Tag: Leyland Tiger PS

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Tiger PS1 – KWJ 103 – 103

Sheffield Corporation - Leyland Tiger - KWJ 103 - 103

Sheffield Corporation
1949
Leyland Tiger PS1 
Cawood B34F

When the Sheffield Strachan-bodied Leyland Tigers were discussed in a previous posting there was mention of a couple of batches bearing Cawood bodies. 103 was one of five for the Joint Committee (B fleet) another five were delivered to the Corporation (A fleet). I think this is parked outside Leadmill garage, waiting its turn for the washer and refuelling as was the norm at Leadmill. If my memory serves me well, the 29 at that time was for Ringinglow, which was a Leadmill route. Behind is TD5/Cravens H55R of 1937 which by the time of the pic was an instruction vehicle. This picture appears in Sheffield Transport by Chas.C. Hall, though I bought mine from RHG Simpson.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

27/12/12 – 17:05

No. 27 was the Ringinglow route Les. No.29 was a City (Fitzalan Square) to Blackburn (Shardlow’s Works) and was jointly operated with Rotherham CT Dept.

John Darwent

27/12/12 – 17:23

Another example of a ‘B’ fleet bus on a Corporation ‘A’ route.
Would Leadmill garage have that many ‘B’ routes other than Chesterfield via Dronfield and Holmesfield?

Andrew Beever

28/12/12 – 06:40

I believe that the 29 to Blackburn (not the one in Lancashire!) required single deck buses because of a low railway bridge just off Ecclesfield Road. Rotherham used to use centre entrance Bristol single decks for their contribution to the service.

Ian Wild

28/12/12 – 06:41

These PS1’s were allocated to Townhead Street, and I’m pretty sure that’s where this picture is actually taken, on the parking area at the side of the garage where a lot of Townhead’s single-deck allocation were frequently parked, along with several of the training buses. The workers 29 service was, I believe, originally a Townhead duty that eventually ended up being the responsibility of East Bank.

Dave Careless

28/12/12 – 06:44

I rather think the location is Tenter st where single deckers were parked alongside the garage wall as was the norm.

David Grant

28/12/12 – 11:01

Thanks for the info everyone. Leadmill had several B routes Andrew. My home route was the 83 to Birley. Holmesfield (86??) was another, 57 Bradway another. Happy New Year to you all.

Les Dickinson

29/12/12 – 07:00

Interesting that 29 was an “A” route, although it ran outside the city boundary, likewise 69 to Rotherham. I think this was because these ran direct from the city into Rotherham Corporation’s area and did not enter the “B” area.

Geoff Kerr

30/12/12 – 07:21

Les, I’m sure it was a typo, but the 59 was the Bradway route.
Putting B fleet buses on A fleet routes was not unusual as they were jointly owned and could be deployed as required – if not required on B duties. Indeed, at times of heavy transport usage, A fleet buses would be used on B and, sometimes, C fleet routes – especially Easter and Whit Bank Holidays.
B and C fleets were for Railway (rural) routes outside the city area. 29 and 69 were joint agreements with a neighbouring (operating) authority rather than a route taken over with the railway agreement.

David Oldfield

30/12/12 – 07:21

Nobody seems to have asked the vital question.Who were Cawood and where did they come from? Did they build other bodies?

Philip Carlton

30/12/12 – 08:36

David, As a boy I could remember every single route. However there have been many changes since, and I’ve moved around the country a lot. Somewhere along the way I lost my fifties and sixties timetables so depend a lot on memory. (Now what was I saying?) Oh yes, what you say is absolutely correct. I’ve been at Bakewell on a Bank Holiday weekend and seen buses from all three fleets arriving there. My home route, 83 Birley, was a B route but now and again would have one of the 700 series Regents on there. At that time the 95 to Intake was covered by the 700/800 Regents with an odd appearance of a 1200 series Regent. Prior to moving away with my job in 1967 I never ever saw a Leyland on the 95 though I have seen pictures of this since then. 95 was also a Leadmill route. Phillip, there is some explanation of Cawood in another article (about Sheffield’s Strachan bodies I think).

Les Dickinson

30/12/12 – 08:36

Good point, Philip…..

David Oldfield

30/12/12 – 08:49

Dave Careless and David Grant comment on Townhead Street and Tenter Street garages. These were one over the other and in Sheffield’s tram days Tenter Street housed trams. “Sheffield Transport” by Chas Hall shows a line up of the superb Roberts trams on the last day of tram operation by the city.

Les Dickinson

31/12/12 – 17:19

If I remember correctly from my student days in the 60s, all five Sheffield depots in operation then had a mix of A and B routes, but the C routes were concentrated at East Bank and Townhead Street.
Bramall Lane depot was before my time in Sheffield so I don’t know the position there.
Naturally this wasn’t part of my university course and I had to work it out for myself!

Geoff Kerr

01/01/13 – 07:09

There was nothing quite as fascinating as a bus garage when you were a schoolboy bus enthusiast. Being a Rotherham lad, I spent many hours peering through the railings outside the Corporation depot at Rawmarsh Road, but stumbling across one in Sheffield that had trams in the basement and buses on top was truly mind boggling. I’d never scribbled numbers down quite that fast before!
All the Sheffield garages were something special back in those days; Leadmill Road, with the castle-like turrets at each each side of what had been the main doorway when it was Shoreham Street tram depot, was a fascinating building, and the then modern garages at Herries Road and Greenland Road, although perhaps not as architecturally pleasing, were truly a sight to behold late at night, with lights blazing and the forecourts stuffed full of AEC’s and Leyland’s in that remarkable Sheffield livery. Talk about nirvana.
All these years later, in Canada, I have a purpose-built glass-fronted display cabinet in the lounge, full of EFE’s and the like on several shelves. Granted it’s only a display cabinet, but after dark, when I plug in the subdued fluorescent lighting in it, it immediately ceases to be a model cabinet and magically becomes Herries Road garage in 1964!!

Dave Careless

01/01/13 – 07:10

Les. Like you, I am baffled – having only memories of AECs on the 95. [Presumably we have both seen the same picture of a PD2/Weymann.] My maternal grandmother lived on Woodhouse Road and the 95 was in weekly use!
I think Bramhall Lane had Chesterfields before Leadmill – they certainly had the 13** Regent Vs that ran them.
I “left” in 1971, but still have brothers, aunts and uncles whom I visit – as I did last week. I was day-dreaming of Regent IIIs and Chesterfield PD2s passing by my hotel on Chesterfield Road (in the grounds of what was once Jordanthorpe School). Well I am getting old and nostalgic…..

David Oldfield

01/01/13 – 11:18

Does anyone know when Lincs Road Car started their joint service 85 with SJOC between Sheffield and Gainsborough by any chance ? Was it late 60`s ?
Visiting Sheffield to see relatives in the early sixties , I was amazed with the variety in the bus station . Blue Crossley training buses, new Atlanteans ( wow ! ) lots of different types of AECs – nice livery and red wheels . Dead classy I thought !

Steve Milner

01/01/13 – 13:31

The transfer of certain ex Sheffield ‘C’ routes including the 85 was made on 1st January 1970, exactly 43 years ago!

Andrew Beever

01/01/13 – 13:38

Is this an urban myth? I was once told that when the Tories were in power on the City Council the wheels were painted blue and when Labour was in power the wheels were painted red!!!

Philip Carlton

01/01/13 – 16:34

I’ve read this but apparently blue wheels first appeared on the 1966 delivery of Atlanteans when Labour controlled the City Council. The change back to red occurred because no doubt someone decided they looked better.
Service 85 became jointly operated by Sheffield Transport, Lincolnshire Road Car and East Midland as part of the disposal of the JOC C fleet, most of which went to the NBC, as you say, 43 years ago.

Geoff Kerr

01/01/13 – 16:35

Philip no urban myth, I don’t think there was enough time to paint all of them blue.
I must confess I liked the red ones better
Better still one of the local golf courses managed to renegotiate it’s lease with the council at that time.

Andrew Beever

01/01/13 – 17:30

Cheers for the info re the 85 . I have seen a few photos of LHs and REs on the route – no MWs though .

Steve Milner

02/01/13 – 07:28

Some years ago, when the Big Ben’s clock face was being renovated, they found that the black numbers were originally blue. There was some discussion about returning them to blue in the interest of historical accuracy, but Labour objected because it would favour the Tories, so black remained. Childish? Yes! True? Oh, Yes!

Chris Hebbron

02/01/13 – 07:29

Although the agreement relating to the sharing-out of “C” services between Sheffield Corporation and NBC came into effect on 01.01.1970 joint operation of the Gainsborough service didn’t start until the 18th – in the interim period four former “C” fleet Leopards were loaned to the Corporation to maintain the service. Thereafter, Sheffield provided one full-day and two part day duties from Greenland Road (generally using AEC Swifts which had been downseated to provide extra luggage capacity), East Midland provided two all-day duties from Worksop depot (generally using Leopards or REs), whilst Lincolnshire provided one all-day duty from its Retford depot (initially using a newly-allocated LH, but replaced the same year by an RE). Lincolnshire closed its Retford depot on 01.05.72, when most duties on the 85 transferred to Gainsborough depot, though a couple of buses were out stationed at East Midlands Retford depot.
Sheffield continued to outstation one bus at Retford, formerly used on the 85 pre-1970, until the end of April 1972: in recognition of their long service the Retford crew that used to work the 85 were given a duty at East Bank garage which allowed them to run light from Retford to South Anston each morning to pick up service on one of the Dinnington routes to run into Sheffield, work other routes as required, change buses, run back out to South Anston in service, and then light back to Retford – this arrangement ended when the conductor retired, after which the driver travelled to and from Sheffield as a passenger on the 85 to work as a spare driver, until he too retired the following year.

Philip Rushworth

02/01/13 – 09:04

Les, I have found my box of time tables and I have a Sheffield 11/63 to 05/64 #182 if you want to know anything just ask.

Peter

02/01/13 – 14:26

The timetable shows that through passengers on 85 had to change buses at Retford as double-deckers could not work to Gainsborough. In 1969 single-deckers began to run throughout and the 85 was operationally linked to a short A route to Parkway Markets (121).
This practice continued after the 85 had become joint, resulting in the odd sight of an East Midland bus working a Sheffield City service “on hire” – but the Lincolnshire bus did not apparently take part.

Geoff Kerr

05/01/13 – 05:44

Thanks Philip and Geoff for the extra info – great !

Steve Milner

08/01/13 – 07:41

Peter, thanks for the note on timetables – I’ll keep that in mind for my next “starter for 10”. A fascinating garage was Eastbank as it had an extensive roof-top parking area which was often used by withdrawn vehicles, each with the Sheffields lettering / insignia and fleet numbers blacked our prior to sale or disposal.

Les Dickinson

18/01/13 – 16:55

I can recall the rather unusual Cawood bodied Leyland PS1’s running out of Pond Street in the early 50’s on the 21 route to Swallownest via Catcliffe and Treeton. I seem to remember they were used on short workings to Treeton on occasion.

Jerry Wilkes

24/03/13 – 08:03

The very first vehicle to receive blue wheel hubs was No340, Atlantean/Park Royal the Earls Court show vehicle of 1964. The Daimler Fleetline/Park Royals which were delivered that same year had the normal red hubs as did the Neepsend bodied Atlanteans of 1964/5. However, all vehicles delivered during 1966 Atlantean/Park Royal, Atlantean/Neepsend and the Craven bodied Bedford had blue wheel hubs and this was the year in which the Tory party was in charge. Incidentally, No340 was the first in the fleet with blue moquette seats on both decks, the Fleetlines being red/beige on lower deck and red leather upstairs.

Trev Weckert

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

15/02/14 – 06:03

On the subject of Cawoods, it is worth noting that just after WW2 the Thames Valley company was so desperate to rebuild many of its war-worn fleet that a number of them were sent all the way up to Cawoods, including Harrington-bodied Leyland Tiger TS8 coaches and some of the Tiger TS3 and TS4’s re-purchased after being with the military. Full details are in my History of the Thames Valley Traction. Co. Ltd. 1931-1945 and 1946-1960 volumes.

Paul Lacey

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Tiger – MWA 757 – 57


Copyright R H G Simpson

Sheffield Corporation
1950
Leyland Tiger PS2/1
Strachans B34R

Despite the low fleet number, 57, this was a B fleet vehicle. The computer hadn’t taken over yet. This was one of a batch of eight delivered in 1950. Seen here in Pond Street Bus Station before the concrete and glass version. It could be cold and breezy then but us northerners are made of stern stuff. Ready for service 6 to Kiveton Park in this view but I remember boarding one of these to Eyam on one occasion in the dim and distant past. Photo bought from R H G Simpson many moons ago.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

10/02/13 – 08:06

Sheffield bought hoards of PS1 Tigers from 1947 but only eleven PS2s. These were a last (half-cab) gasp, the three Weymann examples had been delivered earlier. Apart from the PS1s, there were Weymann/Regals and apart from Weymann PS1s there were five Wilkes and Meade and ten Cawood, already seen on these pages.

David Oldfield

11/02/13 – 07:10

These used to my favourite Sheffield half cab single deckers. I always thought they looked really elegant-but that was from the frontal aspect. This photo shows them to have deep side skirt panels with correspondingly shallow saloon windows. A childhood impression shattered in one photo!!! The 6 to Kiveton Park would be converted to double deck operation in the mid 50s with the arrival of the lowbridge Weymann bodied AECs.

Ian Wild

11/02/13 – 10:19

Yes Ian, but with the 0.600 they would shift…..

David Oldfield

11/02/13 – 10:21

Nice view, Les, but you seem to have caused distress to at least one reader. Go and sit in a darkened room for a week, Ian. You might feel better! I had similar thoughts years ago about a particular steam locomotive. After first seeing it, I spent many years under the impression it was an A4, but it wasn’t . . .

Pete Davies

12/02/13 – 07:03

Yes David, superb performers on the 48 to Manchester

Ian Wild

12/02/13 – 07:04

Going “off piste” mention of A4, I was surprised when I saw a photo of the controls lay out of the recently built “Tornado”, that the controls were exactly the same as the 2-6-2 LNER, Doncaster built tank engine No. 498 which usually pulled our school train to Hamilton (which we sometimes rode illegally on the footplate)

Jim Hepburn

12/02/13 – 10:42

Oh the joys of living pre Health & Safety, Jim.

David Oldfield

12/02/13 – 14:49

On the theme of pre Health & Safety, my friend John Whitaker and I had the free run of climbing into the drivers’ cab of any of the buses at the Bradford Corporation Ludlam Street bus depot on a Sunday morning when it was quiet and there were no bosses around. We were given this freedom by a good neighbour who was a mechanic there, but with the strict instruction not to press the starter button of any of the buses which we pretended to drive. We were still about 11/12 years of age at this time, but what wonderful freedom and trust given by our parents and our neighbour Tony.

Richard Fieldhouse

12/02/13 – 14:50

Ah but never forget, even pre-Health and Safety, it was officially “strengst verboten”! OK Pete, you can’t keep us in suspense any longer. What was the quasi-A4 really and where did you see it? One of the streamlined “East Anglian” B17s or the seemingly jinxed W1 rebuild?

Stephen Ford

12/02/13 – 17:01

An A3, actually, Stephen! 60095 FLAMINGO, at Carlisle in about 1960 or 61. I am supposing it had come off the Waverley route. Looking at views of the two types now, I can understand where I went wrong! It was because of the shape of the firebox. Ah, well!

Pete Davies

Scarlet Pimpernel Motors – Leyland Tiger – JYC 855

Scarlet Pimpernel Motors - Leyland Tiger - JYC 855

Scarlet Pimpernel Motors
1947
Leyland Tiger PS1
Harrington C33F

JYC 855 is a Leyland PS1 with a Harrington Fin C33F body dating from 1947 and registered in March 1948 to Scarlet Pimpernel Motors of Minehead in Somerset, and is now part of the Roger Burdett collection.
It was new to Porlock Weir Motor Services (trading as Blue Motors) in March 1948 with a glorious Harrington “fin” body (the fin is not visible in this picture but you can see it at this Old Bus Photos link). Blue Motors and Scarlet Pimpernel joined to form a new company – “Scarlet and Blue” – in April 1954, into which both fleets were incorporated and progressively repainted into a new red and blue livery, although JYC 855 was an exception and remained in blue. In 1960 the coach moved on to Mulleys Motorways wearing ‘Corona Coaches’ titles for their London-Stowmarket express route.
In the 1970s it moved on to Ebdons of Sidcup (although was probably not actually operated by them) and eventually Toppings Coaches of Liverpool in 1992 (who definitely didn’t operate it). At this point it entered a life of preservation with Essex-based John Brenson in 1995. While there, it was repainted into the Scarlet and Blue two-colour livery and given “Scarlet Pimpernel” titles. It has for about 10 years been the proud possession of Roger Burdett in Coventry. It even has semaphore trafficators! It also happens to be one of my favourite vehicles
Text by Ken Jones & Nick Webster [via Dick Gilbert]
Picture by Ken Jones – taken at Winchester Bus Station 1/1/13 – in “reflective mode”

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones

02/05/13 – 18:29

We were obviously both at Winchester this New Year – and I had a ride on this impressive vehicle, impressively driven. I am a PD2/PS2 man but, like Granville Smith’s PS1/Plaxton, I couldn’t fault the Scarlet Pimpernel. As they say, when he’s due to appear on a running day – “They seek him here, they seek him there…..”

David Oldfield

03/05/13 – 07:48

Ken, that’s a great bit of photography using the shadows light and reflection almost to perfection. What a pity the slight wind rippled the puddle. I suppose you’ll now tell everyone it was a point and shoot effort. Even if it was it’s a great photo of an historic vehicle.

Phil Blinkhorn

03/05/13 – 07:51

You’ve caught that reflection very well, Ken! Thanks for posting.

Pete Davies

03/05/13 – 07:51

Excellent another perfect capture.

Alan Coulson

03/05/13 – 08:49

It wasn’t quite point and shoot – but it was hand held – no tripod and other fancy gimmicks, plus the coach was moving. Sorry about the ripples at least it was real water. On the positive side the people with the reflective jackets are not in the reflection -pure luck

Ken Jones

11/01/14 – 07:49

SP Poster

I was looking the Scarlet Pimpernel image above and realised I had purchased an original leaflet/handbill? from a transport memorabilia shop on the Wirral.
I hope it maybe of interest.

Harry Cameron

Barton Transport – Leyland Tiger – WAL 782 – 782

Barton Transport - Leyland Tiger - WAL 782 - 782

Barton Transport
1957
Leyland Tiger PS1/B
Willowbrook L61RD

This evocative shot was taken at the 2011 Heart of the Pennines event, and shows the splendid Willowbrook-bodied Tiger rebuild of 1957 arriving at The Piece Hall in Halifax. Not only did it look great, it sounded great too. Barton’s wonderful fleet had many of these rebuilds.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

31/05/13 – 06:40

And luckily Les, we have the sound of one of them right here on this site. Time for another listen on the ‘Old Bus Sounds’ page!

Chris Barker

31/05/13 – 07:00

Yes, the Barton rebuilds, the Willowbrook batch were modern-looking with clean lines, but then, see how the rear wheels were set well in, betraying their 7`6 heritage. Looking around inside, they were obviously an economy product – very basic lightweight construction and lots of brown paint, but surely that was their specification and in that respect they delivered. I first encountered this one parked outside Loughborough Central station years ago, and was amazed to realise it had survived, a Barton rebuild!!
Never thought I would see one again.

WAL 782_2

Later, I encountered it again, and I attach one of my pics, here at the LVVS open day in November 2010, where it was a regular performer on trips into Lincoln City Centre but here parked among representatives of many past decades. Needless to say, I contrived to be aboard for some of these journeys, and the sound effects revived old memories. On the straight sections, it managed to trigger off the 30mph warning signs.

Rob Hancock

31/05/13 – 17:58

Was the need for the extra short top deck bay structural as it spoils an otherwise well balanced design?

Phil Blinkhorn

31/05/13 – 17:59

I recall about 1964 one of these was hired for an evening educational visit from Long Eaton Grammar School to Breedon on the Hill, out beyond Castle Donington on the old A453. It was a novel experience, as the arched 13ft 9in headroom railway bridge at Sawley Junction (now Long Eaton) station precluded the use of double deckers on the service buses (3, 3C, 10 and 11) that went in that direction. [Most of you will know that the experimental lowbridge layout Dennis Loline 861HAL was a bid to overcome this obstacle, but as even 861 had to take the centre of the road to clear the bridge, its use in service was not permitted – otherwise, who knows, there might have been a fleet of them.] Anyway, back to the Tiger rebuild, our trip left Long Eaton by Derby Road to Breaston, where it turned sharp left over the Old Sawley level crossing, to reach the A453 after a detour of 2 or 3 miles.

Stephen Ford

01/06/13 – 06:23

Phil, I tend to agree with you about the extra short bay spoiling the balance of the design. These vehicles were built to PS1 length and no doubt Willowbrook used their standard length window bays and needed to stick in an extra bit to make up the greater length. The following batch however were bodied by Northern Counties to a nice four bay design and looked much neater. I liked them both though and I had some memorable journeys on them in the early 1970’s on the X42 Derby – Nottingham express via the A52 by-pass!

Chris Barker

24/08/13 – 06:17

WAL 782_2

I was looking through Eddie Collings collection of photos for something and came across the above shot. It is WAL 782 not in Barton livery, it is in preservation and looking at other shots it is at a rally, more than likely down south with the Hastings trolleybus behind it. Was it in service with another operator between Barton and preservation this may explain the different livery.

Peter

29/04/14 – 08:20

These PD1s were always second rate vehicles, still at school l travelled on one on its maiden voyage, school run, later l worked for Barton Transport Ltd and sad to say 6 weeks redundancy under Trent, urrgh, l was in the engine shop, l was for a long time oil engineer (oil changes) l got top money for an unskilled job, but l could do breakdowns recovery the best later on nights running repairs emergency PSV driving, recovery and breakdowns, local and distance, l done the very last run to Skegness with a decker 823, a PD2, l hate the day Trent took us over the family and staff did not want it, have many things to remember it by and my full uniform still fits,

Bill Redfern

29/04/14 – 16:45

A (very) belated reply to Peter’s query on intermediate owners of WAL 782.
According to the PSVC fleet history, 782 was sold to Ensign in 1974; then to Williams, Llangollen, Hollis Queensferry and Cross Roads Travel, Warrington in fairly quick time, before passing to preservationists in Kent in 1978, moving within preservation by 1996 in the Medway area. In recent years it was owned by Quantock MS; I believe it is currently owned by the Barton family, as part of their collection.

Bob Gell

30/04/14 – 07:22

It looks as if it could have been in poppy red and white. Heaven forbid!

Chris Barker

25/05/14 – 14:41

WAL 782

I’ve been going through the “Past Comments” and found this entry which I seem to have missed previously. I note comments about her history. Above is a view of her with Durrant, Sidcup, whilst in the Southsea Spectacular on 8 June 1980. Relax, folks, not poppy red as Chris feared! I believe she was actually new to Bolton Corporation, before her time with Barton.

Pete Davies

25/05/14 – 17:41

The only information I have managed to unearth on the net says that the chassis of WAL 782 was new in 1948 to Knowles & Son of Bolton, registered CWH 262, carrying a Santus C33F coach body. One of the sources is the Classic Bus Website, which is reasonably trustworthy.
The chassis is given as PS1/1 – does PS1/B (top of this page) indicate a Barton rebuild? If so, whose designation is it? I haven’t come across any suggestion that Barton used the vehicle in its coach form, but someone with a Barton fleet history should be able to say one way or the other.

David Call

30/05/14 – 13:04

The Circle fleet history of Barton confirms David’s information above – new in 1/48 as CWH 262 to Knowles of Bolton, with a Santus C33F body; to Enterprise Motors (Blackpool) Ltd in 5/53; then to Goulding and Smyth, Hooton, Cheshire and to Millburn Motors, Preston (dealer), who sold it to Barton. I doubt if it ran for Barton as acquired – more likely it was simply a source of a chassis for rebodying.
According to Alan Oxley’s book on Barton, relaxation of the double deck length to 30 feet allowed PS1 chassis from 27’6” to be rebuilt as double deckers and comply with regulations. He also states 782 and others, were standard Leyland PS1 products, which Barton coded for their own reference as PS1/B. The Circle fleet history records the chassis number as the original Leyland number with a B prefix.

Bob Gell

30/05/14 – 14:43

What do we know about Santus? I’ve never heard of them.

Chris Hebbron

30/05/14 – 15:05

Santus was a coach builder based in Wigan, along with Northern Counties and Massey. At one time there was a preserved Wigan Corporation Leyland Tiger (TS4?) with a Santus body. There was an article in Classic Bus magazine a few years ago about the firm. Apparently there is no connection between the Santus body builder and another firm of the same name also in Wigan which made toffees! Unfortunately I cannot now recall the fate of the Santus body-building company, only that they built saloons and coaches in pre-war days, and possibly early post-war. Can’t access the magazine article at present – Sorry.

Michael Hampton

30/05/14 – 18:13

There is a bit more about Santus on this site- a Bedford OB, it is thought (!) on the Isles of Scilly.

Joe

30/05/14 – 18:14

So, once again, my sources of information are found wanting (NOT Bolton CT!)

 
The Santus-bodied Tiger is indeed a TS4, and I attach a view of her at the WETC open day on 7 October 2012

Pete Davies

30/05/14 – 18:17

Chris, our very well informed fellow contributor to this site, Neville Mercer, has given some information about Santus under the OBP entry for Vics Tours (Isles of Scilly) – Bedford OB.

Roger Cox

31/05/14 – 08:06

Well, once again my knowledge of something somewhat obscure has been satisfied by some knowledgeable folk. Thank you all. Remarkable that Wigan had at least three bus bodybuilders. Did Wigan Corporation show local loyalty by buying examples from all three companies?

Chris Hebbron

01/06/14 – 09:33

Yes Chris, Wigan did support all three Wigan coach builders in pre-war days. I’ve checked my Leyland Society book on the Leylands of Wigan Corporation. This shows Leyland TD1’s purchased and bodied by Leyland itself, plus the three Wigan builders in 1931. Santus also figures as the builder of single-deckers on TS4 and TS7 chassis, like the one shown earlier, now preserved. I think it owes it’s survival to being used as a library for several years. However after 1936, the Corporation used only NCME and Massey, and Leyland itself for its contracts. One batch was bodied by English Electric in 1939. Post-war, the body builder spread continued to be Leyland, NCME and Massey, but not Santus. The book I referred to doesn’t mention any reason for the Corporation excluding Santus from the order book in the later 1930’s. Apparently those supplied were to and “old fashioned” appearance, but this seems to have been a Wigan requirement, and also applied to those buses supplied by the other manufacturers. This still applied to the 1937 TD4s, whose bodied closely followed the 1929 Leyland TD1 design (piano front, etc)!

Michael Hampton

Chris, Wigan Corporation did indeed show loyalty to local manufacturers, as I believe that from 1929 onwards (apart possibly from wartime allocations) it sourced chassis solely from Leyland, and bodywork from either Northern Counties or Massey Brothers, although I’m not sure how many Santus-bodied buses it operated. However, it was no doubt prudent of the Corporation to help the local economy in this way, as many of the bodybuilders’ employees were likely to use the Corporation’s buses to get to and from work etc, thus helping swell the council’s coffers.

Brendan Smith

01/06/14 – 09:35

Certainly not post-war Chris H because Santus didn’t build double deckers. You really should have a look at their coaches though because they were quite unlike any others, I’ve always had a fascination for them and it’s a pity that there are no survivors but build quality put paid to that. They did body just about every chassis going though even if few of them had long lives, I suppose this Barton PS1 was typical, lasting less than ten years with it’s coach body.
It was actually revealed after the article in Classic Bus that the coach building and the confectionery business were in fact related so even though there are no remaining coaches, at least you can treat yourself to a bag of Uncle Joe’s Mint Balls!

Chris Barker

02/06/14 – 07:24

Perhaps the excessive amount of sugar in the mint balls help to speed the decay of the vehicle body. Oh, we’re wandering off topic again!

Pete Davies

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

02/06/14 – 07:26

There is an example of postwar Santus coachwork in preservation, an unusual Seddon Mk IV registered DPR 518. It’s not been active for some time and I only discovered recently that it’s owned by someone I know (albeit not too well). I understand work is progressing on it very well.
With 74 PD1s and 42 PD2s with Leyland bodies and the first postwar Northern Counties and Massey double-deckers not delivered until 1956/7 I wouldn’t actually describe Wigan as loyal to the coachbuilders of the town. They bought just a handful of single-deckers prior to 1956, all with Northern Counties bodies. They clearly liked the Leyland body.

David Beilby

03/06/14 – 07:40

Well David that will ‘learn me’ to read my books more thoroughly, and also to clean my glasses more frequently. When I fished out my book on Northern Counties again, regarding Wigan Corporation it states that from 1930 onwards “bodywork was always built in the County Of Lancashire, and more often than not, supplied by either Northern Counties or Massey Brothers of Wigan”. It was the “more often than not” that failed to register I’m afraid. I should have remembered the Leyland-bodied Leyland Titan PDs, which might have prompted me to think more broadly with ‘local’ meaning Lancashire rather than solely Wigan!

Brendan Smith

West Riding – Leyland Tiger PS2 – EHL 336 – 725

EHL 336

West Riding Automobile
1953
Leyland Tiger PS2/12
Roe C35F

EHL 336 affectionately known as Ethel, or if you are a chemist like me Ethyl, is a Leyland PS2 from 1953 with imposing 30ft x 8ft body. It was new as West Riding fleet number 725, and saw further use with Boddys of Bridlington before being preserved. Restoration was completed in 2011, the year this picture was taken. It is part of the Roger Burdett collection. This year (2013) sees it celebrating its 60th birthday – that’s only a year younger than the photographer.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones

08/08/13 – 07:36

Oh what a beauty! Needs little elaboration.

David Oldfield

08/08/13 – 07:36

Part of Roger’s collection, and among Ken’s photographs. Only three words: “Thank you” and “Excellent!”

Pete Davies

08/08/13 – 10:25

EHL 336_2

I was the last Boddys driver to drive EHL from Hull to Brid were it was parked awaiting collection by the West Riding Group.

Ken Wragg

08/08/13 – 19:16

What a gem! Everything about the design and livery works a treat. The preservationists have done a superb job.

Chris Hebbron

09/08/13 – 07:51

Charles H Roe at his/their best. I suppose this is basically the same body as Lancashire United’s Guy Arab III coaches.

David Oldfield

09/08/13 – 15:28

To my eye, this body looks similar to Duple C33F of 1948 of Wallace Arnold as shown on this site under Duple.

Jim Hepburn

10/08/13 – 09:26

Lovely coach – a true classic. It’s interesting however that the two biggest independents in those days, West Riding and LUT, both went for traditional half cab coaches when the underfloor models were virtually the norm for most operators of heavyweights by 1953.
If West Riding had adopted a similar traditional approach a few years later for their double-deck purchases and gone for the Guy Arab rather than the revolutionary but ill-fated Wulfrunian (as indeed LUT did) they might have stayed in business as an independent for a lot longer. But then hindsight is something we don’t always have.

Philip Halstead

10/08/13 – 12:00

To be fair, Philip, they did. They had quite a few Arab IVs prior to the Wulfrunians – which were a joint development (even at the prompting of West Riding). As you said, interesting – but more so that they had the same design of Roe coach.

David Oldfield

10/08/13 – 18:42

The Arab IVs seemed to go on and on. We have discussed the Wulfrunian here before, but it could be that despite its inherent flaws, the winners are writing the history books. Leyland produced a bit of a lemon too in the Atlantean, but had the clout to make it work. Now what was wrong with the AEC Q?

Joe

11/08/13 – 06:53

There’s a challenge to the engineers and traffic officers…. What made the Fleetline so good and reliable and the Atlantean a lemon? Why was the AN68, in contrast, so good? What was wrong with the Q? Just too advanced for its time.

David Oldfield

26/08/14 – 06:46

Where is EHL 335 on view? I missed it at Heath Common.

Tim Thomas

26/08/14 – 10:44

EHL 336_2
EHL 336_3

I attach a couple of views of the wonderful West Riding vehicle which already appears on your pages. These were taken by myself at the Gloucestershire Steam Fair in 2011. It not only looked good but sounded good too.

Les Dickinson

26/08/14 – 13:48

Sister vehicle EHL 335 is now in the care of the Aire Valley Transport Group.

Chris Hough

Joe asks why the Q didn’t work. It did as a single decker, provided it was London Transport running them. The double decker did not work for a number of reasons but the main ones were cooling or the lack of and the dodgy handling that was caused by the short rear overhang and the single rear wheels.
The combination of the two and other weaknesses led to most being sold early.
Geoffrey Hillditch’s Another Look at Buses goes into some detail, including looking at the maintenance records of the sole Halifax bus.

Stephen Allcroft

East Kent – Leyland Tiger – CFN 104

East Kent - Leyland Tiger - CFN 104

East Kent
1948
Leyland Tiger PS1/1
Park Royal C32R

CFN 104 is a Tiger PS1/1 from the East Kent fleet. She has Park Royal body, listed as C32R. It has been discussed at length on these pages in the past, but I find it annoying that the vehicle clearly has a door, but the standard PSVC terminology doesn’t mention the feature. She is seen in the shot above at Amberley on 13 September 2009.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

02/07/14 – 11:02

To my eye the best-looking of all postwar coaches: straight waistline, restrained curvature elsewhere, radiator unashamed to be what it is, perfect choice of colours in simple livery. But I still wish that Leyland had offered a 5-speed box for the PD1/PS1; I’m not sure whether the advertised prewar 0.77:1 bolt-on overdrive (does anyone know of any actual examples?) was still available after the war. I suspect not.
Thanks for the posting, Pete.

Ian T

02/07/14 – 17:57

Quite simply, a glorious dignified classic vehicle – today’s designers and marketing gurus please note. What I would give to drive this wonderful vehicle for a good distance, or at all !! I must say that I was unaware of an optional overdrive (or “super top”) being offered on the prewar range, and no doubt such a fitting would have given the vehicles a higher top speed with economy, but perhaps Company engineers had some fear of torque issues – just an uninformed thought !!

Chris Youhill

02/07/14 – 17:59

There was always something special about these East Kent coaches, although I only saw a few of them when living in London, with an occasional trip to Dartford.
I love the light paintwork where the side-board is. I seem to recall that the pre-war overdrive unit was not carried forward postwar, Ian. Did they offer two-speed or re-geared rear axle, perhaps?

Chris Hebbron

13/06/17 – 07:31

I was wondering why the writer was surprised that the vehicle in question should not have a rear passenger door.
Thanks for interesting site.

Garth Wyver

13/06/17 – 09:14

Like Ian T, I know of no Leyland Tigers or Titans with an overdrive fitment. I am sure that, had one been available for the PS1, East Kent would have tried it out. The Company had a sizeable fleet of Dennis Lancet buses and coaches, all with the five speed ‘O’ type gearbox, and these, even the pre war four cylinder O4 powered versions, could really fly on an open road.

Roger Cox

15/06/17 – 07:13

In response to Garth’s comment, I was not surprised that the coach has a door with a rear-entrance. I would expect one wherever the entrance is, as in CxxF, CxxC or CxxR. I have never understood the idea which came (I believe in the 1930s) from the PSV Circle and the Omnibus Society that only double deckers should have the RD or R suffix. If you’re doing it for a double, why not for a single? Never mind – I’ve mentioned before in these columns that I’m glad am I not and never have been a member of either group. If I had been, they’d have roasted me for heresy years ago!
Oh, and what a wonderful Captcha code on this RM54

Pete Davies

09/08/19 – 08:52

Please can you tell me why the seats are not side by side but slightly back by about 2 inches? The driver at Tinkers Park was not sure why

Anon

10/08/19 – 07:40

My understanding of the seat situation is that it emphasised the luxury coach aspect of these vehicles. The passenger nearest to the gangway could see past the passenger nearer to the body side more easily for the view out of the windows – “oh! look at that lovely valley / hill / church / pub” or whatever. Otherwise the inside passenger is always having to lean forward, instead of enjoying the luxury seating.
Re the PSV Circle designation of CxxR, without a D for the door; when the codes were drawn up in the 1940’s virtually all rear-entrance coaches would have had a door as standard, to ensure passenger comfort and safety. However vehicles on bus work with a rear entrance were nearly all open platform – doors were exceptional until the mid-fifties, and by no means universal from then. So presumably the PSVC experts decided to only draw attention to the exceptions rather than the regular understood usages of the day. Of course, fashions and designs in coaching and service buses change, so these designations are presumably reviewed by those who decide such things, while trying to be consistent with past practice. I’m not a committee member of PSVC, only just commenting on my observations over the years.

Michael Hampton

10/08/19 – 07:42

At a guess, the offside emergency exit at the front would make it desirable for the seats to be set further back to give sufficient clearance. In contrast the seats on the nearside will be constrained by the rear doorway.
There is no real reason for the seats to be in line and the seat pitches can vary as they are spread out to fit the available space which is likely to be different on each side.

David Beilby

Birmingham City – Leyland Tiger – JOJ 245 – 2245

Birmingham City - Leyland Tiger - JOJ 245 - 2245

Birmingham City Transport
1950
Leyland Tiger PS2
Weymann B34F

This superb combination of Leyland Tiger and classic Weymann single-deck body is further enhanced by the application of Birmingham City livery. 2245 is well-maintained by the Transport Museum, Wythall. Chassis number is 495582, body number M4624 and seating is B34F.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

05/07/15 – 07:32

Don’t you just mourn the demise of municipal transport when you see vehicles like this, with their distinctive livery and civic coats of arms. And in the case of many of them, including Birmingham, never letting an advert blemish the bodywork!

Chris Hebbron

05/07/15 – 11:54

I agree wholeheartedly Chris H, and the beautiful vehicle in the picture is a exceptional example of “how things should be.” I readily admit, in my dotage, to be horrified at many of today’s presentations of meaningless mobile artwork which totally destroy what could have been acceptable shapes of modern buses. For example, the latest craze from FirstBus in this area, as if the insipid white, lilac and purple wasn’t bad enough, is to plaster the top decks around the destination displays with gaudy purple offerings for “The Pulse” – services of better than ten minutes frequency. The effect of this gripping marketing wheeze is to render the electronic destinations and route numbers virtually unreadable, especially in bright sunlight. The cost ?? – I imagine that no-one dare publicise that figure and,far from increasing patronage, is simply a further annoyance to already disinterested passengers.

Chris Youhill

05/07/15 – 11:55

To be fair, Chris, even Birmingham had succumbed to the exterior adverts when I was there in my student days of the mid sixties, although I never saw a single decker in service with the ‘feature’, only the doubles.

Pete Davies

06/07/15 – 06:38

I agree entirely about the advertising. Bournemouth was another municipal operator that did not carry advertising. Worst of all today are those advertisements and so-called route branding that are actually carried over the windows – and I do like to be able to look out of the bus!

David Wragg

06/07/15 – 06:39

Birmingham’s civic pride would not countenance the idea of advertising on its buses for many years – although most of the trams carried them throughout their lives, resulting in a fair bit of extra revenue for the Transport Department.
However, once the trams were gone by 1953 this source of revenue was lost and the Transport Committee were reluctantly forced to accept advertising on the buses. After all, the next time the Department applied for a fares increase they might well have been refused on the grounds that while the buses had no adverts there was now an untapped source of income that the Transport Department should use first!

Larry B

06/07/15 – 06:40

Very fair comment Pete, and I suppose that “we outsiders” can’t condemn operators for making some revenue from commercial advertisements, those in the traditional tidy formations on double deckers particularly. My strong objection nowadays is to ludicrous extremes of expensive “in house” blurb plastered all over windows inside and out on already ghastly “liveries”, and of no interest whatsoever to the travelling public who, to use those apt but well worn words, “only want a comfortable bus on time at a reasonable fare.”

Chris Youhill

06/07/15 – 08:35

When the first of these ‘dot matrix’ adverts appeared on a Southampton Citybus vehicle, it was allegedly possible to see out, but not in – rather like the net curtains of old. Even outward vision is impaired, however. As for route branding, well, it works in some places, but not in many. The attitude seems to be one of ‘if it’s marked for the 3 and it appears on the 27, then its an advert for the folk along the 27 about the highlights of the 3’. Balderdash!

Pete Davies

06/07/15 – 11:07

It is possible from a passenger’s point of view to see through those Contravision adverts when they are looking out at 90 degrees to the glass, though there is a significant darkening effect.
However they can be a real problem and a safety hazard from the driver’s point of view. When emerging from a junction of the 90 degree variety the driver will look through the door windows to check for oncoming traffic, but there are very many others – especially on the routes that I drive – which are at an acute angle where the driver has to lean forward, twist round and look back through the first nearside window. This can already be difficult enough if there are standing passengers (because they always congregate at the front), the nearside luggage rack is stacked with pushchairs, or if the company has thoughtfully decided on siting a side route number/destination box right in your line of view, but looking through Contravision at 45 degrees you can see nothing at all. Those responsible for specifying it will not have even considered this aspect.
I also can not fathom the mentality of bus company managers who specify ‘stylish’ new vehicles with extremely large, heavy and expensive windows, then mask half their area with promotional vinyls.

John Stringer

07/07/15 – 06:54

Very valid comments John, and I’m very surprised that the folk from VOSA haven’t banned Contravision (Controversial vision?) on safety grounds for the reasons you cite. One wonders what the union view is on this too. I read recently that many women boarding buses in the evenings or at night do not like Contravision at all, as they cannot see if any potential nuisance passengers are on board before they get on. Also, many older people out at night are wary for the same reason. So much for certain operators’ duty of care to their passengers and staff.

Brendan Smith

07/07/15 – 06:55

This bus was one of nine hired by PMT at various times during 1969 and 1970 to cover vehicle shortages. Lovely buses, exceptional condition, well powered …… but pretty useless on services normally operated by 72 seat Atlanteans!! Although any bus was better than no bus at all.

Ian Wild

15/07/15 – 05:55

Having been brought up with BCT buses, although these Leylands, nor the AEC ever came my way, I do remember the furore that arose when it was announced that adverts were going to be carried. Even the bus crews themselves were against the idea and of course worst was to come, when the rear platform numbers already diminished from large shaded gold into a smaller gold style were lifted up to just under the registration number ‘to make room for further advertising. But whichever local bus company you favoured, all of them Birmingham, West Bromwich, Walsall (what an interesting fleet) and Wolverhampton all produced buses and crews that compared well with any in England..and then of course there was the ‘daddy’ and in their minds the leader in the field Midland Red. How uninteresting now when apart from the body shape, the only way of knowing what chassis/power unit is involved is by looking at the steering wheel badge. Why is at that the modern bus fleets don’t want anyone to know the make of bus or body?

R. G. Davis

15/07/15 – 15:27

You’re so right with your last point, RG, in that such coyness is in stark contrast to past chassis/body builders!

Chris Hebbron

16/07/15 – 05:35

To me, the (non) distinguishing feature about modern buses is the fact that they all look, sound and perform the same, with a total absence of individuality. Thus anonymity is entirely apt.

Roger Cox

17/07/15 – 12:35

RG Davis asks why we don’t know the make of bus or body these days….?
I wonder if it was always a bit like this…?
Until Fleetlines (when they went to the other extreme) you usually only knew a Daimler CVD by its fluted radiator or later, possibly a discreet radiator badge, or a Leyland by perhaps its hubs, especially if the fleet had plonked its own name on the radiator instead of theirs. This hardly improved with Atlanteans with just the badge on the back. Older Bristols had tiny little badges, although Guys had an easy name to promote. Did any bodybuilders have anything more than a little plate or transfer- except perhaps CH Roe with those lovely transmission covers?
Am I wrong? I suspect that proud municipalities didn’t want makers promoting themselves.
You do now see Alexander-Dennis or Wright on buses- but who makes what, especially which screaming engine- they all sound like old diesel buzz-boxes anyway, desperately hunting for a gear!

Joe

18/07/15 – 08:18

While I agree with all the previous comments re Advertising and Identification badges, oh and Joe’s observation about the “screamers”, we lost touch with this beautiful machine that started the post! So, having followed the restoration of 2245 (and many others) at Wythall here are some additional views from frequent visits.

Nigel Edwards

JOJ 245_2
JOJ 245_3
JOJ 245_4
JOJ 245_5

Burnley, Colne & Nelson JTC – Leyland Tiger – CHG 540 – 40

Burnley, Colne & Nelson JTC - Leyland Tiger - CHG 540 - 40

Burnley, Colne & Nelson JTC
1954
Leyland Tiger PS2/14
East Lancs B39R

Leyland PS2/14 chassis number 540923 was first delivered  to Burnley, Colne & Nelson in 1954 with East Lancs B39R body number EL 5042. In 1958 it was rebodied to B39F by East Lancs, body number EL 5340 for one man operation.
It  is seen here on October 30th 2011, arriving at The Piece Hall, Halifax for the Heart of the Pennines event.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

15/10/15 – 07:23

Was it really rebodied after only four years, or did East Lancs give the body a front entrance and other updated features in 1958, with a fresh body number to validate the job ? Otherwise, a new body after just four years seems remarkably profligate of the Committee.

Petras409

15/10/15 – 07:23

Very nice, Les. The cobbled street adds atmosphere!

Pete Davies

16/10/15 – 06:07

It wasn’t rebodied it just had the entrance moved from rear to front to allow OMO. I am pretty sure the whole batch was similarly treated. The new body number must just have been for administrative purposes at East Lancs. The short window next to the rear curved window shows where the original entrance was positioned.

Philip Halstead

17/10/15 – 07:37

Indeed, Bus Lists on the Web shows that 539-546 were all treated similarly, each receiving a new body number in the process.

Les Dickinson

Ramsbottom UDC – Leyland Tiger – HTB 656 – 17

Ramsbottom UDC - Leyland Tiger - HTB 656 - 17

Ramsbottom Urban District Council
1947
Leyland Tiger PS1
Roe B35R

Very few of the Urban District Councils in England and Wales had powers to operate public transport systems, and Ramsbottom was one of the smallest, with a fleet of 12 in 1965. I think Colwyn Bay may have been holder of the ‘smallest’ title. Ramsbottom was absorbed into Greater Manchester at Local Government Reorganisation in 1974, while the fleet had passed to SELNEC in 1969. HTB 656 is a Leyland Tiger PS1 from 1947 and has a Roe body of B35R layout, with door. We see her in Boyle Street Museum on 19 August 2012.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

27/11/15 – 06:27

Ramsbottom had a high number of single deckers due to a low railway bridge at Stubbins precluding the use of double deckers on the core route through from Bury to Rawtenstall. Then around 1961 the road under the bridge was lowered allowing double deckers to pass beneath for the first time. The single deckers were replaced by a fleet of Leyland PD2 and PD3 double deckers, mostly with East Lancs forward entrance bodies. The last PD3 received was the very last to be built by Leyland as the Titan model was phased out following the onset of the bus grant and one person operation. Three Leyland Royal Tigers were sold, one to Rawtenstall and two to Haslingden with whom for a time Ramsbottom shared a General Manager.

Philip Halstead

03/12/15 – 10:46

I remember the Ramsbottom PD2s and 3s very well, after Selnec took over they were all sent to Bury, by then 6401-11. 1 and 2 were rear entrance PD2s, 3 was front entrance and all the rest were PD3s, all of these had front entrance East Lancs bodies. 4 and 5 had the mounded St Helens front, as did the PD2s, apart from 1 which had the Leyland tin front, and the rest were exposed radiators. I think the last few were sent to Wigan eventually

David Pomfret

30/12/15 – 13:55

After the Selnec takeover all of the Ramsbottom fleet of East Lancs double deckers were transferred to Bury, in early 1972. In exchange Ramsbottom got seven of Bury’s REN registration Atlanteans with three (I think) of the PDR2s which had been ordered by Bolton in the 6802-16 series.
Of the Ramsbottom double deckers, 1 and 2 were PD2s and had open rear platform bodies, all the rest were forward entrance, 3 was a PD2 also. 1 had the Leyland tin front and 2/3 the St Helens moulded front. 1 and 2 were withdrawn fairly quickly, both still in maroon in 1973, 3 was one of the first repaints into orange and white.
The remainder were PD3s, 4 and 5 also had the St Helens front and 5 was also in maroon for quite a while, it later became a trainer. The rest (6-11) were all exposed radiator and were virtually identical to Stockports last few, slight differences on 10 and 11 were hopper type vents on the windows. These all eventually ended up at Wigan, I vaguely remember one of them being at Queens Road for a bit.

David Pomfret

Southdown – Leyland Tiger – HCD 449 – 1249

HCD 449

Southdown Motor Services Ltd
1947
Leyland Tiger PS1/1
ECW C31R

HCD 449 is a Leyland Tiger PS1/1 with an ECW C31R bodywork (with door!) and dates from 1947, when it joined Southdown. We see it at an open day at the Brijan Tours depot in Curdridge – just outside Botley – on 22 April 2012. These open days were always well-attended, collecting money for local charities, normally the Hampshire & Isle Of Wight Air Ambulance. Sadly, Brijan closed down in 2015.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

29/04/16 – 06:15

Superb in every way.

Ian Thompson

29/04/16 – 07:56

Is this another post which will spark off the old debate about DP v Coach specification? Southdown classed them as coaches but the body shell is unmistakeably bus with just a little additional brightwork embellishment. That apart it is a superb looking vehicle especially with the chromed radiator surround nicely polished.

Philip Halstead

29/04/16 – 14:29

Thanks for your comment, Ian!

Pete Davies

29/04/16 – 14:29

This particular combination of already handsome ECW body with Leyland PS1 chassis has always been particularly pleasing to me as an ardent admirer of both components.
If ever there was a vehicle where everything looks “just right” this is one. Many operators had examples of these but as far as I know only the Southdown ones had half drop windows (and very tidy louvres??)

Chris Youhill

30/04/16 – 06:28

A very interesting thought, Chris Y. I’ve just had a trawl through the contributions in respect of ECW bodies. Among them, there are plenty of single deckers, but none have the half-drop windows. Is one of the Southdown aficionados able to tell us if that operator was indeed the only one to have this combination?

Pete Davies

30/04/16 – 12:16

I am sure that I have travelled on an ECW-bodied Hants & Dorset Bristol LS B35R with half-drops in the late 1950s.

David Wragg

01/05/16 – 05:55

My favourite Southdown vehicles. As a small child in the late 50’s, I used to travel into Storrington on the service 71 which was usually operated by the 15xx East Lancs bodied Royal Tigers. Occasionally, one of these magnificent machines would turn up much to my delight. (They were downgraded from express duties to bus work after 1955).
Some were fitted with bus seats and full size destination boxes front and rear. Others remained as built. Regarding the half drop windows, there is a story that they were delivered with sliders, but altered at Portslade works before entering service. Not sure if this is truth or folklore, but Southdown had a thing about half drop windows, and all pre 1956 vehicles had them.

Roy Nicholson

01/05/16 – 17:20

Roy, according to MG Doggett & AA Townsin’s lovely book ‘ECW 1946-1965’, it would appear that Southdown had accepted most features of ECW’s ‘express’ design on its batch of Tigers, including the trim along the waistline. Interestingly though the authors go on to state: “However, there seems to have been some unease about the opening windows from early on. Some, at least, entered service with the then new ECW standard sliding vents (there being photographic evidence of body 1644 at Victoria thus), but body 1638 had much deeper sliding vents while 1640 (Southdown 1246) had full-depth sliding windows as built”. An accompanying three-quarter rear view of 1246(GUF746) clearly shows the full-depth sliders, which gave the vehicle something of an ‘export model’ look. The text continues: “All of these options were considered unsatisfactory, and special half-drop windows conforming to ECW outline were fitted within a few months”. The view of 1246 with full-depth sliders shows it without the louvres above the windows, so were these fitted as vehicles received their half-drop windows? Whatever the case, there is no doubt that they were handsome machines, enhanced by the application of Southdown’s distinctive livery. Beautiful.

Brendan Smith

02/05/16 – 06:44

Brendan, thanks for the information confirming the story about the half drop windows. I will keep my eyes open for a copy of said book.

Roy Nicholson

02/05/16 – 06:44

Many thanks for your further comments, folks.

Pete Davies

03/05/16 – 07:09

A real favourite of mine, especially since I once travelled on one, with my mum, back from Southsea to Kingston, in 1953. I never thought of it other than a coach, especially so as it bore the ‘coach’ script on the side. The odd ones were always the utility open-topped Guy Arab II’s who also bore ‘coach’ script, not really deserving it, although I was fond of them!

Chris Hebbron

04/05/16 – 06:21

Chris, your comment confirms my recollection that these ECW bodied PS1s were the ones used on the London – Gosport coach service that I travelled on several times as a kid between 1949 and 1952. I recall the first time I saw one before getting on it in Gosport, and marvelling at its smart appearance. Having been a great fan of the Maidstone and District pre-war Tigers when previously living in Kent, I looked forward to being treated to the glorious musical sounds that the word ‘Leyland’ had come to mean to me. Oh, how the PS1 disappointed – like hearing Stockhausen after Sibelius. The E181 engine had a very harsh rattle, even if it propelled the coach along adequately. Back in the early days of Buses Illustrated, there used to be a regular column called ‘From The Driver’s Seat’ by a certain T.A. Dalton, who, I think, worked for United Automobile. He was consistently disparaging about the E181 engine, but our own OBP expert, Chris Youhill, takes a completely opposite view, and none of us, I’m sure, would challenge Chris’s unparalleled practical knowledge on the subject. Like the Crossley and Daimler engines of the early post war period, the E181 was probably best suited to single deck applications, and the PS1 continued to be the standard Leyland saloon bus offering after the PS2 had appeared.

Roger Cox

05/05/16 – 06:53

Many thanks Roger, and I must say though that my impression of the E181 engines was as unfavourable as anyone else’s when they first appeared in 1945/6. I think initially the stark contrast with the lusty but silky smooth prewar 8.6 litre unit hit us all very forcibly, and secondly, although I have no technical knowledge on the matter, I do think that fitter unfamiliarity and poor quality fuel contributed to that harsh “knock” which they displayed. In my experience they became much more mellow and delightful in later years for whatever reason and had remarkable power when properly “tuned and fed” and driven for their 7.4 litres. No use expecting them to pull with trolleybus like power at ridiculously low road speeds in the higher ratios – that’s where proper use of the very precise gearboxes was essential – oh there now, I’m drooling again. I often think of the occasion when I was just at the start of a very busy late Saturday duty when the AEC Regent V suffered a flat rear tyre and was changed over with JUM 376, one of the original half dozen bought new in 1946. The apologetic but understanding fitter promised to return the Regent within the hour with a new tyre – I said that I’d rather keep 376 for the rest of the duty and he agreed – I had a lovely evening but we were both lucky to get away with it as, if the eagle eyed manager had spotted on Monday morning that we’d un-necessarily sacrificed 65 seats for 58 we’d have been for the high jump. In the event of course we never left anybody all evening – did somebody mutter something about “eight standing” ?? – never heard them !!

Chris Youhill