…of vehicles pre-1970
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.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
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.
Pete Davies
Fleet number 1 in the small Caerphilly concern was allocated to this less than common Massey-bodied single-deck Leyland PS2/5. Chassis number is 520623 and the body is number 2083 B35F. This image was taken at Bus & Coach Wales in Merthyr Tydfil 14/09/2014.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
12/01/17 – 06:46
Very nice, Les! Thank you for posting. I particularly like the shape of the ‘valance’ forward of the door.
Pete Davies
Seen in the summer of 1961 on a rather run down estate beside Mitcham Common is PRE 900, a Leyland Tiger PS1/1 delivered in July 1948 to Green of Brierley Hill, near Dudley, West Midlands. The C33F body is by Burlingham. I do not know its subsequent history and I cannot see any evidence of legal ownership lettering on the nearside of the vehicle. No trading name is carried either, which suggests that by 1961 it had become a contractors machine. No doubt the registration PRE 900 is now a “cherished” number borne by an otherwise undistinguished motor car, the owner of which is completely oblivious to its decidedly more worthy ancestry. Some history of the Green coaching business may be found here:- www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/63
The following web page gives a broader view of past coach operation in the Black Country:- www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
09/04/17 – 18:00
Didn’t stay long with Green as it passed to Alexandra of Enfield in December 1948.
Keith Clark
10/04/17 – 06:44
Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what the angled black oblong on the bulkhead and the item leading from it are?
Phil Blinkhorn
10/04/17 – 06:46
Very interesting photograph, although the vehicle is anonymous, it appears to retain a working destination blind, set to PRIVATE. Also, I believe this is the first half cab coach I’ve ever seen with a near side mirror in that position, attached to the front wing. I suppose that’s what you call a wing mirror in every sense of the description!
Chris Barker
10/04/17 – 09:36
Rear view mirror, Phil.
David Oldfield
10/04/17 – 09:37
Thank Chris, a mirror it is!
Phil Blinkhorn
10/04/17 – 09:37
This wing mirror subject has come up before in discussions about the Margo Regal 1. Nearside mirrors weren’t officially required in the early post war period when PRE 900 was built, and this style of half canopy left only the wing as the place to fix one. This mirror does look like a home made effort, but driving without one must have been decidedly nerve wracking.
Roger Cox
11/04/17 – 07:15
LGOC/London Transport, at least up to LT/ST’s had a metal stick with a small knob on the top affixed to the wing for an indication of parking near the kerb These buses and later ones had rear view mirrors on the bodywork on both sides at roughly driver level. These items can been seen on my photo of the Tilling ST here: www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/
Chris Hebbron
11/04/17 – 07:16
Others fitted nearside mirrors as shown here: www.flickr.com/photos/
Stephen Bloomfield
11/04/17 – 17:38
Nearside mirrors on canopied vehicles work well and give adequate but not great nearside visibility.
I have a number of non canopied single deckers and nearside mirror positioning is standard ie nearside front bulkhead but the angle of the mirror and size becomes really important in making them of any use.
I find myself when driving continually ducking and diving to get max visibility especially for vehicles/cyclists coming up the nearside. A move to convex or larger mirrors only partially solves the problem as this then gives rise to proximity issues.
I had never seen a mirror positioned like on PRE but it does make some sense other than aesthetics
Roger Burdett
12/04/17 – 07:26
I could never understand why London Transport, very advanced in its specifications for “own design” post war fleet, insisted on fitting a minuscule circular mirror for the driver’s nearside visibility. Only the RF class, as I recall, had decently sized rectangular mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. Even the private hire RFWs had the little circular things.
Roger Cox
Following the cessation of hostilities in 1945, the London Passenger Transport Board found itself seriously short of serviceable vehicles, partly through enemy action but equally because of the time expired nature of much of the fleet. To compound the problem, 55 T type AEC Regals and 20 Leyland Cubs were sent to assist in war ravaged Belgium and Germany. To meet the needs of the capital city, the Ministry of Supply (that still oversaw the allocation of resources in the immediate post war period) sanctioned the delivery of a number of standard provincial types of buses to London, which was still taking the tail end deliveries of utility double deckers, mainly Daimler CWA6 plus a few Guy Arabs. Thus between 1946 and 1948 the AEC Regent O661 (STL) and Regal O662/O962 (T), Leyland PD1 (STD) and PS1(TD) appeared on the London scene. From 1st January 1948 the LPTB became the nationalised London Transport Executive, and help began arriving in the form of vehicles on loan from provincial operators, notably Bristols from Tilling group companies, though Tilling itself did not sell out to the government until September 1948. In 1946 LT was allocated fifty AEC Regal O662 buses (7.7 litre engine/crash gearbox – basically the pre-war design) but also thirty one examples of Leyland’s very new Tiger PS1. These eighty one vehicles were fitted with Weymann B33F bodies of unprepossessing appearance, characterised particularly by a front destination indicator box that “frowned” over the top of the driver’s windscreen. In 1948 a further thirty Regals were acquired, but these were of the O962 variety with 9.6 litre engines and epicyclic gearboxes, consistent in specification with the new RT double deck fleet. At the same time another one hundred PS1s came into LT ownership, though these still had the standard 7.4 litre engine and crash gearbox. The 1948/9 Regal and Tiger deliveries were fitted with Mann Egerton B31F bodywork (later reduced to B30F) displaying much cleaner lines than the earlier Weymann bodies. One would have expected the preselector gearbox Regals to have been allocated to the Central (red) fleet, but they all went to Country area garages, while all the crash gearbox Regals and PS1s operated in red livery. Given London Transport’s unenthusiastic attitude to “non standardisation”, these provincial type single deckers clearly earned some measure of respect, for they lasted between ten and fourteen years in LT ownership. Seen above on the A23 Brighton Road during the 1971 HCVC Run is Mann Egerton bodied TD 95, JXC 288, which entered service in May 1949 and was sold in August 1963. In 1965, now in private hands, it undertook a series of extraordinary Continental journeys to Rumania, Hungary, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Hamburg, Helsinki, Lenningrad, Moscow, Warsaw and Berlin, followed, in 1965, by a trip to France and Spain. Then again in 1966 TD95 went off to France, Belgium, Prague, Offenbach, Budapest and Belgrade. Throughout the performance of this amazing machine was exemplary. It then passed into preservation in May 1967 to be restored into its previous LT guise. In that form, as with all Central Area single deckers of its time, the front entrance has no door at the insistence of the Metropolitan Police, who clearly took the Spartan view that the possibilities of a passenger falling out or incurring influenza from draught were rendered insignificant against boarding and alighting delays.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
08/08/17 – 06:07
The seating capacity of 30 seems rather low for a full sized post war halfcab saloon, most provincial versions averaged around 35 seats. Did these TDs have a standing area at the front with inward facing seats or was it a luggage pen which took up some of the space?
Chris Barker
08/08/17 – 08:36
Chris,
I rather think that, in view of Roger’s views on the attitude of the Metropolitan Police, the reason for the low seating capacity lies in that direction, rather than standing area or luggage pen!
Pete Davies
09/08/17 – 06:42
The full service life of these buses shows that LT could successfully operate standard provincial designs when they put their minds to it. This opens up the oft-debated cherry – was the Routemaster really necessary? Would PD2’s, Regent V’s or CVG’s have done the job of replacing trolleybuses and later on the RT family just as well? All were available in semi-auto form which would probably have been a minimum requirement for LT. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow for example seemed to manage and Birmingham even got large numbers of Crossleys to work. Food for thought!
Philip Halstead
09/08/17 – 06:43
I know the Green Line and Country area RF’s had doors, whereas the central area red versions didn’t, was it the same story with these?
Ronnie Hoye
09/08/17 – 06:44
Pete’s comment is true, but it is also relevant to remember that the T&GWU of the time had considerable influence upon the vehicle configuration and seating layout of the LT fleet. These Tigers were used on intensive urban routes where low bridges and other obstructions prevented the operation of double deckers. Free movement of the conductor and easy access/egress for passengers would have been important issues.
Roger Cox
11/08/17 – 06:27
Philip raises an interesting point. Could London Transport have managed without the Routemaster? I think that, yes, it probably could, but some curious features of the London Transport engineering situation have to be taken into account. The RT/RTL/RTW/RM families were designed to be taken to pieces like Meccano for processing through the Aldenham overhaul system. Firstly, however, did LT need a fleet of some 2760 Routemasters in the first place? When the initial deliveries went into service in 1959, LT already possessed a surplus of RT and RTL buses. The last RT deliveries came in November 1954, and 81 went immediately into store until 1958/59 when the RM production scheme was already in progress. Similarly, 63 of the last RTL deliveries were stored until 1958. On the grounds of “non standardisation”, the 120 entirely sound Cravens bodied RTs had already been sold off in 1956 when they were only between eight and six years old, and, by 1961, over 200 of the earliest RTs (discounting the so called “pre war’ machines that were withdrawn in 1955 when they were 13 to 15 years old) had gone when they were only some 10 years or so of age. Nonetheless, ever besotted with its inward thinking, LT brought out the costly Routemaster, claiming that the capacity increase of 8 seats over the RT family was essential for trolleybus replacement. (It seems astonishing now that London Transport seemed utterly exempt from any kind of cost constraint, but the profligate attitude was to continue in later years with the catastrophic Merlin/Swift/MetroScania charade and then the Daimler Fleetline debacle.) Undoubtedly, standard offerings from the manufacturers catalogues could have provided entirely satisfactory fleets for the Capital’s public transport needs, but for the rigid LT engineering system. London Transport did not employ, at its garages, engineers as they were understood by municipal or company bus operators. London Transport had “fitters’. If anything went wrong, that part was simply removed and sent to Chiswick in return for a replacement item. Mechanical analysis was not part of the scheme of things. That was Chiswick’s job. Likewise, body/chassis overhauls were totally centralised at Aldenham, where the chassis and body were separated and sent down different overhaul tracks, the chassis being dealt with more quickly than the bodies. At the output end, the next completely rebuilt emerging body and chassis were put together and given the fleet number of a bus that had just gone into the works. Thus, identifying a London bus by its fleet number was essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, the Aldenham system could have worked equally well with jig built bodywork mounted on a standard provincial chassis type. Indeed, the early Routemasters were exceedingly troublesome, and it took some years of development to make them truly reliable.
Roger Cox
12/08/17 – 07:37
I only travelled on one of these once, on the 240A. I have wondered whether that was part of the original 240 route left for single deck operation after the rest of the route was converted to double deck buses during WWII. I do not recall seeing a standing area or a luggage pen.
I doubt if the standard double deck buses of the mid-1950s would have done the job as London Transport specified automatic gearboxes for the red Routemasters and semi-automatic for the green country area and Greenline Routemasters, probably to provide a mechanically common set of buses for the country area depots. In any case, Greenline drivers sometimes worked a country route when necessary (they were paid the same as the central area crews, which was slightly more than that paid to the country area crews).
That said, I never warmed to the Routemaster. My favourites in the late 1950s and 1960s were the Southdown Guy Arab 4s wit Park Royal Bodywork and Weymann-bodied Dennis Loline IIIs.
David Wragg
14/08/17 – 07:31
The offside seat behind the driver was a single seat on the central area TDs as illustrated here – www.flickr.com/photos/ (taken at a route 227 running day) – think the idea was to give the conductor somewhere to stand without being in the way as passengers got on/off.
Jon
15/08/17 – 07:56
Referring to Philip Halstead’s comment about standard types, the Guy Arab (which, like the others, was available in semi-automatic form) should not be forgotten, particularly in view of the large number operated in Hong Kong. It’s been suggested that if something will work in Hong Kong, it will work anywhere!
As for Birmingham’s Crossleys, they were of the later type with engine design modified by AEC. Apparently they were more successful than the CVD6s that BCT were obliged to take because of a shortage of Gardner engines.
Peter Williamson
16/08/17 – 06:50
Peter, only the second half of the Birmingham Crossley DD42/6 1949/50 order for 260 buses, numbers 2396-2525, had the HOE7/5B downdraught engine. The first 130, numbers 2266-2395, plus the earlier 10 buses delivered in 1946, numbers 1646-1655, were delivered with standard HOE7 engines that were retained to the end. Even so, as you point out, Birmingham regarded the Crossley engine more highly than the contemporary Daimler CD6, individual examples of which proved to be extremely variable in quality.
Roger Cox
16/08/17 – 06:52
I apologise Peter for omitting the Guy Arab. I well remember the Hong Kong Arabs while living out there in the mid-1980’s. They would storm up Stubbs Road on the route on the Island over the mountain to Aberdeen. At the summit they would be boiling profusely but by the time they had thundered down the other side and had chance to cool down a bit they were ready to return. The same can be said about the DMS’s. London offloaded them over there in large numbers saying the were unreliable or some such excuse. They operated quite happily for CMB in far more taxing conditions than London. 30deg of heat, mountainous terrain, severe traffic congestion and some ‘enthusiastic’ handling by the Chinese drivers.
Philip Halstead
17/08/17 – 07:19
I think I might have got on well with the bus drivers in Hong Kong, as my colleagues used to say my style of driving was ‘enthusiastic’! I suppose they were right. Southampton to North Lancashire or the Southern end of the Lake District as a day trip . . . Yes, some of them used a different word!
Pete Davies
17/08/17 – 07:20
Interesting to see mention of Guy Arabs in a thread on Leyland Tigers. Have no personal memories of either as too young but I have pictures of my grandfather stood in front of both a Guy Arab and a Leyland Tiger TS8 while he worked for Thames Valley. Pictures of Thames Valley liveried Guy Arab’s I can find but a Tiger TS8 with ECW B35R coachwork in Thames Valley livery seems to be more of a challenge.
Andrew Stevens
18/08/17 – 06:32
Andrew: that was Thames Valley’s golden age—at least for enthusiasts! There are also some pictures of TV TS8s in the later pages of Thames Valley 1931-1945 and near the beginning of Thames Valley 1946-1960, both written and published by Paul Lacey. The last of the TS8s were withdrawn in October 1954. As a young passenger I loved the “woody” sound of the engine, the groaning in second gear, the gentle whine in third and the big Clayton heater on the front bulkhead.
Ian Thompson
17/05/19 – 07:13
When the TD 32-131 Mann Egerton bodies were built they had 31 seats, but one was removed to give the conductor more room, I think in the mid 1950s. London roads were narrow, and the 26ft x 7ft 6 in size was standard at the time. Luggage pens are a recent idea!
The comment about route 240A – originally Edgware to Hale Lane Mill Hill later extended to Mill Hill East Station, the low bridge at Mill Hill station preventing double decks from Mill Hill to Edgware. TDs originally alloc to EW as 240/240A. If LT had completed the 1935-40 works programme that they should have done the link from East Finchley via Mill Hill East, Mill Hill Hale Lane to Edgware of the Northern line would have replaced the LMS steam line for the Northern line to link up with the route to Golders Green. When the Mill Hill bridge was rebuilt when M1 opened at the southern end, a new bus station was built under the main line at Mill Hill, and route 240A which had had TDs from 1949 to 1962, then RF’s was withdrawn and covered by an extension of route 221 from North Finchley to Edgware with Routemasters.
Mark Jameson
18/05/19 – 06:13
26ft x 7ft 6in was standard for double deckers, but the standard size of a PS1 was 27ft 6in x 7ft 6in. If London Transport’s were really only 26ft long, that would go some way to explaining why they only had 31 seats, but it seems most unlikely.
Peter Williamson
19/05/19 – 07:25
Peter is right. The LT TD class were entirely standard PS1 buses having an overall length of 27ft 6ins on a wheelbase of 17ft 6ins. The usual wheelbase for a contemporary 26ft double decker was 16ft 4ins. The erroneous 27ft length figure for the LT TD class comes from the usually accurate Ian’s Bus Stop site. A few examples of 17ft 6ins wheelbase PS1/4 chassis for the then new permitted length of 27ft for double deck bodywork were taken by Birch Bros in 1951.
Roger Cox
This amazing creation was photographed at the Rotherham rally in August 1976. I wonder what has happened to it since. There are photos on flickr showing it undergoing heavy restoration but no further details. It would be great to see it out and about again. Makes you wonder how it survived until 1976.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
27/04/20 – 07:31
Ian,
There is plenty about these if you go onto MDS book sales website and download (its free to do so) the book – 12 Royal Tigers – Its basically the history of Bellhouse Hartwell and Beccols vis-a-vis the battle with Blue Cars, that brought about the demise of the latter.
Its a great read and heartily recommended!
Mike Norris
27/04/20 – 11:23
….. and the last two Bellhouse Hartwell Landmasters ever were a pair of MU3RV Reliances for SUT. They came between about 22 Duple Elizabethan Reliances and the first of SUT’s 30 Burlingham Seagull Reliances.
David Oldfield
27/04/20 – 12:55
Sadly Ian, you won’t be seeing it out again.
ECP 500 had passed to Frank Cowley (dealer), Salford in 12/66 and then to Talbot House Special School, Glossop who had a wheelchair lift fitted into the rear, but fortunately set into the existing rear dome. It lost its chrome bumpers, Royal Tiger badge and ornate Standard Vanguard Phase II front grille but otherwise remained fairly original.
It passed to John Hinchcliffe of Huddersfield in the mid-1970’s for intended preservation, at which time I was told by him that the bodywork was extremely sound. However with a lot of work to do on it and other projects in hand he decided to sell it to a preservation group based at Liversedge, who I’m told loaned it to another group with YWD connections, and whose apprentices were supposed to be restoring it and it did appear at a number of rallies in the condition depicted in Ian’s photo. This project appears to have failed and it then passed through a variety of would-be preservationists in Lancashire, until it eventually ended up in a serious state of deterioration exposed to the elements. It was advertised for sale in about 2001 and it is said that despite its extremely parlous condition Ensign acquired it as a major restoration project, but that even they had to admit defeat as it was just too far gone. Sadly it was scrapped. One of the more regrettable losses to the preservation movement.
John Stringer
27/04/20 – 12:57
The company began in the 1800s as the dye works Bellhouse Higson which became incorporated as a limited liability company on 10 July 1914 and changed its name when A.W. Hartwell joined in around 1932. For much of its later existence the company specialised in subcontracting to the aircraft industry, but entered the PSV bodying business in the post WW2 boom period. Initially bodying conventional front engined chassis, the firm is best remembered for its flamboyant styling of bodywork for underfloor engined chassis from 1951, of which the Hebble coach is an example, which possibly suggested inspiration derived from the spaceships in the Dan Dare comic strip. As David states above, the last PSV bodies were delivered in July 1955, after which the firm reverted to concentrating on aerospace industry work. In 1964 the business was sold to the Hampson Jig Tool company, and it finally closed its doors on 13 November 2002. The first link below gives a potted history of the firm in the Bolton News, which differs in minor detail from James Taylor’s account in his A-Z Of British Bus Bodies. The second link illustrates a splendid array of various Bellhouse Hartwell bodies.
www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/ – www.busphoto.co.uk/gallery.php
Here is a later, rather sad picture of this coach. www.flickr.com/photos/
Roger Cox
28/04/20 – 06:25
John – sad to hear that it has been scrapped. Such an unusual coach.
Ian Wild
30/04/20 – 06:06
I had the privilege of travelling on this or a sister beast from Burnley to Blackpool at a date I would estimate as being around 1964. Certainly, it was after the new Burnley Bus Station came into use. This was a journey that I made with my parents at intervals during the year, having relatives living in Blackpool. As a 12-ish year-old, I had an interest in buses, and from experience expected that we would end up a on a Ribble operated J1 or J2 duplicate, probably an already elderly Royal Tiger with Leyland or Burlingham bodywork, or maybe even one of their less-appreciated Tiger Cubs with later Seagull bodies. In the past I had seen Ribble half-cab coaches duplicating these services and had always hoped one would show up for me, but it never happened!
I think that I had seen these Hebble vehicles once or twice previously in Burnley Bus Station and been fascinated by their already dated but exotic appearance, so different from anything that Ribble or other familiar operators ran. So, imagine the excitement when this beauty pulled into the stand, and we were allowed to board! I remember being able to bag the seat right behind the driver, so close that there was basically nothing between my seat and the panel of lights and switches to his right. To my mind that ride was a major “cop” that I still remember 55 or more years on!
I have wondered since which service this would have been on. The most frequent Yorkshire – Blackpool routes (of the ones that passed through Burnley) were the J1 and J2 via Keighley and Colne, but these seemed exclusively Ribble or West Yorkshire operated, though I suppose that Hebble could have provided a duplicate from Leeds or Bradford. I was aware from timetable leaflets of other J services that took the route through Halifax and Todmorden, and that might have been a more logical route for a Hebble vehicle to appear on. However, I very rarely spotted workings of these services on local roads and believe that they were seasonal and/or weekend operations (which may well have applied to the journey I described).
Ricky
15/01/21 – 11:38
I have only just found this page & it’s with great sadness I read about ECP 500’s demise. As a child in the 70s this bus was kept in the National bus garage in Liversedge where my uncle worked. Both my uncles & my dad all became members of the preservation group. My dad drove it on a number of rallies around Yorkshire, in fact he was probably the driver when this picture was taken as we lived near Rotherham at the time. Many happy memories of that time. So sad to hear its gone
Andy Stirling
We are travelling in style today on a rather nice coach or as when I was a young lad I would always say “are we going on a chara” more than likely originates from charabanc. The Yorkshire dialect as a tendency to shorten words and does not use a new word if the old one will suffice. Did you have a word other than coach for coach, and whilst we are at it, have you a different word for a bus, I had a friend from Oldham Lancashire who called a bus a “buzz”, let me know along with your area, leave a comment.
Anyway that’s enough of that back to the Ribble, the “Seagull” body was very popular for the period not surprising really they did look rather sleek at the time. Ribble also had the Mk 2 version of the “Seagull” built 1953/4 but they had centre entrances. I have a photo of a 1957 Yorkshire Traction “Seagull” I think it is a Mk 2.
An uncle of mine, a native of St Helens, always referred to a coach as a SALOON.
Pete Davies
Which was correct as the replacement for the charabanc was the Saloon – or all weather – Coach.
David Oldfield
The bodywork on this is actually of the Mk. 6 version of the Seagull, easily distinguished by the side glazing which is set in “window pans” after the fashion of Burlingham’s service bus body of the time. Very few of this design were built apart from the Ribble batch, but Harper Bros of Heath Hayes had some on Guy Arab LUF chassis. One of these at least is preserved. I have just written an article on the various breeds of Seagull which I will be sending to the website as soon as I can get round to typing it!
Neville Mercer
When working for Ribble at Carlisle depot in 1964 I was detailed to take over a Tiger Cub/Seagull identical to this one at Carlisle when it arrived from Manchester en route to Glasgow. With 4 speed (I think) gearbox and 2 speed axle they were lovely machines to drive even up the A 74 trunk road which was little better than a glorified country lane in those days. Although I remember well the large fleet of Austin 5 ton tippers belonging to a Carlisle scrap merchant hauling rock on the construction site when the section from Telford Bridge to Beattock Summit was being converted to dual lane.
Gerald Walker
29/01/12 – 07:25
Southdown buses and coaches were always referred to as cars for many years even into NBC days. I totally agree with Gerald Walker about the Tiger Cub with 4 speed box and 2 speed axle they had a lively performance and light controls and excellent brakes, the secret was to master the 2 speed axle and use it properly. Ours were fitted with Weymann Fanfare bodies which were solidly built and comfortable. I have to say light controls and brakes were not at that time a common trait with Leylands.
Diesel Dave
29/01/12 – 16:27
Saloons/Cars, as hangovers from the past, bring to mind older conductors, even in the early 60’s, still saying, when the inside was full, “Plenty of room outside” from open-top days.
Chris Hebbron
29/06/13 – 15:20
I started my apprenticeship at Frenchwood body shop which we shared with the body builders in 1962 and worked on most bus numbers 1200s, 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, and 1600s with 1700s just about starting the overhaul on the bus bodies, one instance whist cleaning the boot of a Seagull coach some one closed the doors, and with using cellulose thinners after 15 mins I was drunk as a lord, light headed and later, with a bad head, but I left in 1964 and went to Atkinson vehicles to finish my time, in the service department and was there for 12 years.
James Lynch
23/11/13 – 07:51
One of these worked out of Whiteleas for George Wimpey Contractor in the 60s and 70s, it was a former Ribble coach and had reg LCK ???
Frank Lowe
Photo by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
If you go back to a previous posting at this link you will be able to compare the difference between this “Yorkshire Traction Seagull” bodywork and the “Ribble Seagull” . The main difference that strikes me is the Horizontal split windscreen and slightly different lighting arrangement. Is this a Mk 2 or Mk 3? Maybe they are both Mk 3s and in the one year age gap improvements to the screen were made. If you know, let me know, leave a comment.
06/03/13 – 16:46
This Seagull is a Mark V. This was available with either front or central entrance and replaced the central entrance Mark III and forward entrance Mark IV. The distinguishing feature of the Mark V from the models it replaced was the single piece rear windscreen with rear quarter lights. The Mark V was produced for the 1957 and 1958 seasons. The windscreen arrangement was optional on the Mark IV, V and VI, either single piece flat screens or horizontally split. For example, Ribble had Mark IV and Mark VI Seagulls with flat screens, whilst North Western, Trent, Wallace Arnold and Yelloway (at least) had Mark V Seagulls with flat screens.
David Williamson
This bus was one of the first batch of 36 foot vehicles that North Western acquired. Seen here with LDB 787 fleet number 787 a 1960 Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/1 with a Willowbrook duel purpose 43 seat body at the Shay football ground Halifax (I don’t think Halifax were playing Manchester United at the time).
There are still two Leopards going in Llandudno working around the Great Orme they are WND 477 which is a Duple Britannia new to Smiths then went on to Shearing’s then with Alpines. There is also an Harrington Grenadier as well, history not known.
Anonymous
20/02/11 – 06:43
1. What’s a Leopard doing on the Tiger Cub page ??
2. The WND coach working in Llandudno is definitely a Tiger Cub, not a Leopard
Paul Statham
21/02/11 – 14:55
The last I heard this vehicle was preserved although it’s not seen in public very often. Does anybody know its current status?
Neville Mercer
I don’t claim to be more expert than anyone else but I am a huge fan of Burlingham and regard them as one the very best coachbuilders ever. Mark/Series numbers are a bit of a mystery since they were extremely small variations between certain types – and a new number for each.
This is putting 2 and 2 together and getting into the making 5 territory, but I think I can piece most of the Mark numbers together from what little evidence I have.
Mark I – The original centre entrance Seagull on heavyweight chassis such as an AEC Regal IV and Leyland Royal Tiger.
Mark II – Basically the same centre entrance body on a medium weight chassis such as an AEC Reliance and Leyland Tiger Cub. The earlier Ribble Motor Services 1953/4 Leyland Tiger Cub Seagulls Fleet numbers 926/945 FCK 426/440 & FRN 675/679 are certainly of this mark.
Mark ? – Forward entrance/lightweight chassis such as Bedford (SBG/SBO) and the Commer Avenger was this the Mark III
Mark IV – Front entrance body on medium weight chassis such as an AEC Reliance and Leyland Tiger Cub.
Mark ?
Mark VI – Front entrance interim style with radiused (bus?) window panes. The later Ribble Motor Services 1956/8 Leyland Tiger Cub Seagulls Fleet numbers 977/1018 LCK 889/732 I think are of this mark
Mark VII – Final full coach version (similar to Mark IV but with Duple rear end screens)
I believe new numbers were given for the slightest variation. That being said, what was the Mark III and could the missing Mark V have anything to do with the Ford 570E when it was finally introduced? If you know the differences between the Marks or if you can through a little light on any of the above please leave a comment.
Copy by David Oldfield photograph by Paul Haywood
The Mark numbers you refer to are the ones which were used for Seagull bodies on underfloor engined chassis. The Mk2 differed from the Mk1 in having a doubled chrome “tank shape” moulding beneath the window line. The Mk3 (introduced in 1953) reverted to a single chrome moulding and had a slightly restyled rear end. The Mk4 offered the alternative of a front entrance (all previous Seagulls had been centre entrance) and also had the option of a front dome destination blind box. The Mk5 replaced the Mk3 in 1955 and differed from it in offering a choice of front or centre entrance. It also featured flat one-piece glass panels in the front windscreen as opposed to the two-piece, slightly curved units previously fitted. The Mk6, as you correctly state, differed from the Mk5 in having its side windows fitted into radiused (and slightly recessed) window pans for ease of maintenance. The variant was built at the request of Ribble Motor Services and there were few other customers. The final “heavyweight” Seagull in this sequence was the Mk7, introduced in 1958 and featuring much longer side windows than previous models. This was in response to Plaxton’s introduction of the trendsetting Panorama design, but the Burlingham model proved less popular than they might have hoped. As a result it was replaced in 1960 by the Seagull 70 with its pseudo-American styling, and this was used by Scottish Omnibuses, East Midland, Trent, and other operators although only in penny numbers.
Lightweight chassis such as Bedford SBs were given a design of bodywork which mimicked the then current Seagull design, but as far as I know the body never had an official name although many (including some Burlingham employees) referred to it as “the Baby Seagull”. The final, rather ugly version of this body made its appearance in 1959 and was the butt of so many unfavourable comments that it lasted just a single year. In 1960 it was replaced by the Seagull 60, similar in styling to the previously mentioned Seagull 70 for heavyweight chassis. It sold well, but operators soon discovered that the slightly raised “clerestory roof”, made of see-through plexiglass, was prone to leakage. The design was relaunched the following year, with the leakage problem solved, as the Seagull 61 which featured far too much front-end chromework for most tastes. The last two new Burlingham-badged designs emerged in 1962. The Seagull 62 was barely distinguishable from its immediate predecessor, but coach operators were offered an alternative, the curiously named Burlingham Gannet which featured a restyled front end and more glasswork. Both models sold poorly and from 1963 onwards were replaced by the Duple (Northern) Firefly.
Neville Mercer
19/09/12 – 07:11
Ribble Motor Services FRN 679 mentioned in Mark II above was definitely a Royal Tiger rather than a Cub.
I used to travel to school in it and always liked to sit at the front as the view was superb. Comfy seats too.
Any idea where it went?
David
29/09/12 – 12:35
The small batch of coaches featured in Paul’s photo, 8338 – 8343 U, were indeed splendid vehicles but with “minor” limitations of which the Company seemed blissfully unaware. I can speak from bitter experience, having operated the Yorkshire – Torquay/Paignton night service with them. The passengers all seemed to equip themselves with enough enormous luggage to suffice for emigration to the Southern Hemisphere – and it was the very devil to stow it all in the shallowish boot of the “Seagulls.”
The return journey (non stop for we drivers) was scheduled at around thirty hours and, due to the lack of motorways/by-passes, we were always very late back into Leeds on Saturday nights – the Tiger Cubs and the top speed limit for coaches meant that there was no chance of achieving the timetable – it was not a pleasant assignment at all in those days. That’s in no way a criticism of the Tiger Cubs or of the Seagulls – simply wildly over optimistic and unrealistic scheduling by the Company.
Chris Youhill