J Fishwick & Sons 1951 Leyland Olympic Metro Cammell Weymann B44F
I took this photo as I have previously said on a trip to the Fishwick depot at Leyland in Lancashire considering there location it is hardly surprising what vehicles they favoured. There livery was and probably still is a Moss Green and Dark Green which was different but quite nice. Practically all there service routes are local and either start, finish or go through Leyland I think the longer distance routes in the area will be handled by Stagecoach Ribble. I have read somewhere that the Leyland Olympic and the Royal Tiger more or less began the end of the vertical front engine single decker bus, as the AEC Reliance came along three years later then the article could have a point. The Olympic was built in conjunction with the body builder Metro Cammell Weymann and I think most of them went overseas rather than the home market. I actually e-mailed J Fishwick & Sons for any information of the above bus, as the company is one of a very few original operators still in existence, and they would have information going back to year dot. They did not even acknowledge receipt of my mail never mind supply information, shame really. The days must have gone when you could write and ask an operator for a fleet list and by return of post it arrived along with a sample set of bus tickets an the odd photo of there latest arrival. The credit crunch must be squeezing quite tight up in Leyland.
Hi, came across this picture searching around for Fishwick bus photos, I am from the Leyland area and although I can’t shed any light on this bus, I do have a picture of an almost identical Fishwicks bus taken last week at a bus rally in Leyland. As for the company, I am quite surprised you received no response from your email, Fishwicks seem to be quite keen on the history and tradition and always send a number of buses to local rallies and have a downloadable fleet list on their website. Anyway thanks for the picture.
Graham Rutherford
When I was a lad of 16 years, I was an apprentice to the Jamaica Omnibus Company in Kingston Jamaica. This was in 1968 and the outgoing buses on the fleet at the time were the Leyland Olympic A, B, and C the “C” being the long chassis version. They were replaced with the “G” Busses. These were clutchless with pneumatic shift levers. This photo certainly brings back memories.
Albert Walker
I have tried to email J Fishwick & Sons with regard to the single decker Leyland Olympian twice. I have been ignored by the company on both occasions. Apart from being amazingly ignorant or perhaps not very good at email can anybody tell me anything about them and especially the single decker Leyland Olympian 521 CTF. Do they still have the bus, is it still running? What do you know?
Edward Cambridge
J Fishwicks 521 CTF
Edward, this is a video of the actual Leyland Olympian 521 CTF.
Terry Malloy
You may be able to get more info from:- Leyland Commercial Vehicle Museum. King Street Leyland Nr Preston Lancashire PR25 2LE
Keith
I went to school on Fishwick’s buses 1959-1961, usually coming home on the 4.30PM Preston Fox Street to “Seven Stars via Croston Rosd” (actually service 115 but Fishwicks had no number displays in them days. It was regularly no.13, NTC 232 on the 4.30, usually full especially on market days, with a standing load, and people left behind. Passengers for Croston Road were rightly annoyed when Penwortham passengers were on, as they had the frequent “Earnshaw Bridge” bus (111). All other Croston Road buses were double deckers, but never this one. Fishwicks had 8 Olympics, and 6 Olympians at this time, mostly for the Chorley routes under Pack Saddle Bridge, and the Bamber Bridge route along Shady Lane. I could go on….
Bernard Parkinson
Apologies for digressing slightly but where did Bamber Bridge Motor Services fit into this picture? Was their route from Preston to Bamber Bridge exactly same as Fishwicks and if so was there a co-ordinated timetable? Did BBMS operate one route only?
Chris Barker
Fishwick’s Bamber Bridge route was today’s service 117, but ran every 90 minutes then, all day incl evenings and Sundays, but went via Shady Lane before Clayton Brook village was expanded by Central Lancs New Town. As today it ran via Brownedge Road, so did not compete with BBMS. This service always displayed simply “Bamber Bridge” whichever way it was going, despite its destination being Preston or Leyland (Earnshaw Bridge). BBMS just ran one service direct Preston (Starch House Square)-Bamber Bridge (Hob Inn), plus works services to Leyland and Lostock Hall, In its latter years one service deviated via Duddle Lane (service D), while the direct route became service P (via Pear Tree).
Bernard Parkinson
Olympian 521 CTF is preserved and appears at rallies, not sure who owns it. Spent most of its life working 109 and 119 routes, but also worked regularly the Sunday morning Croston Road service, (115), 10.12 and 11.12 from Moss Side (Black Bull) to Preston (Fox Street), 10.43 and 11.43 return (Seven Stars via Croston Road), which service actually went beyond Seven Stars up Slater Lane terminating at the Black Bull, then back along Dunkirk Lane to Preston. There was no 12.12 service on a Sunday, but the 1.12PM service resumed with the regular Croston Road bus no.23, LTD 445, a PD2/1, and worked this run every hour until 11.0pm. The last Olympic to survive was no 17, NTC 234, which was 21 years old when withdrawn, its regular job in its last days was the Vernons Mill to Earnshaw Bridge service, which needed a single decker to get through Factory Lane tunnel under the railway. In earlier days two Olympics together worked this job, such was demand, one just to Lostock Hall,the other working through to Earnshaw Bridge, as shown in the 111 timetable of the day.
Bernard Parkinson
29/01/12 – 11:14
521 CTF Leyland Olympian Single Decker was sold by Fishwick to a man called M.Hayes, Mark Hayes I believe. He apparently has a private bus collection and does exhibit the bus. Does anybody know anything about him?
E. Cambridge
29/01/12 – 16:30
Yorkshire Woollen had a number of these buses. My wife was a clippie at Frost Hill at Liversedge and remembers these buses being on service 36 between Leeds and Elland. On one occasion a driver drove through very deep flood water quite fast and the water came up through the inspection floor boards.
Philip Carlton
06/03/12 – 12:10
I Found the 521 CTF Bus. It is in the British Commercial Vehicle Museum. I shall visit it this Spring. Thank You All.
Edward Cambridge
25/10/15 – 06:23
It has been reported in the local media that the company went into administration Tuesday and the last service on the 111 route will be today. A sad ending to a company that had high standards and delighted many of us over the years with the one off and unusual Buses that they operated. The end of an era and a sad day for the Town of Leyland.
Cyril Aston
26/10/15 – 06:49
Very sad news about Fishwick & Sons. Another old-established and well-respected operator ceases to trade. Is there any indication about what happens to their services, most of which were run in conjunction with Ribble?
Pete Davies
26/10/15 – 06:50
Philip – how interesting to read that your good lady was on the 36 route – in the early 1950s I used to travel on the nearly new Olympics from Leeds to the top of Wide Lane at Morley to visit a friend. That they were of “semi integral” or “chassisless” construction was obvious from the moment the driver pressed the starter as everything from floors to luggage racks and windows began to rattle and thud and the journeys were very uncomfortable – a great shame because they were handsome and lively vehicles, but there we are.
Cyril – what an awful piece of news you’ve had to break to us. Being a traditionalist myself, but fully accepting changes in the Industry, I have always held Fishwick’s in the very highest esteem. Their colours, criticised by many as “dour”, “drab” etc, are a tribute to unashamed dignity and smartness and the demise of the Company is a very sad loss indeed. Presumably and hopefully any staff so wishing will be accommodated by other operators in the area, while those sadly wanting to call it a day will be able to do so voluntarily.
Chris Youhill
26/10/15 – 16:14
I understand from the “Lancashire Evening Post” that Stagecoach are taking over the 111 service, but that the others will be subject to the tendering process.
Pete Davies
27/10/15 – 06:38
Just picking up on a couple of points above. Bernard P – it may have been that Fishwick’s were not authorised to carry through passengers on the 117 service. Such restrictions were rife in the decades following Road Service Licensing (1930) and only began to be seriously eliminated with the so-called County Council ‘agency agreements’ of the late 1970s. Or Fishwicks may have found that it caused less confusion to passengers to do things the way they did. Are you sure there didn’t come a point on the route where the destination was changed to ‘Earnshaw Bridge’ or ‘Preston’?
Pete D – I think you’ll find that in recent decades the only route which was operated by both Fishwicks and Ribble (to a co-ordinated timetable) was the 109. The fact that most of the other routes were numbered in the Ribble series was a leftover from pre-deregulation days when services were technically ‘joint’ with Ribble (i.e. operated under a joint licence) even though Ribble may have never actually operated on particular routes. This is how Pennine’s Skipton to Malham service was service 211, in pre-deregulation days the services was ‘joint’ with Ribble, even though I don’t think Ribble ever provided any vehicles. Funny thing is, I don’t think Pennine vehicles carried route numbers until well after deregulation anyway! There were lots and lots of services where Ribble had a stake, but didn’t provide any vehicles, e.g. the 39 from ‘Manchester’ (actually Salford) to Liverpool, which was mainly (perhaps entirely) operated by LUT. The converse applied too, the 130 (Bolton-Morecambe) was joint Ribble/Bolton Corporation, but Bolton didn’t operate, instead they did the 122 (Bolton-Southport).
David Call
28/10/15 – 13:25
Further to the above, further reflection seems to say that the Malham service was 210, rather than 211.
David Call
29/10/15 – 16:40
A real shame to hear that Fishwick has gone under. There will be no question of Stagecoach maintaining the brand name, unlike the situation in Nottingham where the South Notts and Pathfinder brands continue in use as a positive marketing feature.
Alan Murray-Rust
22/10/18 – 06:12
Birmingham City Transport also ran 5 Leyland Olympics. 4 where based at Selly Oak Depot, and one JOJ 261 was used on the Hall of Memory/Birmingham Airport service. This one was based near the city centre. They were Leylands first under floor engined chassisless single deckers. I believe only 23 were built. I remember being amazed at seeing a engine on its side apparently suspended in mid air as the lack of a conventional chassis gave the impression the engine/gearbox were not attached to anything, They where very high floored not easy to board for the elderly or disabled. They where known to as Geeps by the staff at Selly Oak. I loved them, they were very lively and my first speeding caution was in one of them.
John Hipkins
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
09/04/21 – 07:25
The bus in question is a integrated body with a Leyland engine fitted to a Albion box it is in a private collection cause my mates owns it.
Sheffield bought three early Leyland Olympics in 1951 and followed up two years later by the acquisition of this former Demonstrator. It put in a good service life lasting until 1968 when it was sold to Dodd, (Dealer) in Dromera, Ireland. I wonder if it found a buyer or whether it was scrapped? The bus was originally fleet number 211 being renumbered as shown in the 1967 scheme. This photo was taken on 10th June 1967 at the Hillsborough terminus of the 31 Lower Walkley service which was characterised by narrow streets and steep hills.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
25/04/12 – 05:16
I think I remember these in Sheffield: were they the “integral” versions? Some had an Olympic torch badge on the front, I think. They always seemed high-floored (the opposite to what you could expect) and a bit awkward, but presumably suited the route.
Joe
25/04/12 – 05:17
From 1952 until 1956 I lived on the 31 and travelled on these and the back loader Royal Tigers. This is now a terminus for Stagecoach 52 and is also close to where the Malin Bridge branch leaves the main Supertram line to Middlewood.
David Oldfield
25/04/12 – 08:36
Can anyone tell me what size engine were in these Olympics please. I believe the King Alfred Olympic that is currently being restored and nearing completion was rescued from Ireland. I always thought it was a great shame that one of the Halifax Corporation Worldmasters were not saved for preservation especially fleet No1 – KCP 1 what a great registration number! Two of these vehicles ended up in Ireland with Keneallys coaches.
Richard McAllister
25/04/12 – 09:20
The Olympic was the integral predecessor of the Royal Tiger and shared all the same mechanical units – including the 9.8 litre 0.600. They were high floored and probably awkward – but what else would you expect of an early underfloor vehicle? [The open backed Royal Tigers 222/223 were even more awkward.] As for suiting the route, they only suited it for the operator (dimensions and power for a hilly route) certainly not passenger friendly – especially the aged and infirm. Passenger comfort only became a priority from about ten years later when technology and new designs allowed it.
David Oldfield
25/04/12 – 15:27
Yes- they looked like the ugly sisters in the sixties- especially as you say, the Tiger rear loaders. My point is that I assume in an integral bus you are not fixing a body to a one-size-fits-all chassis and could therefore make some allowance for the passengers… or what’s the point (I think that was the problem- there wasn’t one…?… or was weight reduced?) What were the advantages? You were presumably stuck with the basics of the original body for good?
Joe
25/04/12 – 16:33
Modern integral buses are monocoque, just like cars (which also used to have separate bodies/chassis)and, I think, are almost universal nowadays. You’re right, though, Joe, you picks your body length, they bold on all the mechanicals and you’re stuck with it. London Transport’s tram/trolleybus department, separate from its bus department, created integral trolleybuses around 1937, using several companies to build them, including Brush and Leyland. Strange how long it took for this system to begin to become popular, around the time when Olympics were coming off the lines and said trolleybuses were starting to go to the scrapyard!
Chris Hebbron
25/04/12 – 16:37
Leeds single deck requirements were few in post war years indeed they only bought 10 saloons in the fifties but managed to have three chassis types! These were 5 AEC Reliances 3 Leyland Tiger Cub and a pair of Guy Arab LUFs. All had the same body layout which was B34C + 14 crush load standees in a central vestibule opposite the doors. Like Sheffield’s Royal Tigers the steps were vertiginous and deep most off putting for intending passengers. Getting a push chair aboard was a major logistical exercise! The overall body shape was common to all ten but the final pair of Reliances had a more upright profile. They were mainly confined to two routes one of which passed under a low bridge and another which crossed the canal on abridge with weight restrictions.
Chris Hough
25/04/12 – 17:39
Joe, the intention with all early integrals was to save weight – it was impossible to be passenger friendly until the dawn of the rear-engined bus. Unfortunately, all of the major manufacturers found that the weight saving margin was no where near enough and that, quite the opposite, there were major weaknesses – often around suspension mountings. This was certainly true of the Bristol LS which transformed after five years into the almost identical MW chassis. Similar problems beset the AEC Monocoach which died out in favour of the Reliance. The other problem was that British operators preferred, and still do, to choose their own bodywork – cf the Leyland National of later years. Ironically the change from LS to MW and Monocaoch to Reliance were not so evident as the separate body chosen for the separate chassis tended to be identical, in all other respects, with the earlier integral body. [Come to think of it, many moved over to the Royal Tiger with identical Weymann coachwork!]
David Oldfield
25/04/12 – 17:39
Just wait until someone discovers the advantages of “demountable” bus bodies: bodies can be changed or swapped on a “chassis”, giving greater flexibility, more opportunities for upgrading, and cutting service times. Why didn’t anyone think of that before?
Joe
26/04/12 – 06:14
1904 is beyond most people’s memories, Joe.
David Oldfield
26/04/12 – 11:39
There were demountable bodies in the early twenties, Joe, although they were usually in the form of exchangeable lorry/charabanc bodies. It never carried over, though into exchangeable bus bodies, to my knowledge, at least, not in a big way.
Chris Hebbron
26/04/12 – 11:40
Nice one, Joe. However, the idea of demountable bodies does actually go back a long way. Maidstone and District started in 1911 with three Gilford chassis; these had bus bodies during the day which were changed for lorry bodies at night. I believe the lorries were used to carry vegetables to and from Covent Garden. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples elsewhere, too. No doubt David is right when he talks about weight saving being a factor in the development of integrals, but I rather suspect that other motives in early post-war attempts were to use parts from pre-war chassis, and to generate extra work for the maker. Beadle, of course, were prominent in this field; others included Harrington and Saunders-Roe.
Roy Burke
27/04/12 – 07:22
I remember this bus from my student days and wondered why there was an odd one with a Surrey registration. It would have demonstrated for Weymann, who were based at Addlestone. Evidently it was never fitted with standard Sheffield blinds. I never rode on the 31 although I had “digs” near Crookes on the 52 route. The open-platform Royal Tigers used on the same route looked odd and a bit reminiscent of Edinburgh; I think the local Inspectorate had something to say about the arrangement.
Geoff Kerr
27/04/12 – 08:39
Yes, Geoff, there were responsible for the fitting of the odd looking emergency door at the rear – NEXT to an open rear platform! Roy, what said is true but Weymann and Park Royal never did a Beadle with second-hand parts. I type this about my home town of Sheffield from two miles up the hill from Addlestone. Funny old world.
David Oldfield
27/04/12 – 09:34
And I, a Surrey-ite, who long ago moved away, still visit my brother in Ottershaw, just across the M25 from you, David. Incidentally, whatever happened to Weymann’s works? I assume it no longer exists.
Chris Hebbron
27/04/12 – 10:35
Well, for the initiated Chris, I’m typing IN Ottershaw itself! [Funny AND small world.] Until I retired a year or two back, I passed it on the way to school – St George’s College – but ever since the turn of the millennium it has been a deserted, speculative, office block awaiting tenants. All glass and security guards with nothing to do! You must know that Addlestone Garage is a gated development (yes, in Addlestone) and the Co-op long ago made way for Tescos.
David Oldfield
28/04/12 – 08:48
A remarkable coincidence, indeed, David! Pardon my irony when I say that the changes you mention pass, nowadays, as progress. The supreme one, though, is the gated development! My abiding memory of Ottershaw is the Aldershot & District Dennis Lances passing by to and from Woking and the occasional ride on them as part of my journey from Portsmouth by rail. Lovely buses. The whole area was a hotchpotch between London Transport and A&D and you could never be sure what company’s bus would pop out from some side turning. Also, Ottershaw was the last/first telephone exchange in the London Area and I would use a callbox there to make calls to my London relatives at local call rates. Some would say miserly, I call it ‘being careful’! Happy days.
Chris Hebbron
28/04/12 – 14:47
You could have been a Yorkshireman!!!
David Oldfield
20/07/12 – 15:48
One of the benefits of the open platforms was that passengers could “hop off” whilst the vehicle was approaching the stop, preventing the driver having to do steep hill starts. The conductor would be ready with his finger on the bell to let the driver know he did not have to stop. No H&S in those days, conductors encouraged it. I got very good at jumping off buses coming up Haymarket to turn right up high street on my way home from school. I believe that is why London kept the Routemasters so long, people could hop on & off where they liked, speeding journey times.
Andy Fisher
21/07/12 – 07:38
Is that Haymarket, Sheffield, Andy?
David Oldfield
21/07/12 – 12:10
While the subject of bell-ringing comes up (not campanology, silly!) I recall, post-war, the LT conductors giving three rings to signify to the driver that the bus was full up and he could ignore queues at future stops until some passengers got off. Standing was unlimited post-war, I seem to recall, or the limit was ignored, then became eight, and eventually five. Admittedly, buses engines/brakes are more powerful (the latter more vicious, too!) but it was amazing how much more fluid passenger movement was then. They moved around the vehicle, up and down stairs and got on/off the platform effortlessly ‘whilst the bus was in motion’, moved around the vehicle. Despite my advanced years, I’m still fit, yet wouldn’t do those things now, apart from moving to the exit before the bus stops and that with great care and a tight grip on stanchions! I used to love travelling on worn-out LT/ST’s, overloaded beyond belief. Juddering clutches, slow acceleration in waves, the vehicle leaning alarmingly round any corner. Despite all that so-called gentleness, an aunt of mine failed to stop me, as a baby, from falling out of her arms when she was climbing the open staircase of an LT and being caught by a surprised man, unharmed, so they say! Some of you might regret this, boring you with such tales!
Chris Hebbron
23/09/17 – 07:02
Regarding the bells, I was a conductor in Sheffield, with a good driver you became a good team and could trust each other, so not just quick bells for passengers getting off but when the last passenger had one foot on the platform and one hand on the pole it was ding ding, if in doubt assist them on with their spare arm. Yes for us three bells was full up and a shower of bells was emergency stop. We didn’t like the passengers using the bell because it sometimes confused things, we preferred the request of next stop please verbally.
Royal Household 1927 Leyland Lioness PLC1 Thurgood C26F (1938)
A view of a vehicle operated by the Royal Household has appeared in these columns already, in the form of PYY 28D, but YT 3738 appears to be a different animal altogether, being noted as bought new by King George V himself. A Leyland Lioness PLC1, with Leyland body, it dates from 1927. Originally a van, it was rebuilt by Thurgood in 1938, to the C26F layout we now see. It carried the Jersey registration J 8462 for a while. She has been resident in the museum at Leyland for a number of years, and we see it there on 19 August 2012. Was it, perhaps, a luggage van when new, and then converted for staff transport or for guests on hunting parties?
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
10/02/17 – 06:58
The Leyland Lioness name embraces two distinct models. The PLC1 was a normal control version of the PLSC Lion of 1925, designed by J. G. Parry Thomas before he was lured away to the world of motor racing. The PLC1 (the “S” for side driving position was naturally omitted) had the same 5.1 litre four cylinder ohv engine and four speed crash gearbox to meet the still significant demand for a bonneted bus and coach chassis. In 1926 G. J. Rackham became Chief Engineer of Leyland, the fruits of his thinking emerging in 1927 as the six cylinder Titan and Tiger designs. The Lion name continued for the updated LT four cylinder single deck range. A bonneted version of the Tiger was offered as the Tigress for a short time, but, around 1929 this model was discontinued in favour of a more powerful version of the Lioness, the LTB1 (‘B’ for bonnet – the “P” for pneumatic was by then redundant) which employed the six cylinder 6.8 litre engine and other components of the Titan/Tiger, including its four speed crash gearbox. Peter Stanier’s DM 6228 is a well known example of this later type. I believe that YT 3738 was originally bodied as a shooting brake for the Royal Household of King George V rather than a van, and served for some 10 years before being sold off to Jersey for PSV duties.
A George H Bullock photograph (courtesy Roger Monk)
Williamson’s of Bridlington 1930 Leyland Lion LT1 Hall Lewis B32?
Here is a picture of one of my very favourite Williamson’s vehicles from when I was a child staying frequently in Bridlington. Williamson’s fleet could always be relied upon to provide a wide variety of real gems, and a particular fascination lay in the fact that only two buses were required at any time to operate the basic town services, and yet the fleet was always considerably more generous in size than seemed necessary. DV 4117 was a 1930 Leyland Lion LT1 which had been Devon General number 155. The well appointed body was by Hall Lewis, forerunners of Park Royal, and seated 32 passengers. I have to admit that, despite having such vivid memories of the vehicle, I cannot positively recall the entrance position. I have always had an idea that it had a rear door and also another one oddly set a little away from the front, but the photo shows no clear evidence of this and I may well be wrong. Any confirmation from a DG expert would be more than welcome. It was one of only a very few Williamson buses to carry fleet numbers and proudly sported number 24 on the front panel. In case anyone is impressed by the route number “11 AUX” I should explain that this was undoubtedly a Devon General remainder which presumably indicated a duplicate journey. The destination blind is quite magnificent, specifying the ultimate point and no less than four intermediate landmarks. This may not appear too remarkable until we consider that each of the two town services was only roughly one and a quarter miles in length !! In my later years, when I became more familiar with schedules compilation and economic programming on a grand scale I began to realise how very generous Wiliamson’s allocations were. The service to Old Town left Chapel Street at 00 and 30 minutes past the hour, took ten minutes to reach “Burlington” Market Place, stood for five minutes,and then returned to “The Quay” where a further five minutes could be had before the next departure. The Queensgate service ran to a similar pattern at 15 and 45 minutes past from Town. It is certain that both services could reasonably have been operated with just one vehicle and crew, thereby reducing costs by 50%. This could have been achieved by the bus leaving Old Town immediately on arrival and returning to Town via Queensgate – this would still have given five minutes recovery time in every half hour. This little theory of mine just demonstrates the World of difference between those leisurely civilised days and the current callous profit only orientated climate in the Bus Industry. Thank goodness for the former circumstances, or we should never have seen such wonderful fleets as abounded far and wide.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill
01/05/11 – 21:08
Well Chris, my fascination with Williamson and WBS is kept well alive by this post. I remember the Lions, but had forgotten, or never knew from where they originated. Or was there only one? I have the Park Royal book by TPC (Part 1) which includes these DG Lions, but it is not immediately to hand. I will check up on their body layout as there are some photos therein of the Hall Lewis variety. What wonderful nostalgic memories these Bridlington Independents conjure up! Thanks
John Whitaker
02/05/11 – 12:57
Many thanks John, and any such confirmation of the doorway/s in DV 4117 will be most welcome. Williamson’s had only one other Leyland LT1 Lion, with Leyland body, HD 3773 ex Yorkshire Woollen District – so Bridlington’s flat avenues will have made an easy retirement after the mountainous territory around Dewsbury !!
Chris Youhill
02/05/11 – 12:59
The picture I have is of the batch of LT1s which started at 25, and these had front entrances.
John Whitaker
03/05/11 – 08:55
Glory Days – Devon General (p35) has a picture of 157 (DV 5119). An LT1/Hall Lewis, it clearly has two doorway configuration. p38 has a picture of a Park Royal coach from 21 -24, single door, but the caption refers to the new Park Royal’s first DG deliveries being of 20 LT2 with dual door bodywork. It leads one to believe the dual door was a DG standard at the time for service bus bodywork.
David Oldfield
03/05/11 – 16:38
When you look through the bus at the nearside windows, the second one is much narrower than the first and offside ones. It could well be the front entrance. A very good post, Chris.
Chris Hebbron
04/05/11 – 06:59
Many thanks indeed to John, David, and Chris H for such prompt and conclusive research into the doorway question. The bus, by the way is standing at the “weekday” terminus in Chapel Street, right outside the Methodist chapel. The stop pole was located in a “golf ball socket” in the pavement. As a mark of reverence which would not be found anywhere today, sadly, the pole was removed on Sundays to a similar socket in the pavement nearer to the Promenade junction. My mother who was in no way a bus enthusiast, other than from “A to B”, must have become tired of my endless advices that DV 4117 was my favourite bus – and informed me that “DV” was Latin for “God Willing.”
Chris Youhill
05/05/11 – 07:10
I am attempting to put my recently acquired knowledge of Williamson, and White Bus Service into some sequence, time wise!. Thanks to Chris, I am now aware of several buses which operated for WBS and Williamson, but with the latter, who had such generous timetabling “freedom” how on earth did they manage to run such a large fleet? In the period I remember, about 1944 to 1950, Williamson had 2 Doncaster 6 wheelers, these Lions, and the 2 ex YWD TD2s. Were they all there at the same time? My memory is so mixed up! What would be the max. fleet strength at this period, and did they operate beyond QUAY and OLD TOWN? Also, did the Devon General Lion come direct, or via another operator, as I have a feeling these LT1s were withdrawn before WW2 broke out: ie; after a 10 year life span. I am no DG expert though, and would love to see some acquisition dates for this fascinating little fleet. I have a great deal of nostalgia and respect for EYMS, but what a pity they swallowed up these 2 delightful memory stimulators! You must have had hols in Brid at the same time as me Chris! Did you ever get to Morecambe, where more of my childhood memories took root?
John Whitaker
06/05/11 – 06:50
Several questions there John, and the answers are quite complicated. Pretty comprehensive fleet lists of Williamson’s and WBS appear in the PSV Circle East Yorkshire history and if you would like copies of these Peter will give you my E mail address. There were no less than five ex YWD TD2s, and the two ex Doncaster six wheel giants were the last buses bought by Williamson’s. They had only the two Bridlington local services – The Quay and Queensgate, and Old Town and The Quay – other than a very early but unprofitable foray (before our time I believe) to Flamborough. I have never actually holidayed in Morecambe, and have only visited for the day very occasionally.
Chris Youhill
27/09/12 – 07:04
I cannot believe that I have just stumbled across this web-site. The times, not recently, that I have searched for Williamson’s Buses. The company was owned by my great grandfather, and latterly his brother. The family home was 1, West Street, Bridlington and I believe that they had premises on Quay Road and “The Black Shed” on Hilderthorpe Road (?). I understand that they started with horse drawn hansom cabs and then horse drawn buses. Apparently they kept a lot of horses on the fields that were then behind the West Street house.
Jonathan Williamson
28/09/12 – 07:59
Jonathan – I’m so glad that you’ve been interested by this topic, and Williamson’s buses and those of the other Bridlington area operators were my life interest in the 1940s. The operating base was in Havelock Crescent in the final years – the premises still exist and are now a “Bosch” auto electrical concern. I have a cherished kindly letter from the last member of your family to run the business, regretting that he couldn’t help with any documents in answer to my appeal.
Chris Youhill
24/06/13 – 08:41
I’m so pleased to find this site and the photo of the Williamson bus. My Gt Gt Grandfather John Williamson was the founder of the bus company in the late 19th century. John had a large family and most of his sons were involved in the business. One had a livery stable, another was a horse dealer with the beach donkeys as a side line. My Father said the Williamson horses pulled the life-boat too. The first motorised bus in Bridlington in 1922 was a Williamson bus. After the death of John Williamson, Reuben Williamson (John’s youngest son took over the business.) I have photos of the horse drawn buses if you are interested.
Cathy Goldthorpe
25/09/14 – 06:54
Cathy Goldthorpe and Jonathan Williamsons. As the Williamsons blood runs through many veins on our side of the family not only in Goole, including Doncaster, Hessle, Castleford, Scunthorpe, Howden, Old Goole, Hull. Our side of the family was our mother Kathleen Williamsons who left Bridlington for Howden in the early 1930s along with her sister Mayvene who went to Doncaster. As children I can remember our yearly visit to Bridlington to visit our grandmother Eva at 28 Havelock Crescent with the garage opposite, my older brother and I would go into the garage to play on the Double Deckers Buses running up and down the stairs this was around the late 40s early 50s. Great Grandma Emma would visit us at Goole in her Car a Lincoln Zephyr, I was at the Bridlington library when Williamsons and the White Bus Companies was discussed I found the meeting we had was very entertaining I would like to thank the organisers for putting this show together thanks again.
N Roberts
26/09/14 – 05:39
I see that my relations have got here first. I was living in 2 West St as a child and was brought up on tales of Robert and Reuben Williamson, the horse buses and the White Bus co.. Nice to see all the information here.
David Gilson
20/10/15 – 06:55
Bit late arriving back to look here but thank you for the comments about the Library day, it was I who did the talk, after finishing the prep for Dad’s second book. I hope the library is able to do another one some time, I would love to go. I think I have possibly found a photo amongst those given to my dad by one of the elder Williamsons, showing the Lincoln Zephyr you mention!
Matt Gibbs
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
19/08/21 – 06:41
In respect of JP registrations from Wigan, we had in the family a Wolseley Hornet registered, from new, JP 95, owned by my uncle from Chorley. The car was scrapped when he bought an Austin 16, and when, in the early 60s, he bought a Bentley R-type he tried to recover the registration as the Wolseley’s last owner, the authorities would not play ball. I still have the Bentley.
Photograph by “unknown” : if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Leon Motor Service 193? Leyland Lion LT5A Northern Coachbuilders UH55C
Over the years there have been many fascinating vehicle rebuilds, many based on sound economics and engineering feasibility, but this one must surely be one of the most bizarre and ambitious. The chassis is a Leyland Lion LT5A, registration number JP 42, which had originally been a Santus bodied coach with Smith’s of Wigan – nothing particularly unusual in that. The Lion LT5A was, though, essentially a lightweight chassis fitted with either a 5.1 litre petrol engine or a 5.7 litre diesel unit – adequate for moderate single deck bus or coach work. Therefore to fit such a chassis with a double deck body seating 55 and, no doubt in WW2, frequent large numbers of standing passengers was, in my view, “pushing it.” The photo shows that the small wheels of the light Lion have been retained – hopefully stronger springs were fitted – and the downward slope of the bonnet towards the rear raises the awful spectre of chassis distortion best not thought about. Personally I would have had great trepidation in driving or travelling on this unique vehicle, although normally I was always eager to sample anything new or out of the ordinary – and unique it is said to be as it is believed to be the only centre exit utility double decker ever made, by Northern Coachbuilders or anyone else. The source of the picture, sadly one of poor definition, is unknown to me – but as it was taken in August 1949 what must have been an unwieldy vehicle had at least managed to remain standing for a few years.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill
15/08/11 – 07:45
Wonderful: I can hear it screaming off in first gear and spending the next quarter mile engaging second. Presumably desperate times brought desperate remedies and you don’t get much more desperate than this. Why centre entrance- because of the chassis? I can only imagine that Leon carried large numbers between Doncaster & the RAF stations at Finningley & possibly Lindholme. But why….?
Joe
15/08/11 – 07:49
I’m so pleased you posted this Chris because it truly is a fascinating vehicle. Like the saying goes, desperate situations require desperate remedies and they don’t come more desperate than this! I have a copy of the Prestige volume which contains a similar photo but this one was clearly taken on a different occasion. The view in the book shows it having a large headlamp on the offside and the very small one on the nearside but in this shot, it has lost the offside lamp and the hole has been patched over. In both, however, it has the same hardboard or cardboard repair to the upper deck front window so it would seem that it ran with that feature for some time! Would the centre entrance have been dictated by the fact that it was a single deck and therefore straight frame chassis? although this didn’t pose a problem for later large scale re-bodying of single deck chassis. Was it also the only double deck utility to have doors? These interest me because they appear to hinge inwards yet there is no sign of a handle on the one which is closed, it would have been more logical to have a porch type entrance with doors which pushed outwards but perhaps this was simpler and required less bodywork, also they seem to be quite deep with no recess to clear a step so presumably it must have had just one step with a large stepwell area inside the doors. What a wonderful creation!
Chris Barker
15/08/11 – 13:00
LT5A’s seem to date from 1934, so it was far from new when re-bodied. Is it an austerity body – it seems to have signs, but were any centre-entrance/staircase austerity bodies built in the war? I wince to see this poor chassis putting up with the burden imposed on it: it’s well-laden here. How it kept going until at least 1949 is a miracle. And no body sag; more than can be said for the chassis, as Chris Y points out! Is the area it operated in hilly? Incidentally, I notice that there is still a Leon Motor Services in Doncaster, presumably the same company.
Chris Hebbron
15/08/11 – 13:09
It may be just the camera angle but it looks to have quite a long wheelbase and shortish overhang beyond the back axle, thus not leaving much room for a rear platform and staircase. As the LT5A was usually bodied as a coach to, presumably 27ft a double deck body would be no more than 26ft at this period so this may have something to do with body being centre entrance. However, the door arrangement does seem to be rather unusual. It would certainly have been quite handy had the bus gone on to become a caravan/holiday home!
Eric
15/08/11 – 15:34
Yes Chris H, Leon are still running.
Roger Broughton
15/08/11 – 21:57
The topography is dead flat: if you saw the “preservation” Vulcan bomber on BBC tv on 14/8, that was Finningley (now Robin Hood) Airbase/port.
Joe
15/08/11 – 21:59
Sadly Leon were taken over by MASS in 2004 and the depot at Finningley was closed in 2007 when the bus routes were given to First. The company itself was dissolved on May 26th 2009
Nigel Turrner
15/08/11 – 21:59
My understanding is that Leon sold out to MASS of North Anston some years ago who operated the services for a couple of years and then sold them on to First Group. Has the Leon name been resurrected in some way? I haven’t seen any sign of it on recent visits to Doncaster.
Chris Barker
16/08/11 – 09:03
My mistake, they are still listed on some internet sites but one phone no is now a private house and the other has been cut off.
Roger Broughton
17/08/11 – 07:15
I notice that nobody has picked up on the rather unusual registration number JP 42 because nowadays it would be pounced upon by number plate dealers! In fact it is a correct plate issued by Wigan CC in May 1934 which is quite late for a “two letter” series to start reaching JP 8432 by 1950. What it does do is reveal the original date of the coach which later became saddled with this somewhat ambitious body! I don’t suppose anybody has a picture of the original vehicle when owned by Smith’s of Wigan..it would be a most interesting comparison!
Richard Leaman
17/08/11 – 07:16
Chris, you ask who might have taken this picture? I thought it looked familiar, it’s featured in ‘Buses Illustrated’ issue no. 84 for March ’62 (orange cover, with a Salford Daimler saloon!) It was used to help illustrate an article entitled “Doncaster Re-Visited”, and is credited to none other than the late John C. Gillham. In his wonderfully eloquent style of writing, another one of my schoolboy heroes, Tony Peart, describes it thus in the accompanying article ….. ” More interesting still was a double deck Leyland Lion! This had a central entrance utility body by N.C.B., with a regrettable propensity towards catching fire and had run for a long time with a sheet of cardboard in one of the front windows.” Doubtless your instincts were right and you would have done well to steer clear of riding on it had the opportunity ever arisen, but presumably the flames never made it quite as far as the cardboard window!
Dave Careless
17/08/11 – 19:29
“Regrettable propensity towards catching fire” – what a gem of a phrase and with typical British understatement! In its early days, this would have made it a toss-up whether the vehicle succumbed to enemy action before a conflagration! At least the cardboard front window gave an emergency exit front AND back of the upper deck! As for two-letter registrations, I was in the RAF in mid-1958, in Wigtownshire, Scotland, when they changed from OS9999 to AOS1. I would hardly think they got out of AOS before the whole shebang changed to suffixes in 1963! In London, where I lived then,I’d say they ran out in the 1930’s!
Incidentally, what is known of Santus, who built the original coach body for the vehicle? I’ve never heard of them.
Chris Hebbron
18/08/11 – 08:08
William Santus was a Wigan market trader who also had a coach-building business. This business was dead certainly by the end of WW 2. I seem to remember, from the Venture book, that one of the founders of East Lancs did an apprenticeship with Santus whose assets I believe ended up with one of the more famous Wigan pair (Massey and Northern Counties).
David Oldfield
18/08/11 – 10:04
Santus was fairly common amongst Lancashire Independents. They actually built some service bus bodies for Wigan Corporation on 3 or 4 batches of Leyland Tigers in the 1932-7 period, I think to Leyland design. Anybody know of any more? I think the Leon Lion is one of the most iconic of all buses for the post war enthusiast, as I remember it well in various publications, notably “Buses Illustrated”. Alan Townsin quotes it as the only double deck centre entrance utility body built, and NCB were, of course, designated “rebodying” contractors. There were single deck utility centre entrance bodies in the form of Brush/W4 wartime utility trolleybuses in Darlington and Mexborough.
John Whitaker
18/08/11 – 11:57
Santus were active long after the end of World War Two, surviving to provide bodywork for at least one Royal Tiger in circa 1951. In the late 1940s their half-cab coach design was fitted to most types and was widely seen throughout the Northwest and Midlands (and more rarely further afield). The firm probably ceased trading because many of its post-war bodies were built with poorly seasoned or otherwise inferior quality timber. Few survived much beyond 1960 although there are a couple of examples which made it into preservation including the well-known Seddon Mk 4 DPR 518.
Neville Mercer
19/08/11 – 06:49
Thx, David/John/Neville (and Richard Leaman who popped up coincidentally with Santus information on the Vics Tours (Isles of Scilly) Bedford OB thread!.
Chris Hebbron
20/08/11 – 07:11
On the registration JP42, I believe that JP was the last pair of letters authorised for use based on the original 1904 scheme. By that date, Staffordshire had already started using the three-letter/three-number combinations with ARE/ARF in 1932. I wonder why JP wasn’t issued to them instead? Wigan had previously been allocated EK. Although the history of registration allocations may be different for N Ireland and what later became Eire, JP completed the England Wales and Scotland scheme until c.1960. At that point, the more controversial OO, BF and WC marks were authorised, and quickly used in both forward and reversed formats, with two plus four and three plus three letters / numbers. This was no more than a “quick fix” for Essex and Staffordshire, as between 1963 and 1965, all issuing authorities were required to start using the year suffix (later, prefix) system. Northern Ireland continues to this day to use it’s own interpretation, and the Irish Republic uses an altogether different system since having joined the EU. There was something special though, about looking down a line of, say, standard almost identical PD2’s with Leyland bodies, and identify their area or original owner just by looking at the key letters of the registration plate. Very satisfying.
Michael Hampton
20/08/11 – 14:00
Michael, I agree wholeheartedly about being able to recognise area of origin from the old letters. There is, however, method in the new post 2001 scheme. AA is Anglia (as in East Anglia) GA Garden of England (Kent and Sussex) LA London RA Reading SA Scotland YA Yorkshire These are just examples. There is a similar (sometimes slightly warped) logic to all the other marks.
David Oldfield
21/08/11 – 16:19
……..or grandiloquent ones, David, like: F for Forest & Fens (East Midlands) G for Garden of England (Kent & Sussex) or my own local one V for SeVern Valley (South West England) Reminds me of the old ‘Director’ phone system (in big cities)which relied on you dialling the first three letters. In London, it started logically: ABBey (Westminster), WHItehall & CLErkenwell, but, after running out of meaningful ones, used, for example, ARNold (Wembley) and the very Scottish RAGlan for a very unScottish Leytonstone! I would love to have been on XYLophone, but there were no X,s Y’s or Z’s used! But I digress!
Chris Hebbron
24/08/11 – 08:23
Yes, David and Chris, there are some obvious designations for the current registration system, and some intriguing ones, too. My comment about identifying identical PD2s, could similarly be said about modern Volvos or Scanias, etc, as the large groups transfer them around the country. In the old (1903) system, there were only a few letter sets that could be linked to the place of issue, although whether this was by accident or design I know not. Examples are DV (Devon), DT (Doncaster)and KH (Kingston-u-Hull). KV for Coventry must have brought a wry smile or two, and I once read that VT for Stoke on Trent was an oblique reference to Arnold Bennett’s “Five Towns” (using the Roman V for 5). Was that a purposeful allocation, or just accidental? Many L series went to London, and many M series went to Middlesex. But other big series like O for Birmingham bore no relationship at all. BG for Birkenhead was a near miss – should have been BK or BH or BD! Also of interest is the use some municipal operators made of their local series. In the 1950’s, Portsmouth booked each batch to end in 999 (GTP, LRV, ORV, STP and TTP). In Salford, the new manager just post-war decided he would only book RJ series and not use the BA series at all. Birmingham used a large quantity (all?) of JOJ. Glasgow booked the whole of both FYS and SGD, using some for service vehicles but the bulk for PSVs. The SGD use was curtailed by the introduction of the year suffix system. In pre-war days, some Glasgow buses were registered with the most appropriate BUS series, but the Corporation did not book the whole 999, and I don’t think the registration numbers matched the fleet numbers. In London, the first Routemasters used the appropriate “LT” series for significant quantities (SLT, VLT, WLT and reversed CLT). It was rather sad that the link between fleet numbers and registrations was lost at the introduction of the present system, with it’s use of letters instead of numbers for the sequential element.
Michael Hampton
24/08/11 – 11:38
Apologies for going off at a tangent on this thread…..but on the subject of registrations, in the 1960s nearly all the fire engines in Nottingham had a registration where the numbers were 999
KC
24/08/11 – 12:00
One I always recall is BMMO (Midland Red) which had registrations with HA in them, originally Smethwick, later Dudley.
Chris Hebbron
24/08/11 – 16:07
Most Fire Brigades ran 999 on there appliances
Roger Broughton
27/08/11 – 07:41
Thanks, Chris Y, for this extraordinary photo, which raises so many questions. I too had assumed that the Lion was of lighter build than the Tiger—somewhere between the Tiger and the Cheetah—but the attached pictures suggest that, apart from engine and cab length, there was little difference between the two chassis, at least by Feb 1938. Perhaps the 1934 LT5A was a bit less sturdy. I grew up imagining that the Ministry of Supply had an absolute stranglehold over body design, and this Lion double-decker is the best and quirkiest counter-example of all. By the way, I’ve always had a soft spot for NCB bodies: everything—particularly the front dome and upper front pillar area—strikes me as just right.
Ian Thompson
Forgot to say that my praise of Northern Coachbuilders’ design refers to postwar bodywork, which is not to belittle the angular charm of the centre-entrance d-d Lion!
Ian
11/09/11 – 08:43
This maybe of interest.
Ian Thompson
16/10/11 – 17:24
Michael Hampton said, “I believe that JP was the last pair of letters authorised for use based on the original 1904 scheme. By that date, Staffordshire had already started using the three-letter/three-number combinations with ARE/ARF in 1932. I wonder why JP wasn’t issued to them instead?” Staffordshire started the three-letter marks in July ’32 with ARF 1, and my guess is that Wigan booked JP just before then. Similarly, Dorset started issuing JT registrations in November ’33 – so they, too, could have booked that code just before the three-letter marks were introduced. Chris Hebbron wrote, “As for two-letter registrations, I was in the RAF in mid-1958, in Wigtownshire, Scotland, when they changed from OS 9999 to AOS 1. I would hardly think they got out of AOS before the whole shebang changed to suffixes in 1963!” Well, Chris, Wigtownshire actually got as far as HOS before becoming one of the last areas to adopt the year suffix system, in September 1964.
Des Elmes
17/10/11 – 07:47
Thx, Des, for the interesting Wigtownshire information. In crude terms, 800 registrations in 6 years averages 133 new vehicles registered per year. Sounds very quaint in this day and age! Just to add to this scenario, I took my test in Stranraer whilst up there. Such was the demand, that the driving instructor only brought his Morris Minor down from Ayr every Wednesday afternoon to teach the locals. There was no instructor in Stranraer itself!
Chris Hebbron
17/10/11 – 07:48
Des..Just a very slight clarification wearing my number plate anorak. The suffix system did not become compulsory until 1st September 1964 although introduced originally just 12 months earlier. So the “A” suffix ran only from 1/9/63 until 31/12/63 and “B” started on 1st January 1964 but most authorities continued the 123 ABC format until they ran out at YYY 999 for example. Then, confusion occurs because vehicles that had old “collectable” numbers that were sold on, were allocated previously unissued “A”’s similar to ( here in Bristol) BHU123A. Again, this did not last long because then the DVLA started to use “SV/SU/FF” etc. in a three letter, three number style to give the age related numbers seen everywhere such as MSU 123. So..it’s not impossible to have a 1964 vehicle displaying an “age related” AAA 123A ‘plate and also..yes…built up Kit cars were often given “A”’s rather than “Q” plates and they can be of any age! NO!!!…enough men! I’ll go away and shut up now!
Richard Leaman
24/10/11 – 07:50
Richard Leaman said, “The suffix system did not become compulsory until 1st September 1964 although introduced originally just 12 months earlier. So the “A” suffix ran only from 1/9/63 until 31/12/63″ I thought “A” suffixes began in February of 1963, when Middlesex issued AHX 1A? And, for that matter, the new Kirkcaldy authority issued AXA 1A etc from April ’63 (XA having been previously allocated to London), and Staffordshire issued ARE 1A etc from July. Also, the year suffix system became compulsory when “C” suffixes began on 1 January 1965 – though September ’64 is very likely to have been the time when this was decided upon, as all remaining areas still using the old schemes (notably Leeds, Hampshire and Bedfordshire) continued to do so for the final four months of that year.
Des Elmes
24/10/11 – 16:17
Hello Des! Thank you for the details re the 6/7 digit registration changes. I went from memory rather than looking anything up but had always understood that Middlesex was the first 7 digit series and had started in the September so I’m sorry to have got that incorrect. As regards the September 1964 date, it may well have been technically compulsory from 1/1/65 but I have never seen any registrations after Sept ’64 with less than 7 digits so have understood that to be the changeover date. Thank you for the clarifications though!
Richard Leaman
03/05/12 – 14:01
Nine Scottish County Councils never reached 9999 with two letters, before starting the “year-letter” series in 1964 or 5. Bringing up the rear was Bute, which reached SJ 2860, an average of less than one vehicle a week!
Geoff Kerr
04/05/12 – 08:46
HD the mark for Dewsbury took from the start of its introduction until 1955 To change to AHD.
Philip Carlton
14/06/12 – 07:30
Further to Philip’s comment: Bootle is a bigger town than Dewsbury, and yet took longer to reach three-letter marks – AEM 1 not being issued until April 1960. Hmm… And further to Geoff’s comment, the other eight Scottish counties that never reached 9999 with two letters were Clackmannanshire (SL), Kinross-shire (SV), Nairnshire (AS), Orkney (BS), Peeblesshire (DS), Selkirkshire (LS), Sutherland (NS) and Shetland (PS). Caithness, meanwhile, reached SK 9999 in August 1963. By then, of course, Middlesex, Kirkcaldy and Staffordshire were all issuing suffixed registrations, with Lancashire soon to follow. I wonder if Caithness considered joining them then, instead of waiting another year and issuing ASK 1 etc in the meantime? Got to admit, it’s fun talking about registrations…
Des Elmes
15/11/12 – 06:27
This may be the Santus-bodied Royal Tiger to which Neville was making reference (18/08/11) www.sct61.org.uk/ On the same site can be found photos of Royal Tigers with bodywork by Thurgood, Churchill, Bankfield, and Auto-Cellulose – as well as by the more well-known builders, of course.
David Call
15/11/12 – 15:42
Santus bodied nine Royal Tigers in total:- MTJ 774, NTD 447 both Fairclough, Lostock; NTJ 707 Victoria, Horwich; JP 9379 Taylor Bros, Standish; JP 9634 Eaves, Ashton-in-Makerfield; OTB 400 Walls, Wigan; LWX 446 Anderton, Keighley; FBN 902 Miners Convalescent Home; MWT 476 Forder, Bingley.
Regarding the original owner of JP 42, PSV Circle British Journal gives the original owner as H Stringfellow, Wigan, noting that reference to Smiths is probably wrong.
David Williamson
15/11/12 – 17:00
A quick Google of all the above registration numbers has produced a pic of MT J774 with Fairclough’s – not surprisingly, the body looks just like that on LWX 446. There is also a photo of 504 WLG, implied to be a rebuild of JP 9379, extended to 36′ and rebodied by Plaxton. The registration did ring a bell, and bearing in mind its place of origin I would say that the rebuild was effected at the behest of the Les Gleave group. This is getting a bit away from the original topic of JP 42 (heard that one before?), but I wonder if anyone could tell me anything about Bankfield coach bodies, as mentioned above. There have been occasions in the past when I have been accused of having had an encyclopaedic knowledge of buses & coaches, but I have to say that Bankfield is a new one on me.
David Call
15/11/12 – 17:43
Bankfield Engineering was based at Crossens, Southport. They bodied two Royal Tigers, NVM 832 new to North Road Engineering, Oldham in 1953, and OXJ 481 new to Mason, Manchester in 1954. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen photos of them. However, I have childhood memories of them, and I thought they both ran for Mason’s, who used a red and cream livery. I have a vague recollection that they produced at least one other body, but cannot remember any details.
David Williamson
16/11/12 – 07:34
Very welcome information, thanks. The Southport connection didn’t come as a surprise since I had already picked up mention on the net of an ex-Hanson Leyland TS6 later running for a couple of Southport-area operators and at some stage receiving a Bankfield body. Issue 18 (Winter 2002) of the ‘Leyland Torque’ magazine refers to NVM 832 as ‘Mason’s Tours Royal Tiger’, so, yes, it would seem that both OXJ481 and NVM 832 operated for Mason’s. Perhaps they were trying to get the ‘set’. There is a photo of OXJ 481 here www.sct61.org.uk There is mention on the net of Bankfield having rebuilt fourteen Bolton Corporation TD5/Massey, two St Helens (ex-Wigan) TD1/NCME, and one Crosville (ex-York-West-Yorkshire) LT2/Roe. Further to the above, I wonder if you could tell me the source of information – was it a PSVC chassis list? I’m a little suspicious that NVM 832 should have had a Manchester, rather than an Oldham, registration. Could ‘North Road Engineering’ have been a ‘subsidiary’ of Mason’s?
David Call
16/11/12 – 11:18
I have an old copy of Leyland Journal (the original version) from the early 50’s which shows a new Bankfield-bodied Royal Tiger.
John Stringer
16/11/12 – 11:18
The PSVC records NVM 832 as new in May 1953 to North Road Engineers, Oldham, – carrying Mason Tours fleetname. Make of that what you can! It was withdrawn in June 1960 and exported to Australia where it ran for Stewart & Sons, Bundaberg, Queensland, rebodied by Stewarts with their own B57D body. It remained in service until some time in the 1990s, when it was bought by one of Stewarts’ drivers and converted to a mobile caravan.
Michael Wadman
16/11/12 – 15:39
My info came from the PSVC Royal Tiger chassis list. On the SCT61 website, under a posting about Maudslay HNF 803, there is reference to ‘the Wolfenden group’, operators and coachbuilders (Junction). One of the group’s companies was Mason, whose address was North Road (Manchester, though, not Oldham).
David Williamson
10/11/13 – 17:21
Leon’s Lion Utility double decker was in a small club of unusual Leyland Utility double deck rebodies. In 1942 East Kent had two of its ten 1928-1930 TS1 Tigers fitted with lowbridge Park Royal bodies UL27/26R with an overall length of 27ft 4in. The chassis had originally been bodied as double deckers, Short O30/26RO to an overall length of 27ft 6in. The two buses concerned were FN 9094 and JG 652 and merit attention for having the only lowbridge Park Royal Utility bodies (that I know of), and for retaining their original TS1 frames and acquiring long bodies as a result. They were quite camera shy with their new bodies but from the pictures I have seen there is no doubt that they were indeed rebodied on the original TS1 frames rather than receiving some sort of “TD1” substitute. The Park Royal bodies conformed to the National Federation of Vehicle Trades lowbridge utility outline (except on length and seating capacity) especially with regard to the proportions of the upper deck where the panels below the upper deck windows were much deeper than Brush, Duple and Weymann lowbridge bodies, to name just a few, and the roof had a pronounced dome.
Mike Harvey
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
12/10/20 – 06:27
Looks like I’ve come a bit late to this posting. I’ve lived in Doncaster all my life and remember Leon well. Interesting notes on vehicle registrations as well. I saw my first suffix registration on an Educational Supply Authority van at Bentley New Village School near Doncaster in 1963 and I always remember the number – ACX 626 A – I believe this was a Huddersfield mark as I’m sure the authority for schools in what was the West Riding of Yorkshire were based in Huddersfield.
Dave Ingram
13/10/20 – 06:13
The WRCC Education Dept was in Wakefield the County Town with HL registrations. Huddersfield was a County Borough and presumably ran its own schools. This bus though is a classic!
East Yorkshire Motor Services 1928 Leyland Lion PLSC3 Leyland B32R
Photograph shows an all-Leyland Lion PLSC3 which was new to East Yorkshire Motor Services as its fleet number 97 in 1928. It is seen here in a later life as a Mobile Canteen for Sheffield Transport Department crews. The Sheffield coat of arms can be seen on the side panel and the tea-making equipment can be seen inside. Sheffield has a long history of giving withdrawn buses an extended life as gritters, tow-trucks, overhead works towers, mobile libraries, etc but it is unusual to have taken a vehicle from another operator for these purposes. My Sheffield records are very extensive and I can find no record of this having been used as a service bus and conclude that it was bought from EYMS for the job it can be seen doing so well.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
17/07/12 – 17:49
“Sheffield”, Philip Battersby (Super Prestige) has a picture of Regent III/Roberts 122 on page 66. In the same picture, behind it, is “the Department’s mobile staff canteen which was in use from 1943 to 1958. VO7445 had been converted from the all Leyland Lion LT3 acquired from the War Department. (Never checked but there seem to be echoes of Underwood’s or East Midland in that number.) Whatever, it shows a track record of buying from outside for this sort of vehicle. [Come on, out there, someone knows the provenance of VO 7445.]
David Oldfield
17/07/12 – 17:49
This certainly seems to be an oddity, Les, as my records show WF to have been a Sheffield mark. East Yorkshire, being based in Hull (sorry, Kingston Upon Hull to give the correct title) would normally be expected to use marks from the local issuing Authority, not ones from elsewhere – even other areas within Yorkshire.
Pete Davies
17/07/12 – 18:28
Pete. WF was only a Sheffield mark after the 1974 re-allocations, when many local offices were closed. In 1928 Sheffield marks would have been W, WA, WB, WE, WJ, and would be until 1974.
David Oldfield
17/07/12 – 18:29
WF was only a Sheffield registration after 1974, before that it was East Yorkshire. An odd co-incidence really. WG also made the same move, this time from Stirlingshire.
David Beilby
17/07/12 – 20:56
I stand corrected! Thanks for the update.
Pete Davies
17/07/12 – 20:58
WF 1170 wasn’t a loner in the EYMS fleet but part of a batch starting, I think, somewhere about WF 1152 (fleet no 79 to WF 1171 (98). There were many other, unrelated WFs as well as these Lions. VO was, as Dave Oldfield suggests a Mansfield, or Nottinghamshire reg, so maybe it was with one of the smaller operators in the East Midland area?
Les Dickinson
18/07/12 – 08:04
I’ve just realised one of the reasons the registration on the Lion feels odd is that it was an East Riding mark, whereas all the fleet I knew had Hull registrations.
David Beilby
18/07/12 – 10:01
According to the PSV/OS fleet history no. 97 (WF 1170) was withdrawn in 1939 and sold to the War Department in August 1940 and had passed to Sheffield by July 1945. 27 buses delivered in 1928 to EYMS had WF registrations, the first to have Hull registrations being sixteen Tilling -Stevens nos 104 to 119 (KH 6971 to 6986) also in 1928. Thereafter all new buses seemed to have Hull registration marks. 97 was one of several buses on hire to the South Staffordshire Regiment, Welton in June/July 1940 before being requisitioned by the War Department. It was last licensed by Sheffield in July 1955.
Malcolm Wells
18/07/12 – 10:02
Sorry to throw a spanner into the works over the registration letters WF, but, as David B points out, this was an East Riding mark, not Kingston Upon Hull. EYMS always used Hull registrations – AT, KH and RH. Some of their vehicles did have WF registrations, (along with BT, the other East Riding letters), but these came from acquired businesses such as Everinghanm Bros. Therefore, if this vehicle was indeed delivered new to East Yorkshire, its acquisition of WF letters, as well as the other vehicles Les mentions, would be a stark anomaly. It still just doesn’t sound right. Changing the subject – I’m no expert on Lions or Leyland bodies, but doesn’t the driver’s door seem a bit far back for the steering wheel? Or is it just the angle of the photo?
Roy Burke
18/07/12 – 10:08
Keith Eastons excellent fleet list for East Yorkshire Motor Services Part 1 – 1926/1941 can be viewed at this link.
Peter
19/07/12 – 07:40
There is no anomaly. EYMS’s first buses that were ordered (other than acquired from former companies) in 1927 were 59-64, also Leyland PLSC3, which were registered WF 810/29/30/45/46. Also in 1927 nos 26-30 also PLSC3 had WF registrations but had been ordered by Lee and Beulah so it may be that whoever was in charge simply followed on using WF Clearly EYMS did not always use Hull registrations – only with the arrival of 104 to 119 were Hull’s marks first used and of course continued to be used. Remember that EYMS was newly formed in 1926 and had inherited several companies and premises and it is possible that it took time to sort out its approach to registrations. Several premises until 1929 were outside the city including the works and offices at Anlaby Common until Offices were opened in Hull in 1927. See also pages 10 and 11 in the excellent John Banks book, page 16 in the Ian C Gibbs book and page 12 in the Keith Jenkinson book.
Malcolm Wells
19/07/12 – 07:41
East Yorkshire used East Riding registration marks (WF) during 1926/7 from then onwards Kingston upon Hull marks were normally used (RH, KH, AT)
Keith Easton
19/07/12 – 17:13
Thanks, Peter, Malcolm and Keith for putting me straight. I stand well and truly corrected – not for the first time, but, as my old Dad used to tell me, if you’re always frightened you might be wrong, you’ll never open your mouth.
Roy Burke
20/07/12 – 15:58
With respect to the above photograph of the former Sheffield mobile canteen bus, WF 1170, I wondered if the attached copy of the vehicle’s registration card might be of interest. It even records the unladen weight of 5-2-2, including benches, tea urns, and water tank etc!! Click this link to view
Remember Ctrl+ to zoom in Ctrl0 (zero) to get back.
Dave Careless
21/07/12 – 07:40
That is a great posting, Dave Careless. Thanks for sharing it.
Les Dickinson
21/07/12 – 12:14
Superb piece of history, Dave C. Love the Tons/Cwts/Qtrs/Lbs. What a nuisance metric calculations are, compared with simple Imperial!
Chris Hebbron
23/07/12 – 18:34
Glad you enjoyed it; I like your comment about Imperial vs Metric, Chris, quite funny. Hard to imagine that by the time this vehicle was finally withdrawn, tea was probably still only available in loose form; I wonder how many cwts of tea leaves it got through every week ?!!
Dave Careless
21/09/21 – 05:49
Further to my post of 19/7/12, (9 years ago!) concerning the registration of East Yorkshire buses, as has been correctly pointed out, both BT and WF were East Riding marks. No 20, which is usually credited as a part of the Lee & Beulah fleet, was actually purchased by East Yorkshire, but due to L&B being situated at Brough in the East Riding, it acquired an East riding BT registration. It would appear that the new company, although being situated in Kingston upon Hull, still registered in the East Riding for a couple of years, subsequently registering future vehicles in Hull. Part one of the PSV Circle history of East Yorkshire covering 1926 to 1987 (privatisation) was published in 2018, part 2 (1987 to 2018) is still awaiting further developments.
H W Hunter and Sons 193? Leyland Lion LT5 Burlingham B32F
I recently bought this photo on Ebay, but the information on the back is somewhat limited. JR 688 is a B32F Burlingham bodied Leyland Lion LT5. There are no dates on the back, but the model was only in production from 1932 to 1934. From local knowledge I know that the photo was taken by the Victoria Hotel in Whitley Bay, my guess would be around the mid 40’s, the picture quality is not the best, but the vehicle looks a bit sad by Hunters usual very high standards.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
12/04/15 – 07:05
In an Omnibus Society newsletter for September 1952, I have found a fleet list for Hunters. Unfortunately, it doers not give dates new, but confirms that JR 688 was a Leyland LT5 with Burlingham B32F body. It was no. 8 in the Hunters fleet and was sent for scrap in July 1952.
John Gibson
13/04/15 – 07:38
As you have the actual photograph, use a magnifying glass on the headlights, I think they have wartime masks on them.
HC 8643 is a Leyland Lion PLSC3 some sources omit the P prefix for 1930s Leyland single deckers, but I’ve no idea why, new to the County Borough Of Eastbourne in 1928. It has Leyland’s own B32R body – with door – and we see it arriving at Duxford on 28 September 2003.
This second view shows the fleetname and crest.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
24/11/16 – 09:32
The Lion was a very successful model. The initial letter ‘P’ stood for pneumatic, indicating that it was devised from the outset to accept such tyres rather than being a conversion from solids. The 1926 vintage Lion was designed by J. G. Parry Thomas, who very soon afterwards turned his attention towards the car racing world. It was powered by an overhead valve four cylinder engine of 5.1 litres driving through a four speed crash gearbox, all mounted in a dropped frame chassis, though this was not as low as that on the Rackham designed six cylinder Tiger that appeared in the following year, 1927. According to G. G. Hilditch, who had one at Halifax for a time, the Lion had a top speed of about 25 mph, well above the legal limit of 12 mph that was then in force for buses.
Roger Cox
24/11/16 – 16:44
Thank you, Roger, for the explanation of why some had the P and some did not.
Pete Davies
27/11/16 – 07:36
The PLSC lion was replaced in 1929 by the Lion LT1, and at the same time the Lioness PLC was replaced by the Lioness-Six LTB. The Cub Passenger models (except the REC) carried a P as part of the designation, eg Cub SKPZ2, the first three Gnus were TEP1, although the later design with front end as the TEC1 Steer wagon was the TEC2. P on post-war Leyland models from the Comet to the Titan meant Passenger.
Stephen Allcroft
27/11/16 – 09:30
I think that we’ve had this discussion about the PD/PS Leyland codes before, Stephen. The generally accepted view is that the ‘P’ stood for ‘post war’ in the passenger models, just as the Daimler ‘V’ in CVG/CVD stood for ‘victory’. Having initiated the ‘P’ classification in 1946, Leyland stuck with it for several years afterwards, by which time the understanding may well have changed to ‘passenger’.
Roger Cox
28/11/16 – 13:34
Roger, it was “generally accepted” for many years that the 27ft Leyland Titan body was the Farington: only it has now been found that was the final 26ft style. Doug Jack for one concludes that Passenger was intended. He had access to the Records. If post war was meant then surely it would have been applied to the freight range as well.
Stephen Allcroft
29/11/16 – 07:47
Stephen, this is a debate that, like the meaning of ‘RT’ and ‘SOS’ continues to run and run. The PD1 was originally designated the TD9 (the TD8 was the projected utility chassis that didn’t materialise), so the subsequent use of ‘P’ for ‘Passenger’ seems illogical, as, indeed does the classification ‘Passenger Double Decker/Passenger Single Decker’. The ‘P’ there is surely redundant, since lorries don’t fall into those categories. Unlike the haulage range, for which a variety of names was adopted, the bulk of the passenger range from Leyland in the early post war years consisted of Titans and Tigers, model names that were carried over from 1939. Given the general public and political mood if the time, I remain convinced that the ‘P’ stood for ‘post war. ‘Passenger Double Decker Type 1 makes no sense when seven versions of the Titan had preceded it. John Banks, for another, agrees with the ‘post war’ understanding, but I am sure that this debate will never be finally settled.
Roger Cox
30/11/16 – 06:57
The menmonics were designed, I’m sure you are aware Roger for the convenience firstly of Leyland production staff and secondly to enable the customers to order the right spare parts. In a way it is immaterial what the letters actually stood for, although we all want to know. The first Leyland peacetime model was the 12.IB ‘Interim’ Beaver with the same drivetrain as the PD1/PS1 which could on your contention have been the ID1/IS1 as they were also intended as interim models until the “O600 TD9” and its single-deck version became available. The major difference was the frame, which was dropped for a Passenger application, wheelbases and spring rates then determined the differences between the Tiger and the Titan, so if we disregard names they were always variants of the same passenger model. If you are right then Leyland designated the Comet bus as Postwar and not the Comet Lorry, although both were launched in 1947, that would be bizarre.
Stephen Allcroft
30/11/16 – 15:49
I am afraid that I remain unconvinced, Stephen. In the cases of the Titan and Tiger, I believe that the change in the initial letter from T to P was intended to mean ‘post war’. The Comet was a haulage model that was adapted to passenger functions, and yes, the ‘P’ did signify ‘passenger in the designation CPO1 etc. However, I think you are reading a degree of consistency in model naming that was probably never there. If your theory is correct, the Comet bus/coach should have been called the PCO1. In the Comet, the letter ‘O’ stood for oil engine, but the same letter ‘O’ was used in export Tiger models such as OPS1 and OPS2, in which case it meant ‘overseas’.
Roger Cox
02/12/16 – 07:06
God Forbid I should accuse any manufacturer of consistency in nomenclature! The OPSU1, 2 and 3 were replaced by the ERT2 3 and 1, while the Leyland designed BUT ETB1 ran concurrent with both. The OPSU3 had been forgotten when the 36 foot Leopard became PSU3, and not L3, the RTC and L1/L2 being replaced by PSU4 in 1967 and PSU5 launched in 1968 which is 23 years after the end of World War two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Royal_Tiger_PSU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Royal_Tiger_Worldmaster AEC is presumed to have chosen 2 for semi-automatic transmission and 3 for synchromesh based on the number of pedals, but when a constant mesh gearbox came from Thornycroft, that became 4 (still using three pedals) and the ZF torque converter option on Swift became 5 (still using two). It is more than probable the P used in Swift and Sabre stood for Panther. Also as the PSUC1 designation came before the Tiger Cub name and that chassis used modified Comet running units rather than anything from the Cub discontinued 12 years earlier that the C originally stood for Comet. As a purely passenger model, the Tiger Cub had a P at the front, but as demonstrated above, nobody was consistent, the last Comet buses were sold in the early 1970s; here’s a link to one: //www.sct61.org.uk/lagos1
Southern National 1929 Leyland Lion LT1 Beadle B35R
Before the First World War, the public transport needs in Cambridge were met by the horse drawn Cambridge Street Tramways Company and some small, often short lived, independent motor bus operators, most notably the Cambridge Motor Omnibus Company. In 1907 the assets of the struggling Cambridge Motor Omnibus Company were bought by James Berry Walford who hailed from Egham in Surrey. He relaunched the business in 1908 as the Ortona Motor Company which progressively became the major operator in the Cambridge area, finally seeing off the tramways company in February 1914. In 1913 The BET/BAT group took a initial 50% shareholding in Ortona, to which railway interests were later incorporated, and in 1919 Thomas Tilling set up the neighbouring Eastern Counties Omnibus Company in Ipswich which then became a Tilling/BAT company in 1928. In 1929, T/BAT assumed control of United Automobile Services and took steps to rationalise the somewhat sprawling United territory that covered large parts of Northumbria, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and East Anglia. The Lincolnshire sector became the Lincolnshire Road Car Company, and the East Anglian part was transferred to an expanded Eastern Counties Road Car Company which subsumed the Ortona business on 14 July 1931. The Ortona vehicle livery changed from green to red, and 94 vehicles, 73 of them less than five years old, all with pneumatic tyres, were transferred to the new business. By the 1920s Ortona’s favoured choice of manufacturer had become Leyland, with Titan TD1 double deckers ultimately predominating. Single deck deliveries were more varied, but three Leyland Lion LT1 saloons with Dodson B32F bodies, VE 2142/3/4 arrived with Ortona in November/December 1929. A picture of VE 2144 in original form may be found in Paul Carter’s book, Cambridge 1, to which much of this detail must be credited. These ran with ECOC until 1945, and it is thought that they acquired Gardner engines during that period. In the picture the two inspection holes in the bonnet suggest that a 5LW lay beneath it, probably fitted by ECOC. VE 2143 was sold to Southern National who fitted it with a new Beadle B35R body and a CovRad radiator in 1947 and gave it fleet number 3439. On disposal by Southern National it was acquired by G J Mutton, a showman of Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire. This bus was still in use with a showman when photographed in 1961 on Mitcham Common. Behind the Lion may be seen another former Western/Southern National bus, YD 4707, an AEC Regent of the early 1930s rebodied by Beadle around 1943/4, with its upper deck trepanned for fairground duties. Does any OBP expert have more details of this bus please?
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
13/04/22 – 08:13
Just out of interest, between 1925 and 1929 Ortona placed a total of 24 BMMO SOS chassis. These comprised of 7 “S” types in 1925/6, 7 “Q” types in 1927 and 5 each of the “M” and “DD” types in 1929.
The Northern General Transport Company 1966 Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R Marshall DP49F
Photo taken at Wellington Street bus station Leeds. The X97 route was Liverpool to Newcastle via Leeds obviously. Information for this photo was found on the “Bus Lists on the Web” website a very good site indeed can be seen here.
05/01/12 – 07:24
I think that the air intake below the windscreen of the Northern General Leopard indicates it was fitted with the UHV (underfloor heating & ventilation) system designed in conjunction with BET, supposedly a fully automatic system with temperature sensors and air operated valves and flaps opening and closing various air ducts through which fresh or recirculated air passed in theory. In practice it was a very different matter as the only automatic thing was both driver and passengers were very cold in winter and very very hot in summer there being few opening windows and two permanently open roof vents with plastic trays underneath to disperse the incoming air. The worst aspect from the drivers point of view was that there wasn’t a motor and fan in the demister the system relied on the forward motion of the vehicle you can imagine how well this worked on a local stopping service. I encountered this system when working for Southdown who also had it fitted to a batch of Plaxton bodied coaches, fitted with vinyl covered seats, there were of course no opening windows and only the two roof vents already mentioned plus two more under the driver or passenger control, no Jet Vent blowers were fitted and of course the same inadequate demister system which still did not work on long runs These vehicles were known as “sweat boxes” very inappropriate in winter and loathed by drivers and passengers alike.
Diesel Dave
07/01/12 – 08:52
How times have/haven’t changed. Fully automatic heating and ventilation systems are now commonplace, but they still don’t work!
Peter Williamson
07/01/12 – 10:15
…..problem is, passengers insist on breathing whatever the temperature or weather conditions.
David Oldfield
31/01/12 – 09:23
There was one automatic heating and ventilation system that worked very well and that was the one fitted to the A series Leyland National providing the filters were kept clear of the inevitable debris that collected it was very reliable. It appeared to defy the fact that hot air rises with the outlets in the roof coving,which had the added bonus of the demister clearing from the top of the screen first, much better for the driver, in fact the whole bus was comfortable. The B series was no better than any other vehicle with underseat box heaters. Although much maligned the National was not a bad bus to drive, personally I thought the Mk 2 with the 680 engine was one of the best buses I ever drove. That may stir up some controversy.
Diesel Dave
31/01/12 – 15:29
Because the National was integral it was considered as a whole. The 500 series engine, especially the 510, was abominable and overshadowed the fact that the body – admittedly very spartan – was very good. The National 2 was what it ought to have been from the start – and a worthy successor to the vehicle it killed off (or murdered?) the Bristol RE. I agree with you fully about the National 0680 – but what about the TL11 version, or for that matter the Gardner?
David Oldfield
31/01/12 – 16:35
There is a nice essay on the 500 and its problems on the AROnline site here: //www.aronline.co.uk/
Gary T
31/01/12 – 16:38
Are Leyland Nationals too late for this site? I never got too close to them for some reason, but they were certainly quirky – the Meccano body must have been the death-knell of “coachbuilding” -and they could also be used on the railways! Can any of our resident panel explain: -why they sounded like industrial food mixers (which engine was that)? -why they emitted clouds of diesel particulates which would put them off the road these days (ditto?) and -what that pretend (?) air conditioning unit/1930’s luggage box on the roof was?
Joe
01/02/12 – 07:56
Yes Joe, that’s the famous 510 engine you’re talking about – and they are strictly “too late”. The fixed head was novel, and extremely unreliable, smoky and sounded like a can of marbles. The roof box was an advanced, but expensive, heating unit.You could, however, get me really wound up about the LEZ (London’s low emission zone). You only need eyes to see the filth which can come out of modern “clean” vehicles and some TRC Tigers and Leopards (to name but two)would not “pass the test” and yet are possibly cleaner. [You certainly don’t choke in a smoke cloud behind them!]
David Oldfield
01/02/12 – 07:57
I have to take issue with Diesel Dave on the heating system defying normal laws of physics. Things may have been better in the cab but I recall many instances of getting on what I thought was a ‘warm’ National, passing under the warm air curtain at the door and sitting down. After a while your feet told you exactly where all the cold air had gone! There was a real temperature gradient. I would agree about the demisting effect though, even the saloon windows had less of a propensity to steam up.
David Beilby
01/02/12 – 07:58
I cant comment on the MK2 National as I’ve never driven one, but the early MK1’s were an abortion. When we first got them at Percy Main they were sometimes used on dual crew, and the conductors claimed that when they went round a corner they leaned over that much that they were almost walking on the windows. They soon became known as the ‘kick start buses’ as some of the myriad of sensors on the lower inspection panels were so touchy that a hefty boot had to be administered to ensure that contact was made and the vehicle would start, the steering was far too light and had no feel, they scrubbed off front tyres at an alarming rate, and on a wet road, if the vehicle went in the same direction that the wheels were pointing it was more by luck than judgment, as for the heating, on cold winter days you could be sitting with sinus trouble in you nose and frostbite in your feet, they must have had some good points but off hand I cant think of any.
Ronnie Hoye
01/02/12 – 08:00
Well I can’t answer Joe’s questions but I do remember very well the roof mounted air conditioning and heating system with outlets along the length of the interior, just above the cove panels, which quickly became blackened by the warm air, or should I say fumes of the heating. It’s astonishing that it never occurred to the designers that the heat (such as it was) would collect in the roof whilst your feet were like two blocks of ice on the floor!
Chris Barker
01/02/12 – 08:00
Thanks Gary: answers to my questions are in your quoted article (except the roofbox which was presumably the heating….)… and I thought it was just the cars (I had a Princess & lived- never to buy BL again). Let’s get back to the good old days…
Joe
01/02/12 – 08:01
As an apprentice working for West Yorkshire Road Car when they were still very much a Bristol – ECW – Gardner operator, I noted that anything built by Leyland was viewed with the deepest suspicion by the old guard. So when WY’s first Nationals arrived, and caused major headaches for the engineering staff, those deep suspicions seemed totally justified. (“We’re all doomed – aye doomed!” to quote a well-known Scotsman). As Diesel Dave comments, the ‘A-Series’ heating and ventilation system worked very well, even in the depths of winter. The system also provided a ‘hot air curtain’ (Leyland parlance) over the entrance to reduce heat loss when the doors opened. The 510 engine was its Achilles heel as David states, and in the early days engines were covering less than 100,000 miles before the big end and main bearings disintegrated. However, following various Leyland modifications – large and small – WY examples were achieving well over 300,000 miles between overhauls in their later years. (Regarding your comment about the National killing off the RE David, three of WYs RELLs suffered the indignity of being fitted with 500 engines when new in 1970, as part of the National development programme. To add insult to injury, they still sported SRG 118-120 as their fleet numbers, even though they did not receive Gardner 6HLX transplants until a few years later, by which time they had become 1318-1320). With regard to Joe’s queries, the ‘industrial food mixer’ sound may have been due to its engine design, being a ‘small’ unit developing 180 bhp in the National and capable of greater outputs in other applications. Cam lobes were very pointed in profile compared to a 680 or Gardner engine for example, meaning that the 510 valves snapped shut faster. Also, if memory serves correctly, the injector pressures were higher on the 510 too, adding to the cacophony. The engine was also of overhead camshaft layout, with a train of large, straight-cut gears supplying the drive from the crankshaft. The smoke problem certainly persisted, despite revised injectors, revised fuel pump settings and a different type of turbocharger. I personally wondered whether the air inlet manifold may have been the culprit, as this was simply a rectangular pressed steel box bolted onto the side of the engine. Gardner turbo engines in contrast had nicely shaped manifolds to aid the flow of air being forced into the engine, whereas the 510’s affair could not have provided anywhere near such a smooth airflow in comparison. As for the ‘luggage box on the roof’ Joe, that housed the automatic heating and ventilation system mentioned by Diesel Dave. The system was generally pretty reliable, but I do recall one occasion sitting towards the rear of a Mk I National en route to Bradford, and being dripped on every time the bus came to a halt, or went down a gradient! Needless to say the beast had sprung a leak, and the driver had it signed off at the Interchange, but I did wonder what fellow passengers thought about the roof leaking…….
Brendan Smith
01/02/12 – 16:21
Gentlemen, as someone who was never employed in the bus industry, I am fascinated to read that the commercial vehicle side of “BL” was every bit as bad as the car division. In 1971 I bought a new Morris 1300GT and it rained the first day I had it. Next morning I found around a gallon of water in the boot so drove back to the dealers where I was told to “Drill ‘ole in the floor and it won’t fill up then”, Obviously a BL man to the core! From memory, didn’t the Nationals also have a tendency to catch fire as I clearly recall one suffering a burnt out rear in Ashton Way, Keynsham and also reading of two or three others going the same way. I know I thought them very cheap and basic things so much so that I near enough gave up any interest in anything later than 1972 onwards! I shall look out for any preserved examples and try to get a “sound effects” recording but from what you all say, finding one with a “510” engine still running seems unlikely!
Richard Leaman
01/02/12 – 16:22
Yes Brendan, and there were rather too many VRs with the 510 as well. Gary Ts link to aronline includes a query/comment about the New Zealand REs having the 510. This was yet another example of Leyland “choice” – you choose to take what Leyland “offered” or you choose to go elsewhere!
David Oldfield
02/02/12 – 07:10
The Leyland engine option in the VR was the naturally-aspirated 501 rather than the turbocharged 510. I expect operators had similar problems with them, but from a passenger point of view they were an absolute delight. They were very quiet, with none of the National’s clatter (which I believe came from a cooling fan coupling or something like that), and unlike the kick-you-in-the-back 6LXB, the power delivery was always ultra-smooth no matter how heavy the driver’s boot. And when coupled to the 5-speed gearbox they could motor too.
Peter Williamson
02/02/12 – 07:11
Richard, British Leyland shouldn’t be confused with Leyland Motors; the latter had stiff competition in the bus market from AEC Bristol Daimler and Guy, ‘Albion were already a subsidiary of Leyland’ and whist it’s fair to say they all had their share of lemons, it was a very competitive market and in the main they were all good vehicles, there were other manufacturers in the market but the companies I’ve mentioned all became part of BL. Before they eventually disappeared, ‘or to be more accurate were killed off’ most names became little more than badge engineered versions of the same BL know best product. BL had a guaranteed market as long as National Bus company was in existence, but as soon as deregulation came they found that their product was no longer in demand. An example of BL’s policy can be seen in the car market, pre BL, Rover’s were built up to a standard, then they became part of BL who in their wisdom or otherwise decided it would be a good idea to put a Rover badge on a Metro. Enough said
Ronnie Hoye
03/02/12 – 06:34
Just after West Yorkshire had converted its three experimental 500-engined RELLs (1318-20) to Gardner 6HLXs, in pursuit of standardisation and improved reliability, guess what came next? Yes, three VRT3s with ‘National’ engines fitted! Numbered 1971-73, these had the vertical 501 versions with turbochargers. (If memory serves correctly Peter I seem to recall that the naturally-aspirated versions were 500s in either vertical or horizontal form, but don’t ask me why as Leyland’s logic was a law unto itself in those days!). Reliability-wise they were marginally better than the 510s, but they suffered oil leaks, and engine vibrations caused problems with gearboxes, engine and gearbox mountings, and exhaust systems. Needless to say they too were converted to Gardner power (6LXB) a few years later. Viewed from the engine compartment, the 501 looked like a mass of pipework with an engine attached somewhere beneath. I think Leyland had tried to place everything on the accessible side of the engine for maintenance purposes, such as the injection pump, compressor, heat exchanger etc. More often than not however, it seemed that you couldn’t remove the faulty bit without first removing half a barrow load of other bits to get to it! As Peter states though, from a passenger viewpoint they did seem fairly smooth and quiet in the VRTs, but I’m afraid I’ll have to side with David that there were far too many VRTs with the ‘headless wonder’ fitted. Poor old East Yorkshire appeared to have lots, which seemed most unfair.
Brendan Smith
01/11/13 – 08:07
One Leopard I remember fondly is MRU 551W, a PSU5C/4R with Plaxton Supreme IV C57F bodywork new to Marchwood of Totton. I used to drive for Country Lion of Northampton. They operated it from May 1986 until July 1987. Most of the drivers could not master the Pneumocyclic Gearbox, which was why it went in PX for a Volvo B10M Duple 320 C57F in July 1987. Shame, as it was a lovely motor to drive.
Stemax1960
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
01/11/13 – 13:54
I loved the National. For three years in the 1970s the breed provided me with a great deal of commission as BL sought to master the monster it had created. I was supplying the BL spares operation in Chorley and the Workington factory with tags, tickets, labels and plastic ties and almost from first entry into service of the production models those products relating to the National showed a marked increase in demand. It has to be said that “real” Leyland employees at Chorley hated the National for whilst it provided a constant stream of work, it also provided a constant stream of problems as sometimes the production of spares, many from outside suppliers, lagged behind the demand and the yard and workshops at Chorley always seemed to have more Nationals than any other Leyland product awaiting investigation. Peter Williamson is quite correct in blaming the cooling fan coupling for much of the clatter.
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
