation. Using a German Mercedes-Benz compression ignition unit, 139 was converted from petrol power in 1930. Proving to be reasonably successful, the vehicle remained in stock until 1936. In contrast, the remainder of the Karrier fleet were disposed of much earlier.

The first Titanic TT1 photographed in June 1927 near the Leyland works, with its “tramlike” full height Leyland body for Demonstration use, registered TE 1128. (BCVMT L004416 )

Leyland Motors enter the six-wheeled bus market

Leyland Motors Ltd, in reaction to this threat to their bus sales, was not slow to the apparent move towards the three-axle double decker. A design team was set the task of producing a similar chassis, to rival the two other models. Sales of the Leviathan had been very poor as opposed to its single deck equivalent, the Lion, which was selling very well at the time. The single deck LSC Lion came as standard with pneumatic tyres. Of course the Leviathan was equipped with solid tyres, and with a high frame and other mechanical features, like the AEC 504, was obsolescent.  Mr.G.J.Rackham was appointed as Chief Engineer of Leyland Motors on 1^st May 1926, on his return from the USA, and his first task was to design and build the six cylinder “T” type engine and chassis. Rackham, having gained experience in the forward looking American bus manufacturing market, brought some refreshing ideas to the British manufacturing base; potentially, they would revolutionise the ageing British commercial vehicle market at that time.  Plans followed for various types of bodies for the new chassis, including a stepped low height double decker but, by August 1926, it was still undecided as to whether the double decker should be a four or six wheeler.  

 With the knowledge that Sheffield Corporation Tramways & Motors, and others, were seeking a double deck bus to achieve near to tram capacity, Leyland management would have been keen to fulfil their requirements. No doubt A.R. Fearnley, as a keen supporter of Leyland products, would be suitably interested in a Leyland for his purposes. Equally, the Lancashire fi rm would be anxious to keep his custom, with the knowledge that Fearnley was a gentleman of high repute in Municipal circles and indeed was an adviser in Public Transport affairs; his advice was sought from a wide spectrum of operators. 

After its first trip on demonstration to Sheffield, which was extremely successful, TE 1128 went to Birmingham where it suffered all sorts of mechanical disasters, particularly with the engine. It was considered that Birmingham, being strong AEC supporters, garage staff didn’t want a Leyland, and sabotage may have been at hand – as apparently happened when the TD1 demonstrator went to Birmingham in 1928 and was “tampered with” to spoil its performance! (Mike Sutcliffe Collection)

It was decided that after the four wheeled double decker was designed would come the six wheeler, and the fi rst prototype chassis was completed in May 1927 (chassis 60004). It was bodied the next month and featured a full height body, of maximum capacity with 72 seats and a tram-like rear end, with enclosed staircase - was this to suit Mr. Fearnley?  The bus had the “T” type 6.8 litre overhead camshaft six cylinder petrol engine and was registered TE 1128 and, after two days of testing, was sent straight to Sheffield for demonstration being set to work on the Manor Top to Darnall bus service, to meet the heavy demand. The bus completed over 1300 miles and yielded a petrol consumption of 4.6mpg, on a very hilly route and being fully laden much of the time. There were few problems but, without a clutch brake and being fitted with a new, heavier clutch, it was found difficult to change up a gear on hills – this was rectified by fitting the standard Titan clutch. The trials were successful as far as Sheffield were concerned and two further TT1 types with similar bodies were put on order.   

 The adoption of the distinctive “Titanic” name is perplexing, following the maritime disaster, but it was a chassis of very large proportions and the name fitted well with the Titan and the “T” for the range. Rackham had never wanted a six wheeler and felt strongly that the Titan would suffice for the double decker market; he was later proved generally to be right. However, the management at Leyland did not wish to upset potentially important Municipal operators with their current “fad” for high capacity six wheelers, and this must have caused arguments at Leyland. Rackham left in early June 1928, before the two buses were delivered to Sheffield, and joined AEC. By that time he regarded the Titan front end design as being quite old fashioned and he brought a refreshing new look with the styling of the new AEC Regent double decker.

Right - A close up of one of the three the 7ft 2in “London chassis”, showing the additional brake on the cardan shaft behind the gearbox. There were 3 brakes which required a foot pedal and two hand levers, as can be seen in the photo. (BCVMT L005060)

With Sheffield’s order for two more Titanics Leyland Motors decided to build three, all in the Experimental Department (hence chassis numbers 75003-05), and all to a revised design to meet the Scotland Yard regulations requiring a maximum width of 7ft 2in. The fi rst two would go to Sheffield with bodies built to a width of 7ft 6in, and these would both be full height, dual entrance bodies, built by Short Bros, Rochester, with 59 seats (H31/28D) and would have “tram-like” rear ends. The third chassis was to be submitted to the Scotland Yard Authorities for approval. Both of the Sheffield vehicles were delivered in August 1928, after a long delay by the bodybuilders, and were numbered 134/5, WE 2921/2, (chassis 75003/4).

 Evidently, the taste for the three axle double decker bus continued into the early and mid thirties. A solitary Titanic TT1 model was delivered in June 1929, very similar to 134/5 in general chassis design, 136, WE 4381, in fact the third re-designed chassis, number 75005, now featuring a low height Leyland-built dual entrance body, to L61D specification. It had been in use as a demonstrator for Leyland Motors.  Despite the outstanding performance put up by the large influx of Titans, Sheffield still continued the purchase of the Titanic model, into the mid thirties. In 1932, five TT2s with Leyland low height L59D were taken into stock. These were numbered 106-110, WJ 4606-4610, with chassis numbers in the new series starting at 100 in October 1931, numbers 12811285, it is pertinent to mention that this quintet would be the last Titanic buses to have Leyland built bodies.

134, WE 2921, caught in the early thirties on its return journey from Stocksbridge on service 57. (The late G.Bullock)

Following the 1932 purchase, a Scottish Show model, originally intended for service in Glasgow, was acquired in 1933. The body for this 60 seater vehicle was built by Cowieson, Glasgow, to H34/

26R format. It is possible that Leyland frame work was utilised in this venture, as it was certainly similar in design to the Leyland “Hybridge” body.  On arrival at Sheffi eld it was numbered 111, WJ 7039, Chassis No.3060.

The third Sheffield Titanic received was 136 (WE 4981) in 1929. This view shows the Rackham feature of a low height sunken gangway body of Titan inspiration.  It was finished in the standard Prussian Blue and White livery. (BCVMT L006340)

108, WJ 4608, was photographed at Leyland, just in front of where the Day Continuation School was later built, its lowbridge body exaggerating its length. Note the opening front upper deck windows. (BCVMT L011752)

At the time the demonstrator was built for Glasgow there was a pre-occupation with positions for emergency exits. What a magnificent sight this vehicle must have been! It became

WJ 7039 in the Sheffield fleet. (BCVMT L011909)

A rare in service photograph of a Sheffield Titanic, 10, WJ 4607, caught on a sunny day at the Norfolk Arms Public House terminus of the 54 Rivelin Dams service.  Evidently quite new, 107 was one of a batch of fi ve Titanic TT2 models, Nos.106-110,  delivered in 1932.  They carried Leyland low height L59D bodies and the TT2 classification is confirmed by the semifloating rear axle configuration. This delivery of five Titanics were the last to be bodied at Leyland, probably because it was uneconomic to produce small quantities of non standard bodies. (P.Fox Collection)

A final order for Titanics is placed

 The intake of three-axle buses did not end there, for a great surprise ensued when Sheffield Corporation and the Joint Omnibus Committee (that incorporated LMS and LNE Railway interests) placed an order for fifteen Titanic TT2c chassis. This particular order has always been a source of mystery and intrigue and hitherto, the LMS and LNE partners were never very keen on the Titanic concept. They arrived in 1935, ten for the “A” corporation fleet and five were for the Joint Committee “B”

AWE 331, number 131 in the Category “B” fl eet, photographed in the snow in the winter of 1935 .The livery was a modified version of the Prussian Blue and White style, lined in gold. This type of  Leyland Titanic TT2c was equipped with the 7.6 litre petrol engine and Lysholm-Smith torque converter transmission. Poor hill climbing performance of this type was a bug bear to the drivers, and they were very quickly the nicknamed “Dragonflies”. The reason? - they dragged up each hill and flew down the other side!  The Cravens body was H60R. (Cravens)

fleet. In the Joint fleet here was one each for the LMS and LNE. And the Corporation interest in the “B” fleet absorbed the remaining three. Cravens of Darnall, Sheffield were awarded the body contract; it was pretty obvious that Leyland had no interest in building small numbers of non standard Titanic bodywork, especially now that they were building the steel framed “V” fronted bodies.

A rather poor,, but rare picture in wartime, enlarged considerably form the background of a photo of a bombed AEC Regent.  (CC Hall Collection)

The chassis were surprisingly equipped with petrol engines, as from 1934 Sheffield, a pioneer operator of oil-engined buses, had taken no other petrol powered machines since the previous year. The inclusion of the Torque Converter transmission (a standard Sheffield specification from 1934 on all Leyland buses apart from a lone “B” Titan TD3) served to make these Cravens H34/26R bodied machines very poor hill climbers. The  high revving 7.6 litre petrol unit, combined  with the “Gearless” system, resulted in very  slow progress up steep hills. For the record,  the “A” fleet numbers were 251-160, AWE 351-360, chassis 4956-4965, and 131-135, AWE 331-335, chassis 4951-4955, were in the “B” fleet. Of great interest is that two of this latter batch of Cravens bodied TT2c Titanics replaced TT1s, 134/135, of 1928, by then nearly 7 years old and ready for replacement.

	Left - Close to the end of Titanic operation, 109, WJ 4609, displays its wartime livery of Grey and Cream. The scene is at Hillsborough in 1946, and withdrawal came in the summer of 1947. (K.Beeden Collection)
Right - At Queens Road yard, AWE 353 number 353 in the Category “A” Fleet. It is captured here after withdrawal in December 1946, in wartime grey and cream livery. This was the last survivor of the ten Category “A” , Craven bodied TT2c batch, 251-260 (AWE 351-360) (J.A.Hunt Collection)

Due to the 1939-45 hostilities, the 106-110, 111, and some of the 1935 examples lasted until 1945-7, with 109 becoming the last survivor of all, withdrawn in 1947. Again, with hindsight, one would have expected that some or all of the later Titanic examples would have been fi tted with 8.6 oil engines, however, this does not seem to have taken place. This, I am sure, would have improved both the hill climbing performance and also the economy of the rather unpopular Titanic members of the Sheffield fleet.

 Interestingly, Sheffield operated 24 of the 47 of the models produced, quite remarkable!  By co-incidence, Doncaster Corporation, a near neighbour of Sheffield, took 10 examples of the Titanic from the mid to late thirties. Although the Titanic model was not a great seller in its time, the single deck three axle versions of the Tiger TS7T/D and TS8T/D (Trailing axle or Double driven axle) did sell reasonably well in the late thirties. Sadly, none of the Titanics survived long enough to enter the ranks of the preservation movement, although the shells of some of the Cravens examples did languish in a local scrap yard until 1950. If only !   One six wheeled Tiger does however remain.

136, WE 4381, was sold to W Alexander & Sons via Milburn Motors in 5/37 where it served for 5 more years, later going to Morrison, Tenby for another 5 years being withdrawn 1947. (AT Condie Collection)

Finally – A Mystery Titanic !

When looking through registration records I have come across another Titanic which has previously not been recorded, not in the PSV Circle list of Titanics nor chassis extracts from sales records!   It was fi rst registered by Leyland Motors Ltd in November 1932, as TF 9975, a model TT1, chassis 1576, and with 60 seats.  It was last licensed a month later, December 1932, and later scrapped.  Does any reader have any information on this vehicle please?  -  Ed.

Join the discussions on