Category: Photos

Manchester Corporation – Leyland Titan – TNA 494 – 3494

Manchester Corporation - Leyland Titan - TNA 494 - 3494

Manchester Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Burlingham H37/28R – Leyland H32/28R

Mention has been made elsewhere on this site of Manchester 3494 getting beheaded at the Bridgewater Canal and gaining the body from 3363, the chassis of which had been damaged in an accident.
The above photo is a photo of 3494 with its original Burlingham body shown at the top of Kenyon Lane, Moston at the Ben Brierley in 1966.

Manchester Corporation - Leyland Titan - TNA 494 - 3494

This next photo was taken when Keith Walker, Peter Thompson and I were visiting Parrs Wood depot in March 1969 and shows 3494 with its Leyland Farringdon body from 3363.
It was good to see the name of Malcolm Crowe on the Old Bus Photos site. Malcolm was one of the people who introduced me to buses outside Britain and although his photos of Portugal were a revelation, I have unfortunately never been able to get there. I’ve been to a lot of other places but still want to get to Portugal.
Peter Dorricott mentioned that when he was driving at Birchfields Rd depot he was told that bus restoration took place in one of the disused entrances. My former English Teacher at Plant Hill Comprehensive, Miss Bates had a boyfriend who was involved in the restoration of Manchester tram 765 and through her, Geoff Guinn and I were invited to Birchfields Rd one evening to see work on 765. It was a fantastic piece of restoration work. Later of course 765 ran at Heaton Park and Crich.
Mention of old coach operators and going on tours from newsagents brought to mind some of the usual operators used to get from New Moston to Scarborough, Blackpool, Morecambe and Southport. Wilsons Coaches of Failsworth had a Maudslay half-cab which I remember well but of course by the time I was old enough to understand how rare and beautiful it was, it had gone, although I was later told it was lying in a corner of the their garage. The other local operator was Threlfall’s, evidently related to the beer concern.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Lynas

15/03/13 – 08:40

Ian, I presume you are in possession of a higher-resolution photo of the bus passing the Ben Brierley and therefore in a position to state with confidence that it is actually 3494 which is depicted. Looking at the above pic I would have guessed at other than 3494, but one of my ‘alternatives’ wouldn’t have been a TNA so that would obviously be out.
‘Farringdon’ should of course be ‘Farington’ – and yes, I am not going to let myself be roped in to the perennial debate regarding which Leyland bodies were genuine ‘Faringtons’!
Talking of Leyland bodies, does anyone know (I suspect that I should really know the answer to this one myself) if a Leyland body was ever fitted to other than a Leyland chassis? I’m pretty sure that Leyland never put one of their bodies on anyone else’s chassis, but did any operators do any transferring?

David Call

15/03/13 – 08:41

The photograph of 3494 was taken on the occasion of a visit to Parr’s Wood garage on 15th March 1969 by a PSV Circle tour to commemorate the last Manchester PD1/3s. There were plenty of people travelling as there were two PD1/3s and also Daimler CVG6 4127 (now preserved)! I have a similar photograph, but not very good as it was taken with an Instamatic camera.
After the closure of Parr’s Wood garage 3494 moved to Hyde Road and I find I noted it working on the express services to Saddleworth on occasions. I wish I’d made the effort to photograph it!
To the right of the bus is the former Midland Railway route to London from Manchester which closed about that time. It has since been converted to a Metrolink route, but has not yet opened (that’s a few months away). Parr’s Wood garage itself closed in 1970 and is now a Tesco supermarket – all that’s left of the original is the clock tower.

David Beilby

15/03/13 – 11:13

Ian, thanks for posting those shots. Have you a date, at least to the month, of the shot of the Burlingham body? The reason I ask is that 3494 was, as far as I remember, a Parrs Wood vehicle for a good deal of its life in both guises.
The accident took place in October 1966 on route 22, a Parrs Wood route, so what is 3494 doing very much in Rochdale Rd depot territory, sans offside nut guard ring anathema at Parrs Wood at the time)?
Another point of interest is the position of the registration plate. As far back as March 1958 MCTD wrote to Burlingham pointing out that, as radiator shells were sometimes exchanged, plates should be placed on the body and this was done from the July 1958 onwards deliveries (3495 – delayed from February – and 3503 onwards). There’s a picture in The Manchester Bus of Orion bodied PD2 3611 carrying its correct plate UNB 611) on the front cab panel at the same time as it has TNA 480 on a plate on an obviously swapped radiator shell from Burlingham bodied PD2 3480. Given all of that it’s odd that 3494 still has its plate on the radiator after eight years and a visit for major overhaul and total respray. Indeed preserved 3496 which is preserved as it was after respray into the all red scheme still has its plate on the radiator as it was after withdrawal.

In the light of David Call’s comment and my suspicions, I’ve played around with the photo and used a magnifying glass and the shot with the Burlingham body looks like 3484, which would make sense as it was allocated to either Rochdale Rd or Queens Rd – I think it was the former.

Phil Blinkhorn

15/03/13 – 12:15

I’ve long had the idea – without any substantiation – that the Burlingham bodies supplied to Manchester were rather more upright (Orion fashion) than those they supplied to Ribble. How far adrift from reality am I this time

Pete Davies

15/03/13 – 14:50

Interesting question from David Call. I wonder what the response from Leyland would have been if someone had asked them to body a chassis other than one of their own!
But yes, the wonderful Green Bus Company of Rugeley, Staffs created one when they rebodied a Foden which had been a coach with a Leyland d/d body, both of which were pre-war. So there you are, a Leyland bodied Foden, if only a picture existed!

Chris Barker

15/03/13 – 14:51

Pete, you are absolutely correct. The front profile was to Manchester’s own upright design, the window radii were slightly reduced and the rear profile was also more upright.

Phil Blinkhorn

15/03/13 – 16:35

Referring to David Call’s question about non-Leyland chassis carrying Leyland bodies, Bamber Bridge Motor Service created such a vehicle. In 1950, they acquired BRD 755, a 1943 Guy Arab I 5LW/Strachans L27/28R ex Reading Corporation. In 1953, they rebodied it with the Leyland L27/26R body from Leyland TD4 ATD 596, which they had bought new in 1935. That Leyland chassis and the discarded Strachans body were scrapped. The Guy gave a couple of years more service to BBMS before passing to Leak, Preston in 1955, and going for scrap in 1956.

David Williamson

15/03/13 – 17:55

To the best of my knowledge no new Leyland body went on other makes of chassis. CIE built their own version of the standard Leyland body with three screens upstairs at the front – including on PD3s. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there were also examples of this body built new on to AEC and Daimler chassis.

David Oldfield

16/03/13 – 07:31

CIE had a great mixture of their own versions of Leyland’s Colin Bailey designed body, all most all of which retained the original 1930s single pane upper deck rear emergency exit window see: www.busesinireland.com/1 and www.busesinireland.com/2  
There were a number of two and three pane front upper deck window variants as well as five, six and SEVEN bay body construction. Some were totally anachronistic such as the SEVEN bay, three pane OPD3s see: www.busesinireland.com/3
Some AR class Regents did not have Leyland style bodies see: www.busesinireland.com/4 These were delivered ckd for GNR(I) but I can’t definitively confirm the bodybuilder though I suspect Park Royal. Half of these were subsumed into the CIE fleet when GNR(I) was split between CIE and Ulsterbus.
Those imported in 1946/7 for CIE did have a Leyland style body see: www.nationaltransportmuseum.org  
I haven’t found a picture of any of the six DR class Daimler CWD6s but as the chassis and bodies were supposedly delivered ckd from the UK I very much doubt they would have had anything resembling a Leyland body though I’d love to see a photo if they did!.

Phil Blinkhorn

16/03/13 – 08:49

CIE’s three AA-class Regent Vs had Leyland-style bodies, and they were seven-bay (like the RA-class PD3s). Here’s a pic www.busweb.co.uk/

David Call

16/03/13 – 14:50

Nice find David. I assume the lack of lower deck windows towards the rear was because the space on the lower deck offside was used for luggage – not to mention the assorted livestock and parcel deliveries CIE used to handle, even in the cities.

Phil Blinkhorn

16/03/13 – 18:47

In the early postwar period, Alexander built some bodies of Leyland design under licence and Cardiff had a batch of Crossley DD42’s delivered new with this style of bodywork. Although not strictly Leyland bodies they were Leyland in appearance and gave a good impression of what a Leyland body looks like on a non-Leyland chassis.

Philip Halstead

17/03/13 – 05:54

One thing I didn’t think to mention about the CIE AAs was that their initial use was to replace passenger trains between Waterford and Tramore, and they were known to have increased luggage capacity. The extra panelling is unusual, though.
The Cardiff Crossleys are more often than not quoted as having Scottish Commercial, rather than Alexander bodies, although several versions of the story seem to exist, e.g. the bodywork was subcontracted from Alexander, or that Scottish Commercial panelled the Alexander frames. One of the batch, 46 (EBO 900), was preserved and is apparently still in storage, but hasn’t been used for many years. There are several photos of it on the net (both before and during preservation), and this is about the best www.flickr.com/

David Call

17/03/13 – 05:56

Interesting Philip since Alexander made such bodies on Titans for Leyland – under licence and with official sanction.

David Oldfield

17/03/13 – 09:54

A better photo from the point of view of seeing just how Leyland the body is can be found on here: www.mikestreet.webplus.net/ The side view is totally Leyland, as is the rear upper deck emergency exit but the driver’s dash panel, the Crossley headlamps and mudguards change the look of the vehicle even more than the Crossley radiator.

Phil Blinkhorn

17/03/13 – 11:38

The attached photograph should materially assist the confusion regarding the bodywork on Cardiff 46!

CC4602

In fact I believe it is the cause the confusion, as the Scottish Commercial plate is of them acting in the capacity of dealers rather than coachbuilders. They were Crossley agents and had apparently sub-contracted the coachwork to Alexander.
The confusion is probably also helped by the fact Cardiff already had some Crossleys with Scottish Commercial bodies. These, like the lowbridge examples were bought through Almondsbury Engineering and two even had Gloucestershire registrations. They had the more traditional Scottish Commercial appearance, which was a squared-off Manchester style.
Western SMT created an unusual hybrid when they rebodied wartime Guy Y191 (ASD 253) with the Leyland body off TD5 D138 (CS 7037). There is a picture of it in Buses Annual 1970, but the effect was lost as the front was flattened and looked more like a rebuilt utility body. You had to look further back to see the Leyland lineage.

David Beilby

17/03/13 – 15:39

Neither Leyland nor Alexander had 4-bay bodies during this period. (re Cardiff buses) I seem to remember seeing some exposed radiator Regents with Park Royal built Leyland lookalike bodies, but I can`t remember where.

Jim Hepburn

17/03/13 – 15:40

I’m sure I picked it up on the net once that Almondsbury Engineering were a company which ordered the three highbridge Crossleys for their own staff transport, but very quickly decided they weren’t required, or perhaps Almondsbury went out of business, I’m not certain now. This does seem basically consistent with the wording on the Mike Street site, linked to above. I haven’t previously encountered the notion that Almondsbury were agents for the manufacturer(s). My apologies, of course, David, if they were.
Perhaps some Cardiff-area contributors could settle this one?

David Call

17/03/13 – 15:41

In 1936 and 37 East Midland received 16 Leyland TS7’s with Leyland B35R bodies. These were re-bodied in 1939 with new ECW DP35R bodies. The Leyland bodies were then fitted to some 1930-1 AEC Regals whose bodies were scrapped.
Then in 1947-8 a batch of new AEC Regal I’s were delivered for which bodies were not immediately available, so 14 of the Leyland bodies were transferred from the pre-war Regals onto these new chassis, the remaining 2 being sold on.
The new Regals were then re-bodied by Willowbrook (B35R) in 1951.

John Bunting

17/03/13 – 17:18

David, my reference to Almondbury’s involvement in the lowbridge Crossleys came from the Crossley book and was something I was unfamiliar with until I looked it up for my reply. Your interpretation of the history of the three highbridge examples is pretty much the story as I understand it as well.

David Beilby

18/03/13 – 12:20

Alexander bodied some AEC Regents for Scottish Omnibuses after the war which were based on the pre-war Leyland design There is a shot of one on www.sct61.org.uk

Chris Hough

18/03/13 – 15:42

I remember these buses Chris. They were Regent 3s with preselect gears. They came into service in 1948. They looked very much like a Leyland at the front but had more of a utility look at the rear. Alexanders later refined this body to look more like a Leyland lowbridge body and used it for their own PD1s.

Jim Hepburn

06/09/13 – 16:30

Coras Iompair Eireann (CIE) owned 150 Leyland bodied buses delivered to them in the years 1948/9. One hundred complete Leyland double deckers of the standard Titan chassis and body design then in production for British operators Numbered, R291-390 were delivered between 1948 and 1949. These buses soon became known a ‘Boltons’ due to there similarity to those buses also being operated by Bolton Corporation. A further 50 complete Leyland buses, R391-440 were bought to complete the tram conversion programme in 1949. This batch were known as the ‘Capetown’ class. They differed from the earlier ‘Bolton’ type in having a number of CIE design features and so resembled pre-war Leyland bodies. Twenty nine of this class, R411-440 were PD2/1 chassis of 7ft6in width.

David J. White

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

18/02/14 – 11:38

Sorry to be away from the site for so long, but the intervening period since 15th March 2013 has been taken up with visiting Japan, organising and getting married, visiting the U.S.A., a myriad of jobs at a new house and further work on Australian buses histories.
So my apologies to David Call, Phil Blinkhorn and David Beilby. To David Call, unfortunately I don’t have the negative of 3484 (that I thought was 3494 – although I must admit to not remembering that 3494 was a Southern bus, not a Rochdale Rd bus). Before leaving U.K. I “gave” away a lot of negatives, not understanding the value of them.
In Australia I have sorted all my prints and finally sorted which ones still had negatives and which didn’t. I’ve then scanned those prints without negs (of which 3484 was one because I gave most of my Manchester negs away – bright boy – not). The negs from my Bencini camera are actually reasonably good and its surprising how many rolls sent to a company in Brighton for printing all those years ago, which came back “unable to be printed – too dark” now print up beautifully and I include in those a “Metalcraft” bodied Foden taken on a PSV Circle Tour and a rare Daimler with one of the Doncaster operators on another PSV Circle Tour (sorry I cant be any more precise because I’m at work and don’t have access to my photo folders).
Just looking at a photo of Ashton 67 and Oldham 408 in Wallshaw St – I was on that tour also and have a similar photo to the one posted. I don’t have a neg of that photo either.
Regards to all the fans in the Manchester area and I’m still working on the history of the Panthers and Panthers Cubs that came to Australia. One or two have survived as motor homes.

Ian Lynas

Hunter’s – Leyland Tiger TS7 – JR 6600 – 21


Photograph by “unknown” – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

H W Hunter and Sons
1937
Leyland Tiger TS7
Burlingham B35F

Another from H W Hunter and Sons. New to them in 1937, JR 6600 was a B35F Burlingham bodied Leyland TS7.


Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

In 1954 it was rebodied by Roe as a B39C, so it was around at the same time that they had the two Titans previously featured on this site. I’m 90 per cent sure they had another Leyland single decker but I’ve been unable to trace it. They had a well deserved reputation that you could virtually set your watch by Hunter’s bus and in addition to the service vehicles they had several coaches, all either AEC or Leylands, although they later switched to Volvo’s. They escaped becoming part of NBC and the formation Tyne and Wear PTE didn’t seem to affect them much because their depot and most of their single route were outside the area controlled by the PTE, so they were more or less allowed to continue much as before. However, I think the PTE may have had some influence over the decision to extended the route from North Shields beyond Seaton Delaval to Cramlington. The huge operational area covered by the pre NBC United Automobile Services empire was split up into bite size pieces prior to deregulation, and the area between the Tyne and the Scottish border was taken by the newly formed Northumbria Motor Services, which was in effect a management buyout. I don’t know the circumstances and I wouldn’t want to speculate, but Hunter’s became part of the Group. I think the name lived on for a while, but Northumbria Motor Services were swallowed up by Arriva, and like many other independents the name of W H Hunter is now, just a memory.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

02/01/13 – 07:50

That is a huge seating capacity for a pre-war halfcab chassis. Was it extended when it was rebodied?

Eric Bawden

02/01/13 – 09:06

I wondered the same thing, Eric, and whether it was a road-based prototype for the “economy class” of airline seating!

Pete Davies

02/01/13 – 16:53

A most interesting question and 39 does seem a lot of seats in a vehicle of , presumably, 27’6″ length. One would also have thought that a centre doorway, as opposed to the previous front door, might well reduce the available seat space. However, as the two pictures are taken from roughly very nearly the same perspective the vehicle appears to be the same length in both. It was unusual, but not unknown, for normal length prewar buses to have more seats than ideal space wise, but even the lightweight Lions and Cheetahs taken over by Samuel Ledgard in 1943 from the widow of G.F.Tate of Leeds originally seated 39 in their delightfully “old fashioned” Barnaby bodies.

Chris Youhill

02/01/13 – 17:35

I’ve given all the information I could dig up and I don’t know if the chassis was extended, but two things look a bit odd to me. On the Burlingham body, if you look at the seat above the letter ‘H’ it gives the impression that the seats over the rear axle appear to be facing each other, also the wheels are fairly flush to the side of the vehicle, whereas on the Roe they look to be slightly inboard, as if the vehicle has been widened but the axle length is still the same, or is it me?

Ronnie Hoye

03/01/13 – 06:42

7ft 6in chassis and original body, but 8ft new body, perhaps? If so, this wouldn’t be the only one, and they do look a bit strange!

Pete Davies

03/01/13 – 06:43

Ronnie, I would agree with you that the Roe body looks to be 8ft on a 7ft 6in chassis. The Roe body also has an extra window bay to the Burlingham.
It may be purely body style but the body overhang behind the rear axle looks to be longer on the Roe than the Burlingham, certainly, there are almost two full window bays behind the wheelarch on the Roe as against one and a half on the Burlingham. Also if you look at the exhaust tailpipe it appears to be in the same position in relation to the back axle in both photos yet the Roe overhang, again seems to be longer.
Don’t know if it has anything to do with this discussion but the front wheels, despite the absence of nutguard rings on the Roe are different to those fitted in the Burlingham picture.
As this body looks to be almost identical to the centre entrance Guys placed in service with Darlington in 1952/3 I wonder if Hunter’s body was tagged on to the end of the Darlington order, a not uncommon occurrence at Crossgates Works, even into the ’70s. I believe Darlington’s Guys were B41C.
Has anyone a nearside view of this bus with its Roe Body?

Eric Bawden

03/01/13 – 06:44

My word Ronnie, I think you’ve hit on two very pertinent features there for sure. As regards the “inset” appearance of the wheels on the newer Roe body I would say that the replacement coachwork is eight feet wide on the unaltered 7’6″ TS7 chassis – a practice not unknown in the 1950s especially on single deckers. Your enlargement of the area above the “H” of Hunters reveals an interesting feature. The “A” shaped seat back appears to be a joint support for two seats, one on the left facing backwards and sharing the floor space with a forward facing seat to its rear, and one forward facing one on the right. The four passengers (plus four on the nearside) in the facing seats no doubt had to put their feet on the slightly intruding wheel arches. What a wonderful vehicle in both its forms !!

Chris Youhill

03/01/13 – 06:44

To my eye the newer body looks longer, though not much – the typical Roe high domed roof tends to mask this. 39 seats would mean 10 rows on the offside, 9 on the nearside (both including the rear 5-some). That sounds awfully tight in a length of 27’6″ – minus the length of the cab and thickness of the front bulkhead.

Stephen Ford

04/01/13 – 06:45

Eric, I typed JR 6600 into my search engine, and up came the Park Royal vehicles site with what I take to be a pre delivery photo taken outside the Roe works. It differs slightly from the Darlington Guy’s, as when the doors are closed they form part of the side of the bus, whereas the platform steps are exposed on the Darlington vehicles.

Ronnie Hoye

04/01/13 – 17:43

Thanks Ronnie. After initial difficulty I eventually found the photo on the PRV site.

Eric Bawden

08/01/13 – 07:43

Noting some of the concerns about fitting 39 seats into a body on a 27’6″ chassis so earlier today I took a tape measure to a 1952 Roe body with 39 seats although in an overall 30′ chassis and with a front entrance.
Putting 5 seats across the rear leaves a further 34 seats to be fitted by means of 9 sets of double seats on the offside and a further 8 sets with a door on the nearside. The length of the 30 footer from the bulkhead to the rear of the final pair of seats at the back was 22’2″ with a gap of 29.5/30″ between the same points on adjoining seats.
Turning to the shorter 27’6″ bus under review and allowing the same distance from the front of the bus to the front bulkhead and similar requirements for the rear seats leaves circa 19’6″ for the 9 sets of seats on the offside and would allow a gap of just 25″ between the same point each set of adjoining seats. To me that looked a rather tight fit so I measured the seat gaps on some others from that era and all of them were in the range of 28-30″
To reduce the gap between seats by 5″ in the 1950’s would, in my opinion, require smaller seat bases or otherwise it would be impossible to fit your legs in.

Andrew Beever

08/01/13 – 10:42

Andrew: Although I agree that the extra seats would be tight, your maths isn’t quite right. With a 39 seater there are 10 rows of seats on the offside, including the back bench seat. On the basis of your 29.5″ pitch, the overall length of the 10 rows is 295″. Reduce this by 30″ and the ten seats now have to fit 265″, so the pitch is 26.5″. You lose 3″ per seat, rather than your 5″. I am over 6 ft, with long legs, and can just make a 27″ pitch with a thin seat back with my legs straight, so the average person just about fits OK. Birkenhead used to cram 66 seats onto a PD2 without a 3 seater at the back or a television seat. Those seats were definitely tight for me, and probably similar in pitch to 39 on a 27ft 6in half-cab.

Alan Murray-Rust

08/01/13 – 13:43

Alan, I had specifically excluded the rear seat in my calculations since this seat is effectively fitted into the rounded rear corners with very limited foot room under it.

Andrew Beever

15/01/13 – 16:38

Hunter 21 (JR 6600) had Roe body GO3827 when rebodied 3/54.
Hunter 20 (JR 4901) was the other Leyland TS7 10076 rebodied by Roe in 4/53 (GO3680) also squeezing in 39 seats in its centre entrance body.
Hunter did, of course, have another new Roe body. Fleet number 30 was WTY 843J, a Leyland PDR1A/1R, with H43/29D bodywork

MikeB

16/01/13 – 10:48

Thanks for that, Mike, I’ve been racking my brains, or rather what little is left of them. I knew they had a second Tiger but I’ve been unable to find any records of it, did that also start life with a Burlingham body?

Ronnie Hoye

27/01/13 – 10:30

I’m sure the two single deckers were VTY 360. & TJR 573 this I have to say is from memory many years ago.

Bob Mandale

28/01/13 – 08:40

Bob, MikeB came up with the answer I was looking for. The two single deck buses you refer to were the replacements for JR 4901 and 6600. They were AEC 2MU3RV’s with Plaxton Highwayman B45F bodies. TJR 573 was delivered in 1961 followed by VTY 360 in 1962 (VTY 360 is coming as a separate posting soon). By that time the chassis on 6600 was nigh on 25 years old and from the registration I would estimate 4901 to be a couple of years older. Apart from WTY 843J mentioned by MikeB, I believe the two AEC’s were the last new service buses bought by Hunter’s as all subsequent vehicles were either coaches or D/P’s

Ronnie Hoye

03/04/15 – 05:31

Further to the discussion on the length of JR4901 and JR6600, can I mention that these two vehicles had a rear-facing seat for five across the front bulkhead, and an inward facing single seat on the nearside just ahead of the centre entrance. I also think that the entrance may have been slightly wider than usual for a single decker of that era. I don’t recall the seat spacing as being especially tight, so I would think that the bodies must have been slightly longer than the original ones. Incidentally, the original body above is described as B34F, but it looks to me to be a coach body.

John Gibson

01/06/15 – 07:20

There was a heck of a lot of rebodying of half cab single deckers from 1950 as 38 or 39 seaters once the 27′ 6″ maximum length had been increased to 30 feet.
However, all is not what it seems. Buses for Trent, North Western and Potteries and the Hunter’s Tiger were lengthened without any alteration to the wheelbase of 17′ 6″ because the C&U Regs until 1961 allowed the rear overhang to be up to 50% of the wheelbase. With a front overhang of about 2′ 3″ on, say, Gardner 5LW or AEC 7.7 engined chassis – and a rear overhang of 8′ 9″ it was legal from 1950 to go to a maximum length of 28′ 6″ without altering the wheelbase. This was sufficient for another row of seats to be fitted without any alteration of the chassis.
Indeed, I think it was only Yorkshire Woollen District which actually lengthened the wheelbase of its Willowbrook bodied PS2s to 18′ 9″ when they lengthened them to 30 feet.
Many of the Leyland PS’s taken over by Potteries in the early fifties were already 28′ 6″ long and may have inspired PMT to rebuild its Weymann single deck 17′ 6″ wheelbase OPD2s by substituting a 2′ 7″ long bay for a possible rear door with a 3′ 7″ long standard window bay, increasing the seating capacity in the process.

Alan Johnson

Bournemouth Corporation – Leyland Tiger – NLJ 267 – 89


Copyright Ray Soper

Bournemouth Corporation
1953
Leyland Tiger PSU1/13
Burlingham B41F

This shot is from the Ray Soper “Gallery” contribution A Trolleybus tour in Bournemouth click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments to it.
The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.

17/07/13 – 07:06

This is taken at Southcote Road depot, originally a tram depot. I had many journeys on these Tigers, being regular performers on our daily journey to a neighbouring school to receive our school meals. The bus ride was definitely the best part of that experience!

Grahame Arnold

Wallace Arnold Tours – Leyland Tiger – LNW 262


Photograph by “unknown” – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Wallace Arnold Tours Ltd
1947/1950
Leyland Tiger PS1
Burlingham FC33F

This photograph is yet another from my dusty collection, taken by an unknown photographer. It shows Wallace Arnold LNW 262, one of a large batch of Leyland PS1s purchase in the immediate post-war years to get a head start on the newly-emerging leisure and coaching market. It was bought in 1947 with a Burlingham C33F half-cab body. In 1950, following the trend towards “modernisation”, it reappeared as an FC33F.
At the time, WA were constantly swapping bodies and rebodying chassis to create an up-to-date image at the lowest cost, so I’m not sure if this was a completely new body or simply a rebuilt front end. If it was a new body, what happened to its 3-year old original body?
It was withdrawn in 1957 and saw further service with Wilsons of Hunwick, Prospect of Ferryhill, McClean of Govan and finally to Austins of Stafford in 1963 where it seems to have joined its sister LNW 263.
The only sure thing about this photo is the location – the WA depot and workshops, Chadwick Street, Leeds.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Paul Haywood

30/09/12 – 10:44

I’m sorry, but I’ve always preferred the half-cab version of this body. It just looks better. This “grinning” style looks to have been taken as the inspiration for those ‘smiley’ characters which appear on the forum sections of some websites. Was this style of front end some form of inspiration for that variant of the Seagull which appeared on Bedford SB coaches?

Pete Davies

30/09/12 – 12:19

If that’s a conversion it’s been done very neatly!
Interesting to note the sign in the background, as Wilks and Meade were coachbuilders themselves!

David Beilby

30/09/12 – 12:20

I cant argue with that, Pete. Just one point, some of Northern’s Beadle re-bodies didn’t have a bulkhead behind the driver, but its hard to tell if this one does or not, it may only be a half one, in which case the object of the exercise may have been to leave the passengers feeling less cut off from the driver, that said, I still don’t like it.

Ronnie Hoye

30/09/12 – 12:21

My opinion of these sacrilegious “facelifts” intended to deceive the customers in some way is unprintable on a refined Forum like this one. Samuel Ledgard bought a batch of eight most handsome PS1 Tigers with Duple “porch entrance” bodies in 1948. During the madness years of the 1950s these beautiful coaches were subjected to this indignity by the Samlesbury Engineering Company – the first to be treated, LUB 675, was the worst – with small rectangular windscreens with level lower edges – absolutely awful.
Also, in the marketing “spin” frenzy, operators appeared completely oblivious to the maintenance difficulties and to the misting of windscreens which came with these “improvements.”

Chris Youhill

02/10/12 – 15:28

Wilkes and Meade were a Leeds firm who were bought by Wallace Arnold. They were then set to work on the convoluted post war bodying, re-bodying and partial re-bodying programme (putting full fronts on half cabs). They built many new coaches in the late forties – some for outside customers, and also some buses for Sheffield Corporation. They were finally integrated into Wallace Arnold’s maintenance division and the name disappeared into obscurity.

David Oldfield

02/10/12 – 15:30

David B, Wilkes and Meade were actually part of the Wallace Arnold empire so may have had a hand in the rebuilding. It was bought to provide body building/repair facilities for the coach fleet

Chris Hough

02/10/12 – 15:32

This looks like a completely new body to me. The trim above and below the windows, and around the wheel arches, belong to the same style of body as the front end, not to the half-cab style. If it is a conversion then it’s a wholesale update, not just a front-end job. Incidentally the trim above and below the windows was carried forward to the Seagull.

Peter Williamson

02/10/12 – 15:34

Notwithstanding the impracticalities of full-fronted designs that Chris mentions, but just accepting that it was just the ‘done thing’ at the time, I rather liked the Burlingham ‘SunSaloon’. The grille was a touch flashy and garish I know – so were very many other coach builders’ features in the early fifties – but I always thought that these were very neatly shaped at the front, just as their half cabs had been. Whilst most of us are traditionalists and would much more prefer halfcabs, I think one can understand why coachbuilders turned to full-fronts and full-front rebuilds in the circumstances of the time – it’s just that so many made a dog’s breakfast of the job.

John Stringer

02/10/12 – 15:35

This was a new body, a Burlingham Sun Saloon built in 1950. The original body was transferred to a prewar Leyland or AEC as part of the modernisation programme. Wilks & Meade supplied WA with a total of 40 bodies on new and recon chassis in the period 1946-1950, as well as carrying out a good deal of refurbishment and rebuilding work for the operator. A small number of bodied were also built by Wilks & Meade for other concerns. Quite why this coach was at Wilks & Meade’s premises is not clear, one supposes it had been receiving some attention to its body.

Philip Lamb

03/10/12 – 06:16

Excellent observations, gentlemen, thank you.
Philip, the Wilks & Meade sign was attached to the side of WA’s workshop/office/canteen building and the Wilks & Meade workshop was further up Chadwick Street. WA’s large depot had entrances from Chadwick Street and the parallel Sayner Road, so this coach was probably parked awaiting duty or mechanical attention.
When WA moved to Donisthorpe Street as a (long-term) temporary measure, prior to the completion of their Tour Terminal, depot and workshops in Gelderd Road, this whole site was taken over by Wallace Arnold Sales & Service, a Vauxhall main dealership – and is now owned by Evans Halshaw. You can still see the footprint of the old depot on Google.
In my time with WA (mid 60s) there was only one chap still employed from the Wilks & Meades days, a very fine man called Jack Lye, who was obviously much used for body repairs etc. I can still see him walking up the street carrying long lengths of beading to be cut, drilled and applied to some accident damaged coach.

Paul Haywood

03/10/12 – 10:38

LUA 747_lr

Austin of Woodseaves collected quite a large fleet of Tigers which had started life with Wallace Arnold. If you think the Burlingham Sunsaloon body was an abomination, perhaps you should compare it with this one. LUA 747 started life with a Duple “A type” half-cab body, but was modified with a full-front by their in house bodybuilder Wilks and Meade as shown here. Wilks and Meade produced quite a few similar conversions, all of them using the distinctive tin-front and unmistakable “propeller in an oval” design more usually associated with Plaxtons. Odd that Plaxton should allow this – does anybody know why? (copyright unknown)

Neville Mercer

03/10/12 – 17:50

Looks to me as if a complete Plaxton Consort front up to and including the cab window, not just the grille, has been skilfully grafted on. Presumably this was supplied by Plaxton. Makes for an interesting combination!

Philip Lamb

04/10/12 – 07:29

Thurgood also produced some bodies (usually on Bedford SB chassis) in the late 1950s/early 1960s which used an almost identical “Plaxton Venturer” front. I also seem to recall that Dodd of Troon (AA Motor Services) had a Foden PVSC6 with a very similar full front rebuild, although this may have originally been bodied, as a half-cab, by Burlingham. My copy of the Foden chassis list is out on loan at the moment, so I can’t check this. Are there no old-time Plaxton employees on this website who might clarify the reason for all these Venturer lookalikes?

Neville Mercer

04/10/12 – 07:30

Is the result of the grafting known as a “Duplax”?

Phil Blinkhorn

06/10/12 – 07:24

The fitting of the new front end end was done in 1954. From 1952 WA began ordering coach bodies from Plaxton, Plaxton would have been keen to retain their business. Although the work is described as Wilks and Meade to Plaxton design, most, if not all the components must have been supplied by Plaxton. Wilkes and Meade had previously done similar conversions to Yeates design at the same time as Yeates had converted some of WA’s coaches themselves-was this an exercise in keeping Wilks and Meades workshop occupied between car related jobs?

David Hick

11/10/12 – 16:04

As mentioned, Wallace Arnold’s rebodying and rebuilding programme in the late 40s/early 50s was complex, and is documented in PSV Circle publications. In fact the featured coach, LNW 262, was one of four in a chain of body changes.
(1) LNW 262, as has been mentioned, was a 1947 Leyland PS1 with Burlingham half cab C33F body, which it carried till winter 1952/3.
(2) HUA 904, a 1939 Leyland TS8 then received the half cab Burlingham body from LNW 262.
(3) APT 464, formerley Wilkinson’s of Sedgefield, was fitted with the 1939 Duple C32F from HUA 904 by Comberhill Motors (dealer).
(4) NUA 753 was a 1950 Leyland PS2/3/Burlingham FC33F whose body was then transferred to LNW 262 to produce the coach depicted. Its chassis then went to Plaxtons for a new Venturer FC35F8 body.

David Williamson

12/10/12 – 08:12

David, many thanks for the comprehensive body juggling information. As mentioned in other threads and discussions, WA were very money conscious and never failed to spot a bargain when one arose, and they must have calculated that these complex activities were worthwhile. The strange thing is, I doubt if Mr & Mrs Tourist would have been too bothered about touring in a half-cab or a full-front as long as the seats were comfy and the price was right.

Paul Haywood

13/10/12 – 06:33

Interesting point, Paul. It is well known that as soon as underfloor engined coaches made their appearance, halfcabs were considered dead in the water. Despite the regulated environment there was still real competition in the coaching world, and operators could not bear to see a rival operator with more up-to-date stock than they had. And yet, as you say, this may actually have had very little to do with their customers. My family only used coaches for excursions, but I’m quite sure my parents never noticed which of the Albions used by our local operator had full fronts and which were halfcabs. I did of course, but then at the age of 8 I was already a bus freak!

Peter Williamson

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

16/12/12 – 07:37

Regarding Jack Lye from Wilks and Meads (03/10/12 above), there was a George Lye who used to work occasionally in the WA Gelderd Road bodyshop when he was well into his eighties. He loved the job, and was ex Wilks and Meads – could they be the same man? I was at WA 1978 to the end in 2005.

Jon Hartley

16/12/12 – 08:38

Jon – George it was! Thanks for that memory jog. Pleased to learn that he was still involved with WA so late on. Every time I pass the Gelderd Road “wasteland” I can’t believe how such a comparatively modern hive of activity could have disappeared so quickly. As you were there to the “bitter end”, you must share those sentiments. How are the mighty fallen!

Paul Haywood

Green – Leyland Tiger – PRE 900

Green (Brierley Hill)
1948
Leyland Tiger PS1/1
Burlingham C33F

Seen in the summer of 1961 on a rather run down estate beside Mitcham Common is PRE 900, a Leyland Tiger PS1/1 delivered in July 1948 to Green of Brierley Hill, near Dudley, West Midlands. The C33F body is by Burlingham. I do not know its subsequent history and I cannot see any evidence of legal ownership lettering on the nearside of the vehicle. No trading name is carried either, which suggests that by 1961 it had become a contractors machine. No doubt the registration PRE 900 is now a “cherished” number borne by an otherwise undistinguished motor car, the owner of which is completely oblivious to its decidedly more worthy ancestry. Some history of the Green coaching business may be found here:- www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/63
The following web page gives a broader view of past coach operation in the Black Country:- www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

09/04/17 – 18:00

Didn’t stay long with Green as it passed to Alexandra of Enfield in December 1948.

Keith Clark

10/04/17 – 06:44

Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what the angled black oblong on the bulkhead and the item leading from it are?

Phil Blinkhorn

10/04/17 – 06:46

Very interesting photograph, although the vehicle is anonymous, it appears to retain a working destination blind, set to PRIVATE. Also, I believe this is the first half cab coach I’ve ever seen with a near side mirror in that position, attached to the front wing. I suppose that’s what you call a wing mirror in every sense of the description!

Chris Barker

10/04/17 – 09:36

Rear view mirror, Phil.

David Oldfield

10/04/17 – 09:37

Thank Chris, a mirror it is!

Phil Blinkhorn

10/04/17 – 09:37

This wing mirror subject has come up before in discussions about the Margo Regal 1. Nearside mirrors weren’t officially required in the early post war period when PRE 900 was built, and this style of half canopy left only the wing as the place to fix one. This mirror does look like a home made effort, but driving without one must have been decidedly nerve wracking.

Roger Cox

11/04/17 – 07:15

LGOC/London Transport, at least up to LT/ST’s had a metal stick with a small knob on the top affixed to the wing for an indication of parking near the kerb These buses and later ones had rear view mirrors on the bodywork on both sides at roughly driver level. These items can been seen on my photo of the Tilling ST here: www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/

Chris Hebbron

11/04/17 – 07:16

Others fitted nearside mirrors as shown here: www.flickr.com/photos/

Stephen Bloomfield

11/04/17 – 17:38

Nearside mirrors on canopied vehicles work well and give adequate but not great nearside visibility.
I have a number of non canopied single deckers and nearside mirror positioning is standard ie nearside front bulkhead but the angle of the mirror and size becomes really important in making them of any use.
I find myself when driving continually ducking and diving to get max visibility especially for vehicles/cyclists coming up the nearside. A move to convex or larger mirrors only partially solves the problem as this then gives rise to proximity issues.
I had never seen a mirror positioned like on PRE but it does make some sense other than aesthetics

Roger Burdett

12/04/17 – 07:26

I could never understand why London Transport, very advanced in its specifications for “own design” post war fleet, insisted on fitting a minuscule circular mirror for the driver’s nearside visibility. Only the RF class, as I recall, had decently sized rectangular mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. Even the private hire RFWs had the little circular things.

Roger Cox

Ribble – Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2 – LCK 712 – 998

Ribble Leyland Tiger Cub

Ribble Motor Services
1958
Leyland Tiger Cub
Burlingham “Seagull” Mk 3 C41F

We are travelling in style today on a rather nice coach or as when I was a young lad I would always say “are we going on a chara” more than likely originates from charabanc. The Yorkshire dialect as a tendency to shorten words and does not use a new word if the old one will suffice. Did you have a word other than coach for coach, and whilst we are at it, have you a different word for a bus, I had a friend from Oldham Lancashire who called a bus a “buzz”, let me know along with your area, leave a comment.
Anyway that’s enough of that back to the Ribble, the “Seagull” body was very popular for the period not surprising really they did look rather sleek at the time. Ribble also had the Mk 2 version of the “Seagull” built 1953/4 but they had centre entrances. I have a photo of a 1957 Yorkshire Traction “Seagull” I think it is a Mk 2.

An uncle of mine, a native of St Helens, always referred to a coach as a SALOON.

Pete Davies

Which was correct as the replacement for the charabanc was the Saloon – or all weather – Coach.

David Oldfield

The bodywork on this is actually of the Mk. 6 version of the Seagull, easily distinguished by the side glazing which is set in “window pans” after the fashion of Burlingham’s service bus body of the time. Very few of this design were built apart from the Ribble batch, but Harper Bros of Heath Hayes had some on Guy Arab LUF chassis. One of these at least is preserved. I have just written an article on the various breeds of Seagull which I will be sending to the website as soon as I can get round to typing it!

Neville Mercer

When working for Ribble at Carlisle depot in 1964 I was detailed to take over a Tiger Cub/Seagull identical to this one at Carlisle when it arrived from Manchester en route to Glasgow. With 4 speed (I think) gearbox and 2 speed axle they were lovely machines to drive even up the A 74 trunk road which was little better than a glorified country lane in those days. Although I remember well the large fleet of Austin 5 ton tippers belonging to a Carlisle scrap merchant hauling rock on the construction site when the section from Telford Bridge to Beattock Summit was being converted to dual lane.

Gerald Walker

29/01/12 – 07:25

Southdown buses and coaches were always referred to as cars for many years even into NBC days. I totally agree with Gerald Walker about the Tiger Cub with 4 speed box and 2 speed axle they had a lively performance and light controls and excellent brakes, the secret was to master the 2 speed axle and use it properly. Ours were fitted with Weymann Fanfare bodies which were solidly built and comfortable. I have to say light controls and brakes were not at that time a common trait with Leylands.

Diesel Dave

29/01/12 – 16:27

Saloons/Cars, as hangovers from the past, bring to mind older conductors, even in the early 60’s, still saying, when the inside was full, “Plenty of room outside” from open-top days.

Chris Hebbron

29/06/13 – 15:20

I started my apprenticeship at Frenchwood body shop which we shared with the body builders in 1962 and worked on most bus numbers 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, and 1600s with 1700s just about starting the overhaul on the bus bodies, one instance whist cleaning the boot of a Seagull coach some one closed the doors, and with using cellulose thinners after 15 mins I was drunk as a lord, light headed and later, with a bad head, but I left in 1964 and went to Atkinson vehicles to finish my time, in the service department and was there for 12 years.

James Lynch

23/11/13 – 07:51

One of these worked out of Whiteleas for George Wimpey Contractor in the 60s and 70s, it was a former Ribble coach and had reg LCK ???

Frank Lowe

Yorkshire Traction – Leyland Tiger Cub – LHE 506 – 1078


Photo by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Yorkshire Traction
1957
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2
Burlingham Seagull C41F

If you go back to a previous posting at this link you will be able to compare the difference between this “Yorkshire Traction Seagull” bodywork and the “Ribble Seagull” . The main difference that strikes me is the Horizontal split windscreen and slightly different lighting arrangement. Is this a Mk 2 or Mk 3? Maybe they are both Mk 3s and in the one year age gap improvements to the screen were made. If you know, let me know, leave a comment.

06/03/13 – 16:46

This Seagull is a Mark V. This was available with either front or central entrance and replaced the central entrance Mark III and forward entrance Mark IV. The distinguishing feature of the Mark V from the models it replaced was the single piece rear windscreen with rear quarter lights. The Mark V was produced for the 1957 and 1958 seasons. The windscreen arrangement was optional on the Mark IV, V and VI, either single piece flat screens or horizontally split. For example, Ribble had Mark IV and Mark VI Seagulls with flat screens, whilst North Western, Trent, Wallace Arnold and Yelloway (at least) had Mark V Seagulls with flat screens.

David Williamson

Wallace Arnold Tours – Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2 – U 8339

Wallace Arnold Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2

Wallace Arnold Tours Leeds 
1958
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2
Burlingham Seagull C41F

I don’t claim to be more expert than anyone else but I am a huge fan of Burlingham and regard them as one the very best coachbuilders ever. Mark/Series numbers are a bit of a mystery since they were extremely small variations between certain types – and a new number for each.
This is putting 2 and 2 together and getting into the making 5 territory, but I think I can piece most of the Mark numbers together from what little evidence I have.

Mark I – The original centre entrance Seagull on heavyweight chassis such as an AEC Regal IV and Leyland Royal Tiger.

Mark II – Basically the same centre entrance body on a medium weight chassis such as an AEC Reliance and Leyland Tiger Cub. The earlier Ribble Motor Services 1953/4 Leyland Tiger Cub Seagulls Fleet numbers 926/945 FCK 426/440 & FRN 675/679 are certainly of this mark.

Mark ? – Forward entrance/lightweight chassis such as Bedford (SBG/SBO) and the Commer Avenger was this the Mark III

Mark IV – Front entrance body on medium weight chassis such as an AEC Reliance and Leyland Tiger Cub.

Mark ?

Mark VI – Front entrance interim style with radiused (bus?) window panes. The later Ribble Motor Services 1956/8 Leyland Tiger Cub Seagulls Fleet numbers 977/1018  LCK 889/732 I think are of this mark

Mark VII – Final full coach version (similar to Mark IV but with Duple rear end screens)

I believe new numbers were given for the slightest variation. That being said, what was the Mark III and could the missing Mark V have anything to do with the Ford 570E when it was finally introduced? If you know the differences between the Marks or if you can through a little light on any of the above please leave a comment.

Copy by David Oldfield photograph by Paul Haywood

The Mark numbers you refer to are the ones which were used for Seagull bodies on underfloor engined chassis. The Mk2 differed from the Mk1 in having a doubled chrome “tank shape” moulding beneath the window line. The Mk3 (introduced in 1953) reverted to a single chrome moulding and had a slightly restyled rear end. The Mk4 offered the alternative of a front entrance (all previous Seagulls had been centre entrance) and also had the option of a front dome destination blind box. The Mk5 replaced the Mk3 in 1955 and differed from it in offering a choice of front or centre entrance. It also featured flat one-piece glass panels in the front windscreen as opposed to the two-piece, slightly curved units previously fitted. The Mk6, as you correctly state, differed from the Mk5 in having its side windows fitted into radiused (and slightly recessed) window pans for ease of maintenance. The variant was built at the request of Ribble Motor Services and there were few other customers. The final “heavyweight” Seagull in this sequence was the Mk7, introduced in 1958 and featuring much longer side windows than previous models. This was in response to Plaxton’s introduction of the trendsetting Panorama design, but the Burlingham model proved less popular than they might have hoped. As a result it was replaced in 1960 by the Seagull 70 with its pseudo-American styling, and this was used by Scottish Omnibuses, East Midland, Trent, and other operators although only in penny numbers.
Lightweight chassis such as Bedford SBs were given a design of bodywork which mimicked the then current Seagull design, but as far as I know the body never had an official name although many (including some Burlingham employees) referred to it as “the Baby Seagull”. The final, rather ugly version of this body made its appearance in 1959 and was the butt of so many unfavourable comments that it lasted just a single year. In 1960 it was replaced by the Seagull 60, similar in styling to the previously mentioned Seagull 70 for heavyweight chassis. It sold well, but operators soon discovered that the slightly raised “clerestory roof”, made of see-through plexiglass, was prone to leakage. The design was relaunched the following year, with the leakage problem solved, as the Seagull 61 which featured far too much front-end chromework for most tastes. The last two new Burlingham-badged designs emerged in 1962. The Seagull 62 was barely distinguishable from its immediate predecessor, but coach operators were offered an alternative, the curiously named Burlingham Gannet which featured a restyled front end and more glasswork. Both models sold poorly and from 1963 onwards were replaced by the Duple (Northern) Firefly.

Neville Mercer

19/09/12 – 07:11

Ribble Motor Services FRN 679 mentioned in Mark II above was definitely a Royal Tiger rather than a Cub.
I used to travel to school in it and always liked to sit at the front as the view was superb. Comfy seats too.
Any idea where it went?

David

29/09/12 – 12:35

The small batch of coaches featured in Paul’s photo, 8338 – 8343 U, were indeed splendid vehicles but with “minor” limitations of which the Company seemed blissfully unaware. I can speak from bitter experience, having operated the Yorkshire – Torquay/Paignton night service with them. The passengers all seemed to equip themselves with enough enormous luggage to suffice for emigration to the Southern Hemisphere – and it was the very devil to stow it all in the shallowish boot of the “Seagulls.”
The return journey (non stop for we drivers) was scheduled at around thirty hours and, due to the lack of motorways/by-passes, we were always very late back into Leeds on Saturday nights – the Tiger Cubs and the top speed limit for coaches meant that there was no chance of achieving the timetable – it was not a pleasant assignment at all in those days. That’s in no way a criticism of the Tiger Cubs or of the Seagulls – simply wildly over optimistic and unrealistic scheduling by the Company.

Chris Youhill

North Western – Leyland Tiger Cub – LDB 709 – 709


Copyright John Smith

North Western Road Car
1957
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2T
Burlingham C41F

Awhile ago the above photo was sent to me with the following comment.

I wondered if this picture of a North Western coach taken on the A5085 Blackpool Road, Lea, Preston heading towards/away from Blackpool (see comments) would interest you? My dad (Jack Smith) was a Police Sergeant and is driving the Lancashire Constabulary MGA in the picture. I think it would be 1962.

Well you don’t have to ask twice when there is a Seagull in the shot, especially one in full flight. I don’t think the coach was the purpose of the shot maybe it was taken from another MGA police car. I am not certain of the Mark number of the Seagull but researching through Neville Mercers great article ‘Burlingham’s flock of Seagulls’ I’m going plum for a Mark 5 with the optional roof box display. The reasons are, the year, a one piece windscreen (no horizontal crossbar) and slim side window pillars, I think I will soon find out if I am wrong.

Photograph and Part Copy contributed by John Smith

01/04/12 – 09:22

Yes, it’s a Mark Five – numbers of this batch also served in blue and cream with NWRCC subsidiaries Melba Motors and Altrincham Coachways. North Western’s earlier flock of Seagulls (with FDB registrations) were Mark Fours and some of these also passed to Melba.

Neville Mercer

02/04/12 – 07:27

I don’t think it’s heading towards Blackpool though. Quite apart from the fact that it says Manchester on the blind, this appears to be the spot, looking towards Blackpool, which means the coach is heading towards Manchester. //g.co/maps/t3dq2

Peter Williamson

12/04/12 – 06:05

It looks like the location is Blackpool Road (A5085) approaching the Pedders Lane junction at Ashton, Preston. The two bungalows behind the vehicle are the giveaway.

Mike

29/06/15 – 06:53

This is before the last bus stop before the traffic lights at Lea, the police station is opposite, we used to live in the first bungalow. Happy times

R Cooper

02/04/22 – 05:43

Thanks for all the information in the comments! I had to laugh that in my message to the group (when I sent the photo), that I queried if the destination was Blackpool or Manchester! Maybe I was thinking the conductor hadn’t changed it from Blackpool for the return journey.

John Smith

Bournemouth Corporation – Leyland Royal Tiger – NLJ 272 – 94

Bournemouth Corporation - Leyland Royal Tiger - NLJ 272 - 262

Bournemouth Corporation
1954
Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13
Burlingham B42F

NLJ 272 is a Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13 with Burlingham B42F body, new to Bournemouth Corporation in 1954. She is seen on Southampton Common, while taking part in the Southampton City Transport Centenary rally on 6 May 1979.

Bournemouth Corporation - Leyland Royal Tiger - NLJ 272 - 262

This second view is a close one of the Royal Tiger badge. Compare the Tiger with the ‘fleetname’ on the Ellen Smith Leopard published a while ago! See it at this link

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

27/05/16 – 06:20

That brings back many memories. These buses were regulars on our ‘school dinner run’ through Winton, in the early 1960s, between two schools. They were a brighter bus than the Park Royal bodied ‘RRU’ versions, but they could be rather warm on hot sunny days, in slow-moving traffic, as the rooflights had no means of shading.

Grahame Arnold