Tag: Leyland Leopard

Northern General – Leyland Leopard PSU3/3 – CCN 718D – 2518

Northern General Leyland Leopard

The Northern General Transport Company
1966
Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R
Marshall DP49F

Photo taken at Wellington Street bus station Leeds. The X97 route was Liverpool to Newcastle via Leeds obviously.
Information for this photo was found on the “Bus Lists on the Web” website a very good site indeed can be seen here.

05/01/12 – 07:24

I think that the air intake below the windscreen of the Northern General Leopard indicates it was fitted with the UHV (underfloor heating & ventilation) system designed in conjunction with BET, supposedly a fully automatic system with temperature sensors and air operated valves and flaps opening and closing various air ducts through which fresh or recirculated air passed in theory. In practice it was a very different matter as the only automatic thing was both driver and passengers were very cold in winter and very very hot in summer there being few opening windows and two permanently open roof vents with plastic trays underneath to disperse the incoming air. The worst aspect from the drivers point of view was that there wasn’t a motor and fan in the demister the system relied on the forward motion of the vehicle you can imagine how well this worked on a local stopping service. I encountered this system when working for Southdown who also had it fitted to a batch of Plaxton bodied coaches, fitted with vinyl covered seats, there were of course no opening windows and only the two roof vents already mentioned plus two more under the driver or passenger control, no Jet Vent blowers were fitted and of course the same inadequate demister system which still did not work on long runs These vehicles were known as “sweat boxes” very inappropriate in winter and loathed by drivers and passengers alike.

Diesel Dave

07/01/12 – 08:52

How times have/haven’t changed. Fully automatic heating and ventilation systems are now commonplace, but they still don’t work!

Peter Williamson

07/01/12 – 10:15

…..problem is, passengers insist on breathing whatever the temperature or weather conditions.

David Oldfield

31/01/12 – 09:23

There was one automatic heating and ventilation system that worked very well and that was the one fitted to the A series Leyland National providing the filters were kept clear of the inevitable debris that collected it was very reliable. It appeared to defy the fact that hot air rises with the outlets in the roof coving,which had the added bonus of the demister clearing from the top of the screen first, much better for the driver, in fact the whole bus was comfortable. The B series was no better than any other vehicle with underseat box heaters. Although much maligned the National was not a bad bus to drive, personally I thought the Mk 2 with the 680 engine was one of the best buses I ever drove. That may stir up some controversy.

Diesel Dave

31/01/12 – 15:29

Because the National was integral it was considered as a whole. The 500 series engine, especially the 510, was abominable and overshadowed the fact that the body – admittedly very spartan – was very good. The National 2 was what it ought to have been from the start – and a worthy successor to the vehicle it killed off (or murdered?) the Bristol RE. I agree with you fully about the National 0680 – but what about the TL11 version, or for that matter the Gardner?

David Oldfield

31/01/12 – 16:35

There is a nice essay on the 500 and its problems on the AROnline site here: //www.aronline.co.uk/

Gary T

31/01/12 – 16:38

Are Leyland Nationals too late for this site? I never got too close to them for some reason, but they were certainly quirky – the Meccano body must have been the death-knell of “coachbuilding” -and they could also be used on the railways! Can any of our resident panel explain: -why they sounded like industrial food mixers (which engine was that)? -why they emitted clouds of diesel particulates which would put them off the road these days (ditto?) and -what that pretend (?) air conditioning unit/1930’s luggage box on the roof was?

Joe

01/02/12 – 07:56

Yes Joe, that’s the famous 510 engine you’re talking about – and they are strictly “too late”. The fixed head was novel, and extremely unreliable, smoky and sounded like a can of marbles. The roof box was an advanced, but expensive, heating unit.You could, however, get me really wound up about the LEZ (London’s low emission zone). You only need eyes to see the filth which can come out of modern “clean” vehicles and some TRC Tigers and Leopards (to name but two)would not “pass the test” and yet are possibly cleaner. [You certainly don’t choke in a smoke cloud behind them!]

David Oldfield

01/02/12 – 07:57

I have to take issue with Diesel Dave on the heating system defying normal laws of physics. Things may have been better in the cab but I recall many instances of getting on what I thought was a ‘warm’ National, passing under the warm air curtain at the door and sitting down. After a while your feet told you exactly where all the cold air had gone! There was a real temperature gradient. I would agree about the demisting effect though, even the saloon windows had less of a propensity to steam up.

David Beilby

01/02/12 – 07:58

I cant comment on the MK2 National as I’ve never driven one, but the early MK1’s were an abortion. When we first got them at Percy Main they were sometimes used on dual crew, and the conductors claimed that when they went round a corner they leaned over that much that they were almost walking on the windows. They soon became known as the ‘kick start buses’ as some of the myriad of sensors on the lower inspection panels were so touchy that a hefty boot had to be administered to ensure that contact was made and the vehicle would start, the steering was far too light and had no feel, they scrubbed off front tyres at an alarming rate, and on a wet road, if the vehicle went in the same direction that the wheels were pointing it was more by luck than judgment, as for the heating, on cold winter days you could be sitting with sinus trouble in you nose and frostbite in your feet, they must have had some good points but off hand I cant think of any.

Ronnie Hoye

01/02/12 – 08:00

Well I can’t answer Joe’s questions but I do remember very well the roof mounted air conditioning and heating system with outlets along the length of the interior, just above the cove panels, which quickly became blackened by the warm air, or should I say fumes of the heating. It’s astonishing that it never occurred to the designers that the heat (such as it was) would collect in the roof whilst your feet were like two blocks of ice on the floor!

Chris Barker

01/02/12 – 08:00

Thanks Gary: answers to my questions are in your quoted article (except the roofbox which was presumably the heating….)… and I thought it was just the cars (I had a Princess & lived- never to buy BL again). Let’s get back to the good old days…

Joe

01/02/12 – 08:01

As an apprentice working for West Yorkshire Road Car when they were still very much a Bristol – ECW – Gardner operator, I noted that anything built by Leyland was viewed with the deepest suspicion by the old guard. So when WY’s first Nationals arrived, and caused major headaches for the engineering staff, those deep suspicions seemed totally justified. (“We’re all doomed – aye doomed!” to quote a well-known Scotsman).
As Diesel Dave comments, the ‘A-Series’ heating and ventilation system worked very well, even in the depths of winter. The system also provided a ‘hot air curtain’ (Leyland parlance) over the entrance to reduce heat loss when the doors opened. The 510 engine was its Achilles heel as David states, and in the early days engines were covering less than 100,000 miles before the big end and main bearings disintegrated. However, following various Leyland modifications – large and small – WY examples were achieving well over 300,000 miles between overhauls in their later years. (Regarding your comment about the National killing off the RE David, three of WYs RELLs suffered the indignity of being fitted with 500 engines when new in 1970, as part of the National development programme. To add insult to injury, they still sported SRG 118-120 as their fleet numbers, even though they did not receive Gardner 6HLX transplants until a few years later, by which time they had become 1318-1320).
With regard to Joe’s queries, the ‘industrial food mixer’ sound may have been due to its engine design, being a ‘small’ unit developing 180 bhp in the National and capable of greater outputs in other applications. Cam lobes were very pointed in profile compared to a 680 or Gardner engine for example, meaning that the 510 valves snapped shut faster. Also, if memory serves correctly, the injector pressures were higher on the 510 too, adding to the cacophony. The engine was also of overhead camshaft layout, with a train of large, straight-cut gears supplying the drive from the crankshaft. The smoke problem certainly persisted, despite revised injectors, revised fuel pump settings and a different type of turbocharger. I personally wondered whether the air inlet manifold may have been the culprit, as this was simply a rectangular pressed steel box bolted onto the side of the engine. Gardner turbo engines in contrast had nicely shaped manifolds to aid the flow of air being forced into the engine, whereas the 510’s affair could not have provided anywhere near such a smooth airflow in comparison.
As for the ‘luggage box on the roof’ Joe, that housed the automatic heating and ventilation system mentioned by Diesel Dave. The system was generally pretty reliable, but I do recall one occasion sitting towards the rear of a Mk I National en route to Bradford, and being dripped on every time the bus came to a halt, or went down a gradient! Needless to say the beast had sprung a leak, and the driver had it signed off at the Interchange, but I did wonder what fellow passengers thought about the roof leaking…….

Brendan Smith

01/02/12 – 16:21

Gentlemen, as someone who was never employed in the bus industry, I am fascinated to read that the commercial vehicle side of “BL” was every bit as bad as the car division. In 1971 I bought a new Morris 1300GT and it rained the first day I had it. Next morning I found around a gallon of water in the boot so drove back to the dealers where I was told to “Drill ‘ole in the floor and it won’t fill up then”, Obviously a BL man to the core!
From memory, didn’t the Nationals also have a tendency to catch fire as I clearly recall one suffering a burnt out rear in Ashton Way, Keynsham and also reading of two or three others going the same way. I know I thought them very cheap and basic things so much so that I near enough gave up any interest in anything later than 1972 onwards!
I shall look out for any preserved examples and try to get a “sound effects” recording but from what you all say, finding one with a “510” engine still running seems unlikely!

Richard Leaman

01/02/12 – 16:22

Yes Brendan, and there were rather too many VRs with the 510 as well. Gary Ts link to aronline includes a query/comment about the New Zealand REs having the 510. This was yet another example of Leyland “choice” – you choose to take what Leyland “offered” or you choose to go elsewhere!

David Oldfield

02/02/12 – 07:10

The Leyland engine option in the VR was the naturally-aspirated 501 rather than the turbocharged 510. I expect operators had similar problems with them, but from a passenger point of view they were an absolute delight. They were very quiet, with none of the National’s clatter (which I believe came from a cooling fan coupling or something like that), and unlike the kick-you-in-the-back 6LXB, the power delivery was always ultra-smooth no matter how heavy the driver’s boot. And when coupled to the 5-speed gearbox they could motor too.

Peter Williamson

02/02/12 – 07:11

Richard, British Leyland shouldn’t be confused with Leyland Motors; the latter had stiff competition in the bus market from AEC Bristol Daimler and Guy, ‘Albion were already a subsidiary of Leyland’ and whist it’s fair to say they all had their share of lemons, it was a very competitive market and in the main they were all good vehicles, there were other manufacturers in the market but the companies I’ve mentioned all became part of BL. Before they eventually disappeared, ‘or to be more accurate were killed off’ most names became little more than badge engineered versions of the same BL know best product. BL had a guaranteed market as long as National Bus company was in existence, but as soon as deregulation came they found that their product was no longer in demand. An example of BL’s policy can be seen in the car market, pre BL, Rover’s were built up to a standard, then they became part of BL who in their wisdom or otherwise decided it would be a good idea to put a Rover badge on a Metro. Enough said

Ronnie Hoye

03/02/12 – 06:34

Just after West Yorkshire had converted its three experimental 500-engined RELLs (1318-20) to Gardner 6HLXs, in pursuit of standardisation and improved reliability, guess what came next? Yes, three VRT3s with ‘National’ engines fitted! Numbered 1971-73, these had the vertical 501 versions with turbochargers. (If memory serves correctly Peter I seem to recall that the naturally-aspirated versions were 500s in either vertical or horizontal form, but don’t ask me why as Leyland’s logic was a law unto itself in those days!). Reliability-wise they were marginally better than the 510s, but they suffered oil leaks, and engine vibrations caused problems with gearboxes, engine and gearbox mountings, and exhaust systems. Needless to say they too were converted to Gardner power (6LXB) a few years later. Viewed from the engine compartment, the 501 looked like a mass of pipework with an engine attached somewhere beneath. I think Leyland had tried to place everything on the accessible side of the engine for maintenance purposes, such as the injection pump, compressor, heat exchanger etc. More often than not however, it seemed that you couldn’t remove the faulty bit without first removing half a barrow load of other bits to get to it! As Peter states though, from a passenger viewpoint they did seem fairly smooth and quiet in the VRTs, but I’m afraid I’ll have to side with David that there were far too many VRTs with the ‘headless wonder’ fitted. Poor old East Yorkshire appeared to have lots, which seemed most unfair.

Brendan Smith

01/11/13 – 08:07

One Leopard I remember fondly is MRU 551W, a PSU5C/4R with Plaxton Supreme IV C57F bodywork new to Marchwood of Totton. I used to drive for Country Lion of Northampton. They operated it from May 1986 until July 1987. Most of the drivers could not master the Pneumocyclic Gearbox, which was why it went in PX for a Volvo B10M Duple 320 C57F in July 1987. Shame, as it was a lovely motor to drive.

Stemax1960

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

01/11/13 – 13:54

I loved the National. For three years in the 1970s the breed provided me with a great deal of commission as BL sought to master the monster it had created. I was supplying the BL spares operation in Chorley and the Workington factory with tags, tickets, labels and plastic ties and almost from first entry into service of the production models those products relating to the National showed a marked increase in demand.
It has to be said that “real” Leyland employees at Chorley hated the National for whilst it provided a constant stream of work, it also provided a constant stream of problems as sometimes the production of spares, many from outside suppliers, lagged behind the demand and the yard and workshops at Chorley always seemed to have more Nationals than any other Leyland product awaiting investigation.
Peter Williamson is quite correct in blaming the cooling fan coupling for much of the clatter.

Phil Blinkhorn

T R T B – Leyland Leopard – CAJ 432C – 32

T R T B - Leyland Leopard - CAJ 432C - 32

Teesside Railless Traction Board
1965
Leyland Leopard
Roe B45F

This bus looks very smart in the Dark Green and Cream livery of T. R. T. B. unfortunately it did not look all that good in the new livery of Turquoise and Cream of Teesside Municipal Transport. This drastic change of colour scheme apparently happened because of the formation of Teesside County Borough in 1968. Thus causing Middlesbrough Corporation, Stockton Corporation and the Tees-side Railless Traction Board to join together to form Teesside Municipal Transport. Another snippet of information gleamed during research was that fleet No. 34 a “Leopard” similar to above was written off after an accident in 1975.
One good thing was that due to another local government shake up 6 years later the Turquoise and Cream livery was soon changed to Green and Jasmine which sounds much better.

16/11/12 – 14:54

It’s curious that even the best body builders occasionally built ‘ugly ducklings’.
IMHO this looks very strange, almost as though it has been made up of parts that were in stock for other purposes. The windscreen looks fabulous on double deckers and would probably have looked well on a coach.
But here, the roof doesn’t match up with the windscreen. The side windows (and the rear window) just look old fashioned. And the front elevation isn’t enhanced by the heavy bumper or the trim around the Leyland badge (why did they do it?).
But for all that, it exudes a certain charm and the first livery style helps it. A delightful rarity.

Peter Murnaghan

16/11/12 – 16:54

You pays your money as the saying goes. The best looking ‘bus’ versions of the Leopard? for me it had to be the Alexander ‘Y’s even the ‘Corporate Image Experts’ found it hard to make them look bad, as for coaches, that’s a far harder choice.

Ronnie Hoye

17/11/12 – 07:11

Whatever else it is, that vehicle highlights just how interesting the industry was.
I can see elements of Roe, Plaxton, Alexander and even East Lancs in that Frankenstinian monster. The colour scheme helps – I thought both the schemes which followed were insipid, but the fact remains it’s a bit of a monster.

Phil Blinkhorn

28/12/16 – 16:26

Four of these handsome vehicles were delivered to the TRTB in 1965. They were specifically built for works services and have B.E.T type windscreens. In 1974 S304 as mentioned above suffered a frontal impact RTA which saw it written off. The other three were all painted in the later Cleveland Transit livery and were transferred to Saltburn depot to cover the refurbishment of the eclectic collection of Bedfords acquired with the acquisition of Saltburn Motor Services. These Leopards were long lasting with the last one not being disposed of till 1982.

Chris Hall

29/12/16 – 06:58

At the risk of sounding controversial I have to say that I find this bus to be of very pleasing appearance indeed, not ashamed to look traditional. If there is anything that jars a little its the top of the windscreen which admittedly doesn’t look quite right. Other than that I think its a delightful vehicle, and the lovely livery is the icing on the cake for me.

Chris Youhill

29/12/16 – 06:59

Although the windscreen is double curved, in a similar manner to the BET screen, this is actually a different screen. PRV and Roe used these screens on several vehicles, both double and single deck during the 1960s, but very few of them really suited the lines of the bodywork. The inward taper of the sides didn’t match the profile of a double decker, and it doesn’t work particularly well on most single deckers as well.
An example of the BET screen can be seen here: www.sct61.org.uk/  
The differences are the flatter top of the BET screen, and the BET design was always two piece. The BET screen also fits the lines of the bodywork rather more neatly, and I rather suspect that these PRV/Roe screens were in fact designed for vehicles that were just 8′ wide.

Nigel Frampton

29/12/16 – 07:00

Sorry Chris, but this is not a BET windscreen. It’s an Alexander screen, or a Roe close copy of one. Roe used these screens a lot, but very rarely used BET screens, which had a central dividing strip and a much flatter top rail. The only example of a BET screen on a Roe body which I can think of are West Riding Fleetlines, as seen at www.sct61.org.uk/ 
Despite what others have said, I quite like this Leopard apart from the front dome, which has a touch of Cyclops about it.

Peter Williamson

31/12/16 – 08:57

Hi Peter, thanks for the correction. I have adjusted my records accordingly.

Chris Hall

08/01/17 – 07:15

Cyclops eh? Lol! Later on from about 1971/2 these buses received some small numeral blinds which were positioned adjacent to the destination screen on the near side. This made them look even odder.

JVN 40E

Only one TRTB double decker survives today and this is it. JVN 40E was one of the last half cab/rear entrance buses to be delivered to any NE Operator in 1967. It is seen here in Stockton on Tees alongside the preserved TMT Fleetline JDC 544L after its recovery for preservation in 1995.
Currently JVN 40E is in storage awaiting restoration.

Chris Hall

County Motors – Leyland Leopard PSU3/1R – YCX 539 – 104

County Motors Leyland Leopard PSU3/1R

County Motors
1963
Leyland Leopard PSU3/1R
Willowbrook B53F

Photo taken at the usual Huddersfield bus stop and this buses destination is Dewsbury. The Willowbrook body is very similar to the previous Marshall bodied buses that have been seen on this site or should I say it the other way round as this bus is older than the Marshall ones here and here.
From 1927 County motors were jointly owned by Yorkshire Woollen District, Yorkshire Traction and West Riding Automobile but in October 1968 they were absorbed into Yorkshire Traction and this bus was re-numbered 392 in their fleet.

North Western – Leyland Leopard PSU3/3RT – VDB 913 – 913

North Western Leyland Leopard & Leyland Tiger Cub

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 dual 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?

Neville Mercer

Halifax Corporation – Leyland Leopard – OCP 231 – 231


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

Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee
1961
Leyland Leopard L1
Weymann B34D

I thought that this bus was a one off being a dual entrance vehicle with Halifax Corporation, but on research I find that they had half a dozen Karrier WL6 with Harris & Hassall duel entrance bodies in 1928. The above bus was only a dual entrance for three years before being modified to to a front only entrance and seating 42, it was then re-seated the following year to a B44F.
As a matter of interest the 1928 Karriers were all withdrawn by 1932 they were not even re-bodied, dual entrance did not seam to work for Halifax. I think dual entrance buses were more useful in cities rather than towns mainly for the speed of on and off loading of the passengers.

With reference to the Karriers, many vehicles built prior to the late twenties weren’t expected to have lives of much more than five or six years anyway -timber-framed bodies, stiff springing, solid or narrow-section tyres and granite setts didn’t make for longevity.
Karriers were probably the worst motorbus ever perpetrated on the industry, even at a time when there were a lot of poor quality specimens on offer -rebodying these atrocious machines wouldn’t have made sense to anybody however many doors they had!

David A Jones

Earlier comments about these Karriers are well-founded! Another problem was that it was not realised then that if you had two driving rear axles, you needed a third crown wheel and pinion BETWEEN the axles. Thus, many half-shafts needed replacing regularly! And to compound the problem, Karrier never bothered to keep spares much beyond the time when a model had been replaced! Apart from getting extra length with 6-wheelers, one bonus was having braking on all four rear wheels. At that time, effective front wheel braking was not easy to achieve in the late ’20’s.
This was told to me by an old boy who’d worked for Portsmouth Corporation who had made the mistake of buying half a dozen Karriers, they also didn’t last beyond about 1932!

Chris Hebbron

This was actually the prototype Leopard, to spec L1, it had a unique badge different to all other leopards and was built 2 years before any others, in essence a Tiger Cub chassis with a Worldmaster engine and synchromesh gearbox, clearly Mr Lefevre decided to experiment at this time.

Christopher

27/11/11 – 08:06

I remember driving this bus during my time at Halifax, by which time it had lost its centre door. When one took it straight out from the garage, with cold engine and gearbox, it was virtually impossible to change gear with the thing, so stiff was the linkage (and, presumably, the gearbox internals). Even when warmed up, it was a serious challenge. All Leyland buses of that era had very heavy controls, but this bus, No. 231, was in a class of its own.

Roger Cox

27/11/11 – 09:16

Roger, you’ve brought back vivid memories to me of the earliest batches of 36 foot Leopards which were operated by Wallace Arnold. They were hard work with a vengeance – cold or warm. The clutches were far too heavy and the brakes were poor to the point of inadequacy, especially when needed frequently at speed or on gradients. The four speed gearbox was ludicrous, and these luxurious vehicles were unable to ascend certain hills on some of the most arduous tours, or at least were prohibited from doing so “just in case.” A further constant irritation was the enormous steering wheel, mounted by the bodybuilders far too close to the dash assembly. To be fair the 30 foot Leopards were far more acceptable in general, being less cumbersome and far more spritely. The comparison between the large Leopards and the big Reliances from AEC was incredible – the latter being swift (small “S” and no pun intended) ideally geared, and a joy to handle all day – and capable of speeds which, after all these years, I’d be reluctant to mention in print !!

Chris Youhill

28/11/11 – 10:28

I well remember as a child looking out of out the bedroom window of our house at Stump Cross early one Saturday morning – it would be 1961 – and catching my first fleeting glimpse of 231 as it flashed by at great speed towards Hipperholme. It was most likely travelling empty to Brighouse to operate the local Stoney Lane-Brighouse-Field Lane 51 route, to which it had already been banished apparently. I had never heard of a bus having two doors, let alone seen one – it looked very strange. I saw it again a week or two later travelling in the opposite direction, then that was that. Though its appearance was very similar to the earlier Worldmasters, it made a different sound – louder and with much more rasping exhaust.
The following year another sixteen similar buses arrived – nine for the Corporation (31-39) and seven for the Joint Omnibus Committee (232-238). The Corporation ones immediately replaced the preselector Regent III’s on the Northowram route – my daily bus to school. The badge on the front announced that they were Leopards – 231 did not have such a badge at the time and looked a bit blank. The front number plate was attached slightly higher, above the dividing strip between the upper and lower panels, whereas 231’s was in the lower panel. Inside, the interiors were all painted metal – typical MCW of the period – with dark green lower panels and pale green window surrounds, but the inside of the doors was all over dark green, whereas 231’s were divided half and half like the rest of the interior. Trivial differences, but features that made them instantly identifiable from one another. The seats were upholstered in an uncomfortable, slippery green vynide, unlike the moquette-covered ones on the Regents. They were also incredibly noisy inside. The route continued to be crew-operated for quite a while, and the older drivers did appear to struggle with them at times, and it was clear many did not approve.
The next time I saw 231 it was a conventional single door bus just like the others. I did not subscribe to ‘Buses Illustrated’ at the time, and knew no other enthusiasts – indeed I believed I was probably the only person in the world who was interested in buses. I eventually concluded that the two doors had been all in my imagination, and it was to be a few more years before the truth was verified, and a lot longer before I was able to obtain a photograph.
I had always a soft spot for these buses, due to my childhood school bus associations, but years later when I was to drive them in service, that spot was burst for ever ! They were utterly unsuited to Halifax’s hilly local routes, frequently stopping and starting and negotiating awkward turns – the driver constantly grappling with the heavy, stiff gear change linkage and hard pedals. The accelerator was frustrating, the revs taking their time to build up and die down. The steering was relatively light, but like all Leylands of the time the wheel was enormous in order to achieve that. Many would jump out of gear when climbing long hills. Frequent bashing of the steering wheel rim by omo drivers’ heavy metal Ultimate ticket machine boxes had chipped the covering, leaving patches of cold bare metal, and jagged plastic sticking out to cut the fingers. The driving position was very low – it was like you were sitting on the floor with the passengers towering above. The destination winders behind a flap above the windscreen were awkward to access, the door operating lever was a long reach forward. The change dispenser mounted above and behind the driver’s left shoulder was literally a pain – though this feature was common to all HPT buses. The demisters were totally ineffective, so the windscreens would quickly mist over, especially with a full load of standing passengers, so a goodly supply of paper towels was always called for. In winter they were always freezing cold, and the windscreens would often freeze over on the inside, requiring frequent stopping to scrape a clear patch.
In fairness, once up through the gears and on the go they would motor on nicely. They could eventually achieve a fair speed, and their road holding was excellent, but it was not often you got them on a long run. Occasionally one would find its way onto the Rochdale route as a changeover for a newer type, and they would usually romp noisily up from Littleborough to Blackstone Edge and over the moors in fine style with good sound effects from the exhaust. The engineers would probably have argued that they were more reliable and durable than the subsequent AEC Reliances, but as a driver I certainly know which I preferred !

John Stringer

28/10/15 – 07:08

The early Leopard L1 had a basically Tiger Cub chassis with a Worldmaster engine, not that this mattered it was a Leyland so Le Fevre would buy it, Halifax later choose Reliances because of the spare wheel carrier, would you believe that Leyland refused to move this and thus Halifax went AEC and as you have noticed the AEC had nicer steering, easier clutch, good brakes and was a more pleasant vehicle to one man, those with 505 engines could go, I recall coming back from London on one of 273/4 running at 85 miles/hour only overtaken by an EYMS Leopard with 2 speed axle. Once the L series was discontinued in favour of the PSU3 type (11 metre) or PSU4 (10 metre) then Halifax switched back to Leylands.
231 had a special Leyland front badge that was slightly different to others that came later, I cannot say how it was different but it was.

Christopher

East Yorkshire – Leyland Leopard – 9769 RH – 769

East Yorkshire - Leyland Leopard PSU3/1R - 9769 RH - 769

East Yorkshire Motor Services 
1964
Leyland Leopard PSU3/1R
Willowbrook DP47F

This East Yorkshire Leyland Leopard is on route to Bradford either from or via Birmingham I am sure that it was taken at Doncaster or maybe Rotherham it was 40 odd years ago, if you know let me know. This dual purpose or as my East Yorkshire fleet list calls it “Semi-Coach” had the Leyland 9.8 litre O.600 engine according to a sales brochure I have from Leyland the crank shaft was good for a ¼ million miles before needing a regrind which was very impressive.

This is Doncaster. The EYMS coach is passing the old Waterdale bus station.

Rob Shaw

The bus is travelling eastbound along Waterdale in Doncaster. The old Waterdale bus station is in the background with a Yorkshire Traction Roe bodied PD3 on stand heading for Barnsley (22) or Kilnhurst (24).

Andrew

Looks like Waterdale Doncaster in days of yore. Waterdale Bus Station behind… featuring Rossie Motors?

Joe

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

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Leopard – 1502 WJ – 1002


Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1959
Leyland Leopard L1
Weymann Fanfare C41F

This bus delivered as B fleet number 1302 was one of the first batch of six Leopards to enter service in the autumn of 1959. They made quite a stir being completely different from anything that had been purchased previously (if you exclude the one off AEC Reliance / Roe Dalesman of 1958 but which was not used on normal service for several years). 1302 was renumbered to 1002 in 1967. The Weymann Fanfare coaches were never converted for OMO whilst in Sheffield service and the photo shows 1002 complete with conductor reversing at the Dungworth terminus of the occasional 107 service on a lovely summer Sunday evening in May 1967. The 107 was an extension of the main service 7 to Stannington, another of those services to outlying hamlets which Sheffield seemed to specialise in and which made it so different from many other Municipal Operators. 1002 was withdrawn along with the rest of the batch in 1971 and was sold to Tiger Coaches (dealer) in Salsburgh, Scotland.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

15/06/2011 15:59

I have fond memories of these Fanfare bodied Leopards in the mid sixties.
My aunt and uncle used to keep the Dog & Partridge Inn at Bordhill on the climb to Woodhead pass and I spent many happy school holidays there. These coaches and the ECW bodied versions made the refreshment stop at the pub when working the X48 Sheffield/Manchester service and they were always crew worked.
I still have in my possession a letter from the Sheffield general manager thanking them for the hospitality shown to the crews and passengers over the years, when they left the pub in 1968.

Eric

Due to a few requests below is a closer shot of this vehicle, and why not.

1502 WJ close

16/06/11 – 09:32

Vehicles of my long lost youth! The excitement of living in Sheffield was that you never quite knew what to expect – and sometimes, in times of shortage – the B & C fleet Leopards emerged onto mundane tasks like the 8/9 Inner Circle or 38 Lowedges Road (much to my delight).
Wonderful picture, yet again, Ian. For obvious reasons, to those who know me, I wish that more Dalesmans and Fanfares had been built – both attractive and well built/finished bodies. These were quite the opposite of Duple and Plaxton who built buses in their slack, summer, period whereas Roe (in particular) and Weymann built coaches when they had a slack bus period. That being said, Weymann were a little more mainstream than Roe with major customers such as Southdown, Northern General Group, North Western – and smaller numbers for Devon General and South Wales.
These were the only Leopard Fanfares. Southdown had Tiger Cubs, everyone else had Reliances but Northern General also had some Guy LUF for one group company. These were the VERY FIRST Leopards built for and delivered to SJOC in July 1959 before the model was officially launched at the Scottish Motor Show the following November. Two more batches of Fanfares followed for SJOC B & C fleets as well as the ECW and Burlingham Leopards. The original six were first described as PSUC1 Tiger Cub specials but on delivery, this had been changed to L1 Leopard. (This was also interesting as the L1 was the bus version, the L2 the coach version – but ALL SJOC’s Leopard coaches were L1!)
Weymann crept back shortly after with two batches of Castilians for Southdown, lots of BET DPs in 1965 as well as multifarious coach bodies, in minute numbers, on Fords and Bedfords.

David Oldfield

16/06/11 – 11:20

The Burlingham Leopards also worked the X48, I had forgotten about those. I think I have a photo somewhere I took of a Burlingham Leopard stood outside the Dog & Partridge. I’ll see if I can dig it out, but as it was taken on a Kodak Instamatic it may not be good enough to reproduce.

Eric

17/06/11 – 18:07

1005 (1505 WJ) ended its days with Hulley of Baslow. 6170-6174 WJ also went to Hulleys of Baslow after a time with Midland Red.
See the undernoted picture on Flickr: www.flickr.com/
Seen in the picture are the “C” fleet Weymann Fanfares prior to going to Hulleys. The picture was taken at East Bank Garage in January 1970

Stephen Bloomfield

18/01/13 – 16:58

I can well recall 1505 WJ in Hulley of Baslow service . It was highly regarded by the drivers and passengers alike. After yeoman service it was withdrawn in May 1976. I believe it was sold for use as a towing vehicle in Essex and eventually scrapped in August 1978

Jerry Wilkes

19/01/13 – 06:16

And here are some of the Fanfares, as withdrawn vehicles, in Hulleys yard, plus a Yeates-bodied Bedford. www.flickr.com/photos 

Chris Hebbron

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

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Leopard – 1882 WA – 3082


Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1961
Leyland Leopard L1
ECW C41F

This was one of the final batch of Leopards for the Sheffield C fleet with Eastern Coachworks body of the same style as contemporary Bristol MW vehicles being delivered to Tilling Companies.
Delivered as fleet number 1882, it was became 3082 in the 1967 renumbering scheme. The bus originally had a hinged coach door but had been modified with folding doors and hence suitable for one man operation by the time of this photograph. Note Burlingham bodied 1008 alongside still has its original coach door.
3082 was withdrawn when the Joint Omnibus Committee was wound up in 1970 and passed to Todmorden Joint Omnibus Committee as their fleet number 13. When the Todmorden undertaking was merged with that of Halifax in August 1971 the bus became Halifax fleet number 323.
This was in the future when the photograph was taken on a snowy 9th February 1969 on the parking area at Sheffield Central Bus Station prior to operating the 1620 service 44 to Bakewell via the roundabout route taking in Ladybower and Bamford.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

08/08/11 – 07:22

These were always handsome beasts, in their original form. I never remember them with their folding doors. It made them far easier to use as “OMO” buses and, although it did spoil their looks, it didn’t do as much damage as a similar exercise did to SUT’s ground breaking first Panorama bodied Reliances.

David Oldfield

26/08/11 – 07:16

Calderdale JOC inherited three of these from Todmorden JOC – 1880/1/2 WA, and numbered them 321-323. A short while after the merger/takeover, 323 was transferred to Halifax (Elmwood) Garage where it remained until withdrawal. Its most regular haunt seemed to be on ex-YWD OMO route 2 to Keighley, though it could turn up anywhere.
I was a crew driver only (i.e. not OMO) at the time so did not drive it regularly, but I recall having it a couple of times for afternoon school services when the Garage Foreman was struggling for buses for the PM output. It seemed to be higher geared than the indigenous Halifax Leopards and was hard work to get going on local, hilly stop-start work like this, but loped along in fine style once it got into its stride on the open road, for which it was more suited.
The Halifax Weymann Leopards had quite basic bodies and were extremely noisy inside, but these ECW ones were well finished and very much quieter and more refined.

John Stringer