Caerphilly Urban District Council 1952 Leyland Tiger PS2/5 Massey B35F
Fleet number 1 in the small Caerphilly concern was allocated to this less than common Massey-bodied single-deck Leyland PS2/5. Chassis number is 520623 and the body is number 2083 B35F. This image was taken at Bus & Coach Wales in Merthyr Tydfil 14/09/2014.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
12/01/17 – 06:46
Very nice, Les! Thank you for posting. I particularly like the shape of the ‘valance’ forward of the door.
Green (Brierley Hill) 1948 Leyland Tiger PS1/1 Burlingham C33F
Seen in the summer of 1961 on a rather run down estate beside Mitcham Common is PRE 900, a Leyland Tiger PS1/1 delivered in July 1948 to Green of Brierley Hill, near Dudley, West Midlands. The C33F body is by Burlingham. I do not know its subsequent history and I cannot see any evidence of legal ownership lettering on the nearside of the vehicle. No trading name is carried either, which suggests that by 1961 it had become a contractors machine. No doubt the registration PRE 900 is now a “cherished” number borne by an otherwise undistinguished motor car, the owner of which is completely oblivious to its decidedly more worthy ancestry. Some history of the Green coaching business may be found here:- www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/63 The following web page gives a broader view of past coach operation in the Black Country:- www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
09/04/17 – 18:00
Didn’t stay long with Green as it passed to Alexandra of Enfield in December 1948.
Keith Clark
10/04/17 – 06:44
Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what the angled black oblong on the bulkhead and the item leading from it are?
Phil Blinkhorn
10/04/17 – 06:46
Very interesting photograph, although the vehicle is anonymous, it appears to retain a working destination blind, set to PRIVATE. Also, I believe this is the first half cab coach I’ve ever seen with a near side mirror in that position, attached to the front wing. I suppose that’s what you call a wing mirror in every sense of the description!
Chris Barker
10/04/17 – 09:36
Rear view mirror, Phil.
David Oldfield
10/04/17 – 09:37
Thank Chris, a mirror it is!
Phil Blinkhorn
10/04/17 – 09:37
This wing mirror subject has come up before in discussions about the Margo Regal 1. Nearside mirrors weren’t officially required in the early post war period when PRE 900 was built, and this style of half canopy left only the wing as the place to fix one. This mirror does look like a home made effort, but driving without one must have been decidedly nerve wracking.
Roger Cox
11/04/17 – 07:15
LGOC/London Transport, at least up to LT/ST’s had a metal stick with a small knob on the top affixed to the wing for an indication of parking near the kerb These buses and later ones had rear view mirrors on the bodywork on both sides at roughly driver level. These items can been seen on my photo of the Tilling ST here: www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/
Nearside mirrors on canopied vehicles work well and give adequate but not great nearside visibility. I have a number of non canopied single deckers and nearside mirror positioning is standard ie nearside front bulkhead but the angle of the mirror and size becomes really important in making them of any use. I find myself when driving continually ducking and diving to get max visibility especially for vehicles/cyclists coming up the nearside. A move to convex or larger mirrors only partially solves the problem as this then gives rise to proximity issues. I had never seen a mirror positioned like on PRE but it does make some sense other than aesthetics
Roger Burdett
12/04/17 – 07:26
I could never understand why London Transport, very advanced in its specifications for “own design” post war fleet, insisted on fitting a minuscule circular mirror for the driver’s nearside visibility. Only the RF class, as I recall, had decently sized rectangular mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. Even the private hire RFWs had the little circular things.
London Transport 1949 Leyland Tiger PS1 Mann Egerton B30F
Following the cessation of hostilities in 1945, the London Passenger Transport Board found itself seriously short of serviceable vehicles, partly through enemy action but equally because of the time expired nature of much of the fleet. To compound the problem, 55 T type AEC Regals and 20 Leyland Cubs were sent to assist in war ravaged Belgium and Germany. To meet the needs of the capital city, the Ministry of Supply (that still oversaw the allocation of resources in the immediate post war period) sanctioned the delivery of a number of standard provincial types of buses to London, which was still taking the tail end deliveries of utility double deckers, mainly Daimler CWA6 plus a few Guy Arabs. Thus between 1946 and 1948 the AEC Regent O661 (STL) and Regal O662/O962 (T), Leyland PD1 (STD) and PS1(TD) appeared on the London scene. From 1st January 1948 the LPTB became the nationalised London Transport Executive, and help began arriving in the form of vehicles on loan from provincial operators, notably Bristols from Tilling group companies, though Tilling itself did not sell out to the government until September 1948. In 1946 LT was allocated fifty AEC Regal O662 buses (7.7 litre engine/crash gearbox – basically the pre-war design) but also thirty one examples of Leyland’s very new Tiger PS1. These eighty one vehicles were fitted with Weymann B33F bodies of unprepossessing appearance, characterised particularly by a front destination indicator box that “frowned” over the top of the driver’s windscreen. In 1948 a further thirty Regals were acquired, but these were of the O962 variety with 9.6 litre engines and epicyclic gearboxes, consistent in specification with the new RT double deck fleet. At the same time another one hundred PS1s came into LT ownership, though these still had the standard 7.4 litre engine and crash gearbox. The 1948/9 Regal and Tiger deliveries were fitted with Mann Egerton B31F bodywork (later reduced to B30F) displaying much cleaner lines than the earlier Weymann bodies. One would have expected the preselector gearbox Regals to have been allocated to the Central (red) fleet, but they all went to Country area garages, while all the crash gearbox Regals and PS1s operated in red livery. Given London Transport’s unenthusiastic attitude to “non standardisation”, these provincial type single deckers clearly earned some measure of respect, for they lasted between ten and fourteen years in LT ownership. Seen above on the A23 Brighton Road during the 1971 HCVC Run is Mann Egerton bodied TD 95, JXC 288, which entered service in May 1949 and was sold in August 1963. In 1965, now in private hands, it undertook a series of extraordinary Continental journeys to Rumania, Hungary, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Hamburg, Helsinki, Lenningrad, Moscow, Warsaw and Berlin, followed, in 1965, by a trip to France and Spain. Then again in 1966 TD95 went off to France, Belgium, Prague, Offenbach, Budapest and Belgrade. Throughout the performance of this amazing machine was exemplary. It then passed into preservation in May 1967 to be restored into its previous LT guise. In that form, as with all Central Area single deckers of its time, the front entrance has no door at the insistence of the Metropolitan Police, who clearly took the Spartan view that the possibilities of a passenger falling out or incurring influenza from draught were rendered insignificant against boarding and alighting delays.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
08/08/17 – 06:07
The seating capacity of 30 seems rather low for a full sized post war halfcab saloon, most provincial versions averaged around 35 seats. Did these TDs have a standing area at the front with inward facing seats or was it a luggage pen which took up some of the space?
Chris Barker
08/08/17 – 08:36
Chris, I rather think that, in view of Roger’s views on the attitude of the Metropolitan Police, the reason for the low seating capacity lies in that direction, rather than standing area or luggage pen!
Pete Davies
09/08/17 – 06:42
The full service life of these buses shows that LT could successfully operate standard provincial designs when they put their minds to it. This opens up the oft-debated cherry – was the Routemaster really necessary? Would PD2’s, Regent V’s or CVG’s have done the job of replacing trolleybuses and later on the RT family just as well? All were available in semi-auto form which would probably have been a minimum requirement for LT. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow for example seemed to manage and Birmingham even got large numbers of Crossleys to work. Food for thought!
Philip Halstead
09/08/17 – 06:43
I know the Green Line and Country area RF’s had doors, whereas the central area red versions didn’t, was it the same story with these?
Ronnie Hoye
09/08/17 – 06:44
Pete’s comment is true, but it is also relevant to remember that the T&GWU of the time had considerable influence upon the vehicle configuration and seating layout of the LT fleet. These Tigers were used on intensive urban routes where low bridges and other obstructions prevented the operation of double deckers. Free movement of the conductor and easy access/egress for passengers would have been important issues.
Roger Cox
11/08/17 – 06:27
Philip raises an interesting point. Could London Transport have managed without the Routemaster? I think that, yes, it probably could, but some curious features of the London Transport engineering situation have to be taken into account. The RT/RTL/RTW/RM families were designed to be taken to pieces like Meccano for processing through the Aldenham overhaul system. Firstly, however, did LT need a fleet of some 2760 Routemasters in the first place? When the initial deliveries went into service in 1959, LT already possessed a surplus of RT and RTL buses. The last RT deliveries came in November 1954, and 81 went immediately into store until 1958/59 when the RM production scheme was already in progress. Similarly, 63 of the last RTL deliveries were stored until 1958. On the grounds of “non standardisation”, the 120 entirely sound Cravens bodied RTs had already been sold off in 1956 when they were only between eight and six years old, and, by 1961, over 200 of the earliest RTs (discounting the so called “pre war’ machines that were withdrawn in 1955 when they were 13 to 15 years old) had gone when they were only some 10 years or so of age. Nonetheless, ever besotted with its inward thinking, LT brought out the costly Routemaster, claiming that the capacity increase of 8 seats over the RT family was essential for trolleybus replacement. (It seems astonishing now that London Transport seemed utterly exempt from any kind of cost constraint, but the profligate attitude was to continue in later years with the catastrophic Merlin/Swift/MetroScania charade and then the Daimler Fleetline debacle.) Undoubtedly, standard offerings from the manufacturers catalogues could have provided entirely satisfactory fleets for the Capital’s public transport needs, but for the rigid LT engineering system. London Transport did not employ, at its garages, engineers as they were understood by municipal or company bus operators. London Transport had “fitters’. If anything went wrong, that part was simply removed and sent to Chiswick in return for a replacement item. Mechanical analysis was not part of the scheme of things. That was Chiswick’s job. Likewise, body/chassis overhauls were totally centralised at Aldenham, where the chassis and body were separated and sent down different overhaul tracks, the chassis being dealt with more quickly than the bodies. At the output end, the next completely rebuilt emerging body and chassis were put together and given the fleet number of a bus that had just gone into the works. Thus, identifying a London bus by its fleet number was essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, the Aldenham system could have worked equally well with jig built bodywork mounted on a standard provincial chassis type. Indeed, the early Routemasters were exceedingly troublesome, and it took some years of development to make them truly reliable.
Roger Cox
12/08/17 – 07:37
I only travelled on one of these once, on the 240A. I have wondered whether that was part of the original 240 route left for single deck operation after the rest of the route was converted to double deck buses during WWII. I do not recall seeing a standing area or a luggage pen. I doubt if the standard double deck buses of the mid-1950s would have done the job as London Transport specified automatic gearboxes for the red Routemasters and semi-automatic for the green country area and Greenline Routemasters, probably to provide a mechanically common set of buses for the country area depots. In any case, Greenline drivers sometimes worked a country route when necessary (they were paid the same as the central area crews, which was slightly more than that paid to the country area crews). That said, I never warmed to the Routemaster. My favourites in the late 1950s and 1960s were the Southdown Guy Arab 4s wit Park Royal Bodywork and Weymann-bodied Dennis Loline IIIs.
David Wragg
14/08/17 – 07:31
The offside seat behind the driver was a single seat on the central area TDs as illustrated here – www.flickr.com/photos/ (taken at a route 227 running day) – think the idea was to give the conductor somewhere to stand without being in the way as passengers got on/off.
Jon
15/08/17 – 07:56
Referring to Philip Halstead’s comment about standard types, the Guy Arab (which, like the others, was available in semi-automatic form) should not be forgotten, particularly in view of the large number operated in Hong Kong. It’s been suggested that if something will work in Hong Kong, it will work anywhere! As for Birmingham’s Crossleys, they were of the later type with engine design modified by AEC. Apparently they were more successful than the CVD6s that BCT were obliged to take because of a shortage of Gardner engines.
Peter Williamson
16/08/17 – 06:50
Peter, only the second half of the Birmingham Crossley DD42/6 1949/50 order for 260 buses, numbers 2396-2525, had the HOE7/5B downdraught engine. The first 130, numbers 2266-2395, plus the earlier 10 buses delivered in 1946, numbers 1646-1655, were delivered with standard HOE7 engines that were retained to the end. Even so, as you point out, Birmingham regarded the Crossley engine more highly than the contemporary Daimler CD6, individual examples of which proved to be extremely variable in quality.
Roger Cox
16/08/17 – 06:52
I apologise Peter for omitting the Guy Arab. I well remember the Hong Kong Arabs while living out there in the mid-1980’s. They would storm up Stubbs Road on the route on the Island over the mountain to Aberdeen. At the summit they would be boiling profusely but by the time they had thundered down the other side and had chance to cool down a bit they were ready to return. The same can be said about the DMS’s. London offloaded them over there in large numbers saying the were unreliable or some such excuse. They operated quite happily for CMB in far more taxing conditions than London. 30deg of heat, mountainous terrain, severe traffic congestion and some ‘enthusiastic’ handling by the Chinese drivers.
Philip Halstead
17/08/17 – 07:19
I think I might have got on well with the bus drivers in Hong Kong, as my colleagues used to say my style of driving was ‘enthusiastic’! I suppose they were right. Southampton to North Lancashire or the Southern end of the Lake District as a day trip . . . Yes, some of them used a different word!
Pete Davies
17/08/17 – 07:20
Interesting to see mention of Guy Arabs in a thread on Leyland Tigers. Have no personal memories of either as too young but I have pictures of my grandfather stood in front of both a Guy Arab and a Leyland Tiger TS8 while he worked for Thames Valley. Pictures of Thames Valley liveried Guy Arab’s I can find but a Tiger TS8 with ECW B35R coachwork in Thames Valley livery seems to be more of a challenge.
Andrew Stevens
18/08/17 – 06:32
Andrew: that was Thames Valley’s golden age—at least for enthusiasts! There are also some pictures of TV TS8s in the later pages of Thames Valley 1931-1945 and near the beginning of Thames Valley 1946-1960, both written and published by Paul Lacey. The last of the TS8s were withdrawn in October 1954. As a young passenger I loved the “woody” sound of the engine, the groaning in second gear, the gentle whine in third and the big Clayton heater on the front bulkhead.
Ian Thompson
17/05/19 – 07:13
When the TD 32-131 Mann Egerton bodies were built they had 31 seats, but one was removed to give the conductor more room, I think in the mid 1950s. London roads were narrow, and the 26ft x 7ft 6 in size was standard at the time. Luggage pens are a recent idea! The comment about route 240A – originally Edgware to Hale Lane Mill Hill later extended to Mill Hill East Station, the low bridge at Mill Hill station preventing double decks from Mill Hill to Edgware. TDs originally alloc to EW as 240/240A. If LT had completed the 1935-40 works programme that they should have done the link from East Finchley via Mill Hill East, Mill Hill Hale Lane to Edgware of the Northern line would have replaced the LMS steam line for the Northern line to link up with the route to Golders Green. When the Mill Hill bridge was rebuilt when M1 opened at the southern end, a new bus station was built under the main line at Mill Hill, and route 240A which had had TDs from 1949 to 1962, then RF’s was withdrawn and covered by an extension of route 221 from North Finchley to Edgware with Routemasters.
Mark Jameson
18/05/19 – 06:13
26ft x 7ft 6in was standard for double deckers, but the standard size of a PS1 was 27ft 6in x 7ft 6in. If London Transport’s were really only 26ft long, that would go some way to explaining why they only had 31 seats, but it seems most unlikely.
Peter Williamson
19/05/19 – 07:25
Peter is right. The LT TD class were entirely standard PS1 buses having an overall length of 27ft 6ins on a wheelbase of 17ft 6ins. The usual wheelbase for a contemporary 26ft double decker was 16ft 4ins. The erroneous 27ft length figure for the LT TD class comes from the usually accurate Ian’s Bus Stop site. A few examples of 17ft 6ins wheelbase PS1/4 chassis for the then new permitted length of 27ft for double deck bodywork were taken by Birch Bros in 1951.
Hebble Motor Services 1954 Leyland PSU1/15 Bellhouse-Hartwell C37C
This amazing creation was photographed at the Rotherham rally in August 1976. I wonder what has happened to it since. There are photos on flickr showing it undergoing heavy restoration but no further details. It would be great to see it out and about again. Makes you wonder how it survived until 1976.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
27/04/20 – 07:31
Ian, There is plenty about these if you go onto MDS book sales website and download (its free to do so) the book – 12 Royal Tigers – Its basically the history of Bellhouse Hartwell and Beccols vis-a-vis the battle with Blue Cars, that brought about the demise of the latter. Its a great read and heartily recommended!
Mike Norris
27/04/20 – 11:23
….. and the last two Bellhouse Hartwell Landmasters ever were a pair of MU3RV Reliances for SUT. They came between about 22 Duple Elizabethan Reliances and the first of SUT’s 30 Burlingham Seagull Reliances.
David Oldfield
27/04/20 – 12:55
Sadly Ian, you won’t be seeing it out again. ECP 500 had passed to Frank Cowley (dealer), Salford in 12/66 and then to Talbot House Special School, Glossop who had a wheelchair lift fitted into the rear, but fortunately set into the existing rear dome. It lost its chrome bumpers, Royal Tiger badge and ornate Standard Vanguard Phase II front grille but otherwise remained fairly original. It passed to John Hinchcliffe of Huddersfield in the mid-1970’s for intended preservation, at which time I was told by him that the bodywork was extremely sound. However with a lot of work to do on it and other projects in hand he decided to sell it to a preservation group based at Liversedge, who I’m told loaned it to another group with YWD connections, and whose apprentices were supposed to be restoring it and it did appear at a number of rallies in the condition depicted in Ian’s photo. This project appears to have failed and it then passed through a variety of would-be preservationists in Lancashire, until it eventually ended up in a serious state of deterioration exposed to the elements. It was advertised for sale in about 2001 and it is said that despite its extremely parlous condition Ensign acquired it as a major restoration project, but that even they had to admit defeat as it was just too far gone. Sadly it was scrapped. One of the more regrettable losses to the preservation movement.
John Stringer
27/04/20 – 12:57
The company began in the 1800s as the dye works Bellhouse Higson which became incorporated as a limited liability company on 10 July 1914 and changed its name when A.W. Hartwell joined in around 1932. For much of its later existence the company specialised in subcontracting to the aircraft industry, but entered the PSV bodying business in the post WW2 boom period. Initially bodying conventional front engined chassis, the firm is best remembered for its flamboyant styling of bodywork for underfloor engined chassis from 1951, of which the Hebble coach is an example, which possibly suggested inspiration derived from the spaceships in the Dan Dare comic strip. As David states above, the last PSV bodies were delivered in July 1955, after which the firm reverted to concentrating on aerospace industry work. In 1964 the business was sold to the Hampson Jig Tool company, and it finally closed its doors on 13 November 2002. The first link below gives a potted history of the firm in the Bolton News, which differs in minor detail from James Taylor’s account in his A-Z Of British Bus Bodies. The second link illustrates a splendid array of various Bellhouse Hartwell bodies. www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/ – www.busphoto.co.uk/gallery.php
John – sad to hear that it has been scrapped. Such an unusual coach.
Ian Wild
30/04/20 – 06:06
I had the privilege of travelling on this or a sister beast from Burnley to Blackpool at a date I would estimate as being around 1964. Certainly, it was after the new Burnley Bus Station came into use. This was a journey that I made with my parents at intervals during the year, having relatives living in Blackpool. As a 12-ish year-old, I had an interest in buses, and from experience expected that we would end up a on a Ribble operated J1 or J2 duplicate, probably an already elderly Royal Tiger with Leyland or Burlingham bodywork, or maybe even one of their less-appreciated Tiger Cubs with later Seagull bodies. In the past I had seen Ribble half-cab coaches duplicating these services and had always hoped one would show up for me, but it never happened! I think that I had seen these Hebble vehicles once or twice previously in Burnley Bus Station and been fascinated by their already dated but exotic appearance, so different from anything that Ribble or other familiar operators ran. So, imagine the excitement when this beauty pulled into the stand, and we were allowed to board! I remember being able to bag the seat right behind the driver, so close that there was basically nothing between my seat and the panel of lights and switches to his right. To my mind that ride was a major “cop” that I still remember 55 or more years on! I have wondered since which service this would have been on. The most frequent Yorkshire – Blackpool routes (of the ones that passed through Burnley) were the J1 and J2 via Keighley and Colne, but these seemed exclusively Ribble or West Yorkshire operated, though I suppose that Hebble could have provided a duplicate from Leeds or Bradford. I was aware from timetable leaflets of other J services that took the route through Halifax and Todmorden, and that might have been a more logical route for a Hebble vehicle to appear on. However, I very rarely spotted workings of these services on local roads and believe that they were seasonal and/or weekend operations (which may well have applied to the journey I described).
Ricky
15/01/21 – 11:38
I have only just found this page & it’s with great sadness I read about ECP 500’s demise. As a child in the 70s this bus was kept in the National bus garage in Liversedge where my uncle worked. Both my uncles & my dad all became members of the preservation group. My dad drove it on a number of rallies around Yorkshire, in fact he was probably the driver when this picture was taken as we lived near Rotherham at the time. Many happy memories of that time. So sad to hear its gone
We are travelling in style today on a rather nice coach or as when I was a young lad I would always say “are we going on a chara” more than likely originates from charabanc. The Yorkshire dialect as a tendency to shorten words and does not use a new word if the old one will suffice. Did you have a word other than coach for coach, and whilst we are at it, have you a different word for a bus, I had a friend from Oldham Lancashire who called a bus a “buzz”, let me know along with your area, leave a comment. Anyway that’s enough of that back to the Ribble, the “Seagull” body was very popular for the period not surprising really they did look rather sleek at the time. Ribble also had the Mk 2 version of the “Seagull” built 1953/4 but they had centre entrances. I have a photo of a 1957 Yorkshire Traction “Seagull” I think it is a Mk 2.
An uncle of mine, a native of St Helens, always referred to a coach as a SALOON.
Pete Davies
Which was correct as the replacement for the charabanc was the Saloon – or all weather – Coach.
David Oldfield
The bodywork on this is actually of the Mk. 6 version of the Seagull, easily distinguished by the side glazing which is set in “window pans” after the fashion of Burlingham’s service bus body of the time. Very few of this design were built apart from the Ribble batch, but Harper Bros of Heath Hayes had some on Guy Arab LUF chassis. One of these at least is preserved. I have just written an article on the various breeds of Seagull which I will be sending to the website as soon as I can get round to typing it!
Neville Mercer
When working for Ribble at Carlisle depot in 1964 I was detailed to take over a Tiger Cub/Seagull identical to this one at Carlisle when it arrived from Manchester en route to Glasgow. With 4 speed (I think) gearbox and 2 speed axle they were lovely machines to drive even up the A 74 trunk road which was little better than a glorified country lane in those days. Although I remember well the large fleet of Austin 5 ton tippers belonging to a Carlisle scrap merchant hauling rock on the construction site when the section from Telford Bridge to Beattock Summit was being converted to dual lane.
Gerald Walker
29/01/12 – 07:25
Southdown buses and coaches were always referred to as cars for many years even into NBC days. I totally agree with Gerald Walker about the Tiger Cub with 4 speed box and 2 speed axle they had a lively performance and light controls and excellent brakes, the secret was to master the 2 speed axle and use it properly. Ours were fitted with Weymann Fanfare bodies which were solidly built and comfortable. I have to say light controls and brakes were not at that time a common trait with Leylands.
Diesel Dave
29/01/12 – 16:27
Saloons/Cars, as hangovers from the past, bring to mind older conductors, even in the early 60’s, still saying, when the inside was full, “Plenty of room outside” from open-top days.
Chris Hebbron
29/06/13 – 15:20
I started my apprenticeship at Frenchwood body shop which we shared with the body builders in 1962 and worked on most bus numbers 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, and 1600s with 1700s just about starting the overhaul on the bus bodies, one instance whist cleaning the boot of a Seagull coach some one closed the doors, and with using cellulose thinners after 15 mins I was drunk as a lord, light headed and later, with a bad head, but I left in 1964 and went to Atkinson vehicles to finish my time, in the service department and was there for 12 years.
James Lynch
23/11/13 – 07:51
One of these worked out of Whiteleas for George Wimpey Contractor in the 60s and 70s, it was a former Ribble coach and had reg LCK ???
If you go back to a previous posting at this link you will be able to compare the difference between this “Yorkshire Traction Seagull” bodywork and the “Ribble Seagull” . The main difference that strikes me is the Horizontal split windscreen and slightly different lighting arrangement. Is this a Mk 2 or Mk 3? Maybe they are both Mk 3s and in the one year age gap improvements to the screen were made. If you know, let me know, leave a comment.
06/03/13 – 16:46
This Seagull is a Mark V. This was available with either front or central entrance and replaced the central entrance Mark III and forward entrance Mark IV. The distinguishing feature of the Mark V from the models it replaced was the single piece rear windscreen with rear quarter lights. The Mark V was produced for the 1957 and 1958 seasons. The windscreen arrangement was optional on the Mark IV, V and VI, either single piece flat screens or horizontally split. For example, Ribble had Mark IV and Mark VI Seagulls with flat screens, whilst North Western, Trent, Wallace Arnold and Yelloway (at least) had Mark V Seagulls with flat screens.
North Western Road Car 1962 Leyland Leopard PSU3/3RT Alexander DP49F
This bus was one of the first batch of 36 foot vehicles that North Western acquired. Seen here with LDB 787 fleet number 787 a 1960 Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/1 with a Willowbrook duel purpose 43 seat body at the Shay football ground Halifax (I don’t think Halifax were playing Manchester United at the time).
There are still two Leopards going in Llandudno working around the Great Orme they are WND 477 which is a Duple Britannia new to Smiths then went on to Shearing’s then with Alpines. There is also an Harrington Grenadier as well, history not known.
Anonymous
20/02/11 – 06:43
1. What’s a Leopard doing on the Tiger Cub page ?? 2. The WND coach working in Llandudno is definitely a Tiger Cub, not a Leopard
Paul Statham
21/02/11 – 14:55
The last I heard this vehicle was preserved although it’s not seen in public very often. Does anybody know its current status?
I don’t claim to be more expert than anyone else but I am a huge fan of Burlingham and regard them as one the very best coachbuilders ever. Mark/Series numbers are a bit of a mystery since they were extremely small variations between certain types – and a new number for each. This is putting 2 and 2 together and getting into the making 5 territory, but I think I can piece most of the Mark numbers together from what little evidence I have.
Mark I – The original centre entrance Seagull on heavyweight chassis such as an AEC Regal IV and Leyland Royal Tiger.
Mark II – Basically the same centre entrance body on a medium weight chassis such as an AEC Reliance and Leyland Tiger Cub. The earlier Ribble Motor Services 1953/4 Leyland Tiger Cub Seagulls Fleet numbers 926/945 FCK 426/440 & FRN 675/679 are certainly of this mark.
Mark ? – Forward entrance/lightweight chassis such as Bedford (SBG/SBO) and the Commer Avenger was this the Mark III
Mark IV – Front entrance body on medium weight chassis such as an AEC Reliance and Leyland Tiger Cub.
Mark ?
Mark VI – Front entrance interim style with radiused (bus?) window panes. The later Ribble Motor Services 1956/8 Leyland Tiger Cub Seagulls Fleet numbers 977/1018 LCK 889/732 I think are of this mark
Mark VII – Final full coach version (similar to Mark IV but with Duple rear end screens)
I believe new numbers were given for the slightest variation. That being said, what was the Mark III and could the missing Mark V have anything to do with the Ford 570E when it was finally introduced? If you know the differences between the Marks or if you can through a little light on any of the above please leave a comment.
Copy by David Oldfield photograph by Paul Haywood
The Mark numbers you refer to are the ones which were used for Seagull bodies on underfloor engined chassis. The Mk2 differed from the Mk1 in having a doubled chrome “tank shape” moulding beneath the window line. The Mk3 (introduced in 1953) reverted to a single chrome moulding and had a slightly restyled rear end. The Mk4 offered the alternative of a front entrance (all previous Seagulls had been centre entrance) and also had the option of a front dome destination blind box. The Mk5 replaced the Mk3 in 1955 and differed from it in offering a choice of front or centre entrance. It also featured flat one-piece glass panels in the front windscreen as opposed to the two-piece, slightly curved units previously fitted. The Mk6, as you correctly state, differed from the Mk5 in having its side windows fitted into radiused (and slightly recessed) window pans for ease of maintenance. The variant was built at the request of Ribble Motor Services and there were few other customers. The final “heavyweight” Seagull in this sequence was the Mk7, introduced in 1958 and featuring much longer side windows than previous models. This was in response to Plaxton’s introduction of the trendsetting Panorama design, but the Burlingham model proved less popular than they might have hoped. As a result it was replaced in 1960 by the Seagull 70 with its pseudo-American styling, and this was used by Scottish Omnibuses, East Midland, Trent, and other operators although only in penny numbers. Lightweight chassis such as Bedford SBs were given a design of bodywork which mimicked the then current Seagull design, but as far as I know the body never had an official name although many (including some Burlingham employees) referred to it as “the Baby Seagull”. The final, rather ugly version of this body made its appearance in 1959 and was the butt of so many unfavourable comments that it lasted just a single year. In 1960 it was replaced by the Seagull 60, similar in styling to the previously mentioned Seagull 70 for heavyweight chassis. It sold well, but operators soon discovered that the slightly raised “clerestory roof”, made of see-through plexiglass, was prone to leakage. The design was relaunched the following year, with the leakage problem solved, as the Seagull 61 which featured far too much front-end chromework for most tastes. The last two new Burlingham-badged designs emerged in 1962. The Seagull 62 was barely distinguishable from its immediate predecessor, but coach operators were offered an alternative, the curiously named Burlingham Gannet which featured a restyled front end and more glasswork. Both models sold poorly and from 1963 onwards were replaced by the Duple (Northern) Firefly.
Neville Mercer
19/09/12 – 07:11
Ribble Motor Services FRN 679 mentioned in Mark II above was definitely a Royal Tiger rather than a Cub. I used to travel to school in it and always liked to sit at the front as the view was superb. Comfy seats too. Any idea where it went?
David
29/09/12 – 12:35
The small batch of coaches featured in Paul’s photo, 8338 – 8343 U, were indeed splendid vehicles but with “minor” limitations of which the Company seemed blissfully unaware. I can speak from bitter experience, having operated the Yorkshire – Torquay/Paignton night service with them. The passengers all seemed to equip themselves with enough enormous luggage to suffice for emigration to the Southern Hemisphere – and it was the very devil to stow it all in the shallowish boot of the “Seagulls.” The return journey (non stop for we drivers) was scheduled at around thirty hours and, due to the lack of motorways/by-passes, we were always very late back into Leeds on Saturday nights – the Tiger Cubs and the top speed limit for coaches meant that there was no chance of achieving the timetable – it was not a pleasant assignment at all in those days. That’s in no way a criticism of the Tiger Cubs or of the Seagulls – simply wildly over optimistic and unrealistic scheduling by the Company.
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
East Midland Motor Services 1958 Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2 Willowbrook DP41F
Not an operator I know very much about but on researching this particular vehicle it would appear that it started its life with a fleet number of C40. I have come across a photo of XRR 535 C35 which was in a livery of all Cream with a single coloured band below the window did this vehicle start life as cream coach? I am not sure what their prefix fleet letters stood for “C” For coach “D” for double decker I can guess at but “R” “O” “L” which were for single deckers do not mean much to me. If you know please leave a comment. It would appear that East Midland at one time had a livery of Chrome Yellow for the body, Cream for the lower saloon windows and Chocolate for the upper saloon windows and roof I bet that looked good, has anyone seen a colour shot. The livery at the time that the shot above was taken was Dark Red and Cream but that changed to Dark Green in the early seventies.
I recall the original livery which was very distinctive! It was almost art deco- very thirties- and then went into a sort of drab utility maroon. The green was presumably NBC….?
Joe
I vaguely remember these vehicles from my Sheffield childhood (on the Derbyshire border, towards Chesterfield). I quite liked the maroon and cream – because I was not then aware of the original livery, which had disappeared by the time I was old enough to be aware of these things. It is possible that this livery was derived from that of Underwoods – the firm which became East Midland under BET control. The original livery adorned a RM in the short time that they plied the roads of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Over a period of time – in BET times – East Midland became joint owner, along with Yorkshire Traction and North Western, of one of the greatest coach tour operators – nearby Sheffield United Tours. East Midland became one of my favourite operators – which I used regularly – and I was sad when NBC leaf green replaced the drab maroon. This was especially so when my favourite (J – M) registered RE coaches lost their cream and maroon for NBC corporate livery.
David Oldfield
In 1977, long before the RM already mentioned, East Midland repainted an Alexander bodied Fleetline in the old brown/cream/yellow livery to commemorate their 50th anniversary. One of the 1965 batch, but can’t recall which one. It should also be mentioned that the famous bus photographer Roy Marshall (who once worked in Nottingham and was thus familiar with EMMS’s original livery) later became the General Manager of Burnley & Pendle and adopted the same colour scheme for several of that Lancashire undertaking’s vehicles including some Y-type bodied Leopards and at least one VRT3/ECW double-decker. Going off at a slight tangent, Roy Marshall also did a stint as the boss of Gelligaer UDC’s fleet and when he moved to East Staffordshire (Burton-on-Trent Corporation as it used to be) he repainted this Midland fleet in Gelligaer’s old livery of green, red, and white – a vast improvement over the gloomy maroon and cream previously used by Burton. Does anybody know of any further examples where migrating General Managers have ‘taken the livery with them’?
Neville Mercer
Can’t remember which way round it was but Halifax and Glasgow shared a livery due to a demonstrator in one fleet being borrowed by the operator who liked the livery and adopted it themselves. There is also the apocryphal story of legal action when someone saw the old Bostock’s livery, liked it, adopted it and upset Bostock’s.
I also vaguely remember the Fleetline, now that Neville mentions it.
Trivia: Can anyone explain why, with a head office in Chesterfield, all East Midland buses had Nottinghamshire registrations?
David Oldfield
The 1965 edition of BBF5 says that the R prefix was for 30-foot long dual purpose vehicles, but that can’t be right because it shows all the bus-seated 30-footers with R prefixes as well. L meant long – i.e. 36 feet. Joining Neville on his tangent for a moment, did Geoffrey Hilditch once set up a coach fleet at Aberdare using Halifax livery? Or did I dream that? The memory does feel very much like a dream . . .
Peter Williamson
According to the Prestige Series book on East Midland (excellent B&W photographs by G H F Atkins; text by John Banks) the old livery was derived from United, who abandoned it in 1930 in favour of red and cream. The company was originally W T Underwood of Clowne, but with strong backing from United (virtually a subsidiary).
As for the alpha-numeric number series, the type-series letter seems to have been allocated in a rather haphazard fashion. Note that only the single-deckers were distinguished in this way. All of the double-deckers were just series D, irrespective of chassis or body manufacturer.
However, unravelling the tangle it seems this is how it went for the single deckers (Are you sitting comfortably? Then I shall begin!) :
G -50 x ADC 416A (Short Bros.) 1927 -series allocated to EM by United M -10 x AEC Reliance (Lowestoft – later ECW) 1929 -series allocated to EM by United N -10 x AEC Regal (Short Bros) 1930 (some rebodied 1939 with Leyland bodies taken from 1935 TS7s, i.e. type B) L -20 x AEC Regal (Brush) 1931 (of which 3 were coaches, designated LC) L -? x AEC Regal 4 (Brush) 1933-34 C -5 x Leyland KP2 Cub 1934 B -20 x Leyland TS7 (10 Brush; 10 Leyland) 1935 (4 Brush rebodied 1949 by Willowbrook re-designated type N) B -14 x Leyland TS7 (5 Brush; 1 Burlingham coach; 8 Leyland) 1936 E -30 x Leyland TS7 (ECW dual purpose) 1937 (6 rebodied 1948 by Willowbrook re-designated type N) F -11 x Leyland TS7 (ECW bus) 1938 A -10 x AEC Regal (Weymann) 1946 A -14 x AEC Regal III (Third-hand ! Leyland bodies) 1947-48 (rebodied 1952 by Willowbrook and re-designated type K) AC -2 x AEC Regal III (Windover coach) 1948 H -? x AEC Regal III (Weymann) 1949 J -? x AEC Regal III (Willowbrook) 1950 R -All underfloor engine buses from 1952-62 (all Leyland chassis) C (Second time round) -All underfloor engine coaches and dual-purpose from 1954 onwards. L -? x Leyland Leopard buses from 1963 (Willowbrook) O -? x Bristol buses from 1969 (ECW)
N (Second time round!) -various re-bodies (see above) also 10 second hand Leyland TS7s purchased from YWD 1949 and subsequently re-bodied by Willowbrook.
Please note that this is not comprehensive, and takes no account of vehicles absorbed through takeover. There were certainly 5 x Bristol L5G (ECW) in 1938 and 2 x Bedford WTB (Duple) in 1939, for which no type letter is quoted.
Stephen Ford
Someone mentioned East Midland having a Fleetline in the old brown livery. This was in fact an Atlantean PD1/2 fleet no D177 registration BNN 177C. Chesterfield Corporation also had Nottingham registrations as well.
Alan Ridge
Chesterfield Corporation had NU and RA registrations – Derbyshire CC.
David Oldfield
R -All underfloor engine buses from 1952-62 (all Leyland chassis) Some of these were in fact AEC chassis and the last 3 R496 R497 & R498 were AEC chassis and the same bodies as the L400 (400 RRR) series Leylands. The O series were one batch of AEC Swifts O501 to O510. (NAL 501F to 505F then OAL 506F to 510F) Marshall Bodies, Bristol RE’s with single doors. O511 to O522. ECW. Bristol RE’s with single doors. O523 to O532. I think these had Marshall Bodies, I know that they had a strange 3 X 2 arrangement for the rear two rows of seats. Bristol RE’s with single doors. O533 to O541. Leyland engines and Marshall bodies. I have not heard any news of it, but CRR 537J O537 was preserved, somewhere around Derby. Bristol RE’s with Dual doors. O542 to O556. ECW bodies. I think O545 was the last red and cream East Midland bus, around 1975/6
Ian Couzens
10/07/12 – 06:44
The question raised about registration numbers being issued in Nottinghamshire. It was from the days of the head office being in Worksop. Why on moving to Chesterfield it was not changed I don’t know. Hope this helps/ Don’t forget Clowne was also head office prior to Worksop.
Ian Bennett
10/07/12 – 09:17
In response to Nevilles question above re migrating General Managers. When Vane-Morland moved from Walsall to Leeds he brought their blue livery with him prior to this the trams and buses were yellow and white or a deep Prussian blue rather than the flatter slate blue that became standard in the thirties.
Chris Hough
26/07/12 – 07:44
The vehicle in the above photograph was taken over the pit at Worksop bus garage on Allen Street Worksop.
Can anyone remember how many routes East Midland had that ran into Pond Street Sheffield in the 70s, there was number 3 from Mansfield, number 46 from Clowne via Killamarsh, number 18 from Eckington, and there was also an EM bus from Gainsbrough.
Big Jim
04/04/17 – 07:15
You’re right about the 3 and 46. There was also the long-established 99 to Chesterfield via Ford and Staveley. Also in the 60s and until 1971 there was the 62/64 to Chesterfield via Eckington. These were joint with Chesterfield and Sheffield JOC. By 1971 there was also the X53, which was an extended express version of the 3. This ran to Nottingham via Mansfield and was joint with Trent. The Gainsborough route was the 85 – originally a Sheffield ‘C’ fleet (railways-owned) route but which became a joint Sheffield/East Midland/Lincolnshire route when the British Railways interest in the Sheffield B and C fleets ended.
John May
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
19/07/17 – 11:00
Just been told that the old EMMS bus garage at Retford was demolished in 1992,in the 70s it held a fleet of 25 buses and coaches, Worksop is now the last remaining original depot.
Isle of Man Road Services Ltd 1961 Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/1 Willowbrook DP41F
Here is a shot I took of a bus at the Isle of Man Airport in 1966, I took it at the same time 1966 as the Isle of Man Road Services Leyland Titan posted two weeks ago. As stated on that post I know very little about buses more a railways man so I will leave it to anyone who wants to comment to do so.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Michael Bishop
29/05/12 – 17:45
When the Stratford Blue operations were absorbed into the main Midland Red Company in 1971, PMT was able acquire five almost identical Willowbrook bodied Tiger Cubs to the one pictured here. Four were DP, one was bus seated. Originally Stratford Blue 41-45 (2741-2745 AC) they were new in 1959. They were a bit slow compared with the PMTs own AEC Reliance 470s but performed useful work on some of the flatter routes from Stoke and Newcastle Depots and they didn’t suffer from frequent cylinder head gasket failures! The Albion designed five speed constant mesh gearbox was quite a nice unit to handle – but then I didn’t have to work them on One Man Operation for a shift!
Ian Wild
30/05/12 – 07:23
This bus is now preserved on the Isle of Man
Chris Hough
31/05/12 – 08:18
Yes, Ian, interesting point you make. Despite a general superiority, the AECs had an Achilles heel – the wet-liner engine (AH470 and AH590). Leyland produced two mainstream engines, the 0.600 and the Leyland Comet engine which progressed from 0.350 to 0.375 to 0.400. The Comet engine was small, underpowered and noisy but did it’s job reliably. Regulars know my predilection for AECs but also my, not quite equal, admiration of Leyland (Motors). The wet-liners did a lot of harm to AEC’s erstwhile superb reputation and allowed the Leopard to subsequently overtake them in the market.
