East Yorkshire Motor Services 1966 Leyland Panther PSUR1/2R Marshall B49F
A pair of Panthers owned by East Yorkshire with Marshall bodywork. If you click on Daimler or Halifax Corporation in the side navigation and scroll down to the Daimler Roadliner you can see the similarity of the Marshall bodywork somehow the Daimler has one more seat. The Panther was available with either a low or high frame chassis these two by the height of the seats have the high frame version.
Even though this pair of Panthers may be a bit modern for some, you surely must admit that glorious dark blue and primrose livery sets them off a treat. It’s a shame Peter Shipp, respected owner of EYMS, still can’t be persuaded to return his buses to this stylish scheme, smart as the present cream and dark red may be.
Brendan Smith
I do so agree. Blue, and cream, are such neglected shades. You can’t beat EYMS indigo and cream.
David Oldfield
I work for EYMS and totally agree that the blue livery looks much nicer than the red and cream. If you look at the new Wrightbus which has been repainted into the old livery you will see that it looks great.
Terry Malloy
Absolutely! The old EYMS indigo and primrose was something very special. Living in York as a kid, I was used to seeing West Yorkshire’s and United’s standard Tilling red, the occasional green and cream of West Riding and Reliance, as well as York Pullman’s very smart magenta, yellow and cream. But EYMS livery was quite outstanding; just the sight of it made one wish to get on board. As Terry Malloy says, it was great. How about starting a petition to Mr Shipp?
Roy Burke
Odd that EYMS bought the PSUR1/2 coach chassis (straight frame) for these buses – rather than the PSUR1/1 low floor bus chassis.
Peter G Greaves
I must agree, concerning the Indigo & Primrose traditional livery, as this was the livery that I grew up with, taking it for granted, until the advent of NBC red (ugh!), however I do think that the Burgundy & Primrose is as good (if not better..)
Keith Easton
Burgundy and Primrose is excellent – but why not Indigo? Rather like my post at Rawthenstall PD2 about Sheffield trying green out. There was nothing wrong with the green – it just wasn’t cream and blue.
David Oldfield
Agreed David, but I’m an Aries, a fire sign, so I prefer shades of red, but indigo isn’t. Just an afterthought… I wonder what PD1A number 509 (JRH 982) which was painted in the experimental purple and primrose livery, which it received in the early 1950’s, actually looked like. I’ve seen black & white photos, but never any colour ones.
Keith Easton
Keith, the purple and primrose PD1 looked absolutely awful – it remains in the memory still – an thankfully cut no ice. It would have been bad with any operator but the contrast with the proud and dignified EYMS image was distressing to say the least. The large fleet of EYMS PD1s really were the tops for me, and carried an interesting departure from the usual Roe polished wooden window surrounds, having mid blue gloss paint finish instead – equally pleasing. I was in Bridlington when the changeover from Williamson’s fascinating and well loved vehicles on their two town services gave way to the EYMS PD1s and smartly uniformed staff with metal “EYMS” badges on the lapels – a week of two equally interesting extremes that was, and I was sad and glad at the same time to witness it.
Chris Youhill
By a weird coincidence this is the same vehicle referred to in my article on Lower Mosley Street Bus Station. It really stood out amid all the red vehicles of NWRCC, Ribble, etc. Made my day!
Neville Mercer
29/01/12 – 16:58
Yes I agree the blue livery would suit modern day EYMS vehicles.I remember these working into Leeds on the Yorkshire Coast services when wellington street was a riot of colour. Did they make it into the so called NBC blue?
Tony Greig
13/02/12 – 07:32
These Marshall bodied Panthers were some of the most elegant vehicles in the EY fleet, and it is a shame that none exist in preservation. To me, as with the other correspondents in this article, indigo and primrose was and always will be the true EY livery. I agree that it would be good to have todays fleet returned to traditional livery. As far as I know, there are no colour pics of JRH 982 in existence.
Ribble Motor Services 1964 Leyland Panther PSUR1/2RT Marshall DP49F
Odd man out in the Ribble fleet for over ten years was the first production Leyland Panther, which I photographed outside the September 1964 Earls Court Commercial Motor Show. It is possible that it entered Ribble service for a spell before the show, and early on in its career it ran on the Blackpool to London service, presumably on hire to Standerwick. It operated from Preston garage for most of its life. Withdrawn from service in 9/75, no further owners are known to me. Photographs of it actually in service are few and far between, the few I have seen are usually on private hire work. Any recollections or in service photos would be of great interest! It seems that Panther coaches were not too common. From ‘Bus Lists On The Web’ and Doug Jack’s ‘Leyland’ book, I see that there were some other PSUR1/2 coaches for the home market, as follows:
15 for East Yorkshire in 1966, with Marshall bus bodies! B49F (why use a coach chassis you may ask!) 2 for East Yorkshire with Metro Cammell C44F bodies in 6/67 4 for East Yorkshire in 1/68 with Marshall DP49F bodies 5 for East Yorkshire in 1968 with Plaxton C44F bodies 1 for Soudley Valley Coaches, Glos in 11/66 with Plaxton C51F body 10 for Seamarks of Westoning, Beds with O.680 engines and Plaxton C51F bodies in 1968 (full air change ?) 6 for Seamarks with Plaxton C51F bodies in 1969 4 for Skills of Nottingham, two in 1969 and two PSUR1B/2R in 1971 all with Plaxton C51F bodies
Photos of any of these would be of interest. Many more were exported, which was also the case with the bus version, which did well in Australia.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Peter G Greaves
This unique Panther was the reason that Ribble continued to buy large numbers of Leopards (bus, DP and coach versions) and ultimately why they became a major RE user. It was a disaster. Unreliable, it probably slept in the corner of Frenchwood for much of its life and was condemned to private hire to avoid the (bad) publicity of breakdown on high profile long distance express services. The sad fact was that the Leopard was reliable, the Panther not. Some, including Preston Corporation and the Aussies, persisted with the Panther and seemed to make it work but most British operators – including Manchester – had similar experience. It put back the case for low(er) floor vehicles for some years – and certainly until the RE was made available on the open market later in the decade. [I think that you will also find that Maidstone and District had similar numbers and types of Panther as East Yorkshire.] This must also have been a fairly early Marshall body for both Ribble and BET – who became a major, and repeat, customer of this well built body. [Even stars have Achilles heels though and I gather in grand old age – i.e. in preservation – some Marshalls need quite a bit of tlc, otherwise their front platform can fall off!] The East Yorkshire Met-Camms were full coaches of the Topaz design – although I seem to remember that that was the “Bedford” designation and that Leylands had a different name. After closure of Weymann at Addlestone, Metro-Cammell took on the mantle of coaches from the line of the Fanfare and Castillians. They were true coaches but they never realised a balanced design that pleased either generally or, indeed, as a coach.
David Oldfield
All the early rear-engined single deckers – Roadliner, Panther, Panther Cub and Swift/Merlin – were pretty disastrous, apart from the Bristol RE, which possibly benefited from having the radiator at the front and the engine mounted slightly further forward than the others. As you say, some operators persevered, and Sunderland reckoned that by the time they got it right the Panther was a really good vehicle. Their experience included a comparison of bodies between MCW’s, which was attached to the chassis throughout, and a much more successful effort by Strachan which featured a separate cantilevered subframe supporting the rear end of the body, allowing the chassis to go its own way. According to Stewart J Brown’s “Luxury Travel” book, the East Yorkshire MCW coaches were designated Topaz II.
Peter Williamson
03/09/11 – 05:41
This machine was used in the late 60s and early 70s at various times in addition to Private Hire on Stage Carriage and on two or three times to my knowledge on the X30 Preston to Glasgow, X11 Preston Edinburgh and the X20 Preston to Glasgow Night Service Express. As these services operated as a duplicate to the peak season service from Manchester and Liverpool any coach or DP could be used from Preston.
Brian Cowdall
04/09/11 – 07:54
I always disliked this type of incongruous sharp cornered radiator grille on otherwise handsome bodies. They gave the impression of having been assembled “in house” from spare material after possible accident repairs and never looked right to me.
Chris Youhill
12/01/14 – 09:15
I travelled on a Ribble bus tour in 1963 from London to Nairne and back to London. I still have the original ticket and bus itinerary. I also have a photo of the bus and the driver. I was 18 years old and as I was the youngest on the tour I was nominated to get married at Gretna Green to the bus driver. (who was married with children). They are happy memories.
Pam
12/01/14 – 11:10
Coach tours can be friendly like that, Pam, even today! I re-read these posts, David O, and you made mention of the closure of Weymanns at Addlestone, just down the road from you. I wondered if there was the slightest trace left of their factory, or even the name applied to a business park, a plaque in the pavement, or……anything?
Chris Hebbron
12/01/14 – 17:11
Pam Would there be any chance of having a copy of the picture you have of the Driver and Coach for my website. This is at //www.psvbadges.org.uk I have a page for Driver and Conductor pictures. Thanks very much
Stephen Howarth
13/01/14 – 08:33
Chris. Sadly the answer is no, no, no and no. It is “covered” by speculative offices and the name Aviation Park – reflecting its use BEFORE Weymanns.
David Oldfield
14/01/14 – 08:13
I’ve just noticed the advertisement for the Ford Corsair – if people hadn’t taken photographs of buses how much of this incidental history would have been lost? Anyway, this has reminded me of something that bothered me a few years ago: the Corsair was presumably around at the same time as the Cortina MkI, but the Cortina lived on and the Corsair didn’t – can anybody slightly longer in the tooth than myself tell me whether the Corsair was positioned above or below the Cortina. Anyway, back to the bus. Were all the problems with the chassis? or might some have been down to the bodybuilders failing to account for the stresses caused by the flexing of all that weight at the rear – Strachans’ bodies were cantilevered I think, allowing the rear-end to flex, and didn’t suffer the problems that led, I believe, to a batch of Willowbrook(?)-bodied single-deck Fleetlines in the Northern fleet almost cracking open. As the RE’s engine was situated further forward than on other types then that would have reduced the stresses on the bodywork.
Philip Rushworth
14/01/14 – 09:44
Re the Corsair, the first thing to understand is the Ford line up in the UK in the mid 1960s. The bottom of the range was the Anglia, next came the Cortina, then the Corsair, after which the Zephyr and Zodiac topped off the range. Each type had a range of factory options so each model was in effect a range within a range. The Ford Consul had been produced until 1962 as the bottom tier of the Consul/Zephyr/Zodiac range. Ford then used the Consul name in a different way producing the Consul Classic 4 door and the Consul Capri two door until the end of 1963. The types were not to the public’s taste and disappeared at the end of 1963. The bottom tier of the Consul range became the Consul Cortina, generally known as the Cortina Mk1. The Corsair first appeared at the 1963 Motor Show as the Consul Corsair as a replacement for the Consul Classic and went on sale in 1964. It was positioned above the Cortina and was offered in various versions. Originally powered by 1500cc Kent series in line engines, in 1965 the engine was replaced by a V-4 1600cc unit which contributed to the cars deteriorating sales from then on as it was noisy, rough and not as responsive as the 1600E Cortina Mk 2 which took many Corsair customers. Ford had introduced a 2000cc engine for the Corsair but its price point only worked in favour of the 1600E. The company also produced a Corsair 2000E aimed at competing, with of all things, the current Rover range but the cache off the Rover name meant more than price to most customers at that level. When I worked for United Biscuits in 1967 we reps had Cortina 1300s and the area managers had 1600cc powered Corsairs. In 1970 Ford re-jigged its range. The Escort, which had appeared in 1968, replaced the Anglia and also appealed to 1300cc basic Cortina Mk2 buyers so the Mk3 Cortina was a bigger car than the Mk2 and replaced the more expensive Mk2s and the Corsair. By 1972 the Zodiac/Zephyr had gone and were replaced by the Granada. With 310,000 Corsairs sold and a demand for a larger than Cortina but cheaper than Granada model appearing, Ford reintroduced the Consul name using the Granada body with a V-4 1996c engine and a V-6 giving 2495 cc. I had one of the former which was as horrible as the V-4 Corsair but I later had 2000cc Pinto engined Consul produced from 1974 and that was some car.
Phil Blinkhorn
14/01/14 – 10:09
Phil, there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence about bodywork on the first generation rear engined single deckers of the 1960’s, but I’ve never seen any formal article produced about the subject. I’m sure many of us can trace articles or even books which cover the faults and failings (and good points?) of Leyland Panthers, AEC Swifts, Daimler Roadliners, and Seddon Pennine RUs. (I’m omitting the very first of all – the Bristol RE – both Bristol and ECW got that right!). But I have yet to discover anything formal about the merits of the bodybuilders, such as Marshall, MCCW, Strachans, Park Royal, Alexander, etc. The most that appears are hints such as those related on this site, or similar letters in magazines such as Classic Bus. It would be great if “someone out there” with the knowledge and/or the contacts to research this topic could thoroughly explore the topic and produce a definitive paper on it. Chassis manufacturers have had a fair share of material written about both their successes and failures – so why not the body builders?
Michael Hampton
15/01/14 – 05:51
The Plaxton Derwent bodied Roadliners at PMT survived quite well whereas the Marshall bodied ones simply broke their backs. The Derwent was timber framed where the Marshall was steel framed. I’m not sure it’s necessarily quite as simple as that. The Seddon RUs with Pennine dual doorway bodies at Huddersfield were a disaster, probably even worse than the Marshall Roadliners. Only they were given a major rebuild by Pennine including removal of the centre doorway did they become acceptable. My total experience of Swifts was the two Huddersfield Roe bodied ones which I remember more for AH505 engine problems than ones associated with the bodies. Perhaps the nadir was reached with the pair of Halifax Pennine bodied Fleetline SDs – now there was a pile of junk!
Ian Wild
15/01/14 – 05:56
Phil, thanks for all that – it answered my question, and then some. What are you like on Rootes-group offerings of the same period? Michael, I suppose with coachwork the interest is in the aesthetic of the product, rather than what lies underneath. Two of the least-robust bodies of all time seem to have been semi-coaches produced for NBC towards the end of its existence . . . ECW’s B51(?) – its re-working of its early 1970s design; and Willowbrook’s offering of a couple of years earlier. Although I understand that some of these steel-framed BET standards suffered later in life, which seemingly accounted for the eagerness with which some BET companies snapped-up ECWs aluminium-framed offerings once they became available on the open-market.
Philip Rushworth
15/01/14 – 08:29
Ask away Philip.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/01/14 – 08:55
It depends on the extent of design cooperation and integrity. The B51 failed because the original was designed AROUND the RELH. When put on a mid-engined Leopard, the boot fell off into the road – for SELNEC/GMT, even before the B51 version. Strachans built the most successful Swifts with a floating rear, that is NOT tied to the chassis and therefore not prone to breaking the back of the chassis. The Willowbrooks were simply cheaply flung together with even less rust protection than the dreadful contemporary Duples. [Down to a price for NBC.] Most bodies were good but rear underfloor engined buses were new and most people had not even imagined the potential problem which became a major disaster. I read recently that the Weymann BETs were the best – and they were not by any means the most numerous. Likewise, apart from the nadir of the dreadful early ’60s (metal framed) bodies, Roe and Park Royal were among the very best.
David Oldfield
31/08/14 – 06:10
I was an inspector at Bolton depot 1969. Reading all these comments brings back happy memories.
Vincent Fitzpatrick
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
20/10/15 – 06:59
Although an engineer, I never fully understood body construction! However, a few comments from my own career experiences: I am interested to see comments that Strachans bodied Panthers survived better than Willowbrook bodied versions in the north. This was not my experience at Maidstone where the Strachans bodies moved amidships sufficient to cause aluminium dust to appear between all internal trim panels. Indeed Vin Owen, CE, got Willowbrook in (about 1971) to decide how to strengthen up the Strachans bodies, because the Willowbrook Panthers were sound! From what I recall, one feature of the strengthening was external curved steel angles fitted at the roof panel joints. I cannot recall the Panthers being much trouble otherwise although they were then at the back end of their lives. They were prone to engine fires, but that was a period when AEC 590 Reliances were also in similar trouble. I suspect that the single deck Fleetlines were introduced in Medway towns to replace Panthers. My only other memory is that the driving position seemed remarkably low and not very OMO friendly. With regard to the ECW B51 body, I recall when at UCOC complaining to the seat manufacturer that the seat frame was cracking in the seat near the emergency door. I had the dubious pleasure of telling him a few days after he had visited to see, that I had discovered the reason for the cracking – the seat frame was holding the back of the body together! A huge modification programme was swiftly instituted by ECW.
Bradford Corporation Transport 1969 Leyland Panther PSUR1A/1 Marshall B45D
For 1969, Bradford Corporation ordered ten chassis of the rear horizontal engine variety, its first new single deckers since a couple of AEC Reliances in 1958. The ten new chassis were split between AEC’s Swift and Leyland’s Panther, but, since the chassis design of the two types was virtually identical apart from the engine manufacture and the radiator position – at the rear on the AEC and at the front on the Leyland – the exercise was probably intended to ascertain which power unit was best suited to the challenging Bradford terrain. All ten were equipped with Marshall B45D bodies. Seen above in April 1970 is the last of the batch, No. 512, NAK 512H which was delivered in December 1969. In the event, no further single deckers were to be bought by Bradford before the infliction upon all the West Yorkshire municipalities from 1st April 1974 of the all embracing WYPTE. In this new conglomeration, the five Bradford Panthers were the only examples of their type, and the PTE Director of Engineering, a certain Geoffrey Hilditch, soon sold them all to Chesterfield. A picture of one in service in that town may be seen here (a very long page, but about halfway down – search for Chesterfield in the browser :- www.mikesbuspages.com/municipalbuses.htm In his book Steel Wheels and Rubber Tyres, GGH says that pictures of the Bradford Panthers in original livery are hard to come by – he should have asked me.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
11/09/17 – 06:38
Nice pic! Stuart Emmet Another story on these 10 was they were bought to start OMO; however double decker OMO was approved legally soon after they were ordered, so they were redundant as far as that went. They spent their time inventing conversions to single decker routes and seemed to settle on the 61 as shown – about a 25-minute journey across town from Undercliffe to St. Enochs that went for around 5 mins over roads in the Canterbury Ave area that were not used by other routes.Effectively a peak hour route every 10 min from 0700 to 0900 and 1600 to 1800 with a few journeys between 1200 & 1400 hours that required 6 buses for the 10-minute headway. The rest of time they seemed to rest/in-filled as spares.
Stuart Emmet
12/09/17 – 06:46
From 1969, BCT participated in White Rose Express service X33, Bradford – Sheffield, which entered its area at Birkenshaw. The other joint operators reluctantly agreed, even though Bradford’s entitlement was no more than one journey per week! In practice, as explained to me by the late Stanley King, Bradford saved up their mileage until they were able to operate a bus for a whole week, replacing a Yorkshire Woollen duty. BCT had few single deckers and I believe these Panthers and the contemporary Swifts were used. Does anyone recall seeing a photo of a Bradford bus on X33, as I’ve never seen one.
Geoff Kerr
12/09/17 – 06:47
Just about everyone was caught with the change of legislation which allowed DD OMO. Sheffield certainly was – initially with purchase of the Swifts and subsequently with the change of Bristol order from REs to VRs.
David Oldfield
13/09/17 – 06:46
In the lovely book Colours of West Yorkshire the author states that these were ordered because agreement could not be reached with the Unions to operate OMO double deckers. I.e. The legislation already permitted it but not the Unions until agreement was reached later on.
Sam Caunt
14/09/17 – 07:04
The Bradford manager at the time was not in favour of one man buses These and the Swifts were also used on the express X72 which ran between Bradford and Leeds at peak hours.
Chris Hough
15/09/17 – 06:45
I recall someone (who I believe was very knowledgeable) telling me that as late as 1981/2 that Bradford area buses of West Yorkshire PTE were around 80% crew operated.
Dave Towers
16/09/17 – 06:47
The change in legislation to permit double deck OPO was in 1966, and I doubt that an order for vehicles to be delivered in 1969 had been placed before that date – i.e. the fact that D/D OPO was possible would have been known. I like to see a clear and readable destination display, but in this case I suspect that a slightly smaller window would have fitted the lines of the vehicle rather better!
Nigel Frampton
17/09/17 – 06:55
Another story was that the unions rejected the DD legislation but SD would be OK It was also said on delivery of these SD’s unions OKed the use of DD OMO How far this any of this is fact or fiction seems lost in time.
Stuart Emmet
18/09/17 – 07:19
I started working at Bradford City Transport in the Traffic Office in October 1973. The story of OMO at BCT is intriguing. I cannot comment on the position of General Manager Edward Deakin in relation to OMO, although I could find out as Bob Tidswell his PA is still heal and hearty. I can say that Traffic Superintendent John Hill was not very enthusiastic about OMO, and from all accounts the T&GWU branch was not very keen, either. Around 1971 or 1972 the position of Asst. Traffic Superintendent became vacant and Brian Eastwood, who was Traffic Superintendent at Maidstone Corporation, was appointed to the post. Maidstone had undertaken extensive conversion to OMO and BCT felt that Brian’s experience in this regard would be extremely useful. Many years later Brian told me that when he arrived at Forster Square – BCT Head Office – there was little enthusiasm for OMO. Earlier this year I had lunch with Brian and he said that many of the new ideas that he tried to bring to Bradford fell on stony ground. Maidstone had a very large circle OMO sign on the front of their Atlanteans and Brian arranged for one of the signs to be sent to Bradford for evaluation. John Hill rejected the idea. Bob Tidswell once told me that Edward Deakin had a policy of splitting chassis orders between manufacturers – and thus having small batches – on the basis that if one chassis type developed a serious fault then the impact on the operational fleet would be minimised. Some of the single-deckers were allocated to Ludlam Steet and were used on the 272 service to Leeds, the 61 and sometimes other routes operated from the depot, such as Eccleshill, Fagley and Haworth Road. They were used on the White Rose service and at weekends for private hire work at weddings etc. When the PTE was formed John Hill became Metro Bradford District Manager and the position of District Traffic Officer was given to Bert Henry from Leeds City Transport who was very keen to expand OMO across the Bradford route network.
Kevin Hey
19/09/17 – 06:01
Still trying to get “facts” and the best come across so far, is from the JS King book. The following is a timeline summary: 1967 BCT ordered the Swifts and Panthers (503-512 ) to start OMO and had the unions OK 8 and 10/1969. The Swifts and Panthers arrived but went to work with conductors on 61, 83 and 27-29/32. Cannot find a reason why they were not used for OMO. These buses were also available for breakdown cover for the other operators on the joint with 7 other operators “White Rose” express to Sheffield; BCT having only one journey a week which they “banked” so they could then a bus operate all week. Mr King notes the SD were already “white elephants”, as by now DD OMO was acceptable, so seventy 33 foot DD were ordered, with union acceptance of OMO for these 2 door 33 foot vehicles. 8/1970 The DD start to arrive (401-470) but unions said no as are too long and the drivers’ view of exit door was insufficient. So OMO introduction postponed once again. 9/1971 SD work on the peak time only Leeds express (272) joint with Leeds CT who operated SD OMO, but BCT used conductors 31 Dec 1972 OMO finally starts using 30 foot DD (315 to 355) on routes 36-38 and 40-42 20 May 1973 OMO starts on joint working with Leeds on the 72 route Footnote This appears is a strange story, that however, shows the management/union environment at the time.
Stuart Emmet
19/09/17 – 06:02
Re Kevin Heys comments. There was a regular evening trip on service 46 to Buttershaw. OMO operation commenced in Bradford with the conversion of the 72/78 services between Bradford and Leeds which were jointly operated with Leeds City Transport. This started in late May 1973. I cannot recall them being used on White Rose services during my time in Bradford in 1973.
Stephen Bloomfield
22/09/17 – 07:15
I suspect that when BCT ordered dual doorway buses the ‘agreement’ with the T&GWU was merely one of outline or agreement in principle to discuss the matter. It would appear that a detailed agreement with signatories was not secured until 1972. The initial conversions at the end of 1972 used single door Fleetlines, but evidently the T&GWU was prepared to allow two-door buses to be used on services to Leeds when these were converted in May 1973. The feeling I detected at Bradford was that neither management nor the T&GWU were keen to pursue OMO. Management believed that OMO made the service worse for passengers, while the T&GWU was against a reduction in potential members and staff – members – losing overtime.
Kevin Hey
21/11/17 – 08:30
Just a reminder that the 5 Panthers transferred to Calderdale in early PTE days. There was a serious blind spot problem with the blank front corners and all were modified with small corner windows. Memory fails me but I wonder if a serious/fatal accident blamed on lack of visibility occurred. I recall that these weren’t bad buses, hadn’t done a lot of mileage with Bradford.The biggest problem was (the lack of) pit length and accessibility with 36′ long buses in the Dock Shop at Skircoat Road. They were also a bit limited on allocation because of road/junction/camber problems on many routes. Someone out there will remind me how long they ran in Halifax prior to sale to Chesterfield where they put in a good number of years service.
Ian Wild
22/11/17 – 07:22
The first of the Bradford Panthers to arrive in Halifax was 2511 in October 1974, followed by 2508/10/12 in November and 2509 in December – all still in BCT blue and cream livery. They were allocated solely to the 5/6 West End Circular route, which required four vehicles during the daytime just going endlessly round and round, so presumably the fifth one was usually either parked up or ‘day in’ for maintenance. I don’t think the trade union would allow them to be used on any other route – I certainly don’t remember seeing them anywhere else. Unfortunately one of them was involved in a fatal accident when operating a 6 (clockwise) journey and turning right from Heath Road into Free School Lane – just a couple of hundred yards from Skircoat Garage. They had very thick front corner pillars which caused a terrible blind spot for the driver. The bus had begun to take the right turn and was not cutting the corner when a young chap on a moped approached from the right and appeared to stop at the junction with the intention of going straight ahead after the bus had turned. However he must have decided to chance it and accelerated across the front of the bus, but due to the blind spot the driver couldn’t see him and a terrible accident ensued in which the lad was killed. The bus driver was shown to have been blameless. The five were immediately taken off the road and, as Ian says, small (very small) windows were let into the pillars. My records only show that they were withdrawn during 1975, but that they passed to Chesterfield Corporation in the September. They ran them quite successfully until 1985/86 after which they saw even further service with CityBus in Manchester.
John Stringer
24/11/17 – 07:23
That sounded a terrible, tragic accident indeed for all concerned John, and it still amazes me that in this day and age just how many modern cars have quite serious blindspots, especially to the rear. West Yorkshire had a 1964 Bristol RELH6G express coach (ERG1/1001: AWR 401B) refurbished by Willowbrook in 1977, which included a new peaked front dome, Duple-type windscreen and revised front dash panel, grille and headlamps. On return to West Yorkshire, and before re-entry into service, the Duple screen was removed and the original ECW ‘wrap around’ version reinstated. This was not connected with night-time reflections as is often stated, but due to a serious blind spot either side of the windscreen. The Duple screen had curved sides, which on a Duple (or Plaxton) body would not have been a problem, as the body pillars/sides were also curved and therefore matched. The ECW body had straight pillars/sides, but the curved Duple screen was matched up to the front pillars using an infill panel at either side, which flared out towards the top. The local ‘Man from the Ministry’ would not pass the vehicle as he felt the blind spots were a serious hazard, hence the change back to original spec. We’ll never know, but the thoroughness of that Ministry Inspector may well have prevented a serious accident at some point, and even saved a life, for which we should be very thankful.
Brendan Smith
29/12/17 – 07:47
The reference to the Panthers being used on the White Rose appeared in a recent book- though I couldn’t find the reference when I looked for it, inevitably. I moved to Sheffield in 1969 and used the X33 regularly but never saw or heard of Bradford actually working on the White Rose; more significantly no record of such a working ever appeared in local enthusiast publications of the time and I never heard fellow enthusiasts mention it.’Joint operation in South Yorkshire’, published by the Omnibus Society in 1974, is also silent on the issue, despite mentioning that, for instance, Ribble provided duplicates on Yorkshire Traction’s X19 (Manchester-Barnsley). It would be interesting if anyone can produce chapter and verse on Bradford’s involvement.
Phil Drake
29/12/17 – 09:48
There was mention somewhere to the effect that the Bradford share, based on the miles of the route in Bradford, was small, therefore Bradford saved up the miles which meant something strange like one bus every x weeks or similar. Will try and find the reference for you. Additionally, Brasford was able to provide breakdown cover for any buses having issues.
Stuart Emmett
30/12/17 – 08:46
Extracts from J S King (1995) Bradford Corporation Motorbuses pages 99 and 100. John King (RIP) is the acknowledged expert on all matters Bradford (trams, trolleys and buses). Mexborough & Swinton had proposed a network of routes along the then new M1. A consortium of interested parties was formed with M&S, Sheffield JOC, Rotherham, YWD, YTC, WR and Hebble and a service from Sheffield to Bradford via Dewsbury was agreed. On hearing of this Bradford applied and got consent but as the route in Bradford was less than 10% of the whole giving one journey a week, Bradford decided to accumulated mileage until there had enough for one bus for one week when they took over a YWD duty. Sheffield, Barnsley and Mexborough were to now appear on all future Bradford buses, meanwhile, 505 to 512 were made available and were occasionally used. A trial run by Bradford took place on the 14th October 1969 and service started four days later.
Stuart Emmett
08/01/18 – 07:21
Sorry about the delayed reply, but thanks to John Stringer for details of the fatal accident with one of the Panthers whilst in Halifax. It makes you wonder how they ever got through initial certification, I’m almost certain the blind spot would never have been accepted by the Yorkshire TA Certifying Officers. I recall a couple of Halifax Leopard/Weymann buses being ‘overhauled’ as an emergency measure by Willowbrook. They came back with new 6 year certificates (12/13 year old buses by this time) with far less work than we had to put in to obtain a grudging 5 years. This difference in standards in different Traffic Areas continued up to the day I retired!
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.
Potteries Motor Traction 1968 Leyland Leopard PSU4A/4R Marshall B43F
A pleasant Sunday afternoon scene in May 1970 outside the church at the Bagnall terminus of service 44 from Hanley shows one of Milton Depots pair of short Leopards. This batch of 20 buses was a welcome relief after the 48 Daimler Roadliner buses delivered in the previous three years. These short length Leopards were ultra reliable machines and ideal for the rural services operated by Cheadle, Longton, Newcastle and Milton Depots where they replaced early AEC Reliances.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
24/08/12 – 08:19
Nice shot! “This batch of 20 buses was a welcome relief after the 48 Daimler Roadliners . . .” All I have read about the Roadliners indicates that the term ‘unmitigated disaster’ is too mild. How could Daimler have got it so wrong?
Pete Davies
24/08/12 – 08:20
Said in three simple words – ultra reliable machines. Never was convinced that Volvo were that much batter than AEC but Leyland suffered from association with British Leyland (Motor Corporation). I have great respect and affection for the Leopard, AN68 and Tiger. They may not have been as flash or quick as the Volvos but they plodded on – you trusted them to keep going.
David Oldfield
24/08/12 – 12:19
A pair of these are preserved namely 1127 – TVT 127G and 1128 – TVT 128G
Chris Hough
24/08/12 – 12:20
Pete. Everyone got it wrong apart from Bristol with rear engined buses – Daimler got more wrong than anyone else, especially choice of engine. As a “coach” man, my top three are ZF Reliance, RE and Leopard. I preferred the Leyland engined RE and, significantly, PMT turned to the RE – albeit late in the RE’s lifespan.
David Oldfield
25/08/12 – 07:40
David, Ta! I had an idea that most of the problem was the choice of engine.
Pete Davies
25/08/12 – 07:42
David, you can add Seddon to the list of rear engined design failures. No doubt because of his debt of gratitude to Robert Seddon in the early years of his engineering career, Geoff Hilditch, in his writings, is quite kind about the shortcomings of the Pennine RU, but it was undoubtedly a severe disappointment to those who tried hard to encourage competition with British Leyland. The only really satisfactory Seddon psv design was the Pennine VII, which proved to be a sound and reliable performer.
Roger Cox
25/08/12 – 07:42
Re Chris Hough’s posting of 24/08/12 12:19 about the two preserved PMT Leopards 1127 & 1128, here is a photo I took of them both at the Wirksworth Bus Rally at the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway on 1st July this year.
Eric Bawden
25/08/12 – 08:53
As always, seeing sisters side by side highlights the detail differences. In this case, the indicator displays, the “company” logo versus the NBC one on the front, the little ventilator under the windscreen . . . And this is just from a look at the bus front!
Pete Davies
25/08/12 – 10:54
Pete. There was another problem that everyone except Bristol had, as well. Heavy engines overhanging the rear axle causing bodies, and chassis, to flex (and sometimes break). Ingenious use of the Lodekka drop axle enabled Bristol to shorten the overhang on the RE and thus reduce the stresses on both chassis and body. The Seddon RU mentioned by Roger was, as much as anything, meant to be an RE clone to help RE operators out who were suffering delivery delays (a “British Leyland” problem with all their brands at the time). Crosville bought hordes of the things and were stung. The Ward Dalesman GRX was a further unsuccessful attempt. The Seddon Pennine VII, on the other hand was a “Leopard with Gardner engine” that “British Leyland” refused to supply to the Scottish Bus Group.
David Oldfield
25/08/12 – 12:27
And we all know what happened to British Leyland over their perceptions of what the customer wanted and what they were prepared to supply: among other things, we got foreign trucks and buses, and cars with traditional boot lids (even on cars with the hatchback shape) when other car makers were introducing hatchbacks, etc!
Pete Davies
27/08/12 – 07:53
A common consensus is the generally uselessness of early rear engined saloons Interestingly some operators managed to make the beast work. Preston made the Panther work as did Hull equally Leeds 150 Swifts had a normal lifespan. While others quickly sold them off as to fault prone or too costly to maintain. I suppose that fashion also played a part whereby if undertaking A was getting rid of the things undertaking B down the road would do as well. To my mind this meant that Leyland could pour money into the National and not further develop the other chassis particularly the Bristol RE which was streets ahead of anything similar from the Leyland empire.
Chris Hough
28/08/12 – 14:35
These Leopards were awful (my opinion) it was all down to the cab layout the windscreen was about 6 feet away so you had to stand up to wipe the screen also had a low driving position. The only good thing was they were warm in the winter. we operated them on the Newcastle – Market Drayton service (64) and the other problem was they did not have a AEC Badge on the front.
Michael Crofts
28/08/12 – 17:55
Well, Michael, I will agree with you wholeheartedly on the matter of AEC, but have to say that Devon General’s similar AH505 Reliances – ie with Marshall bodies – had similarly huge cabs with the screen miles away. So you can blame Leyland for the low driving position, which they rectified on Leopards after 1969, but Marshall are to blame for your trek to clean the screen! [I assume you were after an AEC chassis and engine behind the badge? I knew a coach operator in High Wycombe (Bucks) who ran a Reliance with a Bedford engine…..!]
David Oldfield
28/08/12 – 17:56
All Leylands had that problem, Michael!
Eric Bawden
29/08/12 – 07:23
Just noticed another difference, on the two preserved examples (1127/8). 1127 has sliding vents behind driver’s signalling window, 1128 doesn’t.
David Oldfield
29/08/12 – 12:20
We had three similar Leopard PSU4/Marshalls to this at Halifax. 358-360 (NHE 8-10F) came to Calderdale J.O.C. from Yorkshire Traction as part of the Todmorden takeover arrangements. Nice enough looking buses, they too suffered from the faraway windscreens and very low driving position. They had the original style of large Pneumocyclic gearchange pedestal which got completely in the way, and to get in and out of the cab seat required the skills of a contortionist. With the seat wound up high enough to see forward and reach the pedals one’s knees were rubbing against the underside of the steering wheel, and one’s left leg had a struggle to fit around the gearchange pedestal. They were extremely uncomfortable and inconvenient buses to drive. Despite the relative indestructability of the earlier Leopard chassis, I am told that the build quality of the Marshall bodies left a lot to be desired. Despite the apparent similarity of the BET-style bodies built by various bodybuilders, it would seem that some were a lot better than others, and that the Met.Cam/Weymann version was generally the most durable. Despite this, 360 was badly damaged in a collision and sold to a Barnsley breaker, but later it turned up in Malta rebuilt and magnificently presented by one of the island’s most enthusiastic bus owners.
John Stringer
19/01/13 – 06:12
Having owned a Marshall bodied short Ribble Leopard for almost 15 years I find it hard to believe that they were such poor service vehicles. I must admit there is a certain amount of dexterity required to become seated in the drivers seat, but once seated I have not yet found any problem with the driving position. Surely windscreens on most half cabs and other 1960’s vehicles are a similar distance away? Whilst I have not driven this particular bus fully laden, the steering could be entertaining, I find it a pleasure to drive.
John Davis
20/04/13 – 07:17
Re- remarks on variations with 127/128, yes there’s lots more inside and out, we have a boot but no doors, 127 has a disabled chair lift! 127 has 2 roof vents, 128 has 1, coach seating in 127, service seats in 128. The luggage racks differ, as do cabs, as 128 was altered along with destination box layout by previous owner. I cannot explain, or took the time to find out why all this happened, as owner/secretary of ‘TVT 128G group’ what I can say is that 128 has served us well over the 13 years we have owned her, no major repairs other than a radiator leak/broken jubilee clip/1 leaf spring but she’s a good runner.
Keith Broomhall
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
20/07/15 – 06:49
Enjoyed a couple of laps around Oulton Park yesterday aboard TVT 128G, one sighting lap and one ‘fast’ lap! Wouldn’t have been half as much fun on a modern bus.
Calderdale Joint Omnibus Committee 1968 Leyland Leopard PSU4/4R Marshall B45F
When the Calderdale Joint Committee was formed in the early 1970s several vehicles were acquired from nearby NBC companies. These came mainly from the former Hebble concern and Yorkshire Woollen, however also bought were three Marshall bodied Leyland Leopards from Yorkshire Traction. These were bodied by Marshall and were 45 seat examples. One of the trio is seen at the Leeds departure point for the former Hebble service to Burnley. NHE 10F fleet number 360 was originally fleet number 510 in the Yorkshire Traction fleet.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough
05/01/14 – 12:52
To be clear, the 8 was not an original Hebble service to Burnley, but a new service created following Hebble and Todmorden entering the Halifax fold and the subsequent reorganisation. It followed the original Hebble service from Leeds through Halifax to Hebden Bridge but then took the more remunerative valley route through Todmorden to Burnley. This is however where the original Hebble service to Burnley would have started.
David Beilby
The following comment has been re posted because I originally only posted part of Johns comment of which I do apologise, I work better when it is busy. Sorry John
Peter
05/01/14 – 16:07
Ah yes, this takes me back. I remember back in my early days with Halifax Corporation my own duty being cancelled one evening in order that my conductor and I could be used elsewhere. He was given a duty with another driver whose conductor had gone home sick, and I was asked to work two trips on the 8 Leeds route. The inspector had not taken into account that this was an OMO route and I was strictly a crew driver. I told him I did not know the route anyway, but he still tried to persuade me to no avail, then very grudgingly had to cancel the first trip and, but then later triumphantly announced that he’d managed to grab a conductor who should have been finishing a middle turn, to do the last trip for overtime. He would show me the way – problem solved. Hmmm. I walked up to the Bus Station to find one of these ex-YTC Leopards on the stand. At the last minute the conductor arrived. I’d never seen him before. “Hi mate !” he said, “I hope you know where you’re going ‘cos I haven’t a clue”. “You’re joking,” I replied, “You’re supposed to be showing me”. “But I only just came out of the conducting school yesterday – this is my first day on the road” he said. Fantastic ! The grumpy bus station inspector – Ronnie Weston – just shrugged disinterestedly and told us “Too late now lad, you’ll just have to manage”. So off we went, embarrassingly having to ask directions from passengers (of which there were very few), and somehow we reached King Street terminus in Leeds, where this photo was taken. On the way back, circumnavigating the Armley Giratory, a chap said “…take your next turn off” – so I did literally, and found myself in the cul-de-sac of what I think was the small car park of the Gas Board Training School ! Red faces all round and after a lot of shunting and heaving I managed to extricate our Leopard and got back onto the proper route. I only just managed at the last minute to avoid missing the slip road off Stanningley Road up to Bramley Town End – which would have led us onto the Stanningley By-Pass and missed out about two miles of the route (and probably left several passengers well out of their way), then I managed to find my way back without further incident. You never forget days like that. These three buses were quite reasonable to drive once you’d managed to install yourself into the cab seat, and provided you were not a large person or had long legs. The pneumocyclic gearchange pedestal was of the original larger type (like our Worldmasters and PD3A’s – they changed to a miniature version from the PSU4B onwards) and it was very awkwardly positioned close to the left and slightly forward of the driving seat, making access to it only easy for a contortionist. The steering wheel was set very low, so unless you wound the seat almost to the floor and adopted a seriously deformed and painfully uncomfortable posture, your knees were jammed under the wheel, which rubbed against your legs as you turned it. Compared with our ‘own’ single deckers – including the DP’s with similar BET-style screens – the windscreens on these seemed to be twice the distance in front, which was quite off-putting, particularly to me as a relatively inexperienced driver. This particular bus – 360 – was in PTE days written off in a serious collision, and for many years after a photograph of it in wrecked state was pinned to the wall of the Skircoat Foremens’ office. They had quite a gallery of such things – always having a very low opinion of us drivers and wishing to make some sort of point. So it was quite a surprise when on holiday in Malta in the 1990’s to meet up with it again there, rebuilt and beautifully turned out. I think I have a photo of it so will have to delve through my disorganised old holiday photos and see if I can post a copy.
John Stringer
06/01/14 – 08:01
Its even more complicated than David suggests! The Calderdale 8, as described by David, was a limited-stop service that only ran for a couple of years. From what I can work out – as a welcome relief to pre-Hilary Term (last-minute!) lesson-planning – after Halifax JOC absorbed various Hebble routes in 2/71 the hourly through service between Burnley-Blackshaw Head-Halifax-Leeds was divided at Halifax, with Halifax-Leeds becoming 8 (Burnley-Blackshaw Head-Halifax being much reduced between Burnley-Blackshaw Head, with the Blackshaw Head-Halifax section incorporated into an extended Heptonstall-Halifax ex Halifax JOC service), whilst the hourly through Rochdale-Halifax-Leeds services continued as 27/28. Then, after the Halifax-Todmorden JOC merger in 9/71, the 8 was extended again through to Burnley (via Todmorden, rather than Blackshaw Head [as per Hebble 15]) on a limited-stop (fare-stage only) basis between Todmorden and the Halifax/Queensbury & Shelf UDC boundary at Northowram – I think the 27/28 also operated limited stop over the common short distance between Halifax town centre and the borough boundary at Northowram. On 2/4/73 the limited stop facilities were withdrawn in the evenings. And then on 1/10/73 the Burnley-Todmorden-Halifax-Leeds 8 was withdrawn between Burnley-Halifax when the “stopper” Portsmouth-Todmorden-Halifax 92 was extended back to Burnley. The building behind 360 was re-developed in the last decade, but the Bank-of-England money store to the left of that building still stands (although though no longer a money store), and you won’t see that “no-entry” sign there now as the traffic flow along St Paul’s St has now been reversed. This photograph has got me thinking: in LCT days YWD/ Ledgard/Hebble services from the west/south were kept on the fringes of the city centre at terminal points such as this, then under WYPTE were extended through the congested shopping centre into the Central Bus Station – such that it now takes ages for buses to crawl that last mile-or-so to/from the terminus . . . wouldn’t it make more sense to remove bus termini to their original termini, and “allow” passengers to walk that bit further into town (who actually transfers from one bus to another at a bus station?) reducing congestion and pollution.
Philip Rushworth
06/01/14 – 08:01
Reading your comments, John, I experienced a sense of deja vu. After 4½ years in a London Transport office, I turned up (from the deep south – i.e Croydon, well south of the Watford watershed) for my first day of work in the Traffic Office of HPTD on a Monday in December 1964. On the Friday of that first week, still bemused by my surroundings, a multi bank Ultimate machine was thrust into my hands with the remark, “There lad, we need a conductor for the 3.30 Brighouse. Fred Bull is your driver.” With extreme trepidation, not knowing either the geography or the lingo, I endeavoured to meet the occasion. The first bit – over the top via Southowram to Brighouse in a Leopard – was not too bad. Fred was the Conductor School Instructor, so he helped me along, but worse was to come. After the Brighouse runs we went back to the depot and collected one of the old 1947 all Leyland PD2/1s and set off from the town centre for Greetland and Norland, and, for all I can recall, the Moon. It was now the peak period, Fred was now isolated from me in his cab, the bus was full, the windows were steamed up, it was dark outside, and I hadn’t a clue where I was en route. To add to the fun, I had to decipher the required destinations of the passengers which were given in broad Yorkshire accents, and I then found that the places asked for went under totally different names in the printed faretable. Heaven alone knows what I charged them all. We made several trips out again, and the local populace must have thought that the Halifax Passenger Transport Department had been reduced to employing idiots, such was my low level of expertise in the role of conductor. Thankfully, at the end of it all, good old Fred helped his shell shocked ‘mate’ to complete his waybill and cash in. I was a reasonably normal looking 23 year old at the start of that nightmare. At the end I looked like Methuselah (some would say that I still do – I blame HPTD).
Roger Cox
06/01/14 – 16:39
John mentions the large area of unused space between the steering wheel and the windscreen This was not confined to YTC vehicles. I had a ride on a Devon General AEC Reliance of similar vintage at a Chatsworth rally some years ago and this too had acres of space between driver and window although in this case the bodywork was by Willowbrook rather than Marshall.
Chris Hough
07/01/14 – 07:17
I think the gap between the steering wheel and windscreens of BET bodies in this era was to do with their interest in the Clayton UHV heating/ventilation system which drew in air from a grille below the windscreen and then through a glass fibre duct to the engine radiator. There was a flap in the duct, cable operated from the cab which diverted the cool ambient temperature air into the saloon during the warm months. The system was logical but hopelessly unreliable. Most BET subsidiaries would have this kit fitted around this time. The 1965 PMT Reliance 590 DPs certainly were so equipped and my recollection of the ex Yorkshire Traction trio at Halifax was that they were as well. I seem to remember heating problems with them in winter……..not that that was difficult, it applied to most designs within the fleet! The noisy old underseat heater units were amongst the best apart from clogging with dust and rubbish. If it was a Reliance 470 then you might get warmth for a couple of days after repair before the head gaskets blew again!
Ian Wild
07/01/14 – 07:18
Love your “thrown to the wolves” story, Roger. Nothing to do with buses, but I once worked as a semi-manager in a punched-card unit. Despite never training on the machines, I was competent in the job. A job as trainer came up, the woman who accepted it turned it down at the last minute and I was asked and accepted on the Thursday. However, I asked that the course for the following Monday be postponed for a week to enable to me familiarise myself with the course material and learn the working of that machine. On the Monday, having just started to look at the course material, there was a knock at the door and a face said, “We”ve just arrived for the course!” In the end, I sent them for a long teabreak, “genned” up enough to cover until lunchtime, at lunch, did enough for teabreak and later sent them home early! Then, each night, I did enough to cover the nest day. Somehow I got through the week and got one of my ex-staff to train me on Saturday on the machine for the following week. I survived somehow, but a couple of years later, I was talking to one of my first proteges and mentioned they were my first course and had they realised? I was given 7/10, the first time, perhaps, that the pupils had marked the tutor! As she said, they survived!
Chris Hebbron
07/01/14 – 13:41
The dark oblong under the windscreen is presumably the intake for the apparatus mentioned by Ian. I vividly recall Ribble Leopards had the same arrangement.
Chris Hough
07/01/14 – 13:41
Interesting to hear that 360 gave further service in Malta. I recall riding on it on visits in 2004 and 2009. By the latter year, former 360 had lost its Leyland 0.600 engine for a Cummins C unit, very much transforming its personality and performance. The Maltese bus operators in their final independent days had turned to the Cummins C engine big-time – surviving AEC Reliances and Swifts had received similar engine transplants, and some Fords were also advertising their Cummins power.
Mark Evans
07/01/14 – 13:43
I well remember the Conductor School Instructor, Fred Bull. He was quite a droll character, and used to call in on the Traffic Office from time to time. After three days in his school, new recruits were sent out to accompany an experienced conductor for just a couple of hours or so on the Thursday during the morning off-peak, in order to observe how the job worked. They then returned to him for the rest of the day after which they worked full duties under the supervision of another trusty conductor until the Wednesday of the second week, after which they were let loose on their own. It sometimes fell on me as a Traffic Clerk to find appropriate duties with ‘suitable’ conductors for these lads (and occasionally lasses), and I had to have these ready and clearly written down for Fred Bull when he graced us with his presence and dry wit. He retired in 1973, and was replaced by driver Roy Greenwood, who in turn retired and was replaced by conductor Les Sykes. After the last conductor was set on about 1984/85, Les had little to do, and mostly just took care of uniform issue until retiring at deregulation time. I in the meantime had long since thrown in the Traffic Clerk towel, due to intolerable harassment influenced by a certain Traffic Superintendent, and having already obtained my PSV whilst working in the office, gone full time driving. From deregulation on, all new staff were set on as OPO drivers, and what had been the ‘conductor’ aspect of training had to be incorporated into the driver training – once they had passed their test. Whereas newly passed out drivers had previously little need to do much route learning, as they had already learnt them all well whilst conducting, this also had to be incorporated into their training at the same time and the whole lot became the responsibility of the Driving Instructors. It was at this point that the existing instructors – by then senior men Ernest Mitchell and Gerry Yardley – decided that things ahead were looking a bit too hectic and complicated for them, and opted for early retirement before D-Day. It was at this point that I made the rather impulsive decision to apply for the job, which I got, and was kept very busy at it (and much more besides) for the next 18 years. Sadly once more, irreconcilable differences with another colleague forced me to finally realise enough had been enough, and it was back to driving again. Now I am a semi-retired part-time driver working just three days a week. It’s been a long time !
John Stringer
07/01/14 – 14:57
Why is it that “Line Managers” – be they Headmasters, Traffic Superintendents (or whatever their appointed role) need to make life difficult for colleagues rather than help them – especially those who have had the other role “on their way up”?
David Oldfield
07/01/14 – 16:18
Ian’s comments about the Clayton automatic heating and ventilating system fitted by the BET group in the mid sixties brings back many unpleasant memories of Southdown’s batch of Weymann bodied Leopards 140-159 so fitted, these buses had a total lack of opening windows but had two roof vents which were permanently fixed slightly open but worst of all they did not have any type of fan assistance in the demister system relying solely on the movement of the vehicle for any effect not very reliable on stage carriage or in traffic. As you can imagine this meant that in warm weather driver and passengers were very prone to sweating and in winter they were freezing cold with the added bonus that the driver could not see where he was going as his windscreen was constantly misting up and the interior of the saloon was also likely to be damp, the system never worked satisfactorily as the control cables seized and the sensors that controlled the pneumatic valves didn’t operate properly. I don’t however recall there being a excess of space behind the windscreen, Southdown did later fit just one sliding window each side and much later fitted a heated windscreen, perversely only on the nearside, 144 of the batch was re-bodied by Marshall after an accident. The company also had a batch of Plaxton bodied Leopards 1191-1224 fitted with this system to which all the above criticisms apply with the added discomfort of having vinyl covered seats.
Diesel Dave
07/01/14 – 16:43
Unfortunately David, the attitude of the Traffic Superintendent towards me at the time was entirely a personal and totally inappropriate one. Unbeknown to me, when Geoffrey Hilditch offered me the Traffic Clerk post this character – who lived not far from me – thoroughly disliked my father’s family apparently owing to issues with my Grandfather (whom I never knew, having died long before I was born) going right back before the war. It must have seemed to him to be his one golden opportunity to wreak some kind of final futile revenge on the family by making life so intolerable for me that I would surely leave. Nowadays harassment in the workplace is a serious issue (though it still goes on), but then nobody took it seriously – particularly as the man was well regarded both by my office colleagues and the trade union – and since the matter was making me ill, I could see no other way at the time but to give in, and he got his way. On another website recently, a former long serving employee of Bradford City Transport recalled how working for BCT was like ‘being part of one big family’, implying that it had been on the whole quite an agreeable experience. But there are families, and there are families. There are ‘normal’ families who despite life’s occasional differences and troubles mostly get on well and care for one another. Then there are those broken and dysfunctional families who are always at each others’ throats, feuding, bearing grudges and carrying on vendettas against one another. I found Halifax Corporation and its successors fell more into the latter category ! There were of course also hundreds of great people employed along the way too, but it only takes a few malevolent ones in the more influential positions of authority to perpetuate a permanently unhappy environment, and as a result create an un-cooperative, deeply cynical and resentful workforce. It’s utterly counter-productive, but they never seem to learn that this is not the way to get the best out of people and for their organisations to succeed and be the best.
John Stringer
08/01/14 – 07:45
John, your recollections of HPTD gel with mine in several aspects. In 1964, having upped sticks and journeyed some 200 miles north for the Traffic Clerk job in Halifax, I found my reception from the people there there to be decidedly strange, varying from the very welcoming to the markedly hostile. Amongst some of the latter, which included the Deputy Traffic Superintendent (the Traffic Superintendent always kept me at arm’s length, having as little to do with me as possible) I was referred to as the “cockney”, which, while not bothering me, illustrated a degree of isolationism and ignorance that manifested itself in many other ways. Being born in Selsdon, Croydon, in 1941, the only way I could have heard the sound of Bow Bells would have been by telephone, and those peals would then have indicated a German invasion. The system within the Traffic Office was for us all to move round the various jobs – duty cover, schedules, bus list, accidents/private hire et al – every couple of months or so. Unfortunately, in 1965, I suffered a broken leg and had some time on sick leave. On my return, I found that all the others in the office had decided to pick the jobs they liked best and keep them. I was left with the unpopular, mundane task of processing accident reports and quoting for private hires from a fixed price sheet. To further sour the pill, this job was carried out at a desk within the office of the DTS. This was not the sort of thing I had been led by GGH to believe would constitute my career in the municipal bus industry. I stuck it for the best part of a year, and it was only the evening and Saturday overtime driving work with decent people from the road staff that kept me there that long. Differences with the DTS finally came to a head, and I quit towards the end of 1966. It was the best thing I did. Had I stayed I would have simply rotted away in mediocre drudgery. As it was, after 18 months with Aldershot and District as a driver to shake off the memories of Halifax, I went back into the administrative side of the bus industry, ultimately as a Traffic Manager until the gibbet of privatisation cut it short. After a period running my own retail business for several years, I, like you, finished off in the bus industry as a driver, this time in Peterborough and Huntingdonshire. I wasn’t sorry to retire from it – the bus industry was a mere shadow of its former self by then. I haven’t driven a bus since.
Roger Cox
02/01/16 – 06:41
The reason for the distance between the driver’s seat and the windscreen is explained in the text attached to this photo of a Devon General AEC Reliance from the same era:- www.flickr.com/photos/ If the link doesn’t work (I know Flickr can be sensitive in this respect), then do a search for “TUO74J” in photos from Martyn Hearson (Renown). Basically, the chassis were designed for 30′ long buses, but most were being built to 10m length by then, partly to provide a wider entrance.
Nigel Frampton
04/01/16 – 06:50
How nice to see Ernest Mitchell mentioned here, I remember Ernest as one of the original drivers when one man operation was introduced on the Siddal route around 1958 when we used to travel to school in Halifax, he was a regular on this route and Norton Tower for many years . When I got married he drove past St Marks church in 1968 and despite around 25 people onboard stopped and called out “there’s no going back now”. He was one of the most cheerful blokes you could meet, and over the years I lost contact with him, so you can imagine how surprised I was when I had to help a lady to her flat after a fall to see a picture of Ernest on the sideboard, yes she was Ernest’s wife, and so lots of reminiscing was done. She is still alive and well and had a number of photos taken of his “bus” days throughout his long career. People said that the one maners wouldn’t last (1958), they got that one wrong???
Stephen Mitchell
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
08/01/16 – 08:39
I have attached a photo taken of this bus on 19th June 1980 very close to final withdrawal by West Yorkshire PTE. It is at the reversing point at the small hamlet of Boulderclough high above the Calder Valley. It has a noticeably different frontal appearance from the earlier picture. This was a result of repairs following serious damage when it slid into a lamp standard in heavy snow causing a heavy impact to the centre front. Memory says that we obtained a new front dome from Willowbrook of a different profile from the Marshall original. Also I believe we removed the Clayton UHV heating system (the intake ducting behind the front panel would have been seriously damaged in the collision) hence the different lower level air intake grille.
Southern Vectis Omnibus Company 1969 Bristol LHS6L Marshall B35F
Seen here in the summer of 1969 when almost new, NDL 769G was one of four Bristol LHS6L buses delivered to Southern Vectis with 7ft 6ins wide Marshall B35F bodies of curiously old fashioned appearance. The flat glass windscreen with angled corner glasses was reproduced at the rear. To my eye the utilitarian result had something of the air of a welfare vehicle or a mobile library. Only nineteen examples of this design were constructed. Twelve similar bodies with 33 seats on LHS6L chassis were supplied to Western National in 1972. Gash of Newark took two, one in 1973 and the other in 1975, but these were 8ft wide. Harvey of Mousehole took a single narrow example in 1977. In all cases the chassis was the LH6L with the 6.54 litre Leyland 400 engine, or, from 1971, the more powerful 401, which was coupled with a Turner five speed synchromesh gearbox. The bus shown above was bought by United in 1977 and is currently in preservation, though the livery it now wears is, in my opinion, an offence to the eye – see what you think at this link.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
25/01/16 – 06:33
Interesting view, Roger, Where was the photo taken, please? I’m guessing Newport. The best that can be said of the “United” livery is that it is at least in what might be described as in patriotic colours although the style of application won’t be very high on most folks’ idea of ‘good taste’. Talking of “United” the captcha for this response is 58HN, a Darlington registration
Pete Davies
25/01/16 – 06:34
I agree entirely, Roger. The current livery is simply awful.
David Wragg
25/01/16 – 09:17
Yes, Pete, the location is Newport. The church in the background is Newport Minster. Please forgive the omission. This style of body has always puzzled me. Marshall constructed a large number of single deck bodies of (what one might call) basically BET appearance with curved glass windscreens, and I supposed that the reason for the flat screens lay in the narrow 7ft 6ins width of the vehicles. However, Gash took two with the same front and rear end design, and these were 8ft wide. The narrow Bristol BN and BS classes of London Country and London Transport respectively had curved front windscreens and flat glass at the rear, though these vehicles were delivered from 1973 onwards. Surely this curved screen was available in 1969. I doubt that the relative costs would have been a factor. The complicated rear screen on the Marshall would have negated any (debatable) cost saving when replacing the various flat glasses at the front. I imagine, also, that this Marshall feature was structurally weaker.
Roger Cox
25/01/16 – 10:50
Marshall also produced a “coach” version mainly for WNOC in particular that had curved glass in the windscreen.
Chris Hough
25/01/16 – 14:00
David W – I couldn’t agree more, Except that I would not use the word “livery” – rather a freelance graffiti exercise, and a bitter disappointment compared with even the NBC version of United’s livery.
Chris Youhill
26/01/16 – 06:52
I have seen a Leyland National with a ‘paint job’ similar to the United one, but I’ll not send you running for a darkened room by offering it for publication. [Unless someone’s mother in law is threatening a visit, and the reader is suitably desperate!]
Pete Davies
26/01/16 – 06:53
The “current” livery was chosen by United as this bus was used on a “town” service in Newton Aycliffe, which was very successful It was discontinued after a few years… No doubt someone will come up with more information. Just for the record I drove for United out of Darlington for 10 years and would possibly had stayed a bit longer but had to leave to care for my wife after she suffered a life changing event….some good memories and some not so good
John Wake
26/01/16 – 06:54
Photo; VOD 88K Bristol LHS/Marshall of Devon General O&TC. It is so good to see the oddities and rarities of vehicle styles from the past, as a contrast to the Southern Vectis LHS/Marshall, I offer this Devon General preserved in the pre-National Bus Company red version of the British Transport Commission livery. This view was taken at Yeovil Junction railway station on the border of Somerset and Dorset during July 2010. These narrow Marshall bodied vehicles were ideal for rural routes but were never taken in great numbers by the main transport groups of the time.
Ron Mesure
27/01/16 – 06:20
Devon General only became a Transport Holding Company subsidiary in 1967 on the occasion of British Electric Traction selling its bus interests to the Ministry of Transport. By the time this bus was delivered the company was a subsidiary of the National Bus Company. Prior to late 1972 the NBC had operated without corporate liveries.
Stephen Allcroft
27/01/16 – 06:22
I think we can be reasonably sure that the body order for these LHSs went to Marshall because of the narrow width requirement. ECW were building bodies for LHS around the same time (for Lincolnshire and Luton Corporation), but these were 7′ 10″ wide, as were the contemporary bodies on the longer LH chassis at that time. I am not sure if the narrow version of the BET windscreen was available at that time, but I believe the principal problem was the height, rather than the width. The basic structure of the body looks to be similar to the Marshall Cambrette bodies built on Bedford VAS chassis for Coventry and East Kent a few years earlier. The radiator of the Bristol LH range was set relatively high, so that Marshall would not have had very much scope to extend the aperture for the windscreen downwards, while an enlargement upwards would have intruded into the destination display area. The only other option would have been to use the shallower rear screens of the BET curved variety, but I am reasonably sure they were even shallower, and the aesthetics of the vehicle would have suffered, not to mention the driver’s field of vision! The multi-pane version adopted was already being used for export vehicles, so I suspect the adaptation for these LHSs was a simple and effective solution. The 10 Bristol LH coaches that Marshall bodied for WN (with mixed BDV-L and NTT-M registrations) had a different body structure with a shallow roof and deeper side windows, which meant that the BET screens could be accommodated. I would hazard a guess that the structure of these was derived from those that Marshall built for the MoD, usually on Bedford SB chassis, though I believe that some later vehicles were built on underfloor-engined chassis.
Nigel Frampton
06/09/17 – 06:52
United acquired both 832/3 NDL768/769G from SVOC and numbered them 1451/2 for demand variable services from Ripon depot in 1977 where they were sparingly used. They were then sent to Darlington depot where they were to be used for a new service serving Newton Aycliffe. 1451 was replaced by a newer ex Trent LHS/ECW also in the distinctive Newtonian colours (as befits a new town) but 1452 survived. NDL769G eventually passed into preservation replaced by, ironically, another ex SV LHS in 838 HDL415N. The ECW LHS’s continued on the Newtonian until deregulation when Merc minis brought a larger network of services though still with Newtonian fleetnames. Three LHS’s (now joined by HDL414N) were sent to Ripon (again coming full circle) where the livery was amended to Ripon City Bus. The LHS’s were then swapped with Western National though the livery was then applied to some standard LH’s (1705/6) at Ripon depot. There was ANOTHER similar patriotic livery applied to three vehicles (one was the National) but thankfully not perpetuated!
BW
01/11/19 – 05:54
These narrow bodied LHS Bristols were purchased for service on the Newport to Cowes pontoon service which required drivers to negotiate the narrow arch entrance to the Red Funnel Cowes terminus. Not a favourite among drivers due to the heavy steering and clutch on these vehicles.
North Western Road Car 1968 Bristol RESL6G Marshall B45F
In its final years, North Western chose the Bristol RE as its standard single deck bus chassis, initially selecting the shorter RESL6G version in 1968 before turning to the longer RELL6G variety from 1969 onwards. The RESL6G saloons numbered forty in total and all came with Marshall bodywork, the first fifteen, Nos 270-284, KJA 270-284F, arriving in January 1968 as B45F. However, Nos 285-309, KJA 285-289F, KJA 290- 309G delivered from July 1968 onwards, had the reduced capacity of B43F. On 1st January 1969 SELNEC PTE was formed, and much of the North Western stage carriage network lay within the designated SELNEC area. After lengthy negotiations, the National Bus Company conceded, and the hatchet finally fell upon North Western in January 1972 when its bus fleet was dismembered, leaving NWRCC as simply a coach operator. Most of the RESL/Marshall buses, including No 282 shown above, passed to SELNEC, but Nos 302 -309 were transferred to Crosville. I am sure that our Lancastrian contributors will be able to tell me the Manchester location of the photograph which was taken in June 1970. One final question – did these buses have Gardner LW or LX engines?
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
18/11/18 – 10:41
This is unmistakably in St. Peter’s Square in Manchester and would have to be a tram to make such a manoeuvre now! 282 was one of the batch allocated to Oldham depot and was new in a livery that also had cream window surrounds and, distinctively, cream inside the peaks of the domes as can be seen on sister 281 here: https://davidbeilby Although 281 survived long enough to get the SELNEC Cheshire fleetname as seen in the linked photo, 282 was repainted earlier as I have a picture of it in October 1970 in the above colour scheme. In your photo it seems to be newly-painted. As it’s showing “PRIVATE” it doesn’t give much clue as to why it would be there and it may well be working from Manchester to Oldham depots after having been borrowed. It is also just possible, if it is a morning photograph, that it is returning from working the solitary morning peak journey from Mottram to Manchester Lower Mosley Street that was worked by Oldham – it worked out of service from Manchester back to Oldham depot.
David Beilby
[Administrator note: The link to David’s site, in the above message, is no longer current. If you read this David, please let me know the updated address and I will update this page. Thanks, Nigel (admin)]
20/11/18 – 09:11
It’s not early morning, David. At that point in my life I lived in Farnborough, Hampshire. I would catch an early train from London to undertake my Manchester transport jaunts, so it would be around midday or early afternoon.
Roger Cox
24/11/18 – 06:21
Well, at long last the NWRCC finally got its Bristols once again after more than 20 years. The Central Library in the background of the photo looks far more impressive nowadays now it has been cleaned of all the grime that had accumulated prior to the Clean Air Act. I still have fond memories of the Library: there were many Saturday afternoons I would spend valuable learning time reading Buses Illustrated and Modern Tramway.
David Revis
24/11/18 – 09:56
North Western received its last Bristols, ordered prior to the effect of the nationalisation of Bristol, in late 1950 these being L5Gs 311-32 EDB 311-320 with Weymann B35R bodies. The RESL6Gs were delivered from January 1968, thus the wait for new Bristols was just 17 years, not over 20. Central Library was cleaned in 1971.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/11/18 – 06:51
The photo was taken in June 1970 and the bus looks freshly repainted. Could that explain why it is where it is? Would it have been repainted in Manchester?
Peter Williamson
15/04/19 – 07:13
To answer the question on engines, they had Gardner 6HLX engines. I have close personal experience of this, being the owner of the surviving member of the batch 299! For obvious reasons I’ve collected a lot of photos of this batch, and I’ve found that quite a few were repainted from the “more cream” style to the one we see here when quite young. My speculation (no more than that) is that the Marshall paint job wasn’t especially good, these bodies being built down to a price, and North Western gave them a repaint in the by-then current style when only about three years old. To answer Peter Williamson’s question, it’s almost certain that it would have been repainted at the company‘s Works at Charles Street in Stockport and could – conceivably – have been photographed on its way back to Oldham from the repaint.
Paul Williams
16/04/19 – 09:00
Travelling from Charles St to Oldham via St Peter’s Sq is a long way round. In 1970 the shortest route would have been Charles St-Bredbury-Denton-Ashton-Oldham. Roger says the photo was taken mid day or early afternoon. There are a number of possibilities. David Beilby’s first suggestion; as we can’t determine the driver, some sort of engineer’s run though why go into Manchester?; if this was a Saturday (the lights are on in the library, so not a Sunday), returning from a private hire where the vehicle is not required for a return run, such as taking people from the Oldham area to an event at the close by Free Trade Hall that runs until late evening or returning from delivering people who have been visiting the Oldham area to wherever. Again, it could have run into Manchester as a duplicate on a trans Pennine service and was not required beyond Lower Mosley St or on the return. We’ll never know
Phil Blinkhorn
26/04/19 – 09:44
My own theory on why the bus is in Manchester is that having come out of the paintshop the driver may have been asked to deliver some urgent mail to Lower Mosley Street. It was common practice to send mail on service buses between depots. Oldham Depot only had two AM journeys that returned private back to Oldham. The first was a mentioned by David Beilby. The number 6 duplicate from Mottram. The other journey worked the service 503 from Adswood into the City. Prior to this journey it worked a journey from Ashton-under-Lyne to Hazel Grove (Mirrlees Works). Just a thought.
Keith Hampton
27/04/19 – 13:24
My father was one of the 116 workers entitled to use this service from the newly closed Ashton National Works to Mirrlees. At least in the early days this must have required 2 buses, perhaps one for works and a later one for offices. I presume the service ended at some point after most of the entitled moved or bought cars. Do you know how the return journey late afternoon was organised?
Tony Johnson
28/04/19 – 08:06
Thanks for explaining the origins of this Mirrlees works service. It’s pretty obvious now you mention it but not something I had thought about too much before. There were two morning journeys from the information I have (which I think is the same that Keith Hampton has). It seems logical that there was an afternoon return service but this does not appear in the Oldham depot schedules, so one concludes it was worked by someone else. Either another North Western depot or another operator (jointly).
David Beilby
03/05/19 – 07:11
Tony Johnson mentions that at least 2 vehicles must have been required for this service. I can confirm that this was the case, and both journeys were worked by Oldham Garage. According to my list of Oldham duties:- One Double Decker (Crew duty 23) departed Ashton Bus Station at 07:05, and a Single Decker (OMO duty 29) at 07:50. On arrival at Mirrlees both buses then operated from Adswood to Chorlton Street. Would it have been the case, do you think, that these 2 Adswood journeys would have operated to Lower Mosley Street before the closure of LMS? If that was the case then 282 was possibly heading back to Oldham after completing it work. There is no mention of PM journeys from Mirrlees in the Oldham duties.
Stephen Howarth
04/05/19 – 06:31
Stephen, the use of LMS is a distinct possibility.
Phil Blinkhorn
04/05/19 – 06:32
Unfortunately, Stephen, Roger has already pointed out that he would not have been in Manchester early enough for that to be the case. I think that there were afternoon journeys but not worked by Oldham. I have a photograph of 932 on this service in April 1972 and that wasn’t an Oldham car at the time, but I don’t know to which depot it was allocated. It’s more likely to be an afternoon shot but I don’t actually know.
With – Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee 1965 Daimler Roadliner Marshall B50F
I have listed this under Halifax Corporation has that is who the Roadliner was on loan to at the time the photo was taken. I went on this bus to Brighouse on the 49 route which was normally serviced by double deckers maybe the intention was to replace them with high capacity single deckers. Halifax didn’t buy any Roadliners or any similar single deckers so the route must of carried on being serviced by double deckers. I have tried to research which operator the Roadliner finally ended up with but to no avail, if you know, let me know, leave a comment.
By 1975 this bus was with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory at Crowthorne Berks, and was used for “Guided Bus” experiments involving the bus being guided by a wire buried in the road.
Derek Lucas
It was the Daimler demonstrator, a deal was struck with Bob Crouch at Daimler to keep the bus in Halifax but it would be released back to Daimler when needed for demonstration purposes, it usually worked the 5/6 circulars and later had a green roof. The Cummins VIM V6 engine was a poor unit and lead to the early demise of these buses. In Halifax the poor roads lead to chassis body flexing and the long chassis severely restricted route availability, also with long routes such as 48/9 it meant too many unhappy passengers standing up. Finally at this time – it had to have a Gardner 6LX – or it was out!
Christopher
08/03/11 – 15:44
I believe this bus was sold in the late 70’s through the Gov auction sales at the OSDD at Ruddington, Nottm., I was a fitter at the time, my apprentice and I had a drive around the perimeter, it still had the mountings for the experimental equipment and only about 4 seats were installed.
Roger Broughton
29/08/11 – 08:14
We had a number of batches with V6/V8 engines, with Plaxton Coach Bodies for express services, FAST/GOOD HILL EATERS, but required one driver-one coach, to keep them on the road. The engine sound going through a urban area at 02.00 hrs. was out of this world!!!! Went back to LEOPARDS, after the 4th batch, that or buy a 2nd towing unit. [mind you all top management had Daimler cars by then, buy 9 get a free car?????]
Mike 9
29/08/11 – 16:31
Here is another picture of the Roadliner under evaluation in Halifax, taken, if my memory serves me correctly, near King Cross. Personally, I doubt that GGH seriously considered this vehicle as a contender for the Halifax bus orders. Knowing his fascination with all things in the bus world, I suspect that he wanted to try it out through curiosity alone.
Roger Cox
04/01/12 – 06:56
I well remember the Roadliner from my time with Eastbourne Corporation in the 1960’s. The demonstrator CVC 124C arrived in Churchdale Road depot one Sunday afternoon, I can’t remember when, it was not used in service only inspected and must have had an impression on Mr R R Davies the manager as one was ordered duly arriving in mid 1967 as No 86 (DHC 786E). I was the first driver to take it out on service as a additional bus on service 6, the seafront route, the first one man operated bus for the Corporation which I must say did not go down too well with the residents of the Meads section of the route. Two more similar vehicles arrived the following year as No’s 90/91 (EJK 890/91) all three having two door East Lancs bodies and fitted with the Metalastik suspension. As many others have commented they were very raucous both inside and out the suspension also I seem to remember chattered quite a lot but their performance was a revelation. I believe all three had to have new engines before they had covered 30,000 miles. I recall that when selecting 1st gear when stationary the N/S front corner dipped quite noticeably. My lasting memory of these buses is of stopping on the seafront to pick up passengers when the engine cut out for no obvious reason and would not restart I then noticed in the N/S mirror smoke coming from the engine bay upon investigation I found the main electrical control box and master switch had broken loose and was swinging on it’s cables with terminals shorting on the exhaust pipe after very carefully switching off the master switch I found the short circuit had burnt a hole in the exhaust pipe. Meanwhile orders had been placed for Leyland Panthers, I left the Corporation in 1969 and the Roadliners quite soon after, it has to be said the Panthers were only marginally better.
Potteries Motor Traction 1964 Daimler Roadliner SRC6 Marshall B50F
This is one of the prototype Daimler Roadliners which originally had the Clayton COMPAS heating and ventilation system fitted. There were two radiators, one each side of the bus just in front of the rear wheels which had the twin function of engine cooling and saloon heating. Sounds good in concept but like a lot of things at that time didn’t work reliably in practice. In January 1969 it reappeared with a front mounted radiator and conventional heating, the only PMT Roadliner so fitted. The radiator is hidden behind the front grille, which may look familiar to some as it was the grill fitted to the contemporary Ford Transit van. I cannot remember now why PMT fitted a front radiator to SN1000 and not a rear mounted one in the engine bay like the rest of the fleet. Incidentally the last 6 of the Marshall bodied Roadliners fleet numbers S1086-S1091 also had the COMPAS system – and they were no more reliable than SN1000!! This was the only PMT Roadliner with air suspension, all the others had Metalastik toggle link suspension. The photo was taken on a test run near Clayton Schools on 20th January 1969.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
I have driven these buses and they were a total disaster, PMT only kept them for about 7 years.
Michael Crofts
I remember the PMT Roadliners. Some of them had home made looking slits in the panels behind the back wheels to improve engine cooling. They were very noisy.
JT
Yes very noisy but sounding totally unlike a bus. It was a sort of deep “Ewwww” muffled roar. When North Western Fleetline 189 was fitted with the same Cummins V6 you could hear it descending Rassbottom St in Stalybridge (On the joint route 90 to Marple) long before it turned into the bus station. I now regret that I never did take a ride on a Roadliner when I had the chance. A Potteries mate says they were just as deafening from the inside, and that the later Perkins engined ones whilst marginally more reliable, used to waggle their tails dramatically when driven at high revs. Darlington and Chesterfield Corporations got long service lives out of theirs, whether that suggests they overcame many of the problems, or that the local councillors refused to give up on them for the costs and red faces involved in replacing them early?
Keith Jackson
When I was a boy the PMT Roadliners operated on route 13 to Bentilee. Apart from the noise the bodywork rattled fit to disintegrate! There was an emergency exit window half way along the off side the locking mechanism for which used to jiggle about when the bus was stationary. A big disappointment after the AEC Reliance 590s.
John Tinsley
Our problem at PMT was that we just had too many of the things!! The largest fleet of Roadliners anywhere in the world. The Plaxton bodied ones (timber framed bodies)could possibly have gone on to nearer normal service lives if re engined with Perkins V8s – but at what cost? The Marshall bodied ones (steel framed bodies)were disastrous and although we rebuilt a few at enormous cost in man hours they weren’t a right lot better. By 1972 failures of the Metalastik toggle link suspension units were becoming prevalent. These were expensive to buy and a nightmare to replace. Panhard rod bushes were a recurrent failure – again taking much longer to replace than a leaf spring on a conventional vehicle. We used saloon seats from withdrawn Marshall vehicles to replace the worn out high backed seats in some of Reliances SN801-810 making them more suitable for urban work and less susceptible to vandalism. Happy days!!
Ian Wild
Just a bit of clarification about the ‘home made looking slits’ (ref JT). They were fibreglass corner panels made in house in the fibreglass shop at Stoke and as JT says, the idea was to provide additional engine bay cooling. To the best of my recollection, they were fitted to the 47 Cummins engined Plaxton and Marshall bodied buses. I don’t think they were fitted to the later batch of 10 Plaxtons with Perkins V8 engines.
Ian Wild
08/02/17 – 16:55
I worked with Cummins at that time and spent a year or so carrying out a series of engine changes and modifications for Belfast Corporation. As it was the time of the troubles, suspect much of my efforts ended up as bonfires. V6 engine wet liners incredibly sensitive to both corrosion and erosion/electrolysis if water filters maintenance neglected. Becoming porous within months.
I have driven these buses and they were a total disaster, PMT only kept them for about 7 years.
Michael Crofts
I remember the PMT Roadliners. Some of them had home made looking slits in the panels behind the back wheels to improve engine cooling. They were very noisy.
JT
Yes very noisy but sounding totally unlike a bus. It was a sort of deep “Ewwww” muffled roar. When North Western Fleetline 189 was fitted with the same Cummins V6 you could hear it descending Rassbottom St in Stalybridge (On the joint route 90 to Marple) long before it turned into the bus station.
I now regret that I never did take a ride on a Roadliner when I had the chance. A Potteries mate says they were just as deafening from the inside, and that the later Perkins engined ones whilst marginally more reliable, used to waggle their tails dramatically when driven at high revs.
Darlington and Chesterfield Corporations got long service lives out of theirs, whether that suggests they overcame many of the problems, or that the local councillors refused to give up on them for the costs and red faces involved in replacing them early?
Keith Jackson
When I was a boy the PMT Roadliners operated on route 13 to Bentilee. Apart from the noise the bodywork rattled fit to disintegrate! There was an emergency exit window half way along the off side the locking mechanism for which used to jiggle about when the bus was stationary. A big disappointment after the AEC Reliance 590s.
John Tinsley
Our problem at PMT was that we just had too many of the things!! The largest fleet of Roadliners anywhere in the world. The Plaxton bodied ones (timber framed bodies)could possibly have gone on to nearer normal service lives if re engined with Perkins V8s – but at what cost? The Marshall bodied ones (steel framed bodies)were disastrous and although we rebuilt a few at enormous cost in man hours they weren’t a right lot better. By 1972 failures of the Metalastik toggle link suspension units were becoming prevalent. These were expensive to buy and a nightmare to replace. Panhard rod bushes were a recurrent failure – again taking much longer to replace than a leaf spring on a conventional vehicle. We used saloon seats from withdrawn Marshall vehicles to replace the worn out high backed seats in some of Reliances SN801-810 making them more suitable for urban work and less susceptible to vandalism. Happy days!!
Ian Wild
Just a bit of clarification about the ‘home made looking slits’ (ref JT). They were fibreglass corner panels made in house in the fibreglass shop at Stoke and as JT says, the idea was to provide additional engine bay cooling. To the best of my recollection, they were fitted to the 47 Cummins engined Plaxton and Marshall bodied buses. I don’t think they were fitted to the later batch of 10 Plaxtons with Perkins V8 engines.
Ian Wild
08/02/17 – 16:55
I worked with Cummins at that time and spent a year or so carrying out a series of engine changes and modifications for Belfast Corporation. As it was the time of the troubles, suspect much of my efforts ended up as bonfires.
V6 engine wet liners incredibly sensitive to both corrosion and erosion/electrolysis if water filters maintenance neglected. Becoming porous within months.
Mike Hyde