Wallace Arnold Tours – Leyland Tiger – LNW 262


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

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

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It was withdrawn in 1957 and saw further service with Wilsons of Hunwick, Prospect of Ferryhill, McClean of Govan and finally to Austins of Stafford in 1963 where it seems to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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Paul Haywood

30/09/12 – 10:44

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

Pete Davies

30/09/12 – 12:19

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

David Beilby

30/09/12 – 12:20

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

Ronnie Hoye

30/09/12 – 12:21

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

Chris Youhill

02/10/12 – 15:28

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

David Oldfield

02/10/12 – 15:30

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

Chris Hough

02/10/12 – 15:32

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

Peter Williamson

02/10/12 – 15:34

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

John Stringer

02/10/12 – 15:35

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

Philip Lamb

03/10/12 – 06:16

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

Paul Haywood

03/10/12 – 10:38

LUA 747_lr

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

Neville Mercer

03/10/12 – 17:50

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

Philip Lamb

04/10/12 – 07:29

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

Neville Mercer

04/10/12 – 07:30

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

Phil Blinkhorn

06/10/12 – 07:24

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

David Hick

11/10/12 – 16:04

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

David Williamson

12/10/12 – 08:12

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

Paul Haywood

13/10/12 – 06:33

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

Peter Williamson

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

16/12/12 – 07:37

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

Jon Hartley

16/12/12 – 08:38

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

Paul Haywood

Green – Leyland Tiger – PRE 900

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox


09/04/17 – 18:00

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

Keith Clark


10/04/17 – 06:44

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

Phil Blinkhorn


10/04/17 – 06:46

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

Chris Barker


10/04/17 – 09:36

Rear view mirror, Phil.

David Oldfield


10/04/17 – 09:37

Thank Chris, a mirror it is!

Phil Blinkhorn


10/04/17 – 09:37

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

Roger Cox


11/04/17 – 07:15

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

Chris Hebbron


11/04/17 – 07:16

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

Stephen Bloomfield


11/04/17 – 17:38

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

Roger Burdett


12/04/17 – 07:26

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

Roger Cox

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

Ribble Leyland Tiger Cub

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

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


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

Pete Davies


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

David Oldfield


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

Neville Mercer


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

Gerald Walker


29/01/12 – 07:25

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

Diesel Dave


29/01/12 – 16:27

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

Chris Hebbron


29/06/13 – 15:20

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

James Lynch


23/11/13 – 07:51

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

Frank Lowe

Yorkshire Traction – Leyland Tiger Cub – LHE 506 – 1078


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

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

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


06/03/13 – 16:46

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

David Williamson

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

Wallace Arnold Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark ?

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

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

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

Copy by David Oldfield photograph by Paul Haywood

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

Neville Mercer

19/09/12 – 07:11

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

David

29/09/12 – 12:35

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

Chris Youhill

North Western – Leyland Tiger Cub – LDB 709 – 709


Copyright John Smith

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

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

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

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

Photograph and Part Copy contributed by John Smith


01/04/12 – 09:22

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

Neville Mercer


02/04/12 – 07:27

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

Peter Williamson


12/04/12 – 06:05

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

Mike


29/06/15 – 06:53

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

R Cooper


02/04/22 – 05:43

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

John Smith

Bournemouth Corporation – Leyland Royal Tiger – NLJ 272 – 94

Bournemouth Corporation - Leyland Royal Tiger - NLJ 272 - 262

Bournemouth Corporation
1954
Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13
Burlingham B42F

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

Bournemouth Corporation - Leyland Royal Tiger - NLJ 272 - 262

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


27/05/16 – 06:20

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

Grahame Arnold

Hunters – Leyland Lion LT5 – JR 688 – 8

JR 688

H W Hunter and Sons
193?
Leyland Lion LT5
Burlingham B32F

I recently bought this photo on Ebay, but the information on the back is somewhat limited. JR 688 is a B32F Burlingham bodied Leyland Lion LT5. There are no dates on the back, but the model was only in production from 1932 to 1934. From local knowledge I know that the photo was taken by the Victoria Hotel in Whitley Bay, my guess would be around the mid 40’s, the picture quality is not the best, but the vehicle looks a bit sad by Hunters usual very high standards.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye


12/04/15 – 07:05

In an Omnibus Society newsletter for September 1952, I have found a fleet list for Hunters. Unfortunately, it doers not give dates new, but confirms that JR 688 was a Leyland LT5 with Burlingham B32F body. It was no. 8 in the Hunters fleet and was sent for scrap in July 1952.

John Gibson


13/04/15 – 07:38

As you have the actual photograph, use a magnifying glass on the headlights, I think they have wartime masks on them.

John Lomas

Stevensons – Leyland Leopard LI – 5907 W – 18


Copyright Ian Wild

Stevensons of Spath
1960
Leyland Leopard LI
Burlingham DP41F

Sheffield Joint Omnibus Committee was an early user of the Leyland Leopard L1 taking six Weymann Fanfare bodied vehicles for the B fleet in 1959 and then five identical for the C fleet in 1960. Later deliveries in 1960 were nine with what I always thought were very attractive Burlingham dual purpose bodies (four for the B fleet and five for the C fleet). The bus in the photo was originally fleet number 1307 renumbered as 1007 in the 1967 renumbering. They originally had single piece hinged coach type doors, lever operated from the cab but were modified for OMO with power operated bus doors later in the 1960s. The Leopards were regular performers on the Peak District services and also on the 48 to Manchester. Not many Sheffield buses escaped the scrap man but during 1972 Stevensons of Spath (near Uttoxeter) bought five Leopards from Sheffield, two with Weymann bus bodies, two with Burlingham bodies and a single Weymann Fanfare example. Stevensons fleet number 18 looks very smart here on 29th August 1972 in their yellow and black livery and what a superb registration number!!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

02/03/11

I always thought it was a nice body, simple and smart. Somehow, it never seemed to make the big time, though, at least not in my part of the world.

Chris Hebbron

02/03/11

Could never, as a kid, understand why these were only classified as DP41F, not C41F. Can only assume that it is because the body is basically the Burlingham bus with a Seagull front grafted on. (…..but it is isn’t that much different from the Seagull VI ordered in volume by Ribble). A point to consider, though. Duple took over Burlingham in about 1960 – and the factory continued first with Burlingham designed Duples and then their own designs. Is it too fanciful to think that these were constructed of left over parts, to use them up – rather like the Plaxton 321 some thirty years later, using up Duple 320 parts in a like manner?
Over to you, Mr Mercer – esteemed Burlingham guru!
There were more Weymann Fanfares and the ECW Leopards to follow. An incredible collection of high quality and interesting non-mainstream vehicles for basically a local operator – albeit railway owned and for long distance routes. They were good, but its a pity JOC never bought any AECs for coaching. (Unless you consider the pre-war Regal/Roberts for the Gainsborough route!)

David Oldfield

03/03/11 – 09:01

Thanks for the compliment David! Burlingham’s standard bus body for underfloor engined chassis first appeared in 1951 and went through various updates until it was discontinued in 1960. The first major change came at the 1956 Commercial Motor Show when the entire front-end was redesigned to give a more modern appearance. To many of us this was the best version of the body and was in production from early 1957 to late 1958. Sales were generally poor by this point (the best known examples of the 1956 design were probably those operated by famous independents such as Clyde Coast and Tor Bus) and at the 1958 Show Burlingham presented the version shown in this photograph. Sheffield’s were among the first production examples and (as far as I know) the only other “big fleet” to buy them was Northern General.
As you suggest the window pans were identical to those used on the Mark 6 Seagull as was the lower panel on the front end. I suspect that this was an economy move by Burlingham to standardise on fewer parts. By late 1958 the company was already in dire straits and I’ve heard it suggested by one former employee that all those full-fronted PD3 Titans they built for Ribble were actually delivered at a “below cost” price in a desperate attempt to recover the prestige lost by the later Seagull variants. A classic example of large numbers of units coming off the production line but no money going into the bank in exchange. The obvious parallel is with the early Mini which appeared to be a success but nearly bankrupted its manufacturer.
As a regular traveller on these vehicles back in the 1960s I can assure you that the seats were nowhere near as luxurious as those fitted to Seagulls – although much better than those fitted to North Western’s contemporary “Black Tops” which barely qualified as anything other than buses in a really nice colour scheme! I’ve done the trip from Manchester to Sheffield in both types on many occasions and the Burlingham vehicles were perfectly adequate from a comfort point of view whereas NWRCC’s Willowbrook “DPs” were as bottom-numbing as a regular service bus. The livery made us forgive them….

Neville Mercer

03/03/11 – 10:20

Some of Sheffields Burlingham bodied Leopards also ran for Halifax/Calderdale these being 5875-5879 W The Halifax Dual Purpose livery of cream orange and green gave you the ideal a good bus in an equally good livery!

Chris Hough

04/03/11 – 07:38

As recorded before, I am a huge Burlingham fan but always defer to Neville’s comprehensive knowledge. (Thank you, as ever.) Such a shame that things bombed out a mere decade after the launch of the Seagull.
It is also significant that Manchester bought 50 PD2s and a similar number of CVG6s in 1958 with Burlingham bodywork, at the same time as Ribble’s PD3s, and they were highly regarded vehicles.
A friend of mine, a well respected professional bus man, reckons that the weight of Burlingham bodies was a disincentive to many cost and fuel economy conscious operators. I always thought this a short sighted attitude – which still prevails today. [Van Hool bodies are “heavy” but their quality is self evident. Iberian bodies, of varied manufacture, are lighter but are rot boxes which fall apart long before the Van Hools.]

David Oldfield

05/03/11 – 06:40

I have always been rather puzzled about the designation “dual purpose”. It seems that it settled down at some point to identify a vehicle with a bus shell and coach seats (or occasionally, possibly, vice versa). But originally it must have meant a vehicle which could equally serve as a bus or a coach. So why exactly is a bus shell more suitable for bus work than a coach shell would be? We have to bear in mind that this started before one-man operation, so it can’t have been anything to do with fare collection equipment.
Lancashire United’s DPs of the early 60s were particularly well appointed I remember, more so in fact than the laminate-infested coaches which replaced them. I always preferred the term “service coach”.

Peter Williamson

05/03/11 – 08:25

I would hardly call the Duple Dominant E (with bus seats) dual purpose. It’s obviously a convenient short-hand but, if there are coach seats, it’s not terribly suitably for bus work as there is always less circulation room in gangways. [You still have to navigate down a coach almost sideways on to avoid getting stuck.]
I can think of a number of DPs which were at least as well appointed as some so-called full coaches – often with extremely comfortable seating.
Three examples:
i) Scottish RE/Y types (originally London coaches)
ii) Ribble BET Leopards (Marshall, Weymann and Willowbrook) – also seen elsewhere.
iii) East Midland RE with full coach seats in bus body.
These are probably equivalent to the LUT vehicles and what I think of as DPs – not bus seats in a coach or pretty paintwork (as at North Western). Coach standard of comfort, destination equipment and, latterly, ticket equipment must be the pre-requisites for use on longer or long distance services.

David Oldfield

11/03/11 – 16:26

Nottingham City Transport had a fleet of Duple Dominants called “Lilac Leopards” which were coach bodies with bus seats.

Roger Broughton

12/03/11 – 07:00

They were examples of the aforementioned Dominant E.

David Oldfield

29/03/11 – 07:38

In fact Stevenson’s bought three of the Weymann Fanfare-bodied Leopards from Sheffield – 1500 WJ, 1501 WJ and 1914 WA. And what with two PD3s and a Regent V from the same source, a large chunk of Stevenson’s fleet in the late 70s originated from Sheffield. I took my test with Stevo’s in 1978 and drove most of these buses on school contracts.

Tim Jeffcoat

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

11/01/13 – 14:18

5907 W_2

I have discovered this lurking in my slide collection.
5907 W when still with Sheffield as its 1007, seen leaving Halifax along Skircoat Road and approaching HPT’s Skircoat Garage on the 68 slow stopping service to Sheffield in March 1971.

John Stringer

14/01/13 – 07:16

I’ve just caught up with Roger Broughton’s comment on Nottingham’s Lilac Leopards. In fact, Nottingham’s Dominant E vehicles came in two variants. Those painted in the lilac livery, the true ‘Lilac Leopards’, did have coach seats, and were intended for the park and ride services introduced as part of the short lived Zone and Collar traffic management scheme in the city. The idea was that coach seats would help to attract car drivers to the park and ride services. They were never considered to be more than semi-luxury vehicles, so the seats were not to touring specification. There were originally 18, but most were disposed of after the abandonment of the scheme, just 3 remaining as coaches in the fleet, although they were generally to be found on bus services.
There were a further 24 Dominant E buses, with essentially the same shell, but less chrome trim and with standard bus seats. These were painted in the reverse version of Nottingham’s green and cream, and were always known as ‘White Leopards’. They appear to have been accorded DP status in fleet lists on the basis of the body being a coach shape, but they were never treated by NCT as anything other than service buses.

Alan Murray-Rust

16/01/13 – 05:10

Thanks for the photo of 1007, John. Interesting to see it with the later Sheffield Transport fleet name after the abolition of the B and C fleets. Didn’t Halifax acquire some of the C fleet batch 5875-5879W about this same time?

Ian Wild

16/01/13 – 07:14

…..and eagle eyes will see the folding power doors – these were new with full (and heavy) coach doors.

David Oldfield

16/01/13 – 13:08

Yes, they had all five Ian.
5877-5877 W had passed to Hebble as their 160-162 (soon after renumbered 656-658). They were acquired by Halifax J.O.C as part of the Hebble takeover, and numbered 305-307.
5878/5879 W had passed to Yorkshire Woollen as their 293/294, but were also transferred to H.J.O.C. as part of the Hebble takeover, and numbered 308/309.
All passed to Calderdale J.O.C. on its formation at the time of the Todmorden takeover, and were withdrawn in 1972, passing to operators in the Irish Republic.

John Stringer

Poole’s – Leyland Leopard L1 – 9513 RF – 9


Copyright Ian Wild

Poole’s of Alsagers Bank
1960
Leyland Leopard L1
Burlingham B43F

Pooles of Alsagers Bank (on the outskirts of the Potteries) ran a stage service from their home village to Newcastle under Lyme. One of their fleet was 9513 RF which is almost identical to the ex Sheffield Leopard shown on the site with Stevensons of Spath.
Pooles bought 9513 RF new and its Burlingham body (no7064) must have been built at the same time as the Sheffield batch (two of which had body numbers 7061 and 7062) – this information from “Bus Lists on the Web”.
The bus is wearing a Leyland Tiger Cub badge, although per “Bus Lists on the Web” it is a Leopard L1, I am pretty sure at least the first two of Sheffield’s Leopards (1300/1) had Tiger Cub badges – maybe one of the Sheffield correspondents could confirm that. The bus looks to have high backed seats despite “Bus Lists on the Web” quoting it as B43F. The photo was taken at Poole’s Depot in June 1971

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild


22/06/11 – 13:24

As per my post for Leopard fanfare 1002. The original batch were first intended as PSUC1 specials before being announced as L1 Leopards. I never saw them with Tiger Cub badges – but maybe these were removed and replaced after the official launch of the Leopard in November 1959.

B43F? The seats look like coach or DP seats to me.

David Oldfield


26/06/11 – 08:03

One other strange thing about this vehicle is that it was the only Poole’s service bus never to receive a fleet number. Those before it did, and so did those which came afterwards, right up to the family selling the business to the haulage contractor who drove it into the ground. Does anybody know why it didn’t merit a fleet number?

Neville Mercer


It is listed above with a fleet a number of 9 is this correct or is Neville on to another bus mystery

Peter


22/06/12 – 06:58

It is usual, if a vehicle is given a fleet number, for the number to be visible on the vehicle. As we see in the illustration, there does not appear to be one, however. Is it, perhaps, on the nearside or the back, or is it just for administrative purposes? Is Neville right to say it never received one? I’m supposing you mean not at all, not nohow even on paper, young sir! To my mind – or what’s left of it after a career in Local Government – the fact we don’t see one suggests very strongly that “not nohow” is correct.

Pete Davies


22/06/12 – 11:23

I walked around this vehicle on numerous occasions and also studied its interior, and I can confirm that it carried no fleet number, at least until mid 1972 when I last saw it. I think the mistake (in listing it as fleet number 9) may originate in PSV Circle publication 2PD7, covering Staffordshire independents, where it is so listed. The compilers seem not to have noticed that Pooles were operating a genuine fleet number 9, Tiger Cub/Seagull coach 938 CRE, from 1954 to 1968 which overlaps with the first eight years of 9513 RF’s stay in the fleet!
Having said that, it wouldn’t be unknown for an independent to operate two vehicles with the same fleet number at the same time, but in the absence of any photographic evidence I’m sticking by my original assertion.
I am forced to eat humble pie however, as I’ve just noticed in my own records that Poole’s Reliance/Park Royal bus 4399 E (delivered the year before 9513 RF) also failed to acquire a fleet number throughout its career with the operator. It seems that Pooles temporarily abandoned allocating fleet numbers in 1958-59 and then started again in 1960 without giving numbers to the two recently delivered service buses. Perhaps somebody else was in charge for those two years who considered fleet numbers to be a “big fleet” affectation!

Neville Mercer


23/06/12 – 06:01

Also meant to add that I agree it should be classified as a dual-purpose vehicle – the seats were of a higher standard than those on North Western’s contemporary “black top” saloons and comparable to those on North Western’s Reliance/Alexander Z types which NWRCC listed as coaches rather than “semi-coaches” on their internal fleet listings. In honesty it should be said that 2PD7 is not one of the PSV Circle’s most accurate publications, but in the absence of anything better was still used as a source for most of the enthusiast publications (Capital, AM Witton Fleetbooks etc) of the ’70s and ’80s. I’ve seen many of its known errors copied elsewhere over the years, so presumably Bus Lists took their data (ie B43F) from these sources.
As I’ve said before on this site, the PSV Circle do a marvellous job but any enthusiast who takes every word in their publications as “gospel” is slightly deluded. Everybody makes mistakes and they only get corrected if people point them out… and sometimes not even then!
Needless to say, if anyone spots any errors in my books, please feel free to air them on this site. I’d rather know than not know – it’s the only way we end up with better history.

Neville Mercer


23/06/12 – 14:24

Oh Dear!! I’ve just been looking through a copy of my own book “Independent Buses in Staffordshire” and I’ve noticed that the caption to a photograph of 9513 RF describes it as fleet number 9. Whoops. In my defence I didn’t write the caption (the original photographer presumably used 2PD7 as a reference), but on the other hand I should have picked it up when adding the details to the captions typescript or at the proof-reading stage. As I said above, “everybody makes mistakes”, but I didn’t expect to be pointing out one of my own.

Neville Mercer


30/06/12 – 05:28

I would just like to add to the info on Pooles bus 9513 RF, I have been researching Pooles for a number of years and have now approx 300 Pooles bus and coach pics in my collection, and can confirm that 9513 RF DID carry a fleet number of 9 positioned each side of the front of the bus just below the sidelights, and I have a photo to show this, the other buses of Pooles to carry fleet number 9 were – 938 CRE, and XFA 967S, of which I also have pics to confirm, The buses purchased during 1958-59, and some later buses and coaches, did not seem to carry fleet numbers,. If I can be of any more assistance please get in touch, and any more info or pics to help me in my research would be most welcome, many thanks.

Dave G


30/06/12 – 11:23

Thanks for that info, Dave G, now I wonder if you can date the photograph which shows the fleet number? What I’m getting at is, did 9513 RF become number 9 after the disposal of the Seagull which carried that number in 1968? I’ve seen around a dozen decent quality shots of the vehicle over the years, none of them with it carrying fleet numbers in the position you describe, but it could be that all of these were taken prior to 1968. My personal visits to the operator (and to the N-u-L terminus) were concentrated in the years 1965-68 although I did see their vehicles in passing between 1968 and 1972 on sporadic visits to the area. By then however I had begun to devote more time to girls and less to buses!

Neville Mercer


30/06/12 – 18:46

The photos I have showing the fleet number I’m afraid have no dates on them, but seem to be early pics in black and white, I have other colour pics that do not show a fleet number. Pooles still owned this bus in March 1978. Two older Pooles buses also had fleet number 9, ORE 676, a Foden of 1947 vintage, and JVT 52, a 1945 Bedford. I am hoping to one day produce a book about Pooles when I have enough information. Also I have a collection of the old Duggins/Princess buses pics that shared the same routes as Pooles.

Dave G


26/04/21 – 06:36

Further to the above caption, Poole’s actually had two services. The main one was Audley to Newcastle-under-Lyme, via Miles Green, Halmer End (or Halmerend), Alsager’s Bank, Scot Hay, Park Site (or Estate), Silverdale, and Knutton. If you were wondering whether or not all those fitted into the destination screen, they didn’t, not all at the same time, but perm any four/five or so. //www.sct61.org.uk/zzxre912h
Few journeys made it through from Audley, at least as many starting at Halmer End, which always surprised me, given the relative sizes of Audley/Halmer End.
The second service was much shorter, between Knutton and Newcastle-under-Lyme, this I believe went by a different route to the Audley service.

David Call