Tag: Leyland Tiger TS

Southdown – Leyland Tiger – AUF 851 – 51 (551 from 1937)


Copyright Jack Turley/Dinnages

Southdown Motors Services
1934
Leyland Tiger TS6T
Short Bros. B40C (B39C from about 1946)

Two of these impressive and handsome vehicles (51 & 52) were purchased in 1934 for the Eastbourne to Beachy Head tourist service. The local authority would only allow the service to operate with single-deckers, so Southdown decided to buy the largest single-deckers available at the time, which, by law, had to be 30 foot long six-wheelers. Long-time Leyland adherents, they settled on the fairly rare TS6T (T standing for Trailing Axle), which enabled them to carry 40 passengers on the profitable route. A further two (53 & 54) were bought in 1935, this time TS7T’s.
Originally fitted with Leyland 8.6 petrol engines, they were all fitted with 8.6 diesel engines in 1940. Despite their luxurious appearance, they were considered to be buses by Southdown, bearing the name in letters rather than “real writing”!
After their hard lives, they were all withdrawn from service in 1952.
The photo shows 551, in about 1950, about to depart from Eastbourne Pier and grind its way up to the top of Beachy Head. Note the driver in his summer uniform.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

29/05/11 – 17:46

What truly magnificent vehicles, and even further enhanced by the cream side destination boards. My own experience of the ascent on service 97 to Beachy Head is confined to the delightful open top Guy Arabs in the 1960s – and there’s scarcely any need to go into detail about the delightful acoustics of that journey !!

Chris Youhill

29/05/11 – 19:15

Yes, the austerity Guy Arab II’s were converted to open-top around 1950-51 and some re-engined with 6LW engines for the Devil’s Dyke/Beachy Head services. The service became 197 around that time, too. The open-toppers were used all along the South Coast, even a couple on Hayling Island. They lasted until about 1964.
Unlike the TS6T’s, the basic Guys were regarded as coaches and given ‘Southdown’ side panels in ‘real writing’!
A 1964 film, The Chalk Garden, has Hayley Mills and Deborah Kerr boarding one of them, with it pulling away.
I don’t know how extensive the rebuilding of the bodies was, but they always looked impeccable, right to the end. Southdown were a class act.

Chris Hebbron

30/05/11 – 06:25

So true Chris H, Southdown were exactly as you say – “a class act.” The winning combination of high quality handsome vehicles and impeccable maintenance was perfected even further by perhaps the most dignified of all liveries in such very pleasing colours.

Chris Youhill

31/05/11 – 11:40

…and what about the Harrington Cavalier coaches with only 28 seats for there road cruises.

Roger Broughton

31/05/11 – 11:58

By the late 1960s, the Devil’s Dyke service was operated with convertible ‘Queen Mary’ Leylands. At Southdown, vehicle allocation, (including when the tops were to be removed), was decided by the Engineering Department rather than the Traffic Department, unlike other companies I knew, a practice that didn’t always contribute to efficient traffic management. Their policy on which style of company name to apply to any particular vehicle or type, was inconsistent.
I am well aware of Southdown’s reputation amongst some enthusiasts, and I have no desire either to offend anyone or spoil their image of the company. Certainly Southdown itself thought it was a ‘class act’, a view it didn’t hide from its BET neighbours.
However, at the risk of being thought sour, I remain to be convinced that Southdown was anything out of the ordinary. From an enthusiast’s point of view, its fleet was less interesting and in some ways less operationally imaginative than, for example, neighbour M&D’s fleet. For instance, I always thought M&D’s AEC Reliance coaches with ZF 6-speed gearboxes were decidedly better for both drivers and passengers than Southdown’s Leyland Leopards with Eaton 2-speed axles.
The standard of maintenance and turnout was high, granted, but the same could be said of pretty well all major operators; their livery was attractive, (even though the capital letter version of the name was distinctly old-fashioned), but, again, the same could be said of many other operators.
By coincidence, this posting follows one of Richard Fieldhouse’s lovely postings: – a West Yorkshire K6B. Having been involved at close quarters with the management of both companies, I have little doubt about which of them was operationally the ‘class act’. From a management viewpoint, West Yorkshire would win hands down every time. Sorry if I have upset anyone.

Mr A Non

01/06/11 – 08:21

I don’t have any professional reason to hide my identity but, in confidence, I can pass on similar comments from friends in the industry.
The professional perspective and that of the enthusiast often differ and I have spent hours with professional friends explaining cogently why certain things had to happen which leave enthusiasts in a spin – including the splitting up of that sacred cow, London Transport.
Personally, I couldn’t agree more about the superiority of the ZF Reliance (and M & D). I also include Southdown and Ribble amongst the all time greats – but one of my professional friends pointed out (with proofs and from personal experience) that both were basket cases when sold off by NBC at privatisation. […..and then there was the criminal end of those proud coach operators Yelloway and Sheffield United Tours (aka National Travel East) under the leadership (?) of ATL Group.]

David Oldfield

01/06/11 – 13:30

Mr Non,
You know, you should never speak ill of the dead!

Chris Hebbron

16/01/12 – 17:35

I was born and lived in Southdown territory for over 50 years and drove for them for almost 22 years at their Eastbourne depot from 1969 so worked quite a few trips to Beachy Head but I regret only with the convertible PD3’s, except for a couple of “memorable” trips with a Bristol LD6B borrowed from BH&D for a summer season. The lack of performance was embarrassing so much so that drivers on the local private coach companies complained to the management of their sluggish efforts to climb the steep twisty road up out of Eastbourne. The company was definitely a “class act”, although conservative in it’s choices the vehicles were always solid reliable and very comfortable with well upholstered higher backed seats in an attractive patterned moquette, the same standards were maintained until the end of the PD3 deliveries after that they got pretty much what they were told as did all NBC companies. We felt at Eastbourne that our standards of maintenance and cleaning were higher than any other depot a view borne out when we drove vehicles from other depots (yes we were snobs) but of course all this went downhill as NBC increased it’s stranglehold on the company and things sunk to a low level, a brief respite when it was privatised (so it was a basket case) then came Stagecoach about whom I would rather say nothing. What followed was an extremely sad and messy end to a very proud and respected company but in it’s prime a true CLASS ACT by any ones definition.
R.I.P Southdown

Diesel Dave

17/01/12 – 07:07

To be fair, Dave, it may not be (traditional) Southdown but, by all modern standards, Stagecoach IS a class act. It’s just not enthusiasts’ heaven – no one makes vehicles today that are interesting enough!

David Oldfield

17/01/12 – 15:54

Very belatedly, I’ve just seen A Non’s comments above, which, by chance refer to the three companies I knew well in the 1960’s: Southdown, Maidstone & District and West Yorkshire. I was both surprised and gratified to see that views I’ve always had, but have often kept to myself for fear of offending others, are shared by at least one other person. I think he’s spot on. First, I agree wholeheartedly that M&D’s AEC Reliances, with their 6-speed ZF gearboxes, were decidedly superior to Southdown’s Eaton 2-speed axle Leyland Leopards, both to drive and from a passenger standpoint. A Non is absolutely right, in my view, and I was glad to see David Oldfield’s endorsement of his comments. A Non is also correct, I believe, in describing M&D’s fleet policy as being more imaginative than Southdown’s. M&D didn’t always get it right, (as their sad experience with the Albion Nimbus and the early Atlanteans demonstrates), but they displayed a greater concern for their passengers and staff than their conservative southern neighbours.
I agree with him, too, in his assessment of the management and management style of Southdown. They certainly made no secret, to their BET neighbours at least, of their own superior opinion of themselves. M&D and Southdown operated a number of long joint services with each other – to the point, unusually, of each company’s staff operating the other’s vehicles – but the relationship between the two managements was not especially close or particularly friendly. M&D’s Traffic Department co-operated more closely with East Kent, and both regarded Southdown as stand-offish. M&D was a pleasant company whose staff enjoyed intimate working relationships; Southdown was not.
A Non’s right about the influence of the Engineering Department at Southdown over matters that at other companies were regarded as Traffic Department issues; that policy caused unnecessary operational problems and costs, and made for relations between Traffic and Engineering that were often strained and always distant, as I know from personal experience.
Finally, A Non is totally correct in his judgment that West Yorkshire were a better managed company than Southdown. Southdown had a clumsy and inefficient management structure that may have flattered its own perceived superiority, but it cost more money than it was worth, it made decision-making difficult, and it had seriously demotivating consequences. In their own way, the Traffic Department at West Yorkshire had a high opinion of itself as Southdown’s did, but with one major difference: they were justified in their opinion. As a number of correspondents have pointed out, enthusiasts’ recollections of those days are sometimes coloured by memories of nicely turned out vehicles in smart liveries, perhaps ones they didn’t often come across and which therefore have extra nostalgic value. The managerial realities of the companies involved, however, does not always correspond with those recollections. I’m very sorry if I have offended any Southdown fans, but A Non raised important and valid points that were worth making even if they are often left unsaid.

Roy Burke

17/01/12 – 16:00

I’m assuming, David O, that your comparison is with the other big groups and am genuinely interested in learning in what respects it outshines the others. You’re right about the lack of ‘interesting vehicles around today, although ‘bottom fishing’ around the small independents sometimes produces the odd gem!

Chris Hebbron

17/01/12 – 16:01

Sorry, David. I totally disagree about Stagecoach. I have worked for this operator in the past, and now have to put up with a very poor and unreliable bus service through my village to the neighbouring towns. The Stagecoach maintenance budget is greatly over constrained, with buses suffering from extended silly faults that could be easily fixed with suitable finance. The basic obligation of a bus operator is to run the service(s) safely and reliably with clean, inviting vehicles. This is impossible if maintenance standards do not measure up. Deregulation gives bus operators carte blanche to run what they like and charge well above a reasonable margin in fares. Stagecoach has just handed out £340m to shareholders with Brian Souter and Ann Gloag personally getting £88m between them. A bit more on maintenance would be more appropriate. The present structure of our public road and rail transport industries is a disgrace.

Roger Cox

17/01/12 – 17:57

I am but a humble professional musician/music teacher with a PSV who has spent many (many) years driving buses and coaches (and preserved vehicles) on a part time basis.
I am never “opinionated” because all my comments are considered and based on fact and verifiable material. Different managers, companies and sheds may occasionally fall short of the mark; politicians may ensure that expensive initiatives funnel investment into city areas and away from the rural population but Stagecoach has been vilified, often unjustifiably, for being Stagecoach. [I am talking about the mature company, not the young “pirate”. I am talking about the experience of industry professionals and real passengers alike.] You may not like them – that is your prerogative – but that is not my point. Only Stagecoach and Go-Ahead consistently win awards and plaudits from within and without the industry. It is on material like this – gleaned easily from publications like Route One and Bus and Coach Buyer – that I base my comments. …..so yes, Chris, I am comparing with other groups. And, Roger, it doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with you substantively and everything else. …..oh and, I don’t – and never have – had shares in Stagecoach or any other company.

David Oldfield

18/01/12 – 06:30

A number of interesting comments in this thread about the superiority or otherwise of certain operators but I will just confine myself to pointing out that if you go today to the exact spot where that photo was taken, you will find that the view is unchanged sixty years later (including the lamp post in the background) and that you may still board a bus there for Beachy Head although it may well be a Scania double decker of Brighton & Hove. A visit to Eastbourne is recommended for the annual running day in August which usually includes journeys to the top of Beachy Head in a PD3, a journey I first made some 45 years ago (and have the tickets to prove it).

Nigel Turner

18/01/12 – 06:31

In the area I live in, First Group operate the majority of services, with a few contributed by Stagecoach. These days, I much prefer to travel on a Stagecoach vehicle – their service locally seems generally more efficient, and cleaner. I could almost be attracted to modern buses! That is not say that First are inefficient or grubby, but they are not in the same ball park as Stagecoach in this neck of the woods. In general, the First Group local stock consists of some quite elderly vehicles too, which doesn’t necessarily help the image – but would the man in the street or on the seat notice this? Like some others here, I have no shares in any bus company and have never been employed in the bus industry – just an observer and passenger for many years, and this is just a personal view. Others can disagree, and we will enjoy reading the other comments in due course.

Michael Hampton

18/01/12 – 06:32

Thx, David, for quoting the source of your knowledge about Stagecoach (and Go-Ahead). Roy, it’s not whether ‘fans’ are offended by ‘insider’ comments – I think most of us contributing on this site are old enough to appreciate and welcome measured and informed opinion, rather than be influenced by one livery over another or the smartness of staff uniforms! I, for one, find these discussions useful and I’m sure I’m not alone. One point: for many years, Southdown had a fare-sharing arrangement with Portsmouth Corporation, which involved route-balancing swapping of buses (but not crews) at the year-end, usually with Portsmouth buses on Southdown routes, but I recall one year where the reverse happened. Do you know what the relationship was like between these two organisations?.

Chris Hebbron

18/01/12 – 08:39

A very interesting observation, Nigel, on the unchanged scene after 60 years. almost unheard of in this day and age! And thanks for the heads-up on the annual running day. Where would the actual date be published?

Chris Hebbron

18/01/12 – 10:36

Interesting observation, Chris H. Anyone who’s ever read any of your comments on this site will recognise both your own extensive knowledge of the industry and your commitment to remembering and understanding it in an informed, realistic and unbiased way. On the other hand, there are lots of comments, (you can see some on this page alone), that rate an operator on the basis of well turned out vehicles. Maybe I’m just sour, but I do rather disagree with the often expressed view – it’s clearly your view, and I have no wish to upset you – that Southdown were a ‘class act’. Operationally, they were often inefficient in many regards, certainly in comparison with West Yorkshire. The company seemed to encourage compartmentalisation, which in turn discouraged contact and co-operation both internally and with other operators. I found this to be in stark and unhelpful contrast with everything I had seen at WY and had been taught at Maidstone & District.
I can’t, I’m afraid, throw any light on your question, Chris, about the arrangements at Portsmouth between Southdown and Portsmouth Corporation, since I was based in Brighton. However, illustrative of the point I’m trying to make is that in the year and more that I was there, I never met my ‘oppos’ at Portsmouth – my request to do so being summarily dismissed as unnecessary – and I recall speaking to them by telephone only once. Similarly, although we were of course heavily involved in the Brighton Pool with Brighton Corporation and Brighton, Hove & District, those operators were regarded more as competitors for staff than as partners. No need was seen for contact between us at an operational level, (the idea was variously described to me as ‘dangerous’ and ‘pointless’), and there was none.
This site is not the place for gripes, however, and I repeat my apologies for attacking a reputation that many fans hold dear. I just don’t share their view. I have a high opinion of the operational efficiency of West Yorkshire, and I have the fondest possible regard for Maidstone & District, ramshackle and bumbling though they occasionally were. Both were, in my experience, better, (and definitely happier), operators than Southdown.

Roy Burke

18/01/12 – 13:56

But apologies are not required, Roy. We speak as we find and, as some of us have already intimated, the professional and insider view can be at variance – sometimes wildly – with that of the enthusiast. My conversations with “professional” friends constantly bear this out.
[Personally, I would go for M & D and their Reliances – as well as their later Leopards.]

David Oldfield

18/01/12 – 14:47

I simply have to agree with Roy`s comments on the general points of difference between the likes of “West Yorkshire” and “Southdown”!
The former Tilling group`s whole ethos was based on rugged efficiency with a truly Northern “no nonsense” approach, whereas the more noted BET operators always seemed to have the politicians ideal of putting on a “frontal image”.
Certainly, in the Bradford area, I do not recall any adverse comments about West Yorkshire, it being an organisation which always commanded public respect. Unlike YWD, or Hebble, its vehicles were always well turned out, and the whole operation exuded total efficiency! Other members of the group always gave me the same impression, United coming to mind.
I know I am only an enthusiast, and not an “insider”, but I was well tuned in to public awareness, and this feeling was, I am convinced, well founded.
It is a great pity that this superb bus operator is no longer with us, as, like so many of our industrial organisations of the past, we did not know what we had until we lost it!
As for the present day, I have no interest whatsoever, and suggest we stick to the 1970 (or earlier?) limit for this website!

John Whitaker

19/01/12 – 05:29

Well my comments certainly provoked a varied response from several of my fellow contributors to the site which I suppose is one of it’s aims.
I have to admit my admiration for Southdown came about during my childhood from the early forties so has no basis in administration or engineering just my personal experience of being a passenger and enjoying that. I did drive some of M&D’s Reliances and Panthers on the Heathfield cycle routes and enjoyed the experience very much, if I am honest I must admit that I found the Reliance a far better vehicle to drive whether in bus or 6 speed coach form. If you took the time to master it the Leopard with 2 speed axle was a pleasant vehicle to drive but the engine never pulled as willingly as the AEC motor and the controls were much heavier. So you see my admiration for Southdown is purely a childhood fantasy and I will be forever prejudiced, thank you for indulging me.

Diesel Dave

19/01/12 – 05:30

If I could add my two penny worth to the debate. My vote for the class acts in the North East would go to three independents, OK Motor Services of Bishop Auckland, who had a mixed fleet of new and used vehicles and ran a number of services, and two one route operators, Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval and Economic of Whitburn, the last two had very similar livery’s, but all three had beautifully turned out vehicles, and you could almost set your watch by them. As for Tilling and BET, I worked for a BET company, Tynemouth and Wakefields a subsidiary of Northern General, our buses weren’t bad but Tyneside, another Northern subsidiary, were always immaculate, to be fair they had a much smaller fleet than us, but if I’m honest I would have to say that in general, United ‘a Tilling group company’ always seemed to have a slight edge, but nostalgia’s not what it used to be

Ronnie Hoye

19/01/12 – 17:49

The Eastbourne Running Day has its own website www.eastbourne-classicbus.co.uk
This years event is on Sunday July 22nd and already promised are a Leyland Lion, AEC Regent III, Regent V and Leyland PD2 ex Eastbourne Corporation, a Guy Arab and Leyland PD3 ex Southdown and an AEC Reliance ex East Kent. I spent my holidays on the South Coast in the 1960s and 1970s riding on buses like these, well perhaps not the Leyland Lion!

Nigel Turner

27/01/12 – 06:29

As a former West Yorkshire engine fitter from 1969 to 1987, it is heart warming to read comments about the company being a ‘class act’. From an employee’s viewpoint WY was a good company to work for, with generally good facilities and working conditions. Certainly the atmosphere at the Central Works, Body Shop and Head Office complex in Harrogate was that of one big family – with all that that entailed! Despite the loss of our attractive ‘Tilling’ bus and coach liveries under the aegis of the NBC, and the relentless governmental drive towards one-person operation (whether it was needed or not), WY remained a well-run and generally well-respected organisation. Brian Horner was general manager for much of the NBC period, and in many peoples view built on the standards inherited from his predecessor Jack Lawrence. The bus and coach fleet were generally well-presented for what was a fairly large concern, and the tours and holidays side expanded under the steady hand of the late Gordon Dingle. The company had a policy of continued modernisation of its depots, offices and other facilities, and in the 1980’s WY devised a preventive maintenance programme to further improve vehicle reliability, based on its own data relating to component life. West Yorkshire was indeed a ‘class act’ and is sadly missed by many including me. I still have a soft spot for Southdown though……..

Brendan Smith

28/01/12 – 06:34

The Southdown engineering department had a penchant for cutting down the engine output of their Leylands and Guys, ostensibly in the interests of fuel economy, and road performance suffered. I recall particularly a ride in the early 1960s on one of the very fine Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IVs on route 23 between Crawley and Brighton, a service that encountered some pretty stiff gradients across the Weald and over the South Downs. The governor of the bus’s 6LW had been reset to such a low level that the engine died back at a road speed of about 25 mph. I always felt, also, that Southdown Leylands decidedly lacked sparkle on the road.

Roger Cox

17/12/12 – 11:24

I worked twice as a PSV conductor for Southdown Portsmouth depots in the 1960s as a student holiday job and had the fortune to work on PD3s of the time. As for the comment for nowhere for the conductor to stand, it was the custom for them to stand at the front at the base of the staircase and lean through an open window area over the left hand side of the front mounted engine to keep the driver company (obviously when safe to do so). The driver’s job was not so lonely and isolated as it is now on the ‘one-man bands’ that we have all become used to! Some drivers hated the PD3s especially the so-called’one-leggers’ which had a gearing system at the top of a long metal column that was mounted on the floor. I must admit that I considered the introduction of the ‘Queen Marys’ in 1957, when I was still attending school, unusual in the light that most bus companies were looking towards the introduction of Leyland Atlanteans in their fleets. Many PD3s came up to Leicester, where I now live, having being purchased by ‘Confidence’ for use for transporting the then British Shoe Corporation employees.

Bernard Robinson

03/01/13 – 11:23

I used to be a frequent traveller on Southdown route 12 (Brighton/Seaford/Eastbourne) in the late ‘forties and early ‘fifties. But this is about route 126 that went over Hindover Hill. I was assured in my youth that the name “High and Over” was a form of “Hindover” that was invented by the Southdown company in the ‘thirties.
Can anyone shed light on that?

Ron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

15/04/16 – 07:08

Just another comment about Route 126. It ran from Eastbourne to Seaford, via Polegate and Alfriston. I used to use it as a local holiday treat when resident as a kid in Eastbourne during the late 1940s, early 1950s. My real memories of it were grinding up the long hill of ‘High and Over’ just before entering Seaford on the last lap of the journey, but another memory is that I think there must have been a vehicle size restriction on this service because I do remember how tight the parking was for the bus stop outside the famous old pub in the centre of Alfriston. Also, as an aside, does anyone else remember Drusilla’s on this route – a well known tourist destination on this route for its zoo and miniature railway?

Roger Bristow

East Yorkshire – Leyland Tiger – RH 206 – 158


Copyright Bob Gell

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1930
Leyland Tiger TS2/6
Ransomes C26R

I received these shots the other day from Bob Gell with the following comment

“I visited the Coach and Bus Show at the NEC, Birmingham on Wednesday, and found this amongst the new vehicles.
It has been restored by Bluebird Vehicles, based in Scarborough, and is absolutely immaculate.”

Bob also sent a shot of the interior and the Leyland Motors Ltd manufacturer’s plate that is mounted on the bulkhead they are below. Fortunately under the Fleet Lists section of the site there is Keith Eastons very detailed East Yorkshire Motor Services 1926/1941 fleet list which is where I got the information from.
Keith also states that East Yorkshire disposed of 158 in January 1946 to Adamson Bros in Hull it would be interesting to know its history from then.

Photographs and Part Copy contributed by Bob Gell

09/10/11 – 11:10

RH 206_int_lr

Interior shot

RH 206_bulk_lr

Manufactories Plate

09/10/11 – 08:11

What a stunning vehicle.

David Oldfield

09/10/11 – 09:38

As David rightly says, stunning indeed – perhaps someone could arrange a visit for a certain leading manufacturer in Northern Ireland to show them what a relaxing and dignified interior looks like eh ??

Chris Youhill

I can only echo Chris and David’s comments. I sometimes wonder what the essential design elements are about half cab single decker buses and coaches that in almost every case produce such elegant vehicles. The basic layout is fairly much identical yet the details are fascinating and how much more interesting they look than today’s standardised vehicles.
It would be interesting to see what a modern designer would do to create a 2012 “half cab”..I know it would never pass current operating regulations but it could bring up some forgotten details that might guide the current box designers toward making better looking vehicles. Also, as Chris says, that Ransomes interior is both practical, peaceful and stylish with Art Deco themes..a vast improvement on the multicolour gaudy finishes now offered.
Well done to the people who restored this bus and hopefully it will be out on the Rally scene next year!

Richard Leaman

09/10/11 – 16:52

Richard, a modern designer would come up with a sub standard half cab.
There are several examples of modern vehicles in the coaching side of the industry which are really reincarnations of an earlier era: Mercedes Vario – Bedford OB Mercedes Atego – Bedford SB Toyota Coaster – Bedford VAS
but they are (very) pale imitations of their classic forebears.

David Oldfield

09/10/11 – 16:54

Follow the restoration story here at this link

John Darwent

10/10/11 – 06:36

Thank you John for that link. I’m sure I can speak for many when I say that this superb restoration leaves us aghast with admiration for such thorough and painstaking work, and for the incredible finished product.

Chris Youhill

10/10/11 – 06:37

It’s always wonderful to see a lovingly restored vehicle and this is of the highest order. And nice to see a Ransomes’ body, too, for they retired from bus/coach body building not too long after this example. Their efforts always seemed to be of a good quality.
I’ve no idea when Clayton Dewandre heaters came upon the scene, but this would appear to be an early fitment, I’d hazard.

Chris Hebbron

10/10/11 – 06:38

What a beautiful bus. All credit to the restorers. Looking forwards to seeing it on the rally scene.

Philip Carlton

12/10/11 – 06:15

According to PSVC Fleet History PB17, the Tiger was next recorded as a caravan at Wilfholme Landing, (situated on the River Hull, between Beverley & Driffield) by 1953, and still there by 1980. It was purchased by Carl Ireland (I believe) at an unknown date and he did £15,000 worth of restoration, and then resold it to Bluebird. Bluebird’s website shows it as a bungalow, and on the low-loader in the state which it was purchased from Carl Ireland by Bluebird. Congratulations all round, I think. One small grouse though, I do wish it had carried East Yorkshire instead of Yorkshire Tiger!

Keith Easton

12/10/11 – 06:16

There were two of the three Ransomes bodied coaches in use as caravan homes on Mr R Harrison’s farm down Wilfholme Lane not far from Aike, (yak-a-baca-arram – in east yorks speak) 1st turn after Watton.
There is a confluence of river and drain at the site it was very damp the day I went Feb 1983. so its just as well the bodies were covered in to some extent. My note that day says EY 156/158. I think Mr Harrison said they went there from EYMS via a dealer.

Ian Gibbs

25/08/14 – 07:31

Does anyone know the present whereabouts or status of this vehicle, please?

Keith Easton

27/08/14 – 17:32

Bluebird Vehicles has ceased to trade. //www.route-one.net/industry/finance/scarboroughs-bluebird-vehicles-administration/

Stephen Howarth

29/08/14 – 06:25

According to Bus & Coach Preservation magazine
“The assets of Bluebird Vehicles have been bought by Manchester based Woodall Nicholson”.
Now if I remember correctly in my days there they were a Halifax company that built hearses, John Stringer is the man who will correct me if I am wrong.

Peter

29/08/14 – 16:38

Quite correct Peter.
William Nicholson (born 1822) was a Master Coachbuilder based in Scarborough during the 19th Century. He retired during the 1880’s after which he and his wife ran a boarding house in Castle Road.
One of his sons – Thomas Woodall Nicholson (born 1848) moved to Halifax during the 1860’s to be apprenticed to a local coachbuilder there – probably that of George Piercy of Carlton Street.
George Piercy (born 1805 in Harrogate) was the son of Thomas Piercy (born 1779) who had established a coachbuilding business in Halifax in about 1820, building horsedrawn cabs and carriages.
In 1873 Thomas Woodall Nicholson bought out Piercey’s business and changed its name to his own.
He died in 1914 and the business was taken over by his son Charles Woodall Nicholson. Under new management from 1933 the company, whose works were situated in Well Lane at the bottom end of the town, began to specialise in building hearses mostly on Rolls Royce chassis in the early days, though later on other types – particularly the Austin Princess 4-litre.
In the early postwar period the company briefly diversified into bus bodywork, and a small number of very smart examples were built on such as Bedford OB and Commer chassis. An example of an OB for Tillingbourne Valley can be seen here: //www.sct61.org.uk/tl689  
They also rebuilt or refurbished a considerable number of prewar single deckers – particularly for United Automobile.
In 1983 the company passed to the Hawley Group, which two years previously had bought Woodall Nicholson’s main rival in the hearse business – Coleman Milne of Westhoughton. The Halifax works was closed in 1987 and all manufacture moved to the Coleman Milne works.
Coleman Milne was owned by the Henley Group, which in turn passed to the Hawley Group in 1985. Hawley sold Henley and Coleman Milne to Plaxton’s in 1989, but Coleman Milne was sold to a management buyout team in 1992, Woodall Nicholson becoming the holding company for Coleman Milne, Mellor Coachcraft and Mellor Vancraft. Recently the company has passed to a private investment syndicate.

John Stringer

02/07/15 – 05:40

After Bluebird Vehicles went into receivership RH 206 passed (according to PSVC) to Miller, Scarborough.
Apparently it has now passed to Barry Dodd the Lord Lieutenant of North Yorkshire

John Wakefield

03/07/15 – 06:33

Thanks, John for the updated information on ownership, where does Barry Dodd (the Lord Lieutenant of NY) reside? Any idea of dates?

Keith Easton

31/07/15 – 06:38

According to my records 156 and 158 passed to a Mr Arthur Dixon of Washington Street, Beverley Road, Hull in 1948 for use as caravans. They were purchased by the EY Tiger Group in February 1982 (not sure who they were). 156 was broken up by August 1987. 158 then passed to a Mike Kilvington in August 1987 – he was based in Rugby but I believe he originated from the Hull area. His intention was to have it restored by apprentices at one of the colleges in Hull and I believe he was responsible for the work carried out. It then passed to Carl Ireland – it was then advertised in Bus and Coach Preservation Magazine in August 2001 for £8000 before passing to Bluebird. Bluebird also had at least one other vehicle their apprentices were to work on – I think this was a Southdown TD.

Rod Hebden

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

09/12/20 – 11:56

RH 206 is very much alive and well and living safely in North Yorkshire.

David Hunter

06/01/21 – 07:18

I am currently engaged in writing a book about the Preserved Buses of Hull. RH 206 features in this book and indeed is the oldest survivor of either of the main Hull fleets. A question to David Hunter (re your comment 9/12/20); do you have access to the vehicle, know of its whereabouts (I totally understand if you can’t divulge) or could you provide a recent photograph of the vehicle? Thanks in anticipation.

David Greenwood

10/01/21 – 07:11

Sadly, Barry Dodd, Lord Lieutenant of North Yorkshire was killed in a helicopter crash near Boroughbridge in May 2018. He lived with his wife Frances at Carlton in Cleveland. I know of no history of RH 206 since I’m afraid.

John Darwent

19/01/21 – 09:53

I was aware of the demise of Barry Dodd, but like you John I have no further information on RH 206, when the PSVC history of East Yorkshire (PB33) was drafted by myself, the ownership was still with Barry Dodd. I would be grateful if anyone has any subsequent information.
I note that David Greenwood about his forthcoming book on the preserved buses of Hull; being a ‘Ull lad myself (‘Essle Road), I would be interested in the fruits of his labour. I am an avid KHCT/EYMS fan. (See my article on Hull Bus routes on this website).

Keith Easton

Hunter’s – Leyland Tiger TS7 – JR 6600 – 21


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

H W Hunter and Sons
1937
Leyland Tiger TS7
Burlingham B35F

Another from H W Hunter and Sons. New to them in 1937, JR 6600 was a B35F Burlingham bodied Leyland TS7.


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

In 1954 it was rebodied by Roe as a B39C, so it was around at the same time that they had the two Titans previously featured on this site. I’m 90 per cent sure they had another Leyland single decker but I’ve been unable to trace it. They had a well deserved reputation that you could virtually set your watch by Hunter’s bus and in addition to the service vehicles they had several coaches, all either AEC or Leylands, although they later switched to Volvo’s. They escaped becoming part of NBC and the formation Tyne and Wear PTE didn’t seem to affect them much because their depot and most of their single route were outside the area controlled by the PTE, so they were more or less allowed to continue much as before. However, I think the PTE may have had some influence over the decision to extended the route from North Shields beyond Seaton Delaval to Cramlington. The huge operational area covered by the pre NBC United Automobile Services empire was split up into bite size pieces prior to deregulation, and the area between the Tyne and the Scottish border was taken by the newly formed Northumbria Motor Services, which was in effect a management buyout. I don’t know the circumstances and I wouldn’t want to speculate, but Hunter’s became part of the Group. I think the name lived on for a while, but Northumbria Motor Services were swallowed up by Arriva, and like many other independents the name of W H Hunter is now, just a memory.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

02/01/13 – 07:50

That is a huge seating capacity for a pre-war halfcab chassis. Was it extended when it was rebodied?

Eric Bawden

02/01/13 – 09:06

I wondered the same thing, Eric, and whether it was a road-based prototype for the “economy class” of airline seating!

Pete Davies

02/01/13 – 16:53

A most interesting question and 39 does seem a lot of seats in a vehicle of , presumably, 27’6″ length. One would also have thought that a centre doorway, as opposed to the previous front door, might well reduce the available seat space. However, as the two pictures are taken from roughly very nearly the same perspective the vehicle appears to be the same length in both. It was unusual, but not unknown, for normal length prewar buses to have more seats than ideal space wise, but even the lightweight Lions and Cheetahs taken over by Samuel Ledgard in 1943 from the widow of G.F.Tate of Leeds originally seated 39 in their delightfully “old fashioned” Barnaby bodies.

Chris Youhill

02/01/13 – 17:35

I’ve given all the information I could dig up and I don’t know if the chassis was extended, but two things look a bit odd to me. On the Burlingham body, if you look at the seat above the letter ‘H’ it gives the impression that the seats over the rear axle appear to be facing each other, also the wheels are fairly flush to the side of the vehicle, whereas on the Roe they look to be slightly inboard, as if the vehicle has been widened but the axle length is still the same, or is it me?

Ronnie Hoye

03/01/13 – 06:42

7ft 6in chassis and original body, but 8ft new body, perhaps? If so, this wouldn’t be the only one, and they do look a bit strange!

Pete Davies

03/01/13 – 06:43

Ronnie, I would agree with you that the Roe body looks to be 8ft on a 7ft 6in chassis. The Roe body also has an extra window bay to the Burlingham.
It may be purely body style but the body overhang behind the rear axle looks to be longer on the Roe than the Burlingham, certainly, there are almost two full window bays behind the wheelarch on the Roe as against one and a half on the Burlingham. Also if you look at the exhaust tailpipe it appears to be in the same position in relation to the back axle in both photos yet the Roe overhang, again seems to be longer.
Don’t know if it has anything to do with this discussion but the front wheels, despite the absence of nutguard rings on the Roe are different to those fitted in the Burlingham picture.
As this body looks to be almost identical to the centre entrance Guys placed in service with Darlington in 1952/3 I wonder if Hunter’s body was tagged on to the end of the Darlington order, a not uncommon occurrence at Crossgates Works, even into the ’70s. I believe Darlington’s Guys were B41C.
Has anyone a nearside view of this bus with its Roe Body?

Eric Bawden

03/01/13 – 06:44

My word Ronnie, I think you’ve hit on two very pertinent features there for sure. As regards the “inset” appearance of the wheels on the newer Roe body I would say that the replacement coachwork is eight feet wide on the unaltered 7’6″ TS7 chassis – a practice not unknown in the 1950s especially on single deckers. Your enlargement of the area above the “H” of Hunters reveals an interesting feature. The “A” shaped seat back appears to be a joint support for two seats, one on the left facing backwards and sharing the floor space with a forward facing seat to its rear, and one forward facing one on the right. The four passengers (plus four on the nearside) in the facing seats no doubt had to put their feet on the slightly intruding wheel arches. What a wonderful vehicle in both its forms !!

Chris Youhill

03/01/13 – 06:44

To my eye the newer body looks longer, though not much – the typical Roe high domed roof tends to mask this. 39 seats would mean 10 rows on the offside, 9 on the nearside (both including the rear 5-some). That sounds awfully tight in a length of 27’6″ – minus the length of the cab and thickness of the front bulkhead.

Stephen Ford

04/01/13 – 06:45

Eric, I typed JR 6600 into my search engine, and up came the Park Royal vehicles site with what I take to be a pre delivery photo taken outside the Roe works. It differs slightly from the Darlington Guy’s, as when the doors are closed they form part of the side of the bus, whereas the platform steps are exposed on the Darlington vehicles.

Ronnie Hoye

04/01/13 – 17:43

Thanks Ronnie. After initial difficulty I eventually found the photo on the PRV site.

Eric Bawden

08/01/13 – 07:43

Noting some of the concerns about fitting 39 seats into a body on a 27’6″ chassis so earlier today I took a tape measure to a 1952 Roe body with 39 seats although in an overall 30′ chassis and with a front entrance.
Putting 5 seats across the rear leaves a further 34 seats to be fitted by means of 9 sets of double seats on the offside and a further 8 sets with a door on the nearside. The length of the 30 footer from the bulkhead to the rear of the final pair of seats at the back was 22’2″ with a gap of 29.5/30″ between the same points on adjoining seats.
Turning to the shorter 27’6″ bus under review and allowing the same distance from the front of the bus to the front bulkhead and similar requirements for the rear seats leaves circa 19’6″ for the 9 sets of seats on the offside and would allow a gap of just 25″ between the same point each set of adjoining seats. To me that looked a rather tight fit so I measured the seat gaps on some others from that era and all of them were in the range of 28-30″
To reduce the gap between seats by 5″ in the 1950’s would, in my opinion, require smaller seat bases or otherwise it would be impossible to fit your legs in.

Andrew Beever

08/01/13 – 10:42

Andrew: Although I agree that the extra seats would be tight, your maths isn’t quite right. With a 39 seater there are 10 rows of seats on the offside, including the back bench seat. On the basis of your 29.5″ pitch, the overall length of the 10 rows is 295″. Reduce this by 30″ and the ten seats now have to fit 265″, so the pitch is 26.5″. You lose 3″ per seat, rather than your 5″. I am over 6 ft, with long legs, and can just make a 27″ pitch with a thin seat back with my legs straight, so the average person just about fits OK. Birkenhead used to cram 66 seats onto a PD2 without a 3 seater at the back or a television seat. Those seats were definitely tight for me, and probably similar in pitch to 39 on a 27ft 6in half-cab.

Alan Murray-Rust

08/01/13 – 13:43

Alan, I had specifically excluded the rear seat in my calculations since this seat is effectively fitted into the rounded rear corners with very limited foot room under it.

Andrew Beever

15/01/13 – 16:38

Hunter 21 (JR 6600) had Roe body GO3827 when rebodied 3/54.
Hunter 20 (JR 4901) was the other Leyland TS7 10076 rebodied by Roe in 4/53 (GO3680) also squeezing in 39 seats in its centre entrance body.
Hunter did, of course, have another new Roe body. Fleet number 30 was WTY 843J, a Leyland PDR1A/1R, with H43/29D bodywork

MikeB

16/01/13 – 10:48

Thanks for that, Mike, I’ve been racking my brains, or rather what little is left of them. I knew they had a second Tiger but I’ve been unable to find any records of it, did that also start life with a Burlingham body?

Ronnie Hoye

27/01/13 – 10:30

I’m sure the two single deckers were VTY 360. & TJR 573 this I have to say is from memory many years ago.

Bob Mandale

28/01/13 – 08:40

Bob, MikeB came up with the answer I was looking for. The two single deck buses you refer to were the replacements for JR 4901 and 6600. They were AEC 2MU3RV’s with Plaxton Highwayman B45F bodies. TJR 573 was delivered in 1961 followed by VTY 360 in 1962 (VTY 360 is coming as a separate posting soon). By that time the chassis on 6600 was nigh on 25 years old and from the registration I would estimate 4901 to be a couple of years older. Apart from WTY 843J mentioned by MikeB, I believe the two AEC’s were the last new service buses bought by Hunter’s as all subsequent vehicles were either coaches or D/P’s

Ronnie Hoye

03/04/15 – 05:31

Further to the discussion on the length of JR4901 and JR6600, can I mention that these two vehicles had a rear-facing seat for five across the front bulkhead, and an inward facing single seat on the nearside just ahead of the centre entrance. I also think that the entrance may have been slightly wider than usual for a single decker of that era. I don’t recall the seat spacing as being especially tight, so I would think that the bodies must have been slightly longer than the original ones. Incidentally, the original body above is described as B34F, but it looks to me to be a coach body.

John Gibson

01/06/15 – 07:20

There was a heck of a lot of rebodying of half cab single deckers from 1950 as 38 or 39 seaters once the 27′ 6″ maximum length had been increased to 30 feet.
However, all is not what it seems. Buses for Trent, North Western and Potteries and the Hunter’s Tiger were lengthened without any alteration to the wheelbase of 17′ 6″ because the C&U Regs until 1961 allowed the rear overhang to be up to 50% of the wheelbase. With a front overhang of about 2′ 3″ on, say, Gardner 5LW or AEC 7.7 engined chassis – and a rear overhang of 8′ 9″ it was legal from 1950 to go to a maximum length of 28′ 6″ without altering the wheelbase. This was sufficient for another row of seats to be fitted without any alteration of the chassis.
Indeed, I think it was only Yorkshire Woollen District which actually lengthened the wheelbase of its Willowbrook bodied PS2s to 18′ 9″ when they lengthened them to 30 feet.
Many of the Leyland PS’s taken over by Potteries in the early fifties were already 28′ 6″ long and may have inspired PMT to rebuild its Weymann single deck 17′ 6″ wheelbase OPD2s by substituting a 2′ 7″ long bay for a possible rear door with a 3′ 7″ long standard window bay, increasing the seating capacity in the process.

Alan Johnson

Ideal Service – Leyland Tiger – DJ 6058


Picture R F Mack

Ideal Service (R Taylor & Sons)
1934
Leyland Tiger TS6C
Roe B36R (1949)

Parked in Beastfair Pontefract awaiting for the return journey to Barnsley is DJ 6058 which was a Leyland TS6C new to St Helens corporation in 1934 with an English Electric B32F body. Acquired by R. Taylor and Son Cudworth who ran the Ideal Service with H. Wray of Hoyle Mill Barnsley. Re-bodied in 1949 with a Roe body, the entrance was changed to the rear and four extra seat were added making it a B36R.
When Taylors sold out to Yorkshire Traction, Wray’s continued to run the service until they too sold to Yorkshire Traction. Stagecoach ran the service Barnsley to Pontefract via Upton until the 29th January 2017 and they have terminated the service at Brierley. The service from Hemsworth to Pontefract via Upton in now run by M Travel with a vastly reduced service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Brian Lunn

17/02/17 – 06:48

To see what it looked like originally, there’s an official picture of a sister vehicle when new at: //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com/

David Beilby

17/02/17 – 08:54

Thanks for the picture David, it is interesting to see the difference. I don’t remember it any different to the Roe body, so it may have been re-bodied soon after Taylor’s bought it.

Brian Lunn

17/02/17 – 08:55

David – thanks for the link to the official photo of the St Helens version of this TS6c. However, what amazes me is the sign in the back window stating “Dick Kerr Coachwork”. I realise they had an historic link with English Electric but I don’t think I’ve ever known of, or seen, reference to a Dick Kerr bus body before.

Paul Haywood

17/02/17 – 14:40

Yes, Paul, an interesting observation. I knew of the ‘Dick Kerr’ connection to trams, and the English Electric connection to both buses and trams, but it appears (if we believe Wikipedia) that the DK operation was a member of the EE group, and that the name is not a variation of Richard Kerr, but a combination of Mr Dick and Mr Kerr, so “Dick, Kerr”.

Pete Davies

17/02/17 – 14:41

By the time of this picture DJ 6058 seems to have lost its torque converter, as there is no long tank visible on the front bulkhead. I guess the conversion to normal gearbox would have been made at the same time as the rebodying.

Ian Thompson

17/02/17 – 14:42

According to the Peter Gould fleet list, this vehicle (and one other of its type) were rebodied while with St Helens, and lasted until 1954 with that fleet.

David Call

Lancashire United Transport – Leyland Tiger – CTF 425 – 116

Lancashire United Transport - Leyland Tiger - CTF 425 - 116

Lancashire United Transport
1938
Leyland Tiger TS8
Roe DP30F

Lurking in the back streets by Victoria Coach Station in 1961 and by then owned by a contractor is former Lancashire United Transport No.116, CTF 425, a Leyland TS8 of 1938 fitted with Roe DP30F bodywork. It was withdrawn by LUT in 1957. Lancashire United became a confirmed Leyland customer from the mid 1920s, though it dabbled in the thirties with some Dennis types, and built up a substantial fleet of TS7 and TS8 Tigers and TD Titans. It even managed to obtain examples of the relatively rare Tiger TS11 model during 1940. The LUT TS Tiger fleet was withdrawn during the 1950s, but three of the 1938 TS8s, CTF 434/5/8, originally fitted with Roe B32F coachwork, were refurbished in 1953 and equipped with full fronted Plaxton FC35F bodies. They lasted until 1960.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

11/06/18 – 06:00

Three further TS8s from 1939 were also rebodied by Plaxton in the same way as CTF 434/5/8. These were DTF 266/9/70. I was involved in a failed attempt to preserve DTF 269, the body of which was eventually lost to a fire.

Peter Williamson

12/06/18 – 06:34

Thanks for that additional information, Peter. I have tried to find a picture of these rebodied full fronted Tigers without success. A photo of a line up of some of LUT’s earlier 1936 TS7 batch with Metro-Cammell coachwork may be found here:- www.flickr.com/photos/gmts/16162288018

Roger Cox

12/06/18 – 06:35

After being a Leyland devotee before the war LUT pretty well forsook the make in the postwar era and became mainly wedded to Gardner engined products. Guy was the staple manufacturer for double deckers but they also had some late model Arab coaches and single deck buses from Atkinson. They were unusual for a Lancashire based operator in having no PD2’s and had only one batch of PD3’s bought at a time when Guy was having financial difficulties and the Arab was withdrawn from the market for a time. There were small batches of Daimlers but when Guy got back on its feet after the Daimler take-over they quickly returned to the Arab and even tried a solitary Guy Wulfrunian. Opo and Bus Grants spelled the end of the front engined bus and LUT ended its independent days buying the Daimler Fleetline.

Philip Halstead

14/06/18 – 07:46

There is a photo of one of the rebodied TS8s with a subsequent owner at www.flickr.com/photos/

Peter Williamson

15/06/18 – 08:23

Similar vehicle CTF 423 is preserved in the care of the Aire Valley Transport group I was lucky enough to have a ride on it a few years ago It gave a very spirited performance and was a pleasure to sample.

Chris Hough

24/11/21 – 06:31

CTF 423

Here is a picture of preserved TS8 CTF 423, LUT No. 114, taken at Croydon during the HCVC Rally of May 1972.

Roger Cox

Wilts & Dorset – Leyland Tiger – CHR 485

CHR 485

Wilts & Dorset Motor Services
1940
Leyland Tiger TS8
Harrington C32R

When photographed at Brighton during the 1970 HCVC Rally, this ex Wilts & Dorset Leyland Tiger TS8 with a Harrington C32R body had been converted into a caravan. A picture of this coach in its former glory may be found here:- www.flickr.com/photos/ingythewingy/ 
Although the TS8 had nominally been superseded by the TS11 in October 1939, the exigencies of war resulted in deliveries of the earlier version continuing well into 1940, when Wilts & Dorset received fleet number 186, CHR 485. The TS11 model became quite a rare beast from its eventual appearance in mid 1940, and when Leyland turned its entire resources over to war work, the final 22 TS11 chassis emerged as a result of the “unfrozen” programme in 1942. They were the very last TS type Tigers to be produced. The photo in the above link of CHR 485 in Wilts and Dorset ownership is interesting in that the glasses of the destination indicator and those of the fixed passenger windows below the opening sections have flush rubber glazing, which must surely have been a later modification to the 1940 vintage Harrington body. The same features are evident in its later guise as a caravan. I can find no current record of CHR 485 being in existence today.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

23/10/18 – 12:59

Sad that despite having survived till 1970 this superb Tiger is no longer around. Let’s hope that it’s sitting somewhere awaiting restoration, though I feel that that’s unlikely.

Ian Thompson

29/10/18 – 06:08

Sorry, the 1993 Slater/Godwin preserved buses list has it as “chassis only” with the South Lancashire Transport Society in 1986.

Peter Williamson

02/11/18 – 07:05

How come that W&D, I presume a Tilling company, ordered Leyland chassis and not Bristol ones?

Chris Hebbron

02/11/18 – 12:09

In pre-war days, W&D had close links with Southdown, and followed it’s purchasing policies rather than Tilling ones. Indeed, at the outbreak of war, a fair number of Southdown Leyland TD1s found their way to W&D because of the need to cover wartime service personnel services in their area [Salisbury Plain]. The 1942 split of T&BAT arrangements left W&D in the Tilling camp rather than BET.

Michael Hampton

02/11/18 – 12:10

The reason why is surely that this was before nationalisation, and I recall reading somewhere that before WWII Wilts & Dorset was heavily influenced by Southdown – a Leyland fan.

David Wragg

03/11/18 – 06:42

Thx for that, Michael/David. For some reason, most Tilling group company bus photos I’ve seen have always been Bristols, hence my query.
My experiences with Bristol buses has been very limited and greatly influenced, negatively, by the pre-war Bristol K’s on the Isle of Wight, noisy, vibrating things, which made me think that Wilts & Dorset were very wise in buying Leyland vehicles in preference! My other was riding in more civilised post-war Bristol K’s from Fareham Bus Station to Warsash when, living in Southsea, I was posted, for some bizarre reason, to RAF Calshot for a my last 6 weeks National Service!

Chris Hebbron

03/11/18 – 06:44

There were actually quite a few BTC companies that used Leylands – Cumberland, Lincolnshire, Western and Southern National – and even Bristol Tramways & Carriage Company itself!

Stephen Ford

04/11/18 – 07:24

The Slater/Goodwin book told a partially correct story.
The chassis of CHR 485 came to the South Lancashire Transport Society from the well known Bolton PSV dealer – Lister’s. It was acquired as a donor vehicle to aid the restoration of Ribble Tiger 209 (1400), RN 7588. Upon completion of RN, the chassis of CHR was stripped for anything useable and scrapped locally.

Mike Norris

12/12/18 – 08:49

United also had many Leylands, especially fir their London coach services.

Peter Stobart

26/01/19 – 10:02

I remember seeing what remained of CHR 485 at an open day where preserved buses were kept around 1983 at Bolton (Smithills Road rings a bell, please forgive me if I am incorrect). By this time only the front of the cab & chassis remained, great pity when it looked so nice thirteen years earlier & could have been put back to original

Andrew Spriggs

I was very surprised to see a photo of CHR 485 on your page. I and two colleagues bought this bus from Norman Myers (Bolton) in 1973 with a view to restoring it. It was our first venture into restoration however the enthusiasm of our then youth was not matched by any experience and we had to admit defeat after at couple of years when we sold it on. CHR 485 was rebodied by Portsmouth Aviation hence the unusual window panels, however it had been later altered to transport racing cars so the interior had been stripped out and the rear end substantially modified. The engine still ran when we acquired it however we discovered a substantial crack in the block which looked very expensive for our modest means. I have always wondered what became of it and am pleased to learn that it was a useful donor vehicle although would have loved to see it back to working condition.
Time moves on and I have since acquired and restored a Warrington PD1 (EED 5) that I have now owned for over 40 years and which continues to attend several rallies each year.

Phil Clark

Rye Hill Park Coaches – Leyland Tiger – CKO 979

Rye Hill Park Coaches - Leyland Tiger - CKO 979

Rye Hill Park Coaches
1936
Leyland TS7
Harrington C32F

In May and June 1936 Maidstone & District bought twenty oil engined Leyland TS7 coaches with Harrington C32F bodies. These proved to be excellent purchases, but after thirteen years, including wartime, of hard work, the Harrington bodies showed signs of fatigue. During 1949 and 1950 the entire batch was equipped with new Harrington coachwork, again C32F, and went on to give upwards of eight further years of service. Seventeen were sold to a dealer in October 1958, but the remaining three survived until 1962. CKO 979, Maidstone & District No. CO 576, was one of those sold in 1958, serving first with Diadem Coaches of Luton before passing, in July 1960, to Holmes of London SE15, t/a Rye Hill Park Coaches. It is seen here in 1960 at New Addington, a large Croydon council estate on the extreme south east border of the then borough with Kent. A year later it went to Taylor of London SE1 who kept it for just four months before selling it to Elm Park Coaches of Romford in August 1961. Its subsequent history is not recorded. I acknowledge the Classic Buses website as the source of the historical detail.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

05/09/21 – 06:00

Even for a rebodied bus 25 years’ service is very creditable. I far prefer the restrained curvature of the Harrington body seen here to the exaggerated swoops that some builders went for, particularly after WWII. Do any photos of CKO 979 after rebodying survive?

Ian Thompson

06/09/21 – 07:26

Ian, I presume that you mean “Do any photos of CKO979 BEFORE rebodying survive?” This photo was taken after rebodying!

Nigel Frampton

06/09/21 – 07:31

DKL 591

Not of the same group, Ian, but here, nevertheless, is a 1936 M&D TS7 with original Harrington body. I used to travel from Kingston-on-Thames to Portsmouth on Southdown’s TS7s with this body type in the early to mid 1950s, although theirs had a sliding sunshine roof, on one occasion being opened at the Hindhead tea/toilet layover on a hot summer’s day!

Copyright: R.Marshall, via Bristol Vintage Bus Group

Chris Hebbron

Wigan Corporation – Leyland Tiger TS4 – EK 8867 – 81

Wigan Corporation - Leyland Tiger TS4 - EK 8867 - 81

Wigan Corporation
1932
Leyland Tiger TS4
Santus B32R

This picture of Wigan No.81 was taken on a dismal day in Brighton in May 1969 during the HCVC Rally. It shows a Leyland Tiger TS4 with locally Wigan built Santus B32R body delivered in October 1932. It has been established that the peculiarly Wigan name of Santus did not indicate a link between the coachbuilder and the confectionery manufacturer – see comments on this OBP page:- www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?
The TS4 appeared in 1931 to compete with the AEC Regal, ironically designed by John Rackham who had created the Titan and Tiger models before migrating to Southall. It had a more robust chassis with a larger engine than the TS3, a new “silent third” gearbox, a fully floating rear axle and triple servo brakes. In this 1969 picture EK 8867 is wearing a very faded Wigan livery which must surely be the one it wore upon withdrawal some time earlier, whenever that was – I have no Wigan fleetlist. It is now in proper preservation.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

15/02/22 – 05:48

More than anything, this photo shews how bodywork progressed in the seven or so years after 1931! What on earth was a ‘silent third’ gear: no screaming, or some sort of synchromesh device?

Chris Hebbron

16/02/22 – 06:26

The Leyland Tiger TS1, 2 and 3 versions were fundamentally the same chassis differing only in overall length and wheelbase. The TS4 was the single deck equivalent of the Titan TD2 and shared the same engine and transmission specifications. The four speed sliding mesh gearbox of the earlier models was replaced by one in which third speed was in constant mesh with helical cut gears giving a much quieter sound output, hence the “silent third”. This gearbox was subsequently employed in all standard Tigers and Titans up to the TS11 and TD7. Wigan No. 81 was delivered in October 1932 when Leyland’s initial diesel engine of 8.1 litres was only just being produced in quantity, and most of these went into Titans, so it almost certainly began service with the 7.6 litre petrol engine. The fact that it was still wearing its Wigan livery, albeit much faded, in 1969 suggests that it may well have been converted to diesel power during its period of service with the Corporation. The Leyland oil engine, later increased in capacity to 8.6 litres, was closely based upon the petrol unit, both being of overhead camshaft layout, and the compact design, unlike competing AEC and Gardner offerings, meant that it would fit within the same bonnet length as the petrol engine.

Roger Cox

05/03/22 – 06:24

A belated thx, Roger, for your comprehensive reply.

Chris Hebbron

Exeter Corporation – Leyland Tiger – EFJ 666 – 66

Exeter Corporation - Leyland Tiger - EFJ 666 - 66

Exeter Corporation
1938
Leyland Tiger TS8
Cravens B32R

Here we have Exeter City 66, a Leyland Tiger TS8 with Cravens B32R body and dates from 1938. It is owned by Colin Shears and is part of the West of England Transport Collection based at Winkleigh in North Devon. Here it is seen in the late evening working a run to the Top of Pennsylvania during the Exeter nocturnal event on 13 /11 2011. I realise there are already pictures of this vehicle on the site but I thought the night shot was a little different.
The next Winkleigh open day is Sunday 6th October 2013 and the next Exeter Twilight event is Sunday 10th November 2013.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones

02/06/13 – 08:44

A beautiful photo indeed Ken, and the bus stands out bright and clear in the night sky – quite an exceptionally professional exposure I think. On seeing the destination display I couldn’t help being reminded of some other famous buses – in very similar Southdown hues – which carried us to “97 Top of Beachy Head.”

Chris Youhill

02/06/13 – 18:26

The destination Pensylvania reminded me when staying with my aunt and uncle in the village of Staincross to the north of Barnsley, there was a district called California. Are you familiar with this area Chris?

Jim Hepburn

03/06/13 – 07:12

Not sure, but I might have been down this road before – Lincolnshire Road Car used to serve Jericho, Jerusalem and New York, amongst other quaintly-named, and even more quaintly-pronounced places!

Stephen Ford

03/06/13 – 07:13

Photography of the highest standard. Ken never fails on subject and quality.

Alan Coulson

03/06/13 – 07:13

Yes Jim, I have visited friends at Staincross so I know it from that point of view. However the only bus route into Barnsley that I ever worked was the South Yorkshire Road Transport one from Pontefract via Hemsworth, Shafton, Cudworth and Oakwell – jointly operated with Yorkshire Traction who took over all the mileage when we were sold out to West Riding in 1994

Chris Youhill

03/06/13 – 08:38

EFJ 666_2

Here is the same wonderful machine in daylight at South Cerney in 2011. Very rare to see open platform single-deckers at shows. This one was a treat to see and hear.

Les Dickinson

04/06/13 – 06:59

There’s also a Jericho in Bury and Rhodesia near Worksop.

Geoff Kerr

04/06/13 – 09:41

EFJ 666_3

“I’d say that preserved rear-platform single deckers are rare period.
Here’s a photo I took of LGOC T31/UU 6646. at Cobham 2007, showing the rear platform in all its glory.
Interesting that the rear offside seat went all the way to the rear of the vehicle.
Was this common on all such vehicles?”

Chris Hebbron

04/06/13 – 09:42

….and Hermon, Hebron and Bethlehem, all in Pembrokeshire…

Les Dickinson

04/06/13 – 14:29

A ten minute walk down the road Geoff and you’ll find First has a farestage on the T6/T8 Mankinholes Circular called ‘California’.

John Stringer

20/06/13 – 07:11

Could someone tell me what were the oblong tanks for, below the N/S/F windows please?

Andy Fisher

20/06/13 – 13:23

That looks to me like an Autovac, which was in simple terms a header tank for the fuel. I’ve not had much involvement with it but I think it was a system that used induction vacuum to pull air up from the tank. By having a reservoir it ensured that some fuel was available to start the engine.
The alternative method of getting fuel up from the tank was the lift pump which was usually on the side of the injection pump.

David Beilby

20/06/13 – 13:23

In answer to Andy Fisher, the tank is an Autovac, which draws fuel up from the tank and supplies it as needed to the fuel injection pump. I always feel that a visible Autovac adds something to the look of a bus.

Ian Thompson

20/06/13 – 13:24

No problem Andy – the little tanks are for for the “Autovac” fuel lift system and for some reason, even in my infancy, they fascinated me and caused me to view any vehicle without one as “lacking in style.” Of course in those early days I had no idea what they were for !!
As can be seen in the photo, the Autovac caused little forward distraction to front seat passengers on the Exeter Leyland, but on the Bristol/ECW it is more visible from within – no detriment of course to the superb Bristol vehicles.

Chris Youhill

20/06/13 – 13:26

Andy the tank is the Autovac. Some useful info here: //www.autovac.co.uk/

Phil Blinkhorn

21/06/13 – 09:59

One other preserved rear entrance open platform saloon is an Edinburgh Guy Arab III with MCW bodywork. For some of its life it was a driver trainer and had the offside bulkhead window removed. A ride on this proved perhaps the noisiest ride on a bus I’ve ever had! Five cylinder Gardners and Halifax hills don’t mix!

Chris Hough

28/07/14 – 17:52

There is a link here to another Craven bodied single decker, but this one is a Karrier built for the LMS and operating on the road in Stratford upon Avon but it then went by rail to Blissworth.
There is a family similarity about the contours of the cab/roof area. //railwaywondersoftheworld.com/coaches-rail.html

John Lomas

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

26/02/19 – 07:13

Used in the final 10 minutes of the film “The Remains of the Day” 1993, where Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson say their farewell…..Sorry if someone else has already listed this.

Mark Jordan

Wakefields Motors – Leyland Tiger TS8 – FT 45?4 – 104


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

Wakefields Motors
1937
Leyland Tiger TS8
Duple C30F

Regarded by many as one of the most handsome pre war coach bodies, if my information is correct, Wakefields Motors had four of these C30F Duple Coronations. FT 45?4/7 – 104/7, from 1937, were on a Leyland Tiger TS8 chassis.


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

They were followed in 1938 by another four FT 49?? 108/11 but this time they were AEC Regals. The four Leylands spent some of the war years in Ireland on hire to the Northern Ireland Transport board. As a young boy of eight, I can remember them still being at Percy Main when the Beadle rebodied AEC’s arrived in 1952 & 53, they were eventually replaced by the Weymann Fanfares of 1955. I know many quality pre war chassis were being rebodied at that time, but I don’t know if these were. For those who don’t remember real money, the board at the front of the AEC, two shillings, 2/- is 10p.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

14/04/15 – 06:59

The AEC is standing at the top of South Parade outside Quickfalls shop in Whitley Bay, who acted as booking agent for Wakefields. After picking up here, the coach would then pick up at Cullercoats, Tynemouth, North Shields and Wallsend. When I was quite young, my parents took me on a half-day tour to Rothbury and Cragside, for which one of the pre-war half-cab coaches was provided, although I don’t recall if it was an AEC or Leyland. For a tour like this going north, it would start in Wallsend with Whitley Bay as the last picking up point. The route then taken would be via Seaton Delaval and the A192 to Morpeth and then I think via Longhorsley, returning via Scotsgap or vice versa. On the return journey, there would be a break at Morpeth. Rothbury was a place we enjoyed visiting, and we used at one time or another all three tour operators from Whitley Bay, the others being Priory Coaches and United. Priory’s booking agent and pickup point was at the foot of North Parade, and as far as I can recall, they provided a Bedford SB coach. United, of course used the Bus Station and regrettably, provided a bus for the tour, admittedly an almost new Bristol LS5G, but still a bus, which did nothing to improve my parents low opinion of United as a tour operator. On the whole, we much preferred Wakefields, and over the years travelled on most of their day and half-day tours.

John Gibson

15/05/15 – 06:36

Just a shot in the dark on behalf of a friend. Did Wakefields by any chance have a livery of green and cream, presumably before WW2, and did they ever have any of the Northern GT “SE4 or SE6 saloons ??
Any pertinent information would be much appreciated thanks.

Chris Youhill

15/05/15 – 11:40

Chris, this is a round the houses way of saying, I don’t know, but my records would suggest that if the livery was green, it would be pre 1929. Wakefields Motors Limited, were founded in 1919, their depot was in Church Way North Shields. At a date I have not been able to establish, they became a subsidiary of The London North Eastern Railway Company. In 1929, they bought Archer Bros of North Shields, this increased the fleet to 43, 31 buses and 12 coaches, also in 1929, L.N.E.R purchased an interest in the NGT group, the name was retained, but Wakefields adopted NGT livery, and all new vehicles were numbered as part of the Tynemouth & District fleet, but they had a ‘W’ prefix. In 1933, NGT opened a new depot at Percy Main, all T&D and Wakefields vehicles were rehoused there, the remaining Wakefields vehicles were also renumbered. The Wakefields depot was sold off, as was the T&D depot in Suez Street North Shields, but the depot in John Street Cullercoats became the NGT group body and paint shop. Percy Main had eight NGT/SE6 vehicles, FT 3478/3482 – 82/86 from 1935; and FT 3903/3905 – 90/92 from 1936; to the best of my knowledge, none of them carried the Wakefields name. Until 1970, the name was in continuous use on some service buses, and all Percy Main based coaches, in 1975 all P/M vehicles were renamed Northern.

Ronnie Hoye