Category: Photos

Portsmouth Corporation – Leyland Titan PD1 – DTP 822 – 188


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

Portsmouth Corporation
1948
Leyland Titan PD1/1A
Weymann H30/26R

#

One of 19 identical PD1/1A’s delivered in 1948, 188 still looks very smart in its glossy maroon and white paint, with roof of grey, paint dipping at the corners a la London Transport’s post-war STL 18/20’s, which had identical bodies.
It has just entered Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, having just come down Commercial Road and under Portsmouth & Southsea’s High Level Station bridge, seen to the left of the bus. Behind, and to the right, is Brickwood’s Sussex Hotel, with its brown-tiled facade.  188 has come from Portchester and is en-route to the Floating Bridge, Old Portsmouth, not, literally, a floating bridge, but a vehicle ferry over to Gosport. Note the police telephone box and the holidaymakers, dad with suitcase, on what looks a lovely Summer’s day, by the look of 188’s open windows. The trolley wires would be used for another few months.
The photo was taken about 1962 and it’s nice to see one of these vehicles with a full blind display (perfectly set), since they were usually relegated to peak-hour working, with just a destination display, in this, the twilight of their lives. 188 was withdrawn in 1967, after 19 years service.
The city coat of arms on the side is in a separate photo. The motto’s in English; no fancy Latin for Pompey folk!
To the right of the main photo, just out of view, was the Taj-Mahal Indian Restaurant. In 1967, a colleague and I were invited to another colleague’s retirement lunch. He’d served in the Indian Army in the war and suggested we’d like a Madras Curry. It was our first curry and was so hot as be virtually inedible, but we couldn’t upset the man; so ate it! I never touched another curry for 20 years! For our host, however, it was not quite hot enough!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

25/12/11 – 06:38

An early example of “Leyland Loonacy”. Weymann’s classic post-war design marred by Leyland’s insistence on siting the Speedo unit in such a position and way that the windscreen had to be small and squared off. The logic was that the Leyland body had a far more attractive windscreen (it did) and therefore people wouldn’t buy bodies from anyone else (they did). Did they really believe their own argument in Lancashire?

David Oldfield

25/12/11 – 09:25

What an excellent picture and the highlighting of the City Coat of Arms. Perhaps others may be put on the site with the translation of the Latin inscription. Incidentally nowadays you never see suit cases being carried since the invention of the trolley case.

Philip Carlton

25/12/11 – 18:41

The early post-war Weymann body was certainly a classic but it always looked at its best on the AEC Regent chassis where the radiator, cab windscreen, and in fact the whole package came together just right.

Philip Halstead

26/12/11 – 07:05

I lived as a child in the Gosport area from 1949 to 1952, and well remember the Gosport – Portsmouth Point chain driven Floating Bridge, which opened in 1840 and finally closed in 1959. As so often with short term decisions based entirely upon capital renewal costs, the closure of this facility was misguided, and the result may be seen in the extreme traffic congestion that now plagues the Gosport peninsula. If this photo of No. 188 was taken in 1962, then the Floating Bridge was long gone by then. though the slipway at Portsmouth Point may still be seen today.

Roger Cox

26/12/11 – 07:06

The RT/RTL and RM were designed as a harmonious whole – and this is generally acknowledged – but there have also been unofficial collaborations.
Weymann always worked closely with AEC which probably explains why that combination seemed to work. [For a time, from 1933 to 1947, Sheffield Transport only had AEC and Weymann in that combination – their many Leylands always having other coachwork.] There was the Guy/Park Royal tie up – begun before Park Royal were taken over by AEC/ACV. Two others which, in Philip’s words “came together just right…” were the Bristol Lodekka (in all forms) and the BMMO D9.
It’s what I call balanced design. Bad and/or ugly design is not balanced, there is always at least one thing that “jarrs”.

David Oldfield

26/12/11 – 11:21

Looking at a picture of preserved Sheffield 904, I realise that all of their Roe/PD2s from 1957 and the PD3s had exactly the same windscreen as the final Leyland bodies (1951 – 1954). Strangely, the Weymann and ECW PD2s had a different, smaller, windscreen (with similar profile) which Chesterfield also had on its Weymann PD2s.
The other collaboration which I forgot (above) was Leyland and Metro-Cammell (as opposed to Weymann). Roger Davies, in his Ribble book, is only one person to state that there was tacit agreement, after Leyland gave up building coachwork, for business to pass almost automatically to MCCW.

David Oldfield

26/12/11 – 17:49

Tynemouth and Wakefield’s ‘Northern General’ had some AEC’s with this type of Weymann body, and Northern’s first 8ft wide buses were GUY Arab’s with a very similar body but with sliding cab door. When I started at Percy Main I did my training on one of them, the fleet number was 189 FT? ?89. It had a crash box, and you needed a block and tackle to steer it. One of them went to Chester Le Street depot where it became a full fronted dual control vehicle.

Ronnie Hoye

26/12/11 – 17:50

FLOATING BRIDGE took quite a while to disappear from the bus blinds, and local speech, too. Undoubtedly, it was old and worn out, but it was a shame it wasn’t replaced with a larger version which would have carried more vehicles. It was a tourist attraction, too. It’s hard to believe that the A27 between Portsmouth and Southampton (Itchen) also had a floating bridge until supplanted by a bridge in 1977, even though bridge plans had existed since 1936!

Chris Hebbron

26/12/11 – 18:51

Thank you Ronnie for that magnificent description of the action necessary to deal with heavy steering – its tickled me and I’ll be chuckling all evening now !!

Chris Youhill

27/12/11 – 18:09

Further to the comments above concerning Weymann bodies on chassis other than AEC, it is not difficult to find other post war exceptions to this tendency, but I never knew that Leyland deliberately tried to “dissuade” customers from purchasing non Leyland bodywork, as David so vividly points out!
In the pre-war period, the Leyland/Weymann combination was perhaps more common, the Plymouth fleet coming to mind, as well as those handsome full front TD5s of Bournemouth.
I also recall some comment in “Buses” in 1954, when Leyland had announced the end of bus body building, that MCW was the natural successor, a fact perhaps born out in the integral developments such as the Olympic/Olympian, and some of the lead up to the Atlantean.
If anything, Park Royal would seem to have been more “in league” with AEC in the pre-war period, the balance shifting towards Weymann in the post war era.
Classic Weymann bodies look magnificent on any chassis really, and my mind is so easily led to the pre-war Bradford fleet, where Weymann bodied Daimler COG 6s were a common sight.
Of all the many coachbuilders which we remember, Weymann must rank as the all time “classic”, as they kept their basic trade mark shape and profile from 1932, with the original Rackham inspired design, until the Aurora styles of the mid 1950s, which, for a time, ran concurrently with the newly introduced “Orion”

John Whitaker

27/12/11 – 20:53

John. Source for the “squared off” Leyland comment is Doug Jack’s “Leyland Bus” and for AEC/Weymann cooperation “Weymann Story Part 1” (Senior, Townsin and Banks). This book also quotes a tendency, in the immediate pre-war period, for senior staff to move jobs freely between Addlestone and West London.
Park Royal emerged from the ashes of Hall Lewis in 1931 but were only acquired by AEC/ACV in 1949. Weymann produced a one off, none to handsome, body for the prototype Regent which was exhibited at the Motor Show.
This became Sheffield Transport 66. It was after this that the first version of the classic Weymann design emerged – the first of many for Sheffield, but only on AEC until 1953, after which Leylands were also bodied for STD.
The Leyland /MCCW link was only really broken after Leyland “merged” with ACV in 1962 – after which Leyland/Park Royal-Roe was the preferred one stop choice.

David Oldfield

28/12/11 – 15:49

To add to the very knowledgeable comments made by John and David on the Weymann classical body of the thirties, forties and early fifties. a good livery such as Portsmouth Corporation was the “icing-on-the-cake” to show this body style at its best.
Sadly Weymann lost the plot in the mid fifties when their Orion body appeared, and despite some good liveries applied by some operators, this body was never in the same league as the their earlier classical-style body.
The Portsmouth Leyland PD1/1A Weymann was a gem, exuded quality and was very long lasting. In modern day language, it was a “value for money” bus.

Richard Fieldhouse

28/12/11 – 17:16

Just as a postscript to David’s comments on Leyland’s strategy to supply the all Leyland product, there is evidence to suggest that bodybuilding and chassis production were never of equal capacity, which is what surprised me about the undoubted truth which David has highlighted in this matter.
Regarding the relationship between AEC, Weymann, and Park Royal before the post war mergers, I would be interested to learn whether this was any more than just a friendly association. I have been counting up the bodies on AEC demonstrators pre-war, and Park Royal seems to have a lead there, if that is anything to go by.
All very “interesting stuff”, and, as Richard says, what magnificent vehicles (Weymanns) were, especially when adorned by a livery as attractive as that of PCT.

John Whitaker

28/12/11 – 18:17

More to the point, why did Leyland not have confidence in what was universally regarded as one of the best bodies around (style AND quality).
The Weymann book and the Hall Lewis/Park Royal web-site show the fascinating and labyrinthine connections between each other and AEC – let alone the ECW, Roe and Roberts connections (nearly forty years before British Leyland).

David Oldfield

30/12/11 – 07:39

Maybe the alliances and associations were purely pragmatic. Imagine Blankchester Corporation saying EITHER (1) “we want 30 standard 56-seat deckers, and the all-important criterion is that they are delivered by 30 June next year.” OR (2) “we want 30 PD2s (or Regent IIIs or whatever). We are not in a great hurry but we insist on the bodies being provided by XYZ in order to support local industry.” Sensible manufacturers reply (1) “We can do it, provided you are happy to accept bodies from JKL or QRS, who are the only manufacturers who can supply bodies within your timescale.” or (2) “We are happy to fit XYZ bodies in order to secure your business.” The daft ones say “It is our corporate policy only to associate with our own chosen partners, so we can’t meet your delivery schedule/we are not prepared to fit XYZ bodies – and you can like it or lump it!” Sooner or later they go (or went!) out of business.

Stephen Ford

30/12/11 – 08:55

…..but Stephen. That sounds just like the barmy idea of current coachbuilders (especially COACH builders) hitching their waggons to just one chassis – thus depriving twice as many people of their preferred vehicles.

David Oldfield

30/12/11 – 14:05

Adopting a ‘take it or leave it’ policy Eg the Leyland National, and giving the customer little or no choice in the matter proved to be the eventual downfall of the British commercial vehicle industry. For example, did you know that when AEC became part of British Leyland, they had a design on the drawing board for a totally new lorry but it was rejected because the new Ergomatic cab was being introduced more or less across the board, and Leyland wanted to standardise production, so the design was sold to SAAB, it became the SCANIA 80 and 100, and later the 111, the rest as they say is history.

Ronnie Hoye

30/12/11 – 17:08

You’re absolutely correct, Ronnie. British Leyland, as distinct from Leyland Motors, went a long way to destroy local industry – helped by the National Bus Company and then, ironically, by Baroness Thatcher when she broke up NBC with privatisation and deregulation.
There was a LOT of good in the Leyland Leopard but the AEC Reliance, particularly AH691/760s, was vastly superior. The AN68 Atlantean was an excellent bus but the consensus is that it would have had a run for its money had the FRM gone into production.
Then, of course, both Scania and DAF had licences to build the 0.600/0.680 engines – but ended up doing it so much better. DAF/PACCAR’s MX engine, originally based on the Leyland, is a world beater.
There are even more examples in the private car sector.

David Oldfield

31/12/11 – 07:32

I, too, have often thought that the FRM could well have dominated the rear-engined bus scene, had it gone into production. Dearer though it might have been, the fact that it was only a slightly modified RM, with a reliable pedigree, gave it the chance to sweep the board. Sadly, there were vested interests at work. Yet another might-have-been!

Chris Hebbron

11/01/12 – 06:50

Lovely to see this view of No 188 passing through the Guildhall Square, also the Cravens bodied trolleybus in another contribution here. I suggest that the picture date is a bit before 1962, nearer 1959/60. The bus still has a grey roof, and does not have flashing trafficators as far as I can see. The Corporation gave the motorbus fleet white roofs on repaint from late 1959/early 1960, and the exercise was completed by 1963 (apart from the odd older vehicle due for withdrawal, like vee-fronted Leyland TD4 No 129 (ex-127), withdrawn with grey roof in 1964). All the trolleybuses remained grey roofed until the end in July 1963. The simple lining out on the red paintwork, and the chromed radiator make the vehicle a proud sight. Some of the batch had painted radiators. When I was a young enthusiast, and read Buses Illustrated, there were several letters and contributions c.1958-60 about PD1 versus PD2 engines and performance – the PD1 always came off worst! In the early 1980’s (c.1985?) one member of the batch survived in a corner of a field with some other ex-CPPTD stock at Waltham Chase, on the Wickham / Bishops Waltham road B2177. I have no idea whether any of these survived or who was keeping them.

Michael Hampton

02/02/12 – 07:06

I was brought up in Portsmouth in the 60s and have clear recollections of this batch regularly taking us to the football grounds off of Eastern Road from Northern Grammar school for PE lessons. I remember seeing many of them delicensed in the side shed at Gladys Avenue Depot. interestingly one of the batch became a trainer bus at North End and was nicknamed Gladys! The bus referred to at Waltham Chase happily survives under the care of CPPTD.

Mark Southgate

07/05/12 – 09:26

I used to get the 145 bus each day from North End to Old Portsmouth. Cost 3d (three pence) from 1961 to 1971. The destination was Floating Bridge, although I never knew what that was, changed to “Point, Old Portsmouth”. Some buses in the early sixties also had letters. The A and B route along Commercial Rd for example, then became 1 and 2. Same route, different directions! Late night buses, “North End only”, would go to the Gladys Ave depot. Also Fratton Park specials from North End to “Football Ground”.

Jules

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

05/07/17 – 06:52

DTP 814

I’ve just come across a wonderful colour photo of a sister vehicle to 188, taken at North End Depot in 1966, on the cusp of being withdrawn the same year. It says so much of Portsmouth Corporation’s high standards that it could turn out a vehicle almost 20 years old, almost as good as new to look at. Note the white roof, which the corporation restored after WWII, in the early ’60’s.

Chris Hebbron

06/07/17 – 07:29

The steam powered vehicle transporting floating bridge ran between Gosport Ferry and Portsmouth Point, where the old landing stage can still be seen. Like the still running Sandbanks ferry in Dorset, it functioned by winding itself across by engaging chains laid on the floor of the harbour. It began operating in 1840 and received a new vessel, the Alexandra, in 1864, and she lingered on, spasmodically in the last years, until 1959. I lived near Gosport during the years 1949 to 1952, and remember it well, though I never actually travelled on it. Nowadays the Gosport peninsula is a traffic nightmare, and a vehicle crossing facility would surely be useful.

Roger Cox

Warrington Corporation – Leyland Titan – EED 8 – 24

Warrington Corporation - Leyland Titan - EED 8 - 24

Warrington Corporation
1947
Leyland Titan PD1
Leyland H30/26R

EED 8 is a Leyland Titan PD1 and according to others on the web it is said to have a Leyland/Alexander H56R body new in 1947 to Warrington as their number 24. Maybe Leyland were busy at the time and it was a Leyland body assembled by Alexander.
It is at present owned by NWVRT and they have repainted it recently into Warrington colours. It was one of three half cabs in service during their 2014 rally at Kirkby.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones

06/10/14 – 07:05

How close to a Leyland body is that?

Jim Hepburn

06/10/14 – 07:06

Alexanders built numerous bodies under sub-contract to Leyland – although the detailing on the Ribble Titans betrayed their non-Leyland credentials. I seem to remember reading that there was at least one other sub-contractor (Santus?) – and was SMT involved in this as well? SMT certainly built their own “Duple Vista” bodies on Bedford OBs which were virtually indistinguishable. Alexanders certainly built a “Leyland” body on a PD2 prototype.

David Oldfield

06/10/14 – 09:10

David, in a similar manner to the Alexander sub contract PD1s were also bodied by Samlesbury Engineering in Lancashire.

Chris Youhill

06/10/14 – 10:02

Thanks, Chris. I think maybe that it was Samlesbury that I had in no.

David Oldfield

06/10/14 – 10:02

Warrington 24 (EED 8) has been in preservation for many years in Warrington colours, and has indeed been subject to a recent repaint. Although, as has been said, the body was indeed built by Alexander, it is still ‘officially’ a Leyland body, and has always been described as such, in the same fashion as East Lancs bodies built by Bruce and later Neepsend were initially described as East Lancs products, although latterly Bruce and Neepsend have been used to describe them, so Leyland or maybe Alexander, but please not Leyland/Alexander!

Philip Lamb

06/10/14 – 13:54

…..and, of course, there is the long Alexander tradition of building other’s designs – sometimes under subcontract, sometimes not. (Glasgow’s “Weymann” bodies). This was replied to by the likes of East Lands and their R type clones!

David Oldfield

06/10/14 – 13:55

These Alexander-built bodies (the ones for Warrington at least) had a single window in their upper rear emergency exit – as opposed to Leyland’s more usual two – making the back end tend to resemble the prewar Leyland body. It is just discernible in this view. The other distinguishing feature was that normally they had four small sets of ventilation slots along the top of the cab door, unlike the standard Leyland product which had just two horizontal ones, one above the other. However the one pictured has the latter, so I presume must have acquired a secondhand door from a Leyland body at some point during its restoration.

John Stringer

17/02/15 – 15:13

Can some help me, I worked for Walsall Corporation Transport in the early 60s I remember Walsall buying 2 Warrington buses, I think they were
EED 8/9 is this correct?

Bruce Johnson

18/02/15 – 06:42

Bruce J, I’m afraid that I can’t personally answer your question, but I wondered if you could yourself answer a query which has gone round a few websites without being satisfactorily answered. It concerns Walsall’s lightweight Leyland PD2, 823 (TDH 770). I have seen it referred to as being ‘semi-automatic’ but I wonder if you could say if it
1) was a preselect, like the ex-London RTLs;
2) had a direct air system, such as became normal on two-pedal Leyland PD2s, PD3s, Tiger Cubs and Leopards;
3) had an electric gear selector, such as on early Atlanteans, Fleetlines, etc.
If you fail to get a response to your own query here, can I suggest that you try the message board at the sct61 site, it’s always a good place to have questions answered.

David Call

18/02/15 – 08:31

I think Walsall bought a couple of East Lancs bodied PD1s from Warrington , about the same time as the RTLs.

Steve Milner

19/02/15 – 15:55

The two Warrington Corporation Titans sold to Walsall Corporation were 100/01 (EED 9/10).
They were Titan PD1A with Bruce L27/26R new in 1947 and sold to Walsall in July 1959 as numbers 198/99, lasting until being sold for scrap in 1963 and 1964 respectively.
They were Warrington Corporation’s only two lowbridge buses.

Dave Farrier

12/03/15 – 06:44

I have been the owner of ex-Warrington PD1 EED 5 (fleet no.24) for nearly 40 years! Like EED 8, it has bodywork designed and produced by Leyland but assembled by Alexander – I have a copy of the letter from Warrington confirming this. The body on EED 5 is original and classed as a Leyland metal framed type: this has a cab door with four vents near the top and rear emergency door on the top deck containing two windows.

Phil Clark

12/03/15 – 17:03

AWG 363

In distinguishing between the Leyland and Alexander product on the PD1 chassis I have always used the style of the front panel of the cab as the determining feature. On the Leyland body it always conceals the mudguard, usually with the horn inserted as on the Warrington bus. The Alexander version has a shorter and slightly more set back panel allowing the bottom of the mudguard to protrude, as can be seen in the attached picture. This actually shows both PD1 (right) and PD2/1 (left) versions of the ‘pure’ Alexander product.
There are also variations in the shape of the nearside canopy. The Leyland style on the Warrington PD1 is a continuous curve from top front corner to where it meets the mudguard, projecting in front of the bulkhead. This is echoed on the Alexander PD2, but on the PD1 it goes straight back from the front corner with quite a short valance with a basically angled profile. There is no projection of the side panel in front of the bulkhead.
A further question is whether Alexander actually produced a highbridge version of the Leyland clone (as opposed to assembling Leyland parts). There are certainly none that I can locate in any of the SBG fleets, although they might have delivered to other fleets. Nothing at this period was supplied to any of the Scottish municipal fleets.

Alan Murray-Rust

13/03/15 – 07:10

The photo of CRG and AWG also seems to show 2 other diagnostic differences. The gap between the 2 blind boxes and the design of the top of the upper deck front windows.

John Lomas

13/03/15 – 12:49

The points you mention are diagnostic between the versions of the Alexander body; I was aiming to highlight the differences between the Leyland and Alexander products.

Alan Murray-Rust

05/05/15 – 07:23

I’ve seen EED 8 mentioned on here and just to let you know it’s back in Warrington and privately owned I’m trying to set up a page on Facebook for my husband it his is bus.

Trina

03/03/18 – 06:47

I am sorry to inform you that EED 8, which was preserved in Warrington, was destroyed in a fire on Thursday 1st March 2018. A sad loss.

Paul Mason

03/03/18 – 06:50

Sad to say Warrington Corporation no 8 EED 8 is no more, destroyed in fire at Fairbrothers Bewsey Warrington.

Anthony Mcdonnell

04/03/18 – 06:46

It is unfortunate that it had gone back to Warrington. www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/

John Lomas

29/03/18 – 06:02

It was very sad to see the destruction of EED 8 by fire, a tragic accident that has destroyed all but the chassis, running gear, cab and the front, but it was remarkable to see the engine start and run straight away so that it could be driven out of the shed. I wish Ray and colleagues every good wish in their desire to rebuild the vehicle and hope that one day we can re-unite EED 8 with my bus EED 5.

Phil Clark

30/03/18 – 07:53

How sad, Phil. What actually happened?

Chris Hebbron

02/04/18 – 07:30

I saw the bus on BBC North West news and the vehicle was still recognisable but sadly I think the best thing for EED 8 is to be sold as spares for another Leyland PD1. The only other option, which would effectively mean building a new bus would be to follow the example of WW2 utility Guy Arab CDR 679, which lost its original body but was fitted with another utility body, but such matches are rare. I wish the owner well and I’m sorry about the fire.

Paul Mason

Southdown – Leyland Titan PD1 – GUF 669 – 269

Southdown - Leyland Titan PD1 - GUF 669 - 269

Southdown Motor Services
1946
Leyland Titan PD1
Park Royal H26/26R

Taken with my rather primitive Comet S camera in Brighton in 1960, this picture is not one of my best. There were twenty five of these PD1s delivered between June and September 1946, and 269, GUF 669, arrived with Southdown in July. 269 was withdrawn in 1963 and sold to Mexborough and Swinton who upseated it to H32/26R, but withdrew it for scrap just three years later. The PD1, with its 100 bhp 7.4 litre E181 engine and slow gearchange, was never a lively performer, and would have found some of the hills around Brighton to have been a bit of of a challenge, but several were based at Worthing depot, and in the picture 269 is operating along the relatively easy coastal route 9 from Arundel to Brighton.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

01/05/22 – 07:37

Poor photo you might feel, Roger, but photos of immediate post-war buses are often fascinating. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a Park Royal bodied one before, still five-bay. Weymann ones are seemingly more common. I agree with the painfully slow gearchanges on these vehicles; you could drink a cup of tea between gears, at least you could with London Transport’s austerity TD4 STDs, which sometimes would appear at Raynes Park, on the 77A route! Why they were given challenging routes in Central London and not allocated to Country services, I don’t know. But that’s London Transport for you!

Chris Hebbron

22/05/22 – 06:47

I went on a family holiday to Worthing in 1959, our first Southern holiday. I remember these PD1s from that holiday and this particular bus from its days with Mexborough and Swinton as I worked as an apprentice at Parkgate at that time just along the road from the M&S depot. I don”t recall ever travelling on it or its sibling. They have a certain rugged attraction to the bodywork and certainly dissimilar to any other buses that I came across. Thanks for the memories!!

Ian Wild

24/05/22 – 05:46

Chris, the utility London Transport STD class of 1941/2 comprised eleven “unfrozen” buses of the Leyland TD7 variety, a type that was introduced in succession to the TD5 in 1939. The TD6 was a special Birmingham only gearless version of the TD7, the model number being changed by Leyland for the wider market. In addition to being higher geared than the TD5, a significant change was the adoption of flexible engine mountings, and, to reduce rock, the engine was equipped with a heavier flywheel than before. This, however, resulted in the engine revs taking a long time to die between upward gear changes, which, added to the high gearing, made the TD7 painfully slow on intensive town services. Perversely, the London TD7s were all allocated to Victoria garage where they were regarded with an attitude bordering on hatred, and STD 101-111 were the very first utility buses to be withdrawn from front line service by London Transport. They all went unlamented for scrap. In practice, several provincial operators found that the flexible engine mountings of the TD7 weakened the chassis frame at the back of the engine and restored their examples to the solid mountings of the TD5, so was it all worth it, one wonders. The wartime bus industry is reported to have been utterly dismayed when the Leyland TD8 utility bus option was cancelled by the Ministry of War Transport, leaving only the suspiciously unknown quantity called the Guy Arab available to operators. Perhaps the heavy flywheel TD8 might not have proved popular in practice, whereas the Arab went on to earn a reputation as a truly dependable workhorse. Despite having a rigidly mounted engine the PD1 also precluded remotely speedy gear changes, and Geoffrey Hilditch declared that this model had the slowest gear change he ever encountered, though it seems that he didn’t come across the equally ponderous TD7. Strangely, the single deck PS1 of identical mechanical specification did not seem to earn a similar reputation. No doubt the lighter vehicle weight permitted better forward progress through the gears.

Roger Cox

Williamson’s – Leyland Titanic – DT 9643


Copyright Robert F Mack

Williamson’s (Bridlington)
1938
Leyland Titanic TT5c
Roe H32/28R

Here is the picture of Williamson’s ex Doncaster Titanic (76 – DT 9643) in action in Queen Street.  Unfortunately the destination blind is obscured by the sun but would say either “The Quay and Queensgate” or “Old Town and The Quay”, depending on whether it was quarter to or quarter past the hour, or on the hour or half past. It was a 1938 Titanic TT5c and served only one year in Bridlington, from July 1949 to July 1950. Possibly its Titanic running costs, maybe aggravated by the torque converter, resulted in this short career. In view of the notorious maritime disaster of 1912 I’ve always thought it either brave or cavalier of Leyland to give the model this particular name !!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill

18/03/12 – 11:28

Slightly off our normal bus subject – hard labour of a the non driving sort. In Nov 1907 a man called Arthur —- was charged on remand with stealing the tin box containing the fares collected on one of the ‘busses plying between Old Town and the Quay (note the old plural spelling for buses) the thief got 2 months hard labour – obviously not soft on crime in Bridlington!

Ian Gibbs

19/09/13 – 17:57

Doncaster had nine Titanics, some of which were passed to other operators – one even ending up with Yorkshire Traction. Some lasted until the early 1950s.
Sheffield’s Titanics had a reputation for poor-hill climbing, and I believe they were used mostly on the relatively flat 57 route to Stocksbridge.

Geoff Kerr

20/09/13 – 18:38

Geoff – I believe Sheffield’s Titanics were known as ‘Dragonflies’ on account that they would ‘drag’ themselves slowly up the hill and ‘fly’ down the other side!

John Darwent

03/10/13 – 17:37

DT 5276

I recently came across this picture of Doncaster’s “Titanic” No 65. This was evidently taken outside the Charles H.Roe works prior to delivery. According to the accompanying text “It seems likely that this imposing bus was the only TT2 Titanic other than the three supplied to City and taken over by the L.P.T.B., of which the chassis numbers were 2288-90”.
The photograph was credited to ‘Mr G. Warnes’

Nigel Edwards

04/10/13 – 06:14

These might not have been the earliest Titanics, for I have a feeling that I once saw a photo of a Western SMT TT1 Titanic which dated back to about 1928. So they were in the catalogue for a long time, even if they only sold in penny numbers.

Chris Hebbron

04/10/13 – 08:39

I know I’ve mentioned this before, but whatever were Leyland thinking of to use this model name when you consider the appalling shipping disaster of 1912 ??
Perhaps level headed operators paid no heed to this, but who knows if the insensitive name played perhaps just a little part in the low sales achieved??

Chris Youhill

04/10/13 – 15:04

Yes, Chris – it is indeed strange that they used the name Titanic so soon after the tragedy, but I suppose the then more recent Great War memories made this event almost trivial in comparison. However, I find it strange that, today, the Titanic disaster has become something almost to be “celebrated” as in Belfast. Sorry – not a bus related comment. However, it’s good to know that the AEC equivalent had a more positive and inspiring name – Renown, albeit with the same poor sales.

Paul Haywood

04/10/13 – 18:08

Of course, it was LGOC/LPTB who boosted the otherwise meagre sales of the pre-war AEC Renown; 1488 LT’s and 22 LTC’s, plus the true coach taken onboard from Edward Hillman (LT1489). The only other ones that readily come to my mind are the 25 bought by Leicester Corporation in 1939-40. As for the Titanic, the WWI torpedoing of the Lusitania might have made the Titanic sink into the background of folks memories. I’ve just realised the Freudian slip, but will leave it as an example of the way the mind innocently works at times!
As an aside, I’ve only ever seen photos of Leicester’s Northern Counties-bodied Renowns (one preserved)- I assume that the MCCW versions were a different design.

Chris Hebbron

05/10/13 – 08:24

The famous Mr Rackham – who designed both the Leyland Titan and the AEC Regent – was vociferous in his dislike of what we now call tri-axle designs and disapproved of the LTs. Leicester’s MCCW Renowns were specifically delivered to a Northern Counties like outline to make all the Renowns look similar.

David Oldfield

05/10/13 – 08:25

65 was a 1934 TT2c withdrawn in 1947 (Peter Gould)
Williamsons was Doncaster 76 a TT5c new in 1938 withdrawn in 1949. What a huge difference in appearance over 4 years. 76 would pass for a post war bus, but 65 looks almost 20’s.

Joe

28/02/16 – 15:19

My grandmother Doris was Ruben Williamson daughter, who married Samuel Bolton & lived across the road from the garage at 22 Havelock Crescent & my dad often told me about Williamson buses when he was 14 before school he used to help his dad Samuel bring the buses out (abo 1935).
My dad was Arthur Williamson Bolton

Graham Bolton

Southdown – Leyland Tiger – AUF 851 – 51 (551 from 1937)


Copyright Jack Turley/Dinnages

Southdown Motors Services
1934
Leyland Tiger TS6T
Short Bros. B40C (B39C from about 1946)

Two of these impressive and handsome vehicles (51 & 52) were purchased in 1934 for the Eastbourne to Beachy Head tourist service. The local authority would only allow the service to operate with single-deckers, so Southdown decided to buy the largest single-deckers available at the time, which, by law, had to be 30 foot long six-wheelers. Long-time Leyland adherents, they settled on the fairly rare TS6T (T standing for Trailing Axle), which enabled them to carry 40 passengers on the profitable route. A further two (53 & 54) were bought in 1935, this time TS7T’s.
Originally fitted with Leyland 8.6 petrol engines, they were all fitted with 8.6 diesel engines in 1940. Despite their luxurious appearance, they were considered to be buses by Southdown, bearing the name in letters rather than “real writing”!
After their hard lives, they were all withdrawn from service in 1952.
The photo shows 551, in about 1950, about to depart from Eastbourne Pier and grind its way up to the top of Beachy Head. Note the driver in his summer uniform.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

29/05/11 – 17:46

What truly magnificent vehicles, and even further enhanced by the cream side destination boards. My own experience of the ascent on service 97 to Beachy Head is confined to the delightful open top Guy Arabs in the 1960s – and there’s scarcely any need to go into detail about the delightful acoustics of that journey !!

Chris Youhill

29/05/11 – 19:15

Yes, the austerity Guy Arab II’s were converted to open-top around 1950-51 and some re-engined with 6LW engines for the Devil’s Dyke/Beachy Head services. The service became 197 around that time, too. The open-toppers were used all along the South Coast, even a couple on Hayling Island. They lasted until about 1964.
Unlike the TS6T’s, the basic Guys were regarded as coaches and given ‘Southdown’ side panels in ‘real writing’!
A 1964 film, The Chalk Garden, has Hayley Mills and Deborah Kerr boarding one of them, with it pulling away.
I don’t know how extensive the rebuilding of the bodies was, but they always looked impeccable, right to the end. Southdown were a class act.

Chris Hebbron

30/05/11 – 06:25

So true Chris H, Southdown were exactly as you say – “a class act.” The winning combination of high quality handsome vehicles and impeccable maintenance was perfected even further by perhaps the most dignified of all liveries in such very pleasing colours.

Chris Youhill

31/05/11 – 11:40

…and what about the Harrington Cavalier coaches with only 28 seats for there road cruises.

Roger Broughton

31/05/11 – 11:58

By the late 1960s, the Devil’s Dyke service was operated with convertible ‘Queen Mary’ Leylands. At Southdown, vehicle allocation, (including when the tops were to be removed), was decided by the Engineering Department rather than the Traffic Department, unlike other companies I knew, a practice that didn’t always contribute to efficient traffic management. Their policy on which style of company name to apply to any particular vehicle or type, was inconsistent.
I am well aware of Southdown’s reputation amongst some enthusiasts, and I have no desire either to offend anyone or spoil their image of the company. Certainly Southdown itself thought it was a ‘class act’, a view it didn’t hide from its BET neighbours.
However, at the risk of being thought sour, I remain to be convinced that Southdown was anything out of the ordinary. From an enthusiast’s point of view, its fleet was less interesting and in some ways less operationally imaginative than, for example, neighbour M&D’s fleet. For instance, I always thought M&D’s AEC Reliance coaches with ZF 6-speed gearboxes were decidedly better for both drivers and passengers than Southdown’s Leyland Leopards with Eaton 2-speed axles.
The standard of maintenance and turnout was high, granted, but the same could be said of pretty well all major operators; their livery was attractive, (even though the capital letter version of the name was distinctly old-fashioned), but, again, the same could be said of many other operators.
By coincidence, this posting follows one of Richard Fieldhouse’s lovely postings: – a West Yorkshire K6B. Having been involved at close quarters with the management of both companies, I have little doubt about which of them was operationally the ‘class act’. From a management viewpoint, West Yorkshire would win hands down every time. Sorry if I have upset anyone.

Mr A Non

01/06/11 – 08:21

I don’t have any professional reason to hide my identity but, in confidence, I can pass on similar comments from friends in the industry.
The professional perspective and that of the enthusiast often differ and I have spent hours with professional friends explaining cogently why certain things had to happen which leave enthusiasts in a spin – including the splitting up of that sacred cow, London Transport.
Personally, I couldn’t agree more about the superiority of the ZF Reliance (and M & D). I also include Southdown and Ribble amongst the all time greats – but one of my professional friends pointed out (with proofs and from personal experience) that both were basket cases when sold off by NBC at privatisation. […..and then there was the criminal end of those proud coach operators Yelloway and Sheffield United Tours (aka National Travel East) under the leadership (?) of ATL Group.]

David Oldfield

01/06/11 – 13:30

Mr Non,
You know, you should never speak ill of the dead!

Chris Hebbron

16/01/12 – 17:35

I was born and lived in Southdown territory for over 50 years and drove for them for almost 22 years at their Eastbourne depot from 1969 so worked quite a few trips to Beachy Head but I regret only with the convertible PD3’s, except for a couple of “memorable” trips with a Bristol LD6B borrowed from BH&D for a summer season. The lack of performance was embarrassing so much so that drivers on the local private coach companies complained to the management of their sluggish efforts to climb the steep twisty road up out of Eastbourne. The company was definitely a “class act”, although conservative in it’s choices the vehicles were always solid reliable and very comfortable with well upholstered higher backed seats in an attractive patterned moquette, the same standards were maintained until the end of the PD3 deliveries after that they got pretty much what they were told as did all NBC companies. We felt at Eastbourne that our standards of maintenance and cleaning were higher than any other depot a view borne out when we drove vehicles from other depots (yes we were snobs) but of course all this went downhill as NBC increased it’s stranglehold on the company and things sunk to a low level, a brief respite when it was privatised (so it was a basket case) then came Stagecoach about whom I would rather say nothing. What followed was an extremely sad and messy end to a very proud and respected company but in it’s prime a true CLASS ACT by any ones definition.
R.I.P Southdown

Diesel Dave

17/01/12 – 07:07

To be fair, Dave, it may not be (traditional) Southdown but, by all modern standards, Stagecoach IS a class act. It’s just not enthusiasts’ heaven – no one makes vehicles today that are interesting enough!

David Oldfield

17/01/12 – 15:54

Very belatedly, I’ve just seen A Non’s comments above, which, by chance refer to the three companies I knew well in the 1960’s: Southdown, Maidstone & District and West Yorkshire. I was both surprised and gratified to see that views I’ve always had, but have often kept to myself for fear of offending others, are shared by at least one other person. I think he’s spot on. First, I agree wholeheartedly that M&D’s AEC Reliances, with their 6-speed ZF gearboxes, were decidedly superior to Southdown’s Eaton 2-speed axle Leyland Leopards, both to drive and from a passenger standpoint. A Non is absolutely right, in my view, and I was glad to see David Oldfield’s endorsement of his comments. A Non is also correct, I believe, in describing M&D’s fleet policy as being more imaginative than Southdown’s. M&D didn’t always get it right, (as their sad experience with the Albion Nimbus and the early Atlanteans demonstrates), but they displayed a greater concern for their passengers and staff than their conservative southern neighbours.
I agree with him, too, in his assessment of the management and management style of Southdown. They certainly made no secret, to their BET neighbours at least, of their own superior opinion of themselves. M&D and Southdown operated a number of long joint services with each other – to the point, unusually, of each company’s staff operating the other’s vehicles – but the relationship between the two managements was not especially close or particularly friendly. M&D’s Traffic Department co-operated more closely with East Kent, and both regarded Southdown as stand-offish. M&D was a pleasant company whose staff enjoyed intimate working relationships; Southdown was not.
A Non’s right about the influence of the Engineering Department at Southdown over matters that at other companies were regarded as Traffic Department issues; that policy caused unnecessary operational problems and costs, and made for relations between Traffic and Engineering that were often strained and always distant, as I know from personal experience.
Finally, A Non is totally correct in his judgment that West Yorkshire were a better managed company than Southdown. Southdown had a clumsy and inefficient management structure that may have flattered its own perceived superiority, but it cost more money than it was worth, it made decision-making difficult, and it had seriously demotivating consequences. In their own way, the Traffic Department at West Yorkshire had a high opinion of itself as Southdown’s did, but with one major difference: they were justified in their opinion. As a number of correspondents have pointed out, enthusiasts’ recollections of those days are sometimes coloured by memories of nicely turned out vehicles in smart liveries, perhaps ones they didn’t often come across and which therefore have extra nostalgic value. The managerial realities of the companies involved, however, does not always correspond with those recollections. I’m very sorry if I have offended any Southdown fans, but A Non raised important and valid points that were worth making even if they are often left unsaid.

Roy Burke

17/01/12 – 16:00

I’m assuming, David O, that your comparison is with the other big groups and am genuinely interested in learning in what respects it outshines the others. You’re right about the lack of ‘interesting vehicles around today, although ‘bottom fishing’ around the small independents sometimes produces the odd gem!

Chris Hebbron

17/01/12 – 16:01

Sorry, David. I totally disagree about Stagecoach. I have worked for this operator in the past, and now have to put up with a very poor and unreliable bus service through my village to the neighbouring towns. The Stagecoach maintenance budget is greatly over constrained, with buses suffering from extended silly faults that could be easily fixed with suitable finance. The basic obligation of a bus operator is to run the service(s) safely and reliably with clean, inviting vehicles. This is impossible if maintenance standards do not measure up. Deregulation gives bus operators carte blanche to run what they like and charge well above a reasonable margin in fares. Stagecoach has just handed out £340m to shareholders with Brian Souter and Ann Gloag personally getting £88m between them. A bit more on maintenance would be more appropriate. The present structure of our public road and rail transport industries is a disgrace.

Roger Cox

17/01/12 – 17:57

I am but a humble professional musician/music teacher with a PSV who has spent many (many) years driving buses and coaches (and preserved vehicles) on a part time basis.
I am never “opinionated” because all my comments are considered and based on fact and verifiable material. Different managers, companies and sheds may occasionally fall short of the mark; politicians may ensure that expensive initiatives funnel investment into city areas and away from the rural population but Stagecoach has been vilified, often unjustifiably, for being Stagecoach. [I am talking about the mature company, not the young “pirate”. I am talking about the experience of industry professionals and real passengers alike.] You may not like them – that is your prerogative – but that is not my point. Only Stagecoach and Go-Ahead consistently win awards and plaudits from within and without the industry. It is on material like this – gleaned easily from publications like Route One and Bus and Coach Buyer – that I base my comments. …..so yes, Chris, I am comparing with other groups. And, Roger, it doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with you substantively and everything else. …..oh and, I don’t – and never have – had shares in Stagecoach or any other company.

David Oldfield

18/01/12 – 06:30

A number of interesting comments in this thread about the superiority or otherwise of certain operators but I will just confine myself to pointing out that if you go today to the exact spot where that photo was taken, you will find that the view is unchanged sixty years later (including the lamp post in the background) and that you may still board a bus there for Beachy Head although it may well be a Scania double decker of Brighton & Hove. A visit to Eastbourne is recommended for the annual running day in August which usually includes journeys to the top of Beachy Head in a PD3, a journey I first made some 45 years ago (and have the tickets to prove it).

Nigel Turner

18/01/12 – 06:31

In the area I live in, First Group operate the majority of services, with a few contributed by Stagecoach. These days, I much prefer to travel on a Stagecoach vehicle – their service locally seems generally more efficient, and cleaner. I could almost be attracted to modern buses! That is not say that First are inefficient or grubby, but they are not in the same ball park as Stagecoach in this neck of the woods. In general, the First Group local stock consists of some quite elderly vehicles too, which doesn’t necessarily help the image – but would the man in the street or on the seat notice this? Like some others here, I have no shares in any bus company and have never been employed in the bus industry – just an observer and passenger for many years, and this is just a personal view. Others can disagree, and we will enjoy reading the other comments in due course.

Michael Hampton

18/01/12 – 06:32

Thx, David, for quoting the source of your knowledge about Stagecoach (and Go-Ahead). Roy, it’s not whether ‘fans’ are offended by ‘insider’ comments – I think most of us contributing on this site are old enough to appreciate and welcome measured and informed opinion, rather than be influenced by one livery over another or the smartness of staff uniforms! I, for one, find these discussions useful and I’m sure I’m not alone. One point: for many years, Southdown had a fare-sharing arrangement with Portsmouth Corporation, which involved route-balancing swapping of buses (but not crews) at the year-end, usually with Portsmouth buses on Southdown routes, but I recall one year where the reverse happened. Do you know what the relationship was like between these two organisations?.

Chris Hebbron

18/01/12 – 08:39

A very interesting observation, Nigel, on the unchanged scene after 60 years. almost unheard of in this day and age! And thanks for the heads-up on the annual running day. Where would the actual date be published?

Chris Hebbron

18/01/12 – 10:36

Interesting observation, Chris H. Anyone who’s ever read any of your comments on this site will recognise both your own extensive knowledge of the industry and your commitment to remembering and understanding it in an informed, realistic and unbiased way. On the other hand, there are lots of comments, (you can see some on this page alone), that rate an operator on the basis of well turned out vehicles. Maybe I’m just sour, but I do rather disagree with the often expressed view – it’s clearly your view, and I have no wish to upset you – that Southdown were a ‘class act’. Operationally, they were often inefficient in many regards, certainly in comparison with West Yorkshire. The company seemed to encourage compartmentalisation, which in turn discouraged contact and co-operation both internally and with other operators. I found this to be in stark and unhelpful contrast with everything I had seen at WY and had been taught at Maidstone & District.
I can’t, I’m afraid, throw any light on your question, Chris, about the arrangements at Portsmouth between Southdown and Portsmouth Corporation, since I was based in Brighton. However, illustrative of the point I’m trying to make is that in the year and more that I was there, I never met my ‘oppos’ at Portsmouth – my request to do so being summarily dismissed as unnecessary – and I recall speaking to them by telephone only once. Similarly, although we were of course heavily involved in the Brighton Pool with Brighton Corporation and Brighton, Hove & District, those operators were regarded more as competitors for staff than as partners. No need was seen for contact between us at an operational level, (the idea was variously described to me as ‘dangerous’ and ‘pointless’), and there was none.
This site is not the place for gripes, however, and I repeat my apologies for attacking a reputation that many fans hold dear. I just don’t share their view. I have a high opinion of the operational efficiency of West Yorkshire, and I have the fondest possible regard for Maidstone & District, ramshackle and bumbling though they occasionally were. Both were, in my experience, better, (and definitely happier), operators than Southdown.

Roy Burke

18/01/12 – 13:56

But apologies are not required, Roy. We speak as we find and, as some of us have already intimated, the professional and insider view can be at variance – sometimes wildly – with that of the enthusiast. My conversations with “professional” friends constantly bear this out.
[Personally, I would go for M & D and their Reliances – as well as their later Leopards.]

David Oldfield

18/01/12 – 14:47

I simply have to agree with Roy`s comments on the general points of difference between the likes of “West Yorkshire” and “Southdown”!
The former Tilling group`s whole ethos was based on rugged efficiency with a truly Northern “no nonsense” approach, whereas the more noted BET operators always seemed to have the politicians ideal of putting on a “frontal image”.
Certainly, in the Bradford area, I do not recall any adverse comments about West Yorkshire, it being an organisation which always commanded public respect. Unlike YWD, or Hebble, its vehicles were always well turned out, and the whole operation exuded total efficiency! Other members of the group always gave me the same impression, United coming to mind.
I know I am only an enthusiast, and not an “insider”, but I was well tuned in to public awareness, and this feeling was, I am convinced, well founded.
It is a great pity that this superb bus operator is no longer with us, as, like so many of our industrial organisations of the past, we did not know what we had until we lost it!
As for the present day, I have no interest whatsoever, and suggest we stick to the 1970 (or earlier?) limit for this website!

John Whitaker

19/01/12 – 05:29

Well my comments certainly provoked a varied response from several of my fellow contributors to the site which I suppose is one of it’s aims.
I have to admit my admiration for Southdown came about during my childhood from the early forties so has no basis in administration or engineering just my personal experience of being a passenger and enjoying that. I did drive some of M&D’s Reliances and Panthers on the Heathfield cycle routes and enjoyed the experience very much, if I am honest I must admit that I found the Reliance a far better vehicle to drive whether in bus or 6 speed coach form. If you took the time to master it the Leopard with 2 speed axle was a pleasant vehicle to drive but the engine never pulled as willingly as the AEC motor and the controls were much heavier. So you see my admiration for Southdown is purely a childhood fantasy and I will be forever prejudiced, thank you for indulging me.

Diesel Dave

19/01/12 – 05:30

If I could add my two penny worth to the debate. My vote for the class acts in the North East would go to three independents, OK Motor Services of Bishop Auckland, who had a mixed fleet of new and used vehicles and ran a number of services, and two one route operators, Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval and Economic of Whitburn, the last two had very similar livery’s, but all three had beautifully turned out vehicles, and you could almost set your watch by them. As for Tilling and BET, I worked for a BET company, Tynemouth and Wakefields a subsidiary of Northern General, our buses weren’t bad but Tyneside, another Northern subsidiary, were always immaculate, to be fair they had a much smaller fleet than us, but if I’m honest I would have to say that in general, United ‘a Tilling group company’ always seemed to have a slight edge, but nostalgia’s not what it used to be

Ronnie Hoye

19/01/12 – 17:49

The Eastbourne Running Day has its own website www.eastbourne-classicbus.co.uk
This years event is on Sunday July 22nd and already promised are a Leyland Lion, AEC Regent III, Regent V and Leyland PD2 ex Eastbourne Corporation, a Guy Arab and Leyland PD3 ex Southdown and an AEC Reliance ex East Kent. I spent my holidays on the South Coast in the 1960s and 1970s riding on buses like these, well perhaps not the Leyland Lion!

Nigel Turner

27/01/12 – 06:29

As a former West Yorkshire engine fitter from 1969 to 1987, it is heart warming to read comments about the company being a ‘class act’. From an employee’s viewpoint WY was a good company to work for, with generally good facilities and working conditions. Certainly the atmosphere at the Central Works, Body Shop and Head Office complex in Harrogate was that of one big family – with all that that entailed! Despite the loss of our attractive ‘Tilling’ bus and coach liveries under the aegis of the NBC, and the relentless governmental drive towards one-person operation (whether it was needed or not), WY remained a well-run and generally well-respected organisation. Brian Horner was general manager for much of the NBC period, and in many peoples view built on the standards inherited from his predecessor Jack Lawrence. The bus and coach fleet were generally well-presented for what was a fairly large concern, and the tours and holidays side expanded under the steady hand of the late Gordon Dingle. The company had a policy of continued modernisation of its depots, offices and other facilities, and in the 1980’s WY devised a preventive maintenance programme to further improve vehicle reliability, based on its own data relating to component life. West Yorkshire was indeed a ‘class act’ and is sadly missed by many including me. I still have a soft spot for Southdown though……..

Brendan Smith

28/01/12 – 06:34

The Southdown engineering department had a penchant for cutting down the engine output of their Leylands and Guys, ostensibly in the interests of fuel economy, and road performance suffered. I recall particularly a ride in the early 1960s on one of the very fine Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IVs on route 23 between Crawley and Brighton, a service that encountered some pretty stiff gradients across the Weald and over the South Downs. The governor of the bus’s 6LW had been reset to such a low level that the engine died back at a road speed of about 25 mph. I always felt, also, that Southdown Leylands decidedly lacked sparkle on the road.

Roger Cox

17/12/12 – 11:24

I worked twice as a PSV conductor for Southdown Portsmouth depots in the 1960s as a student holiday job and had the fortune to work on PD3s of the time. As for the comment for nowhere for the conductor to stand, it was the custom for them to stand at the front at the base of the staircase and lean through an open window area over the left hand side of the front mounted engine to keep the driver company (obviously when safe to do so). The driver’s job was not so lonely and isolated as it is now on the ‘one-man bands’ that we have all become used to! Some drivers hated the PD3s especially the so-called’one-leggers’ which had a gearing system at the top of a long metal column that was mounted on the floor. I must admit that I considered the introduction of the ‘Queen Marys’ in 1957, when I was still attending school, unusual in the light that most bus companies were looking towards the introduction of Leyland Atlanteans in their fleets. Many PD3s came up to Leicester, where I now live, having being purchased by ‘Confidence’ for use for transporting the then British Shoe Corporation employees.

Bernard Robinson

03/01/13 – 11:23

I used to be a frequent traveller on Southdown route 12 (Brighton/Seaford/Eastbourne) in the late ‘forties and early ‘fifties. But this is about route 126 that went over Hindover Hill. I was assured in my youth that the name “High and Over” was a form of “Hindover” that was invented by the Southdown company in the ‘thirties.
Can anyone shed light on that?

Ron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

15/04/16 – 07:08

Just another comment about Route 126. It ran from Eastbourne to Seaford, via Polegate and Alfriston. I used to use it as a local holiday treat when resident as a kid in Eastbourne during the late 1940s, early 1950s. My real memories of it were grinding up the long hill of ‘High and Over’ just before entering Seaford on the last lap of the journey, but another memory is that I think there must have been a vehicle size restriction on this service because I do remember how tight the parking was for the bus stop outside the famous old pub in the centre of Alfriston. Also, as an aside, does anyone else remember Drusilla’s on this route – a well known tourist destination on this route for its zoo and miniature railway?

Roger Bristow

East Yorkshire – Leyland Tiger – RH 206 – 158


Copyright Bob Gell

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1930
Leyland Tiger TS2/6
Ransomes C26R

I received these shots the other day from Bob Gell with the following comment

“I visited the Coach and Bus Show at the NEC, Birmingham on Wednesday, and found this amongst the new vehicles.
It has been restored by Bluebird Vehicles, based in Scarborough, and is absolutely immaculate.”

Bob also sent a shot of the interior and the Leyland Motors Ltd manufacturer’s plate that is mounted on the bulkhead they are below. Fortunately under the Fleet Lists section of the site there is Keith Eastons very detailed East Yorkshire Motor Services 1926/1941 fleet list which is where I got the information from.
Keith also states that East Yorkshire disposed of 158 in January 1946 to Adamson Bros in Hull it would be interesting to know its history from then.

Photographs and Part Copy contributed by Bob Gell

09/10/11 – 11:10

RH 206_int_lr

Interior shot

RH 206_bulk_lr

Manufactories Plate

09/10/11 – 08:11

What a stunning vehicle.

David Oldfield

09/10/11 – 09:38

As David rightly says, stunning indeed – perhaps someone could arrange a visit for a certain leading manufacturer in Northern Ireland to show them what a relaxing and dignified interior looks like eh ??

Chris Youhill

I can only echo Chris and David’s comments. I sometimes wonder what the essential design elements are about half cab single decker buses and coaches that in almost every case produce such elegant vehicles. The basic layout is fairly much identical yet the details are fascinating and how much more interesting they look than today’s standardised vehicles.
It would be interesting to see what a modern designer would do to create a 2012 “half cab”..I know it would never pass current operating regulations but it could bring up some forgotten details that might guide the current box designers toward making better looking vehicles. Also, as Chris says, that Ransomes interior is both practical, peaceful and stylish with Art Deco themes..a vast improvement on the multicolour gaudy finishes now offered.
Well done to the people who restored this bus and hopefully it will be out on the Rally scene next year!

Richard Leaman

09/10/11 – 16:52

Richard, a modern designer would come up with a sub standard half cab.
There are several examples of modern vehicles in the coaching side of the industry which are really reincarnations of an earlier era: Mercedes Vario – Bedford OB Mercedes Atego – Bedford SB Toyota Coaster – Bedford VAS
but they are (very) pale imitations of their classic forebears.

David Oldfield

09/10/11 – 16:54

Follow the restoration story here at this link

John Darwent

10/10/11 – 06:36

Thank you John for that link. I’m sure I can speak for many when I say that this superb restoration leaves us aghast with admiration for such thorough and painstaking work, and for the incredible finished product.

Chris Youhill

10/10/11 – 06:37

It’s always wonderful to see a lovingly restored vehicle and this is of the highest order. And nice to see a Ransomes’ body, too, for they retired from bus/coach body building not too long after this example. Their efforts always seemed to be of a good quality.
I’ve no idea when Clayton Dewandre heaters came upon the scene, but this would appear to be an early fitment, I’d hazard.

Chris Hebbron

10/10/11 – 06:38

What a beautiful bus. All credit to the restorers. Looking forwards to seeing it on the rally scene.

Philip Carlton

12/10/11 – 06:15

According to PSVC Fleet History PB17, the Tiger was next recorded as a caravan at Wilfholme Landing, (situated on the River Hull, between Beverley & Driffield) by 1953, and still there by 1980. It was purchased by Carl Ireland (I believe) at an unknown date and he did £15,000 worth of restoration, and then resold it to Bluebird. Bluebird’s website shows it as a bungalow, and on the low-loader in the state which it was purchased from Carl Ireland by Bluebird. Congratulations all round, I think. One small grouse though, I do wish it had carried East Yorkshire instead of Yorkshire Tiger!

Keith Easton

12/10/11 – 06:16

There were two of the three Ransomes bodied coaches in use as caravan homes on Mr R Harrison’s farm down Wilfholme Lane not far from Aike, (yak-a-baca-arram – in east yorks speak) 1st turn after Watton.
There is a confluence of river and drain at the site it was very damp the day I went Feb 1983. so its just as well the bodies were covered in to some extent. My note that day says EY 156/158. I think Mr Harrison said they went there from EYMS via a dealer.

Ian Gibbs

25/08/14 – 07:31

Does anyone know the present whereabouts or status of this vehicle, please?

Keith Easton

27/08/14 – 17:32

Bluebird Vehicles has ceased to trade. //www.route-one.net/industry/finance/scarboroughs-bluebird-vehicles-administration/

Stephen Howarth

29/08/14 – 06:25

According to Bus & Coach Preservation magazine
“The assets of Bluebird Vehicles have been bought by Manchester based Woodall Nicholson”.
Now if I remember correctly in my days there they were a Halifax company that built hearses, John Stringer is the man who will correct me if I am wrong.

Peter

29/08/14 – 16:38

Quite correct Peter.
William Nicholson (born 1822) was a Master Coachbuilder based in Scarborough during the 19th Century. He retired during the 1880’s after which he and his wife ran a boarding house in Castle Road.
One of his sons – Thomas Woodall Nicholson (born 1848) moved to Halifax during the 1860’s to be apprenticed to a local coachbuilder there – probably that of George Piercy of Carlton Street.
George Piercy (born 1805 in Harrogate) was the son of Thomas Piercy (born 1779) who had established a coachbuilding business in Halifax in about 1820, building horsedrawn cabs and carriages.
In 1873 Thomas Woodall Nicholson bought out Piercey’s business and changed its name to his own.
He died in 1914 and the business was taken over by his son Charles Woodall Nicholson. Under new management from 1933 the company, whose works were situated in Well Lane at the bottom end of the town, began to specialise in building hearses mostly on Rolls Royce chassis in the early days, though later on other types – particularly the Austin Princess 4-litre.
In the early postwar period the company briefly diversified into bus bodywork, and a small number of very smart examples were built on such as Bedford OB and Commer chassis. An example of an OB for Tillingbourne Valley can be seen here: //www.sct61.org.uk/tl689  
They also rebuilt or refurbished a considerable number of prewar single deckers – particularly for United Automobile.
In 1983 the company passed to the Hawley Group, which two years previously had bought Woodall Nicholson’s main rival in the hearse business – Coleman Milne of Westhoughton. The Halifax works was closed in 1987 and all manufacture moved to the Coleman Milne works.
Coleman Milne was owned by the Henley Group, which in turn passed to the Hawley Group in 1985. Hawley sold Henley and Coleman Milne to Plaxton’s in 1989, but Coleman Milne was sold to a management buyout team in 1992, Woodall Nicholson becoming the holding company for Coleman Milne, Mellor Coachcraft and Mellor Vancraft. Recently the company has passed to a private investment syndicate.

John Stringer

02/07/15 – 05:40

After Bluebird Vehicles went into receivership RH 206 passed (according to PSVC) to Miller, Scarborough.
Apparently it has now passed to Barry Dodd the Lord Lieutenant of North Yorkshire

John Wakefield

03/07/15 – 06:33

Thanks, John for the updated information on ownership, where does Barry Dodd (the Lord Lieutenant of NY) reside? Any idea of dates?

Keith Easton

31/07/15 – 06:38

According to my records 156 and 158 passed to a Mr Arthur Dixon of Washington Street, Beverley Road, Hull in 1948 for use as caravans. They were purchased by the EY Tiger Group in February 1982 (not sure who they were). 156 was broken up by August 1987. 158 then passed to a Mike Kilvington in August 1987 – he was based in Rugby but I believe he originated from the Hull area. His intention was to have it restored by apprentices at one of the colleges in Hull and I believe he was responsible for the work carried out. It then passed to Carl Ireland – it was then advertised in Bus and Coach Preservation Magazine in August 2001 for £8000 before passing to Bluebird. Bluebird also had at least one other vehicle their apprentices were to work on – I think this was a Southdown TD.

Rod Hebden

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

09/12/20 – 11:56

RH 206 is very much alive and well and living safely in North Yorkshire.

David Hunter

06/01/21 – 07:18

I am currently engaged in writing a book about the Preserved Buses of Hull. RH 206 features in this book and indeed is the oldest survivor of either of the main Hull fleets. A question to David Hunter (re your comment 9/12/20); do you have access to the vehicle, know of its whereabouts (I totally understand if you can’t divulge) or could you provide a recent photograph of the vehicle? Thanks in anticipation.

David Greenwood

10/01/21 – 07:11

Sadly, Barry Dodd, Lord Lieutenant of North Yorkshire was killed in a helicopter crash near Boroughbridge in May 2018. He lived with his wife Frances at Carlton in Cleveland. I know of no history of RH 206 since I’m afraid.

John Darwent

19/01/21 – 09:53

I was aware of the demise of Barry Dodd, but like you John I have no further information on RH 206, when the PSVC history of East Yorkshire (PB33) was drafted by myself, the ownership was still with Barry Dodd. I would be grateful if anyone has any subsequent information.
I note that David Greenwood about his forthcoming book on the preserved buses of Hull; being a ‘Ull lad myself (‘Essle Road), I would be interested in the fruits of his labour. I am an avid KHCT/EYMS fan. (See my article on Hull Bus routes on this website).

Keith Easton

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


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

H W Hunter and Sons
1937
Leyland Tiger TS7
Burlingham B35F

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


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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

02/01/13 – 07:50

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

Eric Bawden

02/01/13 – 09:06

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

Pete Davies

02/01/13 – 16:53

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

Chris Youhill

02/01/13 – 17:35

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

Ronnie Hoye

03/01/13 – 06:42

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

Pete Davies

03/01/13 – 06:43

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

Eric Bawden

03/01/13 – 06:44

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

Chris Youhill

03/01/13 – 06:44

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

Stephen Ford

04/01/13 – 06:45

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

Ronnie Hoye

04/01/13 – 17:43

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

Eric Bawden

08/01/13 – 07:43

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

Andrew Beever

08/01/13 – 10:42

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

Alan Murray-Rust

08/01/13 – 13:43

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

Andrew Beever

15/01/13 – 16:38

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

MikeB

16/01/13 – 10:48

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

Ronnie Hoye

27/01/13 – 10:30

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

Bob Mandale

28/01/13 – 08:40

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

Ronnie Hoye

03/04/15 – 05:31

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

John Gibson

01/06/15 – 07:20

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

Alan Johnson

Ideal Service – Leyland Tiger – DJ 6058


Picture R F Mack

Ideal Service (R Taylor & Sons)
1934
Leyland Tiger TS6C
Roe B36R (1949)

Parked in Beastfair Pontefract awaiting for the return journey to Barnsley is DJ 6058 which was a Leyland TS6C new to St Helens corporation in 1934 with an English Electric B32F body. Acquired by R. Taylor and Son Cudworth who ran the Ideal Service with H. Wray of Hoyle Mill Barnsley. Re-bodied in 1949 with a Roe body, the entrance was changed to the rear and four extra seat were added making it a B36R.
When Taylors sold out to Yorkshire Traction, Wray’s continued to run the service until they too sold to Yorkshire Traction. Stagecoach ran the service Barnsley to Pontefract via Upton until the 29th January 2017 and they have terminated the service at Brierley. The service from Hemsworth to Pontefract via Upton in now run by M Travel with a vastly reduced service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Brian Lunn

17/02/17 – 06:48

To see what it looked like originally, there’s an official picture of a sister vehicle when new at: //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com/

David Beilby

17/02/17 – 08:54

Thanks for the picture David, it is interesting to see the difference. I don’t remember it any different to the Roe body, so it may have been re-bodied soon after Taylor’s bought it.

Brian Lunn

17/02/17 – 08:55

David – thanks for the link to the official photo of the St Helens version of this TS6c. However, what amazes me is the sign in the back window stating “Dick Kerr Coachwork”. I realise they had an historic link with English Electric but I don’t think I’ve ever known of, or seen, reference to a Dick Kerr bus body before.

Paul Haywood

17/02/17 – 14:40

Yes, Paul, an interesting observation. I knew of the ‘Dick Kerr’ connection to trams, and the English Electric connection to both buses and trams, but it appears (if we believe Wikipedia) that the DK operation was a member of the EE group, and that the name is not a variation of Richard Kerr, but a combination of Mr Dick and Mr Kerr, so “Dick, Kerr”.

Pete Davies

17/02/17 – 14:41

By the time of this picture DJ 6058 seems to have lost its torque converter, as there is no long tank visible on the front bulkhead. I guess the conversion to normal gearbox would have been made at the same time as the rebodying.

Ian Thompson

17/02/17 – 14:42

According to the Peter Gould fleet list, this vehicle (and one other of its type) were rebodied while with St Helens, and lasted until 1954 with that fleet.

David Call

Lancashire United Transport – Leyland Tiger – CTF 425 – 116

Lancashire United Transport - Leyland Tiger - CTF 425 - 116

Lancashire United Transport
1938
Leyland Tiger TS8
Roe DP30F

Lurking in the back streets by Victoria Coach Station in 1961 and by then owned by a contractor is former Lancashire United Transport No.116, CTF 425, a Leyland TS8 of 1938 fitted with Roe DP30F bodywork. It was withdrawn by LUT in 1957. Lancashire United became a confirmed Leyland customer from the mid 1920s, though it dabbled in the thirties with some Dennis types, and built up a substantial fleet of TS7 and TS8 Tigers and TD Titans. It even managed to obtain examples of the relatively rare Tiger TS11 model during 1940. The LUT TS Tiger fleet was withdrawn during the 1950s, but three of the 1938 TS8s, CTF 434/5/8, originally fitted with Roe B32F coachwork, were refurbished in 1953 and equipped with full fronted Plaxton FC35F bodies. They lasted until 1960.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

11/06/18 – 06:00

Three further TS8s from 1939 were also rebodied by Plaxton in the same way as CTF 434/5/8. These were DTF 266/9/70. I was involved in a failed attempt to preserve DTF 269, the body of which was eventually lost to a fire.

Peter Williamson

12/06/18 – 06:34

Thanks for that additional information, Peter. I have tried to find a picture of these rebodied full fronted Tigers without success. A photo of a line up of some of LUT’s earlier 1936 TS7 batch with Metro-Cammell coachwork may be found here:- www.flickr.com/photos/gmts/16162288018

Roger Cox

12/06/18 – 06:35

After being a Leyland devotee before the war LUT pretty well forsook the make in the postwar era and became mainly wedded to Gardner engined products. Guy was the staple manufacturer for double deckers but they also had some late model Arab coaches and single deck buses from Atkinson. They were unusual for a Lancashire based operator in having no PD2’s and had only one batch of PD3’s bought at a time when Guy was having financial difficulties and the Arab was withdrawn from the market for a time. There were small batches of Daimlers but when Guy got back on its feet after the Daimler take-over they quickly returned to the Arab and even tried a solitary Guy Wulfrunian. Opo and Bus Grants spelled the end of the front engined bus and LUT ended its independent days buying the Daimler Fleetline.

Philip Halstead

14/06/18 – 07:46

There is a photo of one of the rebodied TS8s with a subsequent owner at www.flickr.com/photos/

Peter Williamson

15/06/18 – 08:23

Similar vehicle CTF 423 is preserved in the care of the Aire Valley Transport group I was lucky enough to have a ride on it a few years ago It gave a very spirited performance and was a pleasure to sample.

Chris Hough

24/11/21 – 06:31

CTF 423

Here is a picture of preserved TS8 CTF 423, LUT No. 114, taken at Croydon during the HCVC Rally of May 1972.

Roger Cox

Wilts & Dorset – Leyland Tiger – CHR 485

CHR 485

Wilts & Dorset Motor Services
1940
Leyland Tiger TS8
Harrington C32R

When photographed at Brighton during the 1970 HCVC Rally, this ex Wilts & Dorset Leyland Tiger TS8 with a Harrington C32R body had been converted into a caravan. A picture of this coach in its former glory may be found here:- www.flickr.com/photos/ingythewingy/ 
Although the TS8 had nominally been superseded by the TS11 in October 1939, the exigencies of war resulted in deliveries of the earlier version continuing well into 1940, when Wilts & Dorset received fleet number 186, CHR 485. The TS11 model became quite a rare beast from its eventual appearance in mid 1940, and when Leyland turned its entire resources over to war work, the final 22 TS11 chassis emerged as a result of the “unfrozen” programme in 1942. They were the very last TS type Tigers to be produced. The photo in the above link of CHR 485 in Wilts and Dorset ownership is interesting in that the glasses of the destination indicator and those of the fixed passenger windows below the opening sections have flush rubber glazing, which must surely have been a later modification to the 1940 vintage Harrington body. The same features are evident in its later guise as a caravan. I can find no current record of CHR 485 being in existence today.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

23/10/18 – 12:59

Sad that despite having survived till 1970 this superb Tiger is no longer around. Let’s hope that it’s sitting somewhere awaiting restoration, though I feel that that’s unlikely.

Ian Thompson

29/10/18 – 06:08

Sorry, the 1993 Slater/Godwin preserved buses list has it as “chassis only” with the South Lancashire Transport Society in 1986.

Peter Williamson

02/11/18 – 07:05

How come that W&D, I presume a Tilling company, ordered Leyland chassis and not Bristol ones?

Chris Hebbron

02/11/18 – 12:09

In pre-war days, W&D had close links with Southdown, and followed it’s purchasing policies rather than Tilling ones. Indeed, at the outbreak of war, a fair number of Southdown Leyland TD1s found their way to W&D because of the need to cover wartime service personnel services in their area [Salisbury Plain]. The 1942 split of T&BAT arrangements left W&D in the Tilling camp rather than BET.

Michael Hampton

02/11/18 – 12:10

The reason why is surely that this was before nationalisation, and I recall reading somewhere that before WWII Wilts & Dorset was heavily influenced by Southdown – a Leyland fan.

David Wragg

03/11/18 – 06:42

Thx for that, Michael/David. For some reason, most Tilling group company bus photos I’ve seen have always been Bristols, hence my query.
My experiences with Bristol buses has been very limited and greatly influenced, negatively, by the pre-war Bristol K’s on the Isle of Wight, noisy, vibrating things, which made me think that Wilts & Dorset were very wise in buying Leyland vehicles in preference! My other was riding in more civilised post-war Bristol K’s from Fareham Bus Station to Warsash when, living in Southsea, I was posted, for some bizarre reason, to RAF Calshot for a my last 6 weeks National Service!

Chris Hebbron

03/11/18 – 06:44

There were actually quite a few BTC companies that used Leylands – Cumberland, Lincolnshire, Western and Southern National – and even Bristol Tramways & Carriage Company itself!

Stephen Ford

04/11/18 – 07:24

The Slater/Goodwin book told a partially correct story.
The chassis of CHR 485 came to the South Lancashire Transport Society from the well known Bolton PSV dealer – Lister’s. It was acquired as a donor vehicle to aid the restoration of Ribble Tiger 209 (1400), RN 7588. Upon completion of RN, the chassis of CHR was stripped for anything useable and scrapped locally.

Mike Norris

12/12/18 – 08:49

United also had many Leylands, especially fir their London coach services.

Peter Stobart

26/01/19 – 10:02

I remember seeing what remained of CHR 485 at an open day where preserved buses were kept around 1983 at Bolton (Smithills Road rings a bell, please forgive me if I am incorrect). By this time only the front of the cab & chassis remained, great pity when it looked so nice thirteen years earlier & could have been put back to original

Andrew Spriggs

I was very surprised to see a photo of CHR 485 on your page. I and two colleagues bought this bus from Norman Myers (Bolton) in 1973 with a view to restoring it. It was our first venture into restoration however the enthusiasm of our then youth was not matched by any experience and we had to admit defeat after at couple of years when we sold it on. CHR 485 was rebodied by Portsmouth Aviation hence the unusual window panels, however it had been later altered to transport racing cars so the interior had been stripped out and the rear end substantially modified. The engine still ran when we acquired it however we discovered a substantial crack in the block which looked very expensive for our modest means. I have always wondered what became of it and am pleased to learn that it was a useful donor vehicle although would have loved to see it back to working condition.
Time moves on and I have since acquired and restored a Warrington PD1 (EED 5) that I have now owned for over 40 years and which continues to attend several rallies each year.

Phil Clark