West Riding Automobile 1953 Leyland Tiger PS2/12 Roe C35F
EHL 336 affectionately known as Ethel, or if you are a chemist like me Ethyl, is a Leyland PS2 from 1953 with imposing 30ft x 8ft body. It was new as West Riding fleet number 725, and saw further use with Boddys of Bridlington before being preserved. Restoration was completed in 2011, the year this picture was taken. It is part of the Roger Burdett collection. This year (2013) sees it celebrating its 60th birthday – that’s only a year younger than the photographer.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
08/08/13 – 07:36
Oh what a beauty! Needs little elaboration.
David Oldfield
08/08/13 – 07:36
Part of Roger’s collection, and among Ken’s photographs. Only three words: “Thank you” and “Excellent!”
Pete Davies
08/08/13 – 10:25
I was the last Boddys driver to drive EHL from Hull to Brid were it was parked awaiting collection by the West Riding Group.
Ken Wragg
08/08/13 – 19:16
What a gem! Everything about the design and livery works a treat. The preservationists have done a superb job.
Chris Hebbron
09/08/13 – 07:51
Charles H Roe at his/their best. I suppose this is basically the same body as Lancashire United’s Guy Arab III coaches.
David Oldfield
09/08/13 – 15:28
To my eye, this body looks similar to Duple C33F of 1948 of Wallace Arnold as shown on this site under Duple.
Jim Hepburn
10/08/13 – 09:26
Lovely coach – a true classic. It’s interesting however that the two biggest independents in those days, West Riding and LUT, both went for traditional half cab coaches when the underfloor models were virtually the norm for most operators of heavyweights by 1953. If West Riding had adopted a similar traditional approach a few years later for their double-deck purchases and gone for the Guy Arab rather than the revolutionary but ill-fated Wulfrunian (as indeed LUT did) they might have stayed in business as an independent for a lot longer. But then hindsight is something we don’t always have.
Philip Halstead
10/08/13 – 12:00
To be fair, Philip, they did. They had quite a few Arab IVs prior to the Wulfrunians – which were a joint development (even at the prompting of West Riding). As you said, interesting – but more so that they had the same design of Roe coach.
David Oldfield
10/08/13 – 18:42
The Arab IVs seemed to go on and on. We have discussed the Wulfrunian here before, but it could be that despite its inherent flaws, the winners are writing the history books. Leyland produced a bit of a lemon too in the Atlantean, but had the clout to make it work. Now what was wrong with the AEC Q?
Joe
11/08/13 – 06:53
There’s a challenge to the engineers and traffic officers…. What made the Fleetline so good and reliable and the Atlantean a lemon? Why was the AN68, in contrast, so good? What was wrong with the Q? Just too advanced for its time.
David Oldfield
26/08/14 – 06:46
Where is EHL 335 on view? I missed it at Heath Common.
Tim Thomas
26/08/14 – 10:44
I attach a couple of views of the wonderful West Riding vehicle which already appears on your pages. These were taken by myself at the Gloucestershire Steam Fair in 2011. It not only looked good but sounded good too.
Les Dickinson
26/08/14 – 13:48
Sister vehicle EHL 335 is now in the care of the Aire Valley Transport Group.
Chris Hough
Joe asks why the Q didn’t work. It did as a single decker, provided it was London Transport running them. The double decker did not work for a number of reasons but the main ones were cooling or the lack of and the dodgy handling that was caused by the short rear overhang and the single rear wheels. The combination of the two and other weaknesses led to most being sold early. Geoffrey Hillditch’s Another Look at Buses goes into some detail, including looking at the maintenance records of the sole Halifax bus.
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.
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.
Ribble Motor Services 1936 Leyland Tiger TS7 Duple C31F
FV 5737, Leyland Tiger TS7, was new to W C Standerwick of Blackpool in 1936. In the post-war years, she was transferred across to the Ribble fleet and given this Duple C31F body in 1950. In the renumbering system, she became 753. She’s seen at the Winkleigh Open Day on 7 October 2012.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
14/02/15 – 13:03
It would appear that the petrol engine was changed for an oil engine at the same time as the re-body. It still kept its starting handle but I doubt it was ever used I have heard you could do yourself some serious injury if you didn’t get it quite right.
Trevor Knowles
14/02/15 – 17:14
These had been rebodied with 8ft. wide bodies, resulting in a nice looking coach, just spoilt by having to retain the original 7ft 6in. wide axles and resulting in the wheels being set back inside the wings and wheelarches. I suppose since prewar chassis were never built to the greater width, the wider axles would not be available as they would be with postwar models.
John Stringer
14/02/15 – 18:21
Trevor, I have heard a similar story about fairly serious consequences arising if the user of the starting handle didn’t keep out of its way! Yes, John, it does skew the appearance a bit, but I suppose the other side of the coin is that the wheels are further into the mudguards, so there’s less of a “splash factor” for other road users to suffer.
Pete Davies
16/02/15 – 06:48
I served a 6 year apprenticeship at Ribble main workshop Frenchwood Preston till about 1961. I do remember foreman Sid Liptrot using a heavy chain to start a diesel Tiger, must have been mad. The petrol engine Cheetah sounded like a Rolls Royce. Probably best company in UK.
Raymond Hollebone
24/09/19 – 04:22
New in 1935 and rebodied in 1948 (I should know I spent my childhood on 753 rallying every weekend).
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.
