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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !!
H W Hunter and Sons 1948 Leyland Tiger PS1/1 Plaxton FC33F
CNL 425, a PS1/1 Leyland Tiger, seen here sporting a FC33F Plaxton body of 1956 vintage. It was one of two identical 1948 vehicles delivered new to H W Hunter and Sons of Seaton Delaval, the other being CTY 457. When new they had C33F Burlingham bodies, CTY was also rebodied by Plaxton in 1958.
Birmingham City Transport 1950 Leyland Tiger PS2/1 Weymann B34F
JOJ 231 is something of a rarity for the Birmingham fleet – a single decker! It is a Leyland Tiger PS2/1 with Weymann B34F body, new in 1950. We see it in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979 – where the combination of Kodachrome II film and lighting combine to give the appearance of the Royal Blue coach alongside having the same shade of blue. Is it really the same, or does it just look that way?
The second view shows the Municipal Crest, and was captured on film in the Southsea rally a few years later.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
04/10/16 – 05:34
Pete, what a wonderful Municipal Crest. We are used to seeing heraldic shields and the like on municipal buses, but the figures on the Birmingham one make the Crest even more special. The way the artist has painted not just a sheen, but also creases into the clothing on the original design is nothing short of amazing. Thank you for posting.
Brendan Smith
05/10/16 – 07:01
My pleasure!
Pete Davies
28/10/16 – 07:34
The two figures on the crest represent Industry and Art and were posed by Art students of the time.
Tony Martin
28/10/16 – 10:57
What an interesting snippet, Tony! Thanks for that
Pete Davies
09/12/17 – 07:43
I’m sure you buffs already know that the No. 27 ran from West Heath to Kings Heath.The reason for the single decker was to travel beneath the railway bridge in Bournville Lane, just by Cadbury’s works.
David Palmer
09/12/17 – 09:14
Thanks, David. My student days were in the Saltley area of Birmingham, but I did get down to the Bournville area occasionally, and I saw the Tigers there.
Caerphilly Urban District Council 1952 Leyland Tiger PS2/5 Massey B35F
Fleet number 1 in the small Caerphilly concern was allocated to this less than common Massey-bodied single-deck Leyland PS2/5. Chassis number is 520623 and the body is number 2083 B35F. This image was taken at Bus & Coach Wales in Merthyr Tydfil 14/09/2014.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
12/01/17 – 06:46
Very nice, Les! Thank you for posting. I particularly like the shape of the ‘valance’ forward of the door.
Green (Brierley Hill) 1948 Leyland Tiger PS1/1 Burlingham C33F
Seen in the summer of 1961 on a rather run down estate beside Mitcham Common is PRE 900, a Leyland Tiger PS1/1 delivered in July 1948 to Green of Brierley Hill, near Dudley, West Midlands. The C33F body is by Burlingham. I do not know its subsequent history and I cannot see any evidence of legal ownership lettering on the nearside of the vehicle. No trading name is carried either, which suggests that by 1961 it had become a contractors machine. No doubt the registration PRE 900 is now a “cherished” number borne by an otherwise undistinguished motor car, the owner of which is completely oblivious to its decidedly more worthy ancestry. Some history of the Green coaching business may be found here:- www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/63 The following web page gives a broader view of past coach operation in the Black Country:- www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
09/04/17 – 18:00
Didn’t stay long with Green as it passed to Alexandra of Enfield in December 1948.
Keith Clark
10/04/17 – 06:44
Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what the angled black oblong on the bulkhead and the item leading from it are?
Phil Blinkhorn
10/04/17 – 06:46
Very interesting photograph, although the vehicle is anonymous, it appears to retain a working destination blind, set to PRIVATE. Also, I believe this is the first half cab coach I’ve ever seen with a near side mirror in that position, attached to the front wing. I suppose that’s what you call a wing mirror in every sense of the description!
Chris Barker
10/04/17 – 09:36
Rear view mirror, Phil.
David Oldfield
10/04/17 – 09:37
Thank Chris, a mirror it is!
Phil Blinkhorn
10/04/17 – 09:37
This wing mirror subject has come up before in discussions about the Margo Regal 1. Nearside mirrors weren’t officially required in the early post war period when PRE 900 was built, and this style of half canopy left only the wing as the place to fix one. This mirror does look like a home made effort, but driving without one must have been decidedly nerve wracking.
Roger Cox
11/04/17 – 07:15
LGOC/London Transport, at least up to LT/ST’s had a metal stick with a small knob on the top affixed to the wing for an indication of parking near the kerb These buses and later ones had rear view mirrors on the bodywork on both sides at roughly driver level. These items can been seen on my photo of the Tilling ST here: www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/
Nearside mirrors on canopied vehicles work well and give adequate but not great nearside visibility. I have a number of non canopied single deckers and nearside mirror positioning is standard ie nearside front bulkhead but the angle of the mirror and size becomes really important in making them of any use. I find myself when driving continually ducking and diving to get max visibility especially for vehicles/cyclists coming up the nearside. A move to convex or larger mirrors only partially solves the problem as this then gives rise to proximity issues. I had never seen a mirror positioned like on PRE but it does make some sense other than aesthetics
Roger Burdett
12/04/17 – 07:26
I could never understand why London Transport, very advanced in its specifications for “own design” post war fleet, insisted on fitting a minuscule circular mirror for the driver’s nearside visibility. Only the RF class, as I recall, had decently sized rectangular mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. Even the private hire RFWs had the little circular things.
London Transport 1949 Leyland Tiger PS1 Mann Egerton B30F
Following the cessation of hostilities in 1945, the London Passenger Transport Board found itself seriously short of serviceable vehicles, partly through enemy action but equally because of the time expired nature of much of the fleet. To compound the problem, 55 T type AEC Regals and 20 Leyland Cubs were sent to assist in war ravaged Belgium and Germany. To meet the needs of the capital city, the Ministry of Supply (that still oversaw the allocation of resources in the immediate post war period) sanctioned the delivery of a number of standard provincial types of buses to London, which was still taking the tail end deliveries of utility double deckers, mainly Daimler CWA6 plus a few Guy Arabs. Thus between 1946 and 1948 the AEC Regent O661 (STL) and Regal O662/O962 (T), Leyland PD1 (STD) and PS1(TD) appeared on the London scene. From 1st January 1948 the LPTB became the nationalised London Transport Executive, and help began arriving in the form of vehicles on loan from provincial operators, notably Bristols from Tilling group companies, though Tilling itself did not sell out to the government until September 1948. In 1946 LT was allocated fifty AEC Regal O662 buses (7.7 litre engine/crash gearbox – basically the pre-war design) but also thirty one examples of Leyland’s very new Tiger PS1. These eighty one vehicles were fitted with Weymann B33F bodies of unprepossessing appearance, characterised particularly by a front destination indicator box that “frowned” over the top of the driver’s windscreen. In 1948 a further thirty Regals were acquired, but these were of the O962 variety with 9.6 litre engines and epicyclic gearboxes, consistent in specification with the new RT double deck fleet. At the same time another one hundred PS1s came into LT ownership, though these still had the standard 7.4 litre engine and crash gearbox. The 1948/9 Regal and Tiger deliveries were fitted with Mann Egerton B31F bodywork (later reduced to B30F) displaying much cleaner lines than the earlier Weymann bodies. One would have expected the preselector gearbox Regals to have been allocated to the Central (red) fleet, but they all went to Country area garages, while all the crash gearbox Regals and PS1s operated in red livery. Given London Transport’s unenthusiastic attitude to “non standardisation”, these provincial type single deckers clearly earned some measure of respect, for they lasted between ten and fourteen years in LT ownership. Seen above on the A23 Brighton Road during the 1971 HCVC Run is Mann Egerton bodied TD 95, JXC 288, which entered service in May 1949 and was sold in August 1963. In 1965, now in private hands, it undertook a series of extraordinary Continental journeys to Rumania, Hungary, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Hamburg, Helsinki, Lenningrad, Moscow, Warsaw and Berlin, followed, in 1965, by a trip to France and Spain. Then again in 1966 TD95 went off to France, Belgium, Prague, Offenbach, Budapest and Belgrade. Throughout the performance of this amazing machine was exemplary. It then passed into preservation in May 1967 to be restored into its previous LT guise. In that form, as with all Central Area single deckers of its time, the front entrance has no door at the insistence of the Metropolitan Police, who clearly took the Spartan view that the possibilities of a passenger falling out or incurring influenza from draught were rendered insignificant against boarding and alighting delays.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
08/08/17 – 06:07
The seating capacity of 30 seems rather low for a full sized post war halfcab saloon, most provincial versions averaged around 35 seats. Did these TDs have a standing area at the front with inward facing seats or was it a luggage pen which took up some of the space?
Chris Barker
08/08/17 – 08:36
Chris, I rather think that, in view of Roger’s views on the attitude of the Metropolitan Police, the reason for the low seating capacity lies in that direction, rather than standing area or luggage pen!
Pete Davies
09/08/17 – 06:42
The full service life of these buses shows that LT could successfully operate standard provincial designs when they put their minds to it. This opens up the oft-debated cherry – was the Routemaster really necessary? Would PD2’s, Regent V’s or CVG’s have done the job of replacing trolleybuses and later on the RT family just as well? All were available in semi-auto form which would probably have been a minimum requirement for LT. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow for example seemed to manage and Birmingham even got large numbers of Crossleys to work. Food for thought!
Philip Halstead
09/08/17 – 06:43
I know the Green Line and Country area RF’s had doors, whereas the central area red versions didn’t, was it the same story with these?
Ronnie Hoye
09/08/17 – 06:44
Pete’s comment is true, but it is also relevant to remember that the T&GWU of the time had considerable influence upon the vehicle configuration and seating layout of the LT fleet. These Tigers were used on intensive urban routes where low bridges and other obstructions prevented the operation of double deckers. Free movement of the conductor and easy access/egress for passengers would have been important issues.
Roger Cox
11/08/17 – 06:27
Philip raises an interesting point. Could London Transport have managed without the Routemaster? I think that, yes, it probably could, but some curious features of the London Transport engineering situation have to be taken into account. The RT/RTL/RTW/RM families were designed to be taken to pieces like Meccano for processing through the Aldenham overhaul system. Firstly, however, did LT need a fleet of some 2760 Routemasters in the first place? When the initial deliveries went into service in 1959, LT already possessed a surplus of RT and RTL buses. The last RT deliveries came in November 1954, and 81 went immediately into store until 1958/59 when the RM production scheme was already in progress. Similarly, 63 of the last RTL deliveries were stored until 1958. On the grounds of “non standardisation”, the 120 entirely sound Cravens bodied RTs had already been sold off in 1956 when they were only between eight and six years old, and, by 1961, over 200 of the earliest RTs (discounting the so called “pre war’ machines that were withdrawn in 1955 when they were 13 to 15 years old) had gone when they were only some 10 years or so of age. Nonetheless, ever besotted with its inward thinking, LT brought out the costly Routemaster, claiming that the capacity increase of 8 seats over the RT family was essential for trolleybus replacement. (It seems astonishing now that London Transport seemed utterly exempt from any kind of cost constraint, but the profligate attitude was to continue in later years with the catastrophic Merlin/Swift/MetroScania charade and then the Daimler Fleetline debacle.) Undoubtedly, standard offerings from the manufacturers catalogues could have provided entirely satisfactory fleets for the Capital’s public transport needs, but for the rigid LT engineering system. London Transport did not employ, at its garages, engineers as they were understood by municipal or company bus operators. London Transport had “fitters’. If anything went wrong, that part was simply removed and sent to Chiswick in return for a replacement item. Mechanical analysis was not part of the scheme of things. That was Chiswick’s job. Likewise, body/chassis overhauls were totally centralised at Aldenham, where the chassis and body were separated and sent down different overhaul tracks, the chassis being dealt with more quickly than the bodies. At the output end, the next completely rebuilt emerging body and chassis were put together and given the fleet number of a bus that had just gone into the works. Thus, identifying a London bus by its fleet number was essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, the Aldenham system could have worked equally well with jig built bodywork mounted on a standard provincial chassis type. Indeed, the early Routemasters were exceedingly troublesome, and it took some years of development to make them truly reliable.
Roger Cox
12/08/17 – 07:37
I only travelled on one of these once, on the 240A. I have wondered whether that was part of the original 240 route left for single deck operation after the rest of the route was converted to double deck buses during WWII. I do not recall seeing a standing area or a luggage pen. I doubt if the standard double deck buses of the mid-1950s would have done the job as London Transport specified automatic gearboxes for the red Routemasters and semi-automatic for the green country area and Greenline Routemasters, probably to provide a mechanically common set of buses for the country area depots. In any case, Greenline drivers sometimes worked a country route when necessary (they were paid the same as the central area crews, which was slightly more than that paid to the country area crews). That said, I never warmed to the Routemaster. My favourites in the late 1950s and 1960s were the Southdown Guy Arab 4s wit Park Royal Bodywork and Weymann-bodied Dennis Loline IIIs.
David Wragg
14/08/17 – 07:31
The offside seat behind the driver was a single seat on the central area TDs as illustrated here – www.flickr.com/photos/ (taken at a route 227 running day) – think the idea was to give the conductor somewhere to stand without being in the way as passengers got on/off.
Jon
15/08/17 – 07:56
Referring to Philip Halstead’s comment about standard types, the Guy Arab (which, like the others, was available in semi-automatic form) should not be forgotten, particularly in view of the large number operated in Hong Kong. It’s been suggested that if something will work in Hong Kong, it will work anywhere! As for Birmingham’s Crossleys, they were of the later type with engine design modified by AEC. Apparently they were more successful than the CVD6s that BCT were obliged to take because of a shortage of Gardner engines.
Peter Williamson
16/08/17 – 06:50
Peter, only the second half of the Birmingham Crossley DD42/6 1949/50 order for 260 buses, numbers 2396-2525, had the HOE7/5B downdraught engine. The first 130, numbers 2266-2395, plus the earlier 10 buses delivered in 1946, numbers 1646-1655, were delivered with standard HOE7 engines that were retained to the end. Even so, as you point out, Birmingham regarded the Crossley engine more highly than the contemporary Daimler CD6, individual examples of which proved to be extremely variable in quality.
Roger Cox
16/08/17 – 06:52
I apologise Peter for omitting the Guy Arab. I well remember the Hong Kong Arabs while living out there in the mid-1980’s. They would storm up Stubbs Road on the route on the Island over the mountain to Aberdeen. At the summit they would be boiling profusely but by the time they had thundered down the other side and had chance to cool down a bit they were ready to return. The same can be said about the DMS’s. London offloaded them over there in large numbers saying the were unreliable or some such excuse. They operated quite happily for CMB in far more taxing conditions than London. 30deg of heat, mountainous terrain, severe traffic congestion and some ‘enthusiastic’ handling by the Chinese drivers.
Philip Halstead
17/08/17 – 07:19
I think I might have got on well with the bus drivers in Hong Kong, as my colleagues used to say my style of driving was ‘enthusiastic’! I suppose they were right. Southampton to North Lancashire or the Southern end of the Lake District as a day trip . . . Yes, some of them used a different word!
Pete Davies
17/08/17 – 07:20
Interesting to see mention of Guy Arabs in a thread on Leyland Tigers. Have no personal memories of either as too young but I have pictures of my grandfather stood in front of both a Guy Arab and a Leyland Tiger TS8 while he worked for Thames Valley. Pictures of Thames Valley liveried Guy Arab’s I can find but a Tiger TS8 with ECW B35R coachwork in Thames Valley livery seems to be more of a challenge.
Andrew Stevens
18/08/17 – 06:32
Andrew: that was Thames Valley’s golden age—at least for enthusiasts! There are also some pictures of TV TS8s in the later pages of Thames Valley 1931-1945 and near the beginning of Thames Valley 1946-1960, both written and published by Paul Lacey. The last of the TS8s were withdrawn in October 1954. As a young passenger I loved the “woody” sound of the engine, the groaning in second gear, the gentle whine in third and the big Clayton heater on the front bulkhead.
Ian Thompson
17/05/19 – 07:13
When the TD 32-131 Mann Egerton bodies were built they had 31 seats, but one was removed to give the conductor more room, I think in the mid 1950s. London roads were narrow, and the 26ft x 7ft 6 in size was standard at the time. Luggage pens are a recent idea! The comment about route 240A – originally Edgware to Hale Lane Mill Hill later extended to Mill Hill East Station, the low bridge at Mill Hill station preventing double decks from Mill Hill to Edgware. TDs originally alloc to EW as 240/240A. If LT had completed the 1935-40 works programme that they should have done the link from East Finchley via Mill Hill East, Mill Hill Hale Lane to Edgware of the Northern line would have replaced the LMS steam line for the Northern line to link up with the route to Golders Green. When the Mill Hill bridge was rebuilt when M1 opened at the southern end, a new bus station was built under the main line at Mill Hill, and route 240A which had had TDs from 1949 to 1962, then RF’s was withdrawn and covered by an extension of route 221 from North Finchley to Edgware with Routemasters.
Mark Jameson
18/05/19 – 06:13
26ft x 7ft 6in was standard for double deckers, but the standard size of a PS1 was 27ft 6in x 7ft 6in. If London Transport’s were really only 26ft long, that would go some way to explaining why they only had 31 seats, but it seems most unlikely.
Peter Williamson
19/05/19 – 07:25
Peter is right. The LT TD class were entirely standard PS1 buses having an overall length of 27ft 6ins on a wheelbase of 17ft 6ins. The usual wheelbase for a contemporary 26ft double decker was 16ft 4ins. The erroneous 27ft length figure for the LT TD class comes from the usually accurate Ian’s Bus Stop site. A few examples of 17ft 6ins wheelbase PS1/4 chassis for the then new permitted length of 27ft for double deck bodywork were taken by Birch Bros in 1951.
