Tag: Leyland

Portsmouth Corporation – Leyland Atlantean – 224 BTP – 224

Portsmouth Corporation - Leyland Atlantean - 224 BTP - 224

Portsmouth Corporation
1963
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Metro Cammell H43/33F

The production Atlantean appeared in 1958, but the early examples proved troublesome and expensive to maintain. Nevertheless, the concept appealed to several operators, and, by 1963, Portsmouth Corporation, long time devotees of the Leyland marque, must have thought the risk to be worthwhile, for it bought a batch of 35 PDR1/1 buses in that year, followed by a further 10 in 1964 and 9 more in 1966. All members of the Portsmouth PDR1/1 fleet carried the very plain Metro-Cammell H43/33F body design. The Corporation subsequently switched to the PDR1/2 version and finally to the AN68. Seen on 13 August 1967 at Portsmouth Harbour, known locally as “The Hard”, is No.224, 224 BTP, one of the 1963 deliveries, displaying the superb Portsmouth livery to good effect. I doubt if trips round the harbour are now offered for 15p (3/-) but, unlike the late 1940s/early 1950s when I lived in Alverstoke, the current Royal Navy could almost be accommodated on the Serpentine in Hyde Park, so there isn’t much to see these days.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

17/04/17 – 07:49

Mixed feelings about this photo.
The Atlantians were the mainstay of my trips to school on the 143 but their arrival marked the end for the much loved trolleys.

Dave French

18/04/17 – 07:44

So typical of CPPTD’s pride, four years old and yet still looking brand new! Even if they were troublesome in their early days, the department was well up to coping with whatever was thrown at it. IF I recall The Hard for anything, it was the Mudlarks rummaging on the muddy foreshore which passed as a beach there, with them searching out coins thrown at them by passers by! Not forgetting the three lines of trolleybuses parked there at the terminus, awaiting the dockers coming out, at least those that weren’t on a bike. It was always like the beginning of a bike race here at coming out time! This was a time of transport change in the area. Not long after, the electric ‘Nelson Stock’ trains acquired their half yellow fronts, then later went from dignified green to plain blue, not even with any grey to relieve the monotony, as other trains . My other abiding memory, when coming into Havant rail station during my 1957-59 National Service days, was hearing the announcer, in broad Hampshire ‘burr’ saying, ‘avant, this is ‘avant. Change ‘ere for the Broighton Loin, change ‘ere for ‘ayling Oiland!”. Now, they all talk like Londoners. (I am a Londoner!). Reminiscing? Not I!

Chris Hebbron

18/04/17 – 10:44

Wonderful memories Chris, but they were dockIES, not dockERS – they didn’t load and unload ships they built and repaired them.

Pat Jennings

18/04/17 – 17:04

They were commonly known, the ones on the bikes at least, as Dockyard Mateys!

Philip Lamb

18/04/17 – 17:06

Yes, a great picture of a Portsmouth bus still proudly presented. The Corporation seemed to be forward thinking in these days, with the trolleybus conversions using some one-person operated saloons (noteworthy for urban use at the time), and then the use of Atlanteans for the final conversion. Other south coast municipalities were generally slower to move to rear-engined buses, I recall. However Portsmouth waited for other pioneers to iron out initial difficulties – Reading had used O-P-O saloons a year or two before them, and Hastings’ trolleybus conversion with Atlanteans was back in 1959 (although a BET operation, it was somewhat municipal-like in its scope). The result was that Portsmouth’s Atlanteans were of the “Mark II” variety, introduced that year. In fact I think the first few were delivered in original format, and were returned to the maker for modification to the new format. Also, the bodywork contained the “Manchester staircase” as opposed to the original Met-Cam design.
Dave mentions their use on route 143 – this was previously route C/D, which used to change the screens on route because of its length. When it became 143, the whole route detail was squeezed on to the via screen, with the final destination in the smaller screen below. The result looked extremely squashed, and rather spoilt the overall appearance in my view.
The terminus has also changed it’s name in recent years. Just plain “Dockyard” sufficed when the picture was taken. Much later it became “The Hard Interchange”, and nowadays it’s “Gunwharf Quays”. I always felt that “The Hard Interchange” was a little unfortunate, bearing in mind that one could change from a bus or coach to the Gosport Ferry or London/Southampton/Brighton line trains – was it really that hard? We all hoped not!

Michael Hampton

19/04/17 – 08:13

One minor correction to the text is that Portsmouth did not have any PDR1/2 Atlanteans – this was the version with a drop centre rear axle, intended for low height bodies, although some operators used it to permit additional headroom in the lower saloon.
After the PDR1/1s, Portsmouth’s next Atlanteans were the PDR2/1 single deckers – the PDR2 being the longer wheelbase version of the chassis. The next double deckers were Alexander-bodied AN68s.

Nigel Frampton

19/04/17 – 08:14

This is a great view of a Municipal bus in traditional livery, even to the lining out. The light upper paintwork, white or cream or whatever depending on which fleet is in question, has often been regarded as difficult to photograph. With a blue sky, it stands out. Thank you, Roger, for posting.
Like, Mr Hebbron, I am a Londoner, but by default, since my parents were living there when I was born, but I am of Lancashire origins. Between “The Hard Interchange” and “Gunwharf Quays”, Michael, was it not simply “The Hard”?

Pete Davies

20/04/17 – 06:16

Pete, it may well have been just plain “The Hard” at some point. I do remember “The Hard Interchange” being used on the AN68 Alexander bodied Atlanteans. But when de-regulation came in and there were so many changes, it may well have become “The Hard”, perhaps depending on the operator, and/or size of destination screen. I don’t have ant specific memories of those more recent times!

Michael Hampton

20/04/17 – 06:18

There is an sameness about these earlyish Atlanteans and Fleetlines- or am I not observant enough? They were all boxy, with separate windscreens right and left and no sign of any overall design or even “styling” features that may be found on an older half-cab. They all seem to be built from the same standardised components and carrying over the half-cab liveries. Only later, or even much later, came shrouded bustles, one piece screens and larger window bays. Was Liverpool the first to introduce a complete “new look”..? that’s a provocative question.

Joe

22/04/17 – 07:03

It used to be ‘DOCKYARD’ in the 1950s and early 1960s. ‘Hard’ was the Hampshire term for the first bit of dry land one came to from the sea. Across the harbour, Gosport Hard was known to Provincial as ‘GOSPORT FERRY’ and the Hants & Dorset as simply ‘GOSPORT’, and the same applied to the solitary Southdown rout, that from London Victoria Coach Station via the Meon Valley.

David Wrag

22/04/17 – 07:05

The bus is either operating route 148A or 148B. At that time, routes crossing the City boundary had Southdown rather than Corporation numbers.

Andy Hemming

22/04/17 – 09:50

The route is 148A.

Roger Cox

27/04/17 – 06:00

In answer to Joe, I think that in the beginning the overall appearance of the Atlantean, however bodied, was so revolutionary that no-one noticed that the detailed styling was derived from the MCW Orion (which itself wasn’t very old at the time). The Park Royal/Roe version was clearly a copy, and even the Alexander used similar window dimensions, while Northern Counties used their own halfcab styling in the same way that MCW used the Orion’s.
So yes, the Liverpool Atlantean was the first example not to be based on either halfcab styling from the same builder or someone else’s Atlantean/Fleetline. Strangely, only Liverpool, Bolton and Bury took it, all other MCW customers staying with the Orion-based design, with or without a prettified front end.
It was quickly eclipsed by the copy that East Lancs did for Bolton, enhanced by a stunning new livery, and I would also like to raise a flag for the restrained elegance of the first Warrington Fleetlines, which slipped on to the scene completely unsung in late 1963: https://flic.kr/p/DQQWky

Peter Williamson

27/04/17 – 10:50

Bury, after its flirtation with MCW Liverpool style bodies, continued to look for something more attractive and went to East Lancs which produced almost identical bodies to those of Warrington. The Warrington bodies were built by the East Lancs sister company, the Sheffield based Neepsend, who built the same design for Sheffield on Atlantean chassis and shared an order for Coventry with East Lancs on Fleetline chassis, 13 bodies being built by Neepsend, 9 by East Lancs.

Phil Blinkhorn

28/04/17 – 07:11

In between the Liverpool style Atlanteans and the East Lancs Fleetlines Bury took 15 Fleetlines with Glasgow style Alexander bodies but with the Midland Red style vee windscreens. These were very attractive buses and to my eyes were the best looking of the three manufacturer’s products for Bury.

Philip Halstead

28/04/17 – 16:55

Not sure what happened with my post on this topic yesterday. My original post overnight Wednesday/Thursday included a mention of the Alexander bodied Fleetlines prior to those from East Lancs and was listed when I checked the site at around 08.00 on Thursday. Clicking the link to the comment revealed that it had not been added to the thread. I sent an email regarding this and a truncated version of my original then appeared.

Phil Blinkhorn

02/03/19 – 06:58

I digress from Pomopey buses, but want to add to Chris Hebron’s memories of station announcer accents. At Portsmouth & Southsea station for many years I always heard “Portsmouth and Saysey, this is Portsmouth and Saysey, remain on the train for Portsmouth arbor, the Oila Woyt and Gosport ferries.” Now it’s electronic in perfect clipped accentless English.

Jules

05/03/19 – 06:54

We are way off the subject but I was told that a good Station Announcer could announce the intermediate stations for a stopping train to Waterloo in one breath,

Andrew Hemming

06/03/19 – 07:09

When I was a driving instructor I had one pupil with a quite extreme stutter/stammer, he was employed as a station announcer and I never heard him mis-speak at work.

John Lomas

Ribble – Leyland Atlantean – RRN 414 – 1814

RRN 414

Ribble Motor Services
1962
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Weymann L39/33F

Seen in August 1969 in less than pristine condition leaving Manchester’s Lower Mosley Street Bus Station (often confusing us slow witted southerners by appearing on bus destination blinds as “Manchester LMS”) is Ribble 1814, the last of a batch of fourteen Weymann bodied lowbridge Atlanteans on the original PDR1/1 chassis. This was fitted with a straight rear axle which required the lower deck to incorporate a step to gain access to the uplifted rear part of the saloon. The corresponding rear section of the upper saloon also had to be raised, so that a side gangway of the traditional lowbridge variety was employed in that area, though this was located on the nearside of the vehicle (front engined lowbridge double deckers had the gangway on the offside to avoid fouling the passenger entrance). The 1801 -1814 lowbridge Atlanteans were the last examples of the PDR1/1 chassis to be bought by Ribble.
Another OBP page showing one of these Atlanteans may be found here:- At this link
and a comprehensive article by Neville Mercer on Lower Mosley Street is here:- Lower Mosley Street – Article

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

13/03/18 – 06:06

I think by 1962, the bodywork on these lowbridge Atlanteans had improved somewhat on the original examples which came out in 1959. The single skinned fibreglass domes (which tended to crack) had been replaced by double skinned ones, the interior face being a sort of brilliant white plastic which seemed to resist yellowing very well. Other small improvements to the interior trim and panelling made the general ambience feel noticeably better and I quite liked to travel on the later ones. I believe both Ribble and PMT got very long service lives out of them in spite of the problems they were supposed to have had.

Chris Barker

17/03/18 – 07:15

Looks like someone tried to prize off the Ribble fleet nameplate on the front panel.
Perhaps her less than pristine condition is down to her being due her seven year Check/Overhaul.

Cyril Aston

18/03/18 – 06:47

Ribble got very good service from these some lasting into the eighties

Chris Hough

18/03/18 – 06:47

Quite a sad photo, I can’t remember which particular bus it was, but had a trip on one of this batch when brand new on the X23 from LMS. I suppose I haven’t worn any better than the bus! Personally I enjoyed riding on the lowbridge Atlanteans. PMT used them on the Stoke-Stafford service which like the Ribble services gave them a good chance to open up. Travelling in the rear upstairs was quite smooth, I suppose the lower height lowered the centre of gravity, resulting in a better ride.

Andrew Gosling

07/05/18 – 07:13

PMT certainly got their moneys worth out of their 105 lowbridge Atlanteans. A lot depended on the Depot. Frank Ling who was Resident Engineer at Longton Depot achieved phenomenal engine mileages out of his Atlantean fleet by carefully and diligently looking after them. recollection is that he had 4 spare vehicles for a PVR of 58 so not a lot of spare capacity there. Mind you, Frank also managed to run quite successfully a sizeable fleet of Albion Aberdonian single deckers which again other Depots failed to do so. Memory fades but I’m sure that some batches of PMT’s Atlanteans also had a plastic finish to the inside of the front domes.

Ian Wild

19/07/18 – 07:13

Stafford garage had a duty on the 10 service which I occasionally worked for my rest day. The Atlantean would probably be 909 and occasional 910 these buses belonged to Hanley garage and were serviced by them. They were a pleasure to drive and were both quite fast. Happy days !!

Michael Crofts

27/11/19 – 08:47

With regards to PMT Stafford garage I would add that both 909 and 910 were the resident Atlanteans and they were serviced by Stoke garage, not Hanley. They were indeed fine buses.

Leekensian

26/01/21 – 06:12

I remember the first time I travelled on one of these as a ten year old and not being able to see out of the front windows because the sill-level was so high.
What were the designers thinking of?

Philip Smithies

27/01/21 – 06:13

Philip S – A simple answer to your question – saving money. Shallow windows cost less than deeper ones. Even in those days 60 or more years ago, financial considerations were very important, especially to a commercial organisation like the BET Group.

Nigel Frampton

10/11/21 – 06:36

I joined British Airways Motor Transport Dept in June 1976′ Part of my very varied duties included operating the PDR1/1 Leyland Atlanteans to and from the British Airways Terminal 3 operation to The Victoria BA Terminus. ps, (no power steering on these Atlanteans). Several of us also operated the Leyland Mastiff airside tractor units pulling the 100 odd passenger articulated trailers. Maximum concentration of course winding the latter around the confines of airside roads and aircraft stands. In contrast we also transported flight deck and cabin crew in various coaches and Ford Granada cars etc. A super job that we just took for granted at the time.

James

B.O.A.C. – Leyland Atlantean – LYF 304D

British Overseas Airways Corporation
1966
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
MCW CH38/16F

In 1940, with Britain at war and civilian air traffic barely existent, Croydon based Imperial Airways formally subsumed the privately owned (though nationally subsidised) British Airways at Heston and became BOAC, though this had been the de facto situation since September 1939. At the end of the war, with Heathrow becoming the major UK airport, the European air passenger traffic business was separated from BOAC in 1946 and named BEA. (British South American Airways, a short lived separate company formed at the same time for the South American air services, was reabsorbed into BOAC in 1949 after the disappearance of two Avro Tudor aircraft over the Atlantic.) To fulfil the road transport requirements between London and the developing Heathrow Airport, the Ministry of Supply allocated BEA and BOAC a number of Commer Q4 Commando 1½ deck observation coaches with Park Royal 20 seat bodywork that had 180 cubic ft of luggage space under the raised rear section. BOAC, operating from the former Imperial Airways building at Victoria, stayed with Commer for its replacement passenger road fleet and took Harrington bodied examples of the early petrol engined Avenger model between 1949 and 1952, though a solitary Harrington C37C bodied Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13 came in 1950. The TS3 two stroke powered Harrington Contender then became the favoured choice, and BOAC became the Contender’s best customer taking a total of 28, of which 19 were employed in overseas locations. (Strangely, the Harrington Contender does not appear at all on BLOTW.) The last BOAC Contenders (the figure varies between one and three) reputedly had the Rolls Royce petrol engine (again, sources vary as to whether this was the straight eight B80 or the six cylinder B60) married to a torque converter, a power train concept surely inspired by a variant of the Dennis fire engine. One wonders, however, how this layout could have been accommodated like the flat TS3 engine under the floor of the Contender.

As air travel became more popular, both BEA and BOAC turned to the double decker for the airport links. BEA, whose road operations were overseen by London Transport, took the Routemaster, but BOAC preferred the Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1, purchasing fifteen in 1966, LYF 304D to LYF 318D inclusive, with “Alexander clone” MCW bodies that seated 38 passengers upstairs and 16 downstairs; the vacated space was used for luggage. Later, in 1971, these were supplemented by six PDR2/1, GML 846J to GML 851J inclusive, with Roe CH41/24F bodies. It is thought that all these Atlanteans were operated on behalf of BOAC by Halls Bros. at Hounslow. The picture shows examples of each type at the Victoria terminal building. PDR1/1 LYF 304D was delivered in October 1966, and PDR2/1 GML 847J arrived in July 1971. The BEA and BOAC London – Heathrow road services were taken over by the new British Airways from 1974 and had ceased by 1980, by which time air passengers had become accustomed to booking in directly at Heathrow, and the central London passenger facilities had become superfluous. One of the MCW bodied vehicles, LYF 307D, has been preserved.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

21/01/19 – 07:18

I remember riding in these Atlanteans out from Victoria to Heathrow. The BOAC departure point was the ground floor of their headquarters, which faces Victoria coach station across the road, although given the clientele of both BOAC and long distance coach at the time probably very few transferred between the two.
There have been many memories posted on the web about the buses out to Heathrow, a significant number of which seem to mix up BEA, BOAC and British Airways, the separate London departure points (BEA moved round several time over the years), and the vehicles, inevitably sometimes calling this BOAC fleet “Routemasters”. After the merger of the two airlines, although the two bus fleets were painted in a common livery, separate operations were retained, from the different London points to the different Heathrow terminals the two halves of the airline continued to use.
Did Halls actually run the BOAC fleet ? A poster elsewhere on the web says they were employed by BOAC and drove them as part of their other airport driving duties. The vehicle base was in airport property on the north side of Heathrow, where the car parks are now. I saw the preserved Atlantean had been used in a nice British Airways TV ad with a historic theme a few hears ago.
Halls did own another Atlantean fleet, Roe bodied, for US airline TWA, likewise in their colours, used from their Piccadilly terminal, and also for other independent hires, they could be seen at various points around London. Pan Am also had their own road connections, with coaches, from a point in Kensington.

Bill

21/01/19 – 07:19

That was the last type of d/d bus I rode in at the start of my journey in May 1971 to Australia where I still reside.

David Revis

22/01/19 – 07:29

The operation of a bus fleet necessitates facilities for cleaning, washing, fuelling and maintenance. It is possible, perhaps, that the driving staff were BOAC employees, but did the airline really cover all the other essential requirements itself? It is surely more likely that a specialist contractor like Halls would have been used.

Roger Cox

23/01/19 – 06:36

An airline at its main base typically has a very large fleet of motor vehicles of all types, specialist and standard, and a Motor Transport maintenance department to suit. These would operate both airside and on the road. I would imagine the BOAC motor fleet of all types required at Heathrow would dwarf the Hall fleet, the numbers possibly into the hundreds, all of which would require the services described. Further buses were commonly owned for passenger transfer across the apron.
BOAC used to have some substantial articulated passenger trailers at Heathrow pulled by HGV tractor units which shuttled between the terminal and the aircraft. They lasted well into British Airways days. These were an interesting niche about which there is little information.

Bill

23/01/19 – 06:37

I don’t see why BOAC who had a large fleet of lorries and other vehicles as well as buses, would need a coach hire company to maintain their buses at Heathrow when they were perfectly capable of looking after their own buses at Prestwick.

Stephen Allcroft

25/01/19 – 06:55

These services must have had a road service licence, probably the old Express Licence, as they just charged fares, sold at a terminal counter, and anyone could go on them, not just air passengers. 7 shillings and 6 pence (7/6) seems to ring a bell. I don’t recall there being a published timetable (otherwise I would have taken one) but they were fairly turn up and go.
Both BOAC and successor British Airways also ran substantial fleets of regular coaches at Heathrow, Leopards and others, run both airside and landside, for trips such as shuttles to hotels, and I recall these coaches sometimes turned up on the BOAC Central London run as well. I presume the two fleets were kept separate so those used only within the airport could run on red diesel.

Bill

28/01/19 – 07:29

These were certainly operated by BOAC as I worked in the PSV section of the Metropolitan Traffic Area and, unusually, rather than use the post, on occasion a smartly uniformed BOAC employee would turn up with a batch of renewal forms. I seem to recall that the vehicle licences would have been stage, but I don’t doubt that the road service licences would have been express.
I wonder if airside lorries and coaches would have run on red diesel within the airport boundaries as ‘red diesel’ wasn’t available until later, and in any case, there was a lot of domestic air traffic.’Red diesel’ is for agricultural use.

David Wragg

31/01/19 – 06:03

Red diesel is for use by anything that does not run on a public road. Boats, trains, off-road industrial and construction vehicles and plant are allowed to use red diesel as well as agricultural use.

Philip Halstead

31/01/19 – 11:49

Linking in with Philip’s comments, West Yorkshire used red Diesel when running in overhauled engines on the two Heenan & Froude dynamometers in the engine test house at Central Works. A small brick building behind the test house housed a largish fuel tank marked ‘gas oil’ specifically for the red Diesel. The units would probably have been classed as stationary engines whilst on test.

Brendan Smith

04/03/19 – 06:30

Although I realise Roger’s posting is mainly regarding Leyland Atlanteans, perhaps I may be permitted a few words of clarification regarding the Harrington Contenders used by BOAC. Most of the Contenders were petrol powered using the Rootes “sloper” engine as featured in the contemporary Avenger chassis. In fact a number of the BOAC Contenders were in service two years before the TS3 diesel was announced. If the chassis codes are to be believed then only 6 of the fleet were TS3 powered and all of these were exported – as were many of the petrol versions. The petrol engines were front mounted but it seems likely that the TS3 versions were mid mounted in the same way as the coaches that were available for general purchase. The Rolls Royce Contenders were also mid-engine. Modifications were made to the intake system of the down draft carburettors to reduce height and a fabricated sump was made to allow the engine to sit lower in the frame. Two were built, both with B60 engines.

Nick Webster

05/03/19 – 06:51

Thanks for that clarification on the BOAC Contenders, Nick. Yours is the first definitive explanation concerning these remarkable vehicles that I have encountered. One can understand the preference for petrol engines in overseas locations, but why persist with them at home? Again, do we know where the Rolls Royce powered coaches were based, and why such idiosyncratic power trains were felt to be necessary? The expense of so adapting a mere two vehicles could not possibly have been cost effective.

Roger Cox

06/03/19 – 15:33

I made an embarrassing error in my previous post – there were in fact three B60 Rolls Royce Contenders for BOAC, not two as stated. They were JSD 851, KAG 783 and LCS 638, delivered in 1956, 57 and 58 respectively. All went to Prestwick airport, at that time an important hub in trans-Atlantic flight. There they stayed until individually returned to London during 1964-65. After a few months, LCS 638, the first to return was sent out for further use in Karachi. It is known that at least one Commer based coach was also in use there but whether this replaced or supplemented is not known. Never heard of again of course. The other two saw only months of service (or perhaps just stored) before they were disposed via dealer Four Point Garages, Feltham to A. C. Pond Coaches of Roydon. Both were scrapped before the end of three years. They were incidentally, together with an unknown number of the Commers, six inches narrower than the standard 8 ft. coach. I was fortunate enough to obtain drawings from Kirkstall axles, Leeds before they closed down.
In considering the logic of such vehicles, one has to remember that in the 1950s air travel was promoted in rivalry to travel by Luxury Liner and the then necessary coach transfer was no time to let the side down. Furthermore, although diesels reigned supreme in the service bus, many coach operators for private hire insisted on smooth petrol vehicles even after rationing, rising prices and supply problems resulting from the 1956 Suez crisis. For Harrington, even selling as they did to the “top” end of the market, the reason for using a Rolls Royce engine is slightly more prosaic: there was probably a sale on. In the mid 50s Rolls Royce were attempting to increase sales their “B” range of engines and made them available to a wider market. For Harrington this was a last determined attempt to make the various versions of the Contender attractive to all levels of their customers. It is generally considered that Suez killed the Rolls Royce Contender. Indeed, by 1958 the whole integral coach project was scrapped in favour of a new lightweight body later known as the Crusader which was intended to suit the most popular chassis of the day.

Nick Webster

08/05/20 – 06:28

Just a little comment. Opposite the terminal was Victoria Coach Station, where the Gay Hostess coaches operated. BOAC borrowed one for trials and that seemed to spur the idea. BEA used LT Routemasters with a baggage trailer.

David

13/05/20 – 06:58

As this topic has resurfaced I have a question for Nick Webster, please.
I had long wondered what the difference was between the BOAC Contenders with T48B series unit numbers and those with 48A. The T indicating the TS3 diesel engine makes perfect sense now.
It is well documented that Nick’s Contender JAP 698 has unit number 48A5018, which would imply it was petrol-engine originally. A Harrington advert from 9/54 showing JAP 698 states with some ambiguity that the Mk III version ‘now embodies the new Commer diesel engine’. So did JAP 698 briefly have a petrol engine or did Harrington perhaps swap in the diesel one when they were erecting the running units?

Mr Anon

26/05/22 – 05:58

I joined the ‘new’ British Airways Motor Transport Division in 1976. Part of our duties were to operate the Leyland Atlanteans between Heathrow and B A’s Victoria Terminal and return operations of course. The earlier Atlanteans had no power steering and were moderately hard work but pleasurable to drive. Those of us with PSV all types and HGV class 1’s also operated the Leyland Mastiff tractor units that pulled the passenger transfer trailers airside. (I remember them as Mastiffs anyway). All seriously enjoyable. We had many vehicles including flight deck crew cars and Leyland National single deckers also nice to drive but being rear engined, very ‘light’ on the front end and to be driven even more carefully in the wet.

E J Hunt

Manchester Corporation – Leyland PDR1/1 – HVM 914F – 1014

Manchester Corporation - Leyland PDR1/1 - HVM 914F - 1014

Manchester Corporation
1968
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Park Royal H45/28D

One of the famous Mancunians which revolutionised the double deck bus in the late 60s is seen turning into Portland Street in May 1968 when just a couple of months old. The stunning livery brightened up Manchester – sad that they soon succumbed to SELNEC orange and white.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

25/05/20 – 07:24

1014 was one of the vehicles delivered in the cream and red livery based on the scheme previously used on the Panther single deckers. It was displayed in Piccadilly along with 1001 which was in the white version of the livery and the public were asked to comment. The result was a majority in favour of white so 1014 and, I think, 1017 went back to the spray booth.

Phil Blinkhorn

26/05/20 – 06:54

Phil, you are too modest. Part Four of your expansive article, Manchester Buses – A Retrospective, gives the comprehensive story behind the Mancunian double deck design:- Manchester Buses a Retrospective – Article

HVM 903F

Here is another picture, showing the nearside, of one of the early Atlanteans, No. 1003 HVM 903F, taken in June 1970. In 1968 Ralph Bennet moved on to London Transport, later becoming first Deputy and then Chairman. There he came up against the exhibitionist and rabid Thatcherite leader of the GLC, Horace Cutler, who engineered his early removal from office in 1980 on the politically motivated, utterly preposterous grounds that he lacked the necessary managerial expertise. Cutler’s transport legacy of cost cutting, asset stripping and under investment is still felt in London to this day.

Roger Cox

26/05/20 – 06:55

I have a soft spot for these first Atlantean Mancunians. I travelled the 19 route regularly on my journeys from Work, when I was in digs at Debdale Park while working in Denton. Hyde Road also used these on the 169/170 services, to which there is a clue in the destination number box. The 1 has been left, the 6 or 7 wound to 9 and the last last digit the 9 or 0 wound off. Keen drivers would correctly have just used the second and third tracks only, far neater in my opinion. If I could not sit at the front upstairs my second choice was the rear offside seat over the engine to listen to it. The 19 was very convenient for me as the short walk from Victoria Station to Greengate would get me on a 12/31/38 to visit my parents at Little Hulton. To add to Phil’s comments about the colours, perhaps we can add that it was 1044 that later on, suffered a most catastrophic fire. Question to Phil, there was also the first demonstration of a Mancunian in Piccadilly, but that was to demonstrate it against two other operators new buses, neither came near to it.

Mike Norrios

26/05/20 – 06:55

Since my previous comment, I’ve found the record of the deliveries and repaints. There were 7 deliveries for entry into service in March 1968. 1001/03/04/05/10/14/24. Of these 1003/04/14 and 1024 were delivered in red and cream, the rest in red and white. On Saturday February 24 and Saturday March 2 two vehicles were displayed and free rides given in Piccadilly bus station. 1001 in white and 1024 in cream took part with 1014 substituting for 1024 the second Saturday. March deliveries for April entry into service included 1002 also in red and cream but as a result of both the public opinion surveys and previous comments about the cream yellowing on the Panthers – shades of problems to come with SELNEC’s sunglow orange – all five red and cream vehicles were resprayed within six weeks.

Phil Blinkhorn

26/05/20 – 10:53

A Sheffielder, I spent my student days in, and around, Manchester from 1971-1976 – and then stayed to work until December 1980. The Sheffield “standard” PRV body on the 163 Atlanteans and subsequent Fleetlines – and the later London Country/NBC version – is a favourite of mine. However, I always preferred the 33ft Mancunian by PRV/MCW/Roe, but I always felt it was better and more balanced in design as a 33footer rather than this original, shorter, version.

David Oldfield

26/05/20 – 10:55

Mike, the demonstration you refer to was after the 1968 Commercial Motor Show on October 26 when the show exhibit Mancunian, Fleetline 2048 which had been held back to be exhibited by Park Royal, was shown on Piccadilly alongside Sheffield Atlantean 293, also straight from the Park Royal stand at the show and Newcastle 601 an Alexander bodied Atlantean whose hitherto advanced styling was totally eclipsed by the other two with the Mancunian going on to be the template for future double deck design.
Roger, it’s interesting how a later London leader of the same political kidney and with no real experience in transport, wasted millions in removing vehicles found quite satisfactory in cities large and small around the globe and replacing them with a vanity project which could not be operated as designed, cooked the passengers in summer and were designed to look from the rear to fulfil all the meanings of “like the back end of a bus”.

Phil Blinkhorn

27/05/20 – 07:04

Phil, My thanks to you.
My memory seems to recall the Newcastle one, have a reversed nearside staircase, or what the Sheffield one? There was something very peculiar about it, on one of them.

Mike Norris

27/05/20 – 07:05

Who on earth, and what bus, can Phil possibly be referring to?!

Stephen Ford

28/05/20 – 07:12

I guess that Phil Blinkhorn didn’t actually live along one of the routes that the London Bendys actually ran on. Their obstructive characteristics really became apparent where, as they tended to do far more than regular vehicles, they ended up running in tandem. I believe there was an instruction that they were not to overtake one another.
They also had a higher accident record than normal vehicles. I know it’s sometimes presented as no different, but these vehicles paid an additional rate and were only driven by experienced senior drivers who otherwise had a much lower than average accident rate.
Sir Peter Hendy stated there was no loss on the disposal of them because they were leased, and just handed back at a lease break point.
When it comes to “experience in transport”, we can possibly start with a manufacturer who states the first one destroyed by fire was a “unique incident”, the second one was a “extraordinary coincidence”, and the third one was “er … we’re going to do a modification”. I can still see where the classic trees on Park Lane were ruined by the 436 which caught fire there.

Bill

28/05/20 – 07:14

Mike, it was the Newcastle Atlantean that had the near side staircase – a bit of a Newcastle fad at the time.

Phil Blinkhorn

29/05/20 – 06:52

601 was a conversion by Newcastle Corporation of accident damaged 251(KBB 251D). One of the claimed advantages was that the layout gave the driver a better view of the exit door. I believe Newcastle took two batches of Alexander bodied Atlanteans to this layout. Tyneside PTE, and subsequently Tyne and Wear PTE, adopted this speciation. It appeared on Daimler Fleetline chassis, and Willowbrook built some bodies of this layout for the PTE on long Atlantean chassis.

Richard Slater

29/05/20 – 06:53

No Bill, I didn’t live on a bendy bus route but I have driven in cities on five continents where such vehicles operate and they are no more obstructive than any other long vehicle. Their removal was a toxic mixture of the old LT “not invented here” attitude, political reaction to an innovation by an opposing party and flag waving jingoism. Their very expensive replacements are unable to operate either safely or economically as designed. As for fires, 12 of the articulated vehicles were destroyed by fire and fire has also destroyed a number of the new Routemasters – as it has other hybrids and, going back in time, a good number of Atlanteans, Fleetlines, Panthers and other “conventional” buses.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/06/20 – 07:46

We had the very under powered Wright Ftrs in Leeds which were a bit of a disaster to put it mildly York also had some which the council pressurised First into moving to Leeds. York is also home to a number of Mercedes artics on park and ride service which have no problem in the narrow city centre streets.

Chris Hough

09/12/20 – 07:07

In my opinion the Mancunian was the most stylish body/livery combination ever produced on a rear engine double deck chassis. Ignoring the fact that it is not a fully low floor layout, if one of these turned up at anyone’s bus stop today, I doubt if anyone would believe you if you said the design was over 50 years old.

Alan Murray-Rust

11/12/21 – 08:46

Fully agree, Alan.

David P Oldfield

East Yorkshire – Leyland A13 – BT 8777 – 54

East Yorkshire - Leyland A13 - BT 8777 - 64

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1923
Leyland A13
Leyland B26

As photography is my hobby I have been busy restoring the old family photographs and I came across the above shot of my father and the bus he drove, he is the tallest person in the photo, I hope the photo maybe of interest to you. During the First World War my father was trained as a Heavy Lorry Driver and below is his War Office Warrant Card. He was always thankful for the Army as it had taught him a trade.

warrant card
HandS

In the 1920’s a Bus Driver had to have a good mechanical knowledge in case the bus broke down, if it did he had to repair it himself, there was no AA in those days to get you going again. The route was Hull & Sutton.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Malcolm Burnard

09/12/12 – 15:49

Now! You do not see many shots of these on the internet, especially one of such good quality. You obviously take your hobby very seriously. Thank you for posting it.

Trevor Knowles

BT 8777_cu

09/12/12 – 16:43

A super high quality photo, for which many thanks.
Can any of the EYMS chaps identify the vehicle as I cannot make out the reg. That very narrow rear side window suggests it is not a Leyland bodied A13.

John Whitaker

09/12/12 – 17:39

On the excellent EYMS website which I’ve mentioned before there is reference to a BT 8773, a 1926 Dennis bodied Dennis 50cwt, acquired with the business of Hull & District Motor Services. Could this be the vehicle depicted? I’m afraid that I’ve personally no knowledge of vehicles from that time, I wouldn’t be able to tell a Leyland from a Dennis or any other make.

David Call

09/12/12 – 17:40

The original poster says EYMS 64 Reg BT 8777. Keith Jenkinson’s book on EYMS states that D W Burn of Withernsea took delivery of a new 26 seater Leyland A13 in September 1925 followed by another of the same type in March 1926.He also purchased a Leyland C9 with 26 seats in 1926 and sold all three Leylands to EYMS in October 1926. It may well be that the bus in question is one of the A13’s bought from Burn.

John Darwent

To be fair to Malcolm I did the heading to the posting as it looked like BT 8?77 and working from Kieth Eastons fleet list on site I came up with a Leyland A13 originally owned by Noel Tompson of Sutton.

Peter

10/12/12 – 07:13

I would certainly support Peter’s identification as BT 8777. The fact that the bus is being used on the Hull-Sutton route is at least consistent, although one would have to know more about EY operating practice to be positive. Looking at the inset photo, there is no doubt that the first and last digits are 8 and 7 respectively, but the other two are less defined. Without the benefit of the EY fleet list, I would have guessed at 8177, possibly 8277. The third character might be a 3, although it would depend on whether local practice used a flat-top or rounded version.
From my less-than-expert point of view, I would also say that the radiator looks like a Leyland type for the period.

Alan Murray-Rust

10/12/12 – 07:14

Sorry, I hadn’t looked properly at the close-up of the registration – the final ‘7’ looks pretty definite and I haven’t been able to find a better match. It probably helps that the bus is shown operating between Hull and Sutton, although all respect to John Whittaker’s assertion that the vehicle shown is not a Leyland-bodied A13, of course.

David Call

10/12/12 – 08:56

Could well be a Leyland body David, as there were many variations. It just does not shout “Leyland” to me, body wise, but I am easily fooled!

John Whitaker

10/12/12 – 09:26

If you look in the top left rear window and use the ‘Ctrl +’ trick you can see the registration, as far as I can make out it is the BT and the last two numbers which look like the down strokes of a seven. I can not make out the first two numbers due to the woodwork. Can you do a blow up of the area.

Trevor Knowles

Don’t forget the ‘Ctrl 0’ to return to normal.

10/12/12 – 11:01

ford t

I thought you maybe interested in a shot of my father and his Model T Ford it appears to be taken at the same time and location. It’s a bit grainy but the original photo was very small.

Malcolm Burnard

11/12/12 – 07:16

Interesting that the bus had pneumatic tyres, by no means common at this time.

BUS - M Hulot

Slightly off-piste, but I just love the pose of your father, Malcolm, by his Model ‘T’ Ford. It reminds me of Jacques Tati’s ‘Monsieur Hulot’ and even me, I suspect, showing off my corporal’s stripes HERE:

Chris Hebbron

11/12/12 – 07:17

Firstly, apologies, my list is wrong in that BT 8777, was in fact numbered 54 not 64 by East Yorkshire.
The Chassis is definitely a Leyland, and the bodywork has a very striking resemblance to other early Leyland bodies. The destination reading “HULL & SUTTON” would indicate that it did pass to EY from Noel Thompson who was situated in the village of Sutton-on-Hull, it was at that time outside the city of Hull. My information on former owners is not at hand at the moment so I cannot comment on any former ownership of the vehicle. Finally it is good to see such a clear photo of such an early vehicle, well done.

Keith Easton

11/12/12 – 10:05

Well that was a bit of a struggle chaps, but it seems a consensus has been reached!

John Darwent

11/12/12 – 10:09

One small correction, Malcolm. Both the RAC and AA were providing roadside assistance from their inception (1897 and 1905 respectively) and the RAC campaigned successfully for the abolition of the man with the red flag walking in front of the car. Of course, how many patrols and where they were was another matter. It would certainly be practical for bus staff to be able to carry out minor repairs/adjustments/punctures where needed.

Chris Hebbron

11/12/12 – 11:32

Been looking at my dad’s Fleet list. He has 54 as BT 8981 Leyland A13 and 55 as BT 8777 Leyland A13, B26, New 7-23, ex Noel Thompson of Sutton. I am wondering if he has transposed these numbers by accident from another list. Luckily of course he has complete lists of the AT, BT and WF registration cards for the bus and carriers vehicles so it was easy to look in the BT list to see BT 8777 is chassis number 35638 later disposed to Peacock in Hull.[?] Handwritten notes, fun is! Curiously in some of the earlier photos Dad has there are several with staff and buses together, if I have time I will look to see if he is in any of them!
Apologies for another off piste swerve but I also love the Model T Ford, looks like a post 1915 Trafford Park built T. Clue is the black painted radiator. Great cars, electric lights, electric starter. I owned a later Tudor from 1926, not much different to this, no indicators, no brake lights, no speedo, no front wheel brakes! Happy motoring

Matt Gibbs

12/12/12 – 07:05

B004-53-THO

Please find attached a photo of Noel Thompson’s fleet prior to take over by East Yorkshire, buses are left to right: BT 9809, Dennis 2 1/2 ton 29 seats, (EY 53); BT 8981 Leyland A13, Leyland 26 seats (EY 55); BT 8777, Leyland A13, 26 seats (EY 54); the other three are unidentified, but appear to be a Vulcan (possibly BT 7852 EY 52?), and a Ford (possibly BT 8549) plus another totally unidentified.
I would be pleased if anyone could provide positive id’s for these. With regard to Matt’s comment: I took the numbers for 54 and 55 (BT 8981 & BT 8777 respectively) from the PSV Circle publication PB17 (page 7). If Matt has positive confirmation of the transposition, I would be pleased to amend my records.

Keith Easton

12/12/12 – 17:18

BT 9809_lr

The fleet numbers of BT 8777 & BT 8981 seem to be causing some confusion, my copy of PB17 show 54 as BT 8777, 55 is BT 8981 & 53 is BT 9809, but one thing I have noticed from all this is that EY must have fitted the ex Thompson vehicles with roof destination boxes as the original photo of 54 shows and I have sent a photo of 53 now fitted with a roof box.

Hope Ian is getting better and I am looking forward to the Bridlington book.

Mike Davies

13/12/12 – 06:27

Yes Mike, My copy agrees with that also. With regard to the fleet numbers 49 to 52 which are on my list, none of these numbers have been officially confirmed, and I have a short essay detailing how I arrived at the conclusions I came to. If anyone is interested I can supply a scanned copy of it.
Also may I add my wishes for Ian’s speedy recovery, I was sorry to learn of his illness on the site. (Not to mention his work on the Bridlington book, for all us Bridophiles).
According to Ians book on EY, my photo shows BT 9808, BT 8981, BT 8777, BT 7853, BT 4718, AT 6517 and BT 8549. I hope this is of interest.

Keith Easton

13/12/12 – 16:28

Malcolm Burnard’s comment that, in the 1920s, bus drivers had to have a good mechanical knowledge reminded me that, a few years ago, I came across an extract from the Drivers’ Rule Book issued in 1929 by Ribble Motor Services. In the hope that these may be of general interest, here are those referring to mechanical aspects.
Rule 4. Immediately after reporting for duty, drivers MUST obtain wheel-changing equipment (jack, bar and brace).
Rule 21. Drivers must, when coasting, listen for chassis and body noises; these can best be heard when the engine is running slowly.
Rule 22. Ask your conductor to inform you of such items as loose and noisy windows, squeaking pillars, loose and drumming panels, loose floor traps, etc.
Rule 23. Tighten up any bolts etc found to be loose.
Rule 40. Drivers must not, in any circumstances, interfere with or alter the adjustment of the carburettor or magneto, the only exception to this rule being if a bus has completely broken down a considerable distance from any of our garages and one of these two units is suspected. In this case the driver must do what he thinks necessary to get home.
Rule 41. If it becomes necessary to adjust your brakes on the road, make as little adjustment as possible, care being taken to see that the near and offside are adjusted evenly, and after this from time to time all brake drums are to be felt for undue heating. To enable him to fulfil these tasks, the driver was issued with a tool kit, which he was required to have with him whenever on duty. The kit comprised:- bag (1 no), hammer (1 no), punch (1 no), tube spanners (3 no), tommy bar (1 no), pliers (1 no), chisel (1 no), screwdriver (1 no), double ended spanners (3 no), piece of rubber tubing (1 no), 6″ King Dick spanner (1 no).

David Williamson

14/12/12 – 07:10

David, I’m intrigued about this 6″ King Dick spanner, what would it be used for?

Andrew

14/12/12 – 10:46

Thx, David, for the 1929 Rule Book extract, bound to bring a smile to our faces in this day and age. It’s a wonder that any bus ran to time in those days. I’ll bet they didn’t provide bath/shower facilities on return from duty.

The 6″ King Dick spanner might have been used to beat the conductor with for reporting, endlessly, various rattles and squeaks! Other uses are best left to the imagination! Seriously, I have a couple of their spanners from when my father died, in 1947. KD are a very old company and I was surprised to find it still exists today, although I’ve never seen mention of them.

Chris Hebbron

14/12/12 – 16:24

I’m afraid I have no idea of the intended use of the KD spanner, or any of the other tools for that matter. I can’t imagine what a chisel would be used for, for example.
The same Rule Book had some ‘dress code’ rules, which seem rather quaint by today’s standards.
Rule 3. Drivers when on duty must be clean and neat in appearance, courteous in demeanour and language, not lounge about, nor read newspapers.
Rule 9. The wearing of clogs by drivers when on duty is forbidden.
The following items of uniform were supplied:- winter coat (1 no), summer coat (2 no), cap (1 no), cap cover (1 no), brass buttons (15 no). Note that shirts, ties and trousers were not provided by the company. Presumably the brass buttons were attached to the jackets, and the company wanted the same number returned when employment ended, hence they were itemised separately.

David Williamson

15/12/12 – 07:43

The brass buttons were quite likely of the type attached by inserting the loop on the back of the button through a small buttonhole and fastening the button with a spring peg through the loop. This meant that the buttons could be removed and polished without the polish being applied to the material of the garment, and also the garment could be washed without putting the buttons through the wash. 15 seems a large number for a single garment, so there may have been enough for both summer and winter coats.

Alan Murray-Rust

15/12/12 – 07:43

The rule forbidding the wearing of clogs by drivers persisted in some municipalities until quite late. Halifax Passenger Transport Department had a similar embargo in the mid 1960s, on road safety grounds. Anyone familiar with the traditional wooden soled clog will know that, whatever its qualities may be, proper control of accelerator, brake and clutch is not numbered amongst them.

Roger Cox

15/12/12 – 07:44

The mention of a tool kit for a bus reminded me that London Transport provided in the cab of the RT a saw presumably to saw through the life guard. I can not recall any other operator doing this.

Philip Carlton

15/12/12 – 11:57

In contrast to Halifax Passenger Transport, neighbouring Todmorden J.O.C. apparently allowed the wearing of clogs (or else turned a blind eye) and it continued with a small number of staff certainly through into the Yorkshire Rider era.

John Stringer

29/03/13 – 17:13

When I conducted for West Yorkshire in the early 1960s, “clogging it” was the term for driving a bus at maximum speed, e.g. on the last trip of the day back to town. I remember having difficulty trying to count my change while sat on the rear seat of the bottom deck as the driver clogged a 1937/8 rebodied K5G over potholes and cobbles, of which there were many in Keighley.

Martin S

30/03/13 – 07:30

Martin, I too have heard West Yorkshire staff use the term “cloggin’ it”, as well as “trammin’ on”, “goin’ full pelt”, and “goin’ full belt” which similarly related to driving at top speed. The only time I was actually frightened whilst travelling on a bus, was as a thirteen year old on board a WY KSW. I was returning home to Harrogate from school in Bradford, and having a ‘Bradford – Harrogate’ bus pass, decided to break my journey in Otley to look around the bus station and nearby Sammie Ledgard depot. As the KSW was about to turn into Otley bus station, I was descending the stairs, unaware that the driver had suddenly decided to “clog it” around through the middle entrance ready for the return journey to Bradford. The centrifugal force was hair-raising, and I honestly thought I would literally be thrown off the bus. All I can say is that I was glad of the solidity of the handrail and its mountings, and my hitherto undiscovered vicelike grip on same! To add to my predicament, in those days I didn’t even know any decent swear words to use to let the conductor know of my concern!

Brendan Smith

07/09/14 – 08:00

6''%20%20King%20Dick%20spanner

The 6″ King Dick spanner referred to in the list of tools is an adjustable one, as shown in the attached picture. They were used for bolt sizes not catered for by the 3 ordinary spanners provided, or if two of the same size were required, one to hold a bolt while the other tightened the nut.

Lloyd Penfold

08/09/14 – 06:30

Interesting tale, Brendan: whilst many drivers from various companies would clog on a bit on an open road (except Tracky as I suspect the buses wouldn’t) my jaundiced views on Tilling/West Yorkshire (see elsewhere) are coloured, too, by experience of some of their drivers who never seemed to want to be seen by other motorists as Knights of The Road.

Joe

17/10/14 – 05:14

I’ve just found Keith Easton’s photo of Noel Thompson’s fleet and recognise it as a different angle to one I have of the same occasion. My view shows vehicles to the right of BT 8777 to be Vulcan BT -983, Atlases BT 5226 – AT 6517 – BT —- and Ford BT 8549.

Steve Thompson

17/10/14 – 10:51

Hello Steve. Any chance we can have a look at your photo of Thompsons line up ?

Mike Davies

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

28/04/16 – 06:49

I’m sat with my Dad looking at the photo in question and will try to send you a copy. However Dad has the following info. Dad thinks Vulcan is BT7093 and belonged to W. Cyril Dixon and the destination is shown as Preston which is where Dixon came from, he was a partner with Noel Thompson. Dad thinks their idea being if they sold out to EY and had more buses/routes they may have got more money from the sale! Dixon owned another bus and possibly there is another photo in the old EY files possibly of this vehicle. Sadly littke is known of the elusive Dixon! Dad seems to remember seeing a photo (prob too expensive since he didn’t buy it! ) of a ramshackle bus side view and that Dixon is in the photo. This photo of the Thompson fleet was seen on a stall at the Pudsey postcard fair in a large wooden frame for sale? Several years ago. Dad has an excellent scan copy of it but can’t remember who from. Apologies if it was you Keith but I have no access to his files at present.

Matt Gibbs

P.S. he’s thinking of working on a history of the Hessle operators!

J Fishwick & Sons – Leyland-MCW Olympian – 521 CTF – 7

521 CTF
J Fishwick & Sons – Leyland-MCW Olympian – 521 CTF – 7
521 CTF_2

J Fishwick & Sons
1957
Leyland-MCW Olympian LW1
Weymann B44F

This is sad to say the last week of operation for J Fishwick & Sons of Leyland, Lancashire so I thought it would only fitting for one of their vehicles to be posted this Sunday the 1st November 2015. So here we have 521 CTF a Leyland Olympian LW1 from 1957. She has a Weymann B44F body. Am I right in thinking this was to the HR Olympic what the Tiger Cub was to the Royal Tiger? She’s seen in the museum in Leyland on 19 August 2012 and the second view is a close-up of the maker’s interesting badge.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

03/11/15 – 06:43

Everyone is rightly mourning the seemingly sudden end of Fishwicks. I never lived near it’s main operational area, but may have seen one or two when I lived in the Manchester area as a student in the late 1960’s. At the end of September this year, the wife and I took a short break from the south coast to Blackpool, using a Nat Express service, which went via Preston. So I did see several Fishwick’s buses then. I never though that within a month, that fine livery, and the services provided, would be no more.

Michael Hampton

03/11/15 – 15:04

It’s the age of some of these companies which is so sad, they’re not recent operators to the scene. At least, there is a book about them; David Prescott’s “John Fishwick & Sons 1907-2007: A Century of Transport”.

Chris Hebbron

03/11/15 – 15:05

Yes, the end seems to have come very quickly. Other former operators have seen the end on the horizon and have managed to terminate contracts, and tell the public and the Traffic Commissioners in good time. I suppose we’ll find out eventually what went wrong.

Pete Davies

03/11/15 – 16:19

I’m totally baffled Pete by the badge on this vehicle, in particular the name “Olympian.” I’ve had a brief scan of the splendid book “The Leyland Bus” and find no reference to such a model. There is plenty of description about the substantial body subframe of the Olympic, but no mention of a “proper chassis” vehicle.
The Tiger Cub and the Royal Tiger both had separate chassis, but differing in substantiality and specification, so please come anyone tell anything they know about the mysterious 1950s “Olympian.”

Chris Youhill

03/11/15 – 17:21

Like Chris I too was confused linking this to the Double decker with the same designation. This link should explain origin of this handsome Tiger Cub based variant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland-MCW_Olympian

Nigel Edwards

04/11/15 – 06:47

I’m still somewhat bemused by the Wiki link stating that it was an INTEGRAL single-deck bus built by Weymann’s for the MCW group, using Leyland Tiger Cub CHASSIS. The words in capitals show the contradiction. I wonder if they were long-lived vehicles? I have to say that the badge is very impressive.

Chris Hebbron

04/11/15 – 06:48

Thank you indeed Nigel for helping me out there, and I’m blushing at being unaware of such a model, or hopefully I did know all those years ago when it was “in the news.” Mind you, the first line of the excellent Wikipaedia information throws another red herring into the mix, although correct data occurring thereafter in the piece – it says that the Olympian was an INTEGRAL model incorporating a Tiger Cub CHASSIS !! Obviously they meant Tiger Cub chassis COMPONENTS as correctly detailed from then in the item. Both models were fascinating players in the 1950s belief that “lighter will be economically better” – a theory which proved to be far from totally correct in subsequent decades – a fascinating process to study in depth.

Chris Youhill

04/11/15 – 16:05

According to Glyn Kraemer-Johnson’s authoritative book Britain’s Olympic Hope, the Olympian was unveiled at the 1954 Commercial Motor Show, two years after the last Olympic HR44 had been built. The new model was a lightweight version of the Olympic, using the 0.350 5.76-litre engine as fitted to the Tiger Cub.
Two examples of the Olympian were on show at Earls Court – demonstrator TPH 996 that was later sold to Jones of Aberbeeg, and JUH 469 of Western Welsh. Indeed, Western Welsh was the largest customer for the Olympian, taking 40 in 1956 with the same body as Fishwick’s example above. Fishwick bought six of them, 521-526 CTF. One other was exported to Ceylon and a further four went to Trinidad.
The immediate recognition difference of the Olympian was the lack of the deep aluminium rubbing strip around the entire body at floor level, which was a familiar feature of the Olympic (and many Tiger Cubs).

Peter Murnaghan

04/11/15 – 16:07

Thank you all for your comments, folks. It doesn’t help in resolving the confusion by asking ‘that well-known search engine’ for information on the Leyland Olympian, because that throws out only details of the double decker built after 1980 . . . One has to ask for the Leyland-MCW Olympian! And, yes, integral and chassis are opposite ends of the conventional spectrum. One problem with that encyclopaedia is that it is open to anyone to edit, unlike the traditional book version, which had a team of editors. I believe it’s called ‘progress’.

Pete Davies

05/11/15 – 06:38

Ah, Wikipedia. The concept is admirable, but accuracy often lags well behind. For the past two years I have been ferreting out as much information from as many sources as possible for an article on Tilling-Stevens. The Wikipedia entry on this manufacturer contains several errors that may be found, repeated word for word, elsewhere on the internet, though, like the conundrum of the chicken and the egg, it is impossible to know who copied from whom. Wikipedia should always be taken with substantial helpings of salt.

Roger Cox

05/11/15 – 06:37

Pete- there was no traditional book version of Wikipedia: you may be thinking of Encyclopedia Britannica which is in theory out of date the day after it is printed, and needed the easiest of easy terms to buy. There is a 2010 Edition, new, on Amazon I see for £1500. Wikipedia adds greatly to widening knowledge – I find it useful (especially whilst watching TV quizzes, documentaries etc) and no more slanted than anything else. If you put Leyland Olympian single deck into Google you get this bus- what do you think?

Joe

05/11/15 – 16:57

Joe, I must admit I’ve not tried the particular enquiry you mention. Must try it!

Pete Davies

When I wrote the Leyland-MCW Olympian article I said, Leyland Tiger Cub _units_. If it has been edited to _chassis_ I shall attempt to correct it.
Mr Kraemer-Johnson’s book is good but by no mean’s free from errors, one of which is he says HR with the Olympic stands for Home Range, which would be absurd when only one model was initially offered, and would mean presumably that EL stood for Export Lange?
The original error comes from David Kaye’s Blandford Pocket guide of 1968. So errors propagate as often in old media as in new. The difference is I can’t correct the book, nor can Mr Kraemer-Johnson unless it has sold enough for a second edition, which would be highly unusual for a bus book.

Stephen Allcroft

05/11/15 – 16:59

I’m no expert on bus construction, but “integral-ness” seems to be a matter of degree. It isn’t just a matter of the running units being attached to a strengthened body structure: there is often something resembling a chassis frame, and it’s often referred to as exactly that. I remember visiting Fishwicks once when they were working on the Olympian. They said “You can tell it isn’t a Tiger Cub, because the floor sits straight on top of the chassis.” Another example was Sentinel’s so-called integrals, where bodyless structures could often be seen driving round the roads of Shropshire while they were in build.

Peter Williamson

06/11/15 – 07:08

At least YOU can change Wikipedia and you can see who changed it! Stephen has changed it back from ‘chassis’ (itself changed by “Mo7838” on 20/11/14) to ‘units’ today!

Geoff Pullin

06/11/15 – 07:08

Export Olympics could be either EL or ER, denoting (yes, you’ve guessed it) Left or Right hand drive. I do not think it wise to start a discussion on the definition of “integral”, as one interpretation could include every double decker from the Atlantean and Fleetline onwards!

Allan White

06/11/15 – 16:42

Not all Olympic HR were built at Home and not all ER were exported from their country of manufacture. This is because some were built in South Africa by Bus Builders (South Africa) Ltd. They did export some too, to Rhodesia, and some Addlestone built RHD chassis in the HR series were exported too. BUSAF also built an SA version with a Cummins 220 engine and Twin-Disc transmission for South African railways. Leyland listed the Olympic and Olympian in a 1964 booklet, although the last Olympian had been built six years earlier. www.flickr.com/photos/

Stephen Allcroft

Oldham Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – NBU 508 – 408

Oldham Corporation - Leyland Titan PD2 - NBU 508 - 408

Oldham Corporation
1957
Leyland Titan PD2/20
Crossley H33/28R

This picture shows Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Transport XTC 855 and Oldham Corporation Passenger Transport NBU 508 in Oldham’s Wallshaw Street Depot.

NBU 508_2

The photograph shows the cast fleet number plate that was a feature of the Oldham fleet at that time.
In this view 408s Coat of Arms is on the lower deck panel, until, like Ashton, they were moved to the front upper deck panels. This was to save the costs of replacement when damage occurred due to accidents.
The Service 3 was Middleton to Rushcroft.
408 was renumbered as 5308 in the SELNEC fleet in November 1969.
The picture shows the vast expanse of the roof of Wallshaw Street depot. The Garage roof having only 3 stanchions, supporting girders with spans of over 200ft.
Ashton XTC 855 was one of the Guy Arab IVs with Bond H32/28R bodywork delivered as No. 40 in 1956. Here it has Fleet No. 68 which it received in 1964. It was renumbered 5468 at the formation of SELNEC in November 1969.
It can be seen that the Corporation crest and lettering is in the normal position before being moved to the upper deck front panel (as shown in the photograph of No. 19 in Part One – Ashton under Lyne article by Phil Blinkhorn and Roger Cox).
It is in Oldham Garage, showing Service 8 which was the joint Oldham, Ashton, & SHMD service between Oldham and Stalybridge via Hurst Cross.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth

12/09/13 – 16:30

Oldham 408 was numerically the first of five Leyland PD2/20 with Crossley bodies built to Park Royal design, after the takeover by the ACV group. Similar bodies were supplied to Ashton-Under-Lyne and Stockport Corporations at this time Crossley ceased body building soon after, although not before they had built the prototype Bridgemaster, which had many similarities to this body design. The Manchester independent A. Mayne and Son had three AEC Regent V with Park Royal bodywork to the same basic design (although in 30ft length.)
These bodies proved inferior to their contemporaries of other makes, and after takeover by Selnec PTE, 409 was overhauled and lasted in service until 1973, the rest of the batch were withdrawn in 1970.
Ashton-Under-Lyne Corporation was a Leyland User, and had only the one batch of Guy Arab IV’s. These were unusual in having exposed radiators and 5LW engines, as well as the relatively rare body make. I enjoyed several rides on these interesting buses from Ashton to Mossley, this route being their usual home.
I wonder why an Ashton bus was inside Oldham’s depot? At first I wondered if it was one of the many buses hired from other operators as a result of the disastrous visit by Ministry of transport inspectors in October 1965. However David Wayman’s book on Oldham buses states that there were no Ashton buses involved. Perhaps it had broken down in Oldham.

Don McKeown

13/09/13 – 06:30

An interesting photo of a neighbouring municipality’s vehicle interloping into the home fleet’s garage. I would venture this was a relatively rare occurrence in its day unless someone can enlighten us. The photo has made me realise what an attractive design the Bond bodies were in a fairly understated way. The Guy radiator looks a bit old fashioned and puts about 10 years on the body design though. The Birmingham tin front would have made them into really stunning buses. Bolton of course had similar bodies on exposed radiator Leyland PD2’s but somehow the Leyland radiator seemed to age much better and still looked good right up to the end of Titan production.

Philip Halstead

13/09/13 – 08:30

A number of points regarding Don’s comment. The Stockport PD2s with Crossley bodies to the same design didn’t have the same problems as the Oldham batch and some were sent to Oldham after SELNEC took over. As I’m away from home at present I can’t confirm actual vehicles used and the dates but the Stockport vehicles outlasted the Oldham and Ashton batches.
The Ashton Guys were specifically bought for the Mossley route – see my article on SELNEC Part One. They appeared on the 7 and 8 from time to time, both being regular Guy turns, more frequently operated with rebodied austerity Guys sporting 7 foot 6 in versions of the Crossley body shown in the picture.
What the bus is doing in the depot is a matter of conjecture. It certainly wasn’t a 1965 swap vehicle. A breakdown is possible but as there was always one of the batch spare and it may have been filling in for a broken down Oldham vehicle which came to grief in Ashton’s territory and would have been taken to Mossley Rd. Most of the joint services in the Manchester conurbation had vehicle swap arrangements should a vehicle come to grief in the territory of another operator.

Phil Blinkhorn

13/09/13 – 08:30

I know exactly what the Ashton Guy was doing in the Oldham garage and I even have the negative of this photo (although I didn’t take it). I’ve had to look very carefully as it is quite likely that very similar photographs were also taken.
Ashton 68 was on a tour organised by the Buckley Wells Bus Enthusiasts Society. It operated on 9th July 1967 and visited several locations in north Lancashire. Thanks to Stan Fitton, who organised the tour, I have photographs of the Ashton Guy next to Todmorden PD2s, a BCN Guy and an Accrington Wulfrunian. I hope in time to put these in a gallery recounting the history of the Society as I think many will find it an interesting story.
Although both these vehicles were allocated SELNEC fleet numbers neither carried them and in fact the Oldham PD2 had been withdrawn some time before SELNEC was formed.

David Beilby

13/09/13 – 16:30

I wonder why the blind was set for route number 8? Has David thwarted a ruse set 46 years ago to confuse future enthusiasts and historians? The date was my 20th birthday and I spent the day riding buses – far away from Oldham however.
They were two shades of green, exclusively single deck and carried a coat of arms containing the letters SPQR and a crown. I have in mind an article covering my wanderings on the city and country buses I used around Rome but am having problems finding relevant photos and accurate references to exact types.

Phil Blinkhorn

14/09/13 – 06:24

XTC 854

To quote Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, “Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder”. I consider the elegant and timeless Guy radiator on the Ashton Arab IVs to be much superior in appearance to the bulbous Birmingham style tin front. The best version of the Birmingham front was that fitted to the Dennis Lance K4 which had vertical chrome strips instead of the crude sausage shaped slots. Did these Ashton Arabs really have the 5LW engine? Hitherto, I understood the power plant to be the 6LW. Gardners were always cool runners, an effective oil cooler being an important feature of the engine design. The handsome Bond bodywork exhibits several similarities with contemporary five bay East Lancashire products. Perhaps Bond used the East Lancs frame. Then again, the Harkness bodies of the period had much the same appearance, and these used MetSec frames.

Roger Cox

14/09/13 – 16:19

Roger, as you are aware, I’m away at present but my memory and the references I can find on the Net all point to the 5LW engine. Bond used various frames inc Burlingham but I’ve no knowledge of any use of East Lancs frames and I’d doubt that the Blackburn concern would have supplied frames given just about every batch built by them in the 1950s and 1960s was unique, though I take your point about resemblance, especially the frontal appearance.
The Park Bridge service was an oddity. It followed the Oldham Rd to almost the boundary with Hathershaw then turned right down a winding road to Park Bridge, a hamlet established in the 18th century around an iron works. Its timings on weekdays were based around rush hours and a late evening service. Saturday saw an enhanced daytime service for shoppers but, until the closure of the Oldham to Guide Bridge and Stockport rail services in the Beeching era, the halt at Park Bridge provided a more frequent service though Oldham Rd station at Ashton was a good ten minutes walk from the market and shops, the final 200 yards back to the station being up a quite sharp gradient. The hamlet is now a heritage site with beautifully restored houses in a rural setting.

Phil Blinkhorn

15/09/13 – 07:25

Phil, your knowledge of the operators in the Manchester locality is rewardingly comprehensive, and, as you indicated in the Ashton article, these Guys must have been purchased for a specific reason. Nonetheless, it does seem extraordinary that Ashton should specify the 7 litre, 94 bhp 5LW engine to meet a situation that distressed a 9.8 litre, 125 bhp Leyland. The Gardner would assuredly climb a proverbial brick wall without overheating, but progress must have been decidedly sedate. On the subject of the body frames used by Bond, a contributor to the following website, named T W Moore (surely the well known bus photographer) suggests that Bond was an associated company of East Lancs (see the last post on the page):- //cwk205.freeforums.org/  
Do you think that this was the case?

Roger Cox

15/09/13 – 09:36

XTC 855

The attached photo shows the Ashton Guy at the start of this tour (and all the other Buckley Wells Bus Enthusiasts tours), Manchester Victoria station. 68 has as a backdrop the long-demolished buildings on Hunt’s Bank. The coach behind is unusual as it is a Setra from the Somme Département in France, as shown by the registration which ends with the number 80. Continental coaches were a rare sight in those days.
The blinds were set to all sorts of displays during the tour (it was an opportunity to practice this much-desired but usually not permitted activity). At Ashton it showed 159, certainly not an Ashton route, and a lot of time it showed the perennial favourite but incorrect Ashton display, “10 Downing Street”, which unfortunately came out as Downing St 10. Downing Street was a short working on the 5 to Droylsden via Littlemoss.

David Beilby

15/09/13 – 14:02

On the face of it the use of the 5LW looks odd but there may have been a very logical reason – at least in the minds of the members of the Transport Committee and the General Manager. The order was placed in the period in the 1950s when diesel prices and wages had escalated rapidly putting up costs against a background of increased availability of cars, an increase in home entertainment with a widening of TV output and a resistance against increased fares all of which produced a marked decline in passenger numbers.
Small and reduced output engines were not a rare phenomenon in the area and whilst the route to Mossley may have seemed to demand a large engine, a slow plodder which completed the journey, on what was a fairly relaxed schedule, was preferable to an enforced cooling stop or even a breakdown, which had become a regular and expensive enough occurrence. No other route in the system had such demands and the 5LW would have had a more racehorse like performance on the other routes to which Ashton’s Guys were allocated and to which the vehicles would eventually be tasked. I rode on both the Leylands and the Guys and whilst I was under ten at the time the Guys took over, I have memories of their stately progress compared to the rather raucous progress of the Leylands, which included much gear changing and stuttering starts from some of the bus stops on the steeper parts of the route, not to mention the overheating.
With regard to Bond, the posting linking the company to East Lancs contains a major nonsense in so far as it places the latter in Bridlington, not once but twice – hardly a typo. Apart from its own bodies Bond did finish bodies for other manufacturers and may well have taken the strain for East Lancs with the Coventry job but, as far as I have understood the rather obscure history of the company, it was totally independent of any other bus body builder, its demise in Wythenshawe coming about after protracted labour disputes between craft unions.

Phil Blinkhorn

15/09/13 – 16:50

Roger’s information with respect to the suggestion that the S.H. Bond concern was an associate of East Lancs. would go a long way towards explaining why the remainder of a batch of nine pre-war Bristol saloons of Rotherham Corporation, of which I think four had been rebodied by East Lancs. at Bridlington when the decision was taken to wind up the seaside operation in 1952, ended up being taken to Bond at Wythenshawe for the work to be done.

Dave Careless

15/09/13 – 16:51

Ashton’s Guy Arab IVs had 6LW engines. I get this information from a very detailed fleet list published by Ashton themselves about 1968 when the buses were part of the current fleet. As (I believe) the only Ashton buses ever fitted with a 6LW it is most unlikely they would have got that wrong. The fleet list shows withdrawn vehicles and the utility Guys are shown correctly with a 5LW engine.
Bond bodies were built on Metal Sections frames and were as good as anybody else’s. The closest connection they had to any other coach builder was Brush as the head of their bus operation had come from Brush when they moved out of the business.
One of these Guys was earmarked for preservation in early SELNEC days but a significant chassis defect meant that project was stillborn. It’s a shame as one of these would have been a fine testimony to a local coachbuilder, the sole representative being a contemporary Ashton trolleybus.

David Beilby

15/09/13 – 18:05

Phil, East Lancs did have a subsidiary business at Bridlington as the following web page confirms:- www.ebay.com/itm/  
I do, however, agree with your assessment of the situation in that any connection between Bond and East Lancs occurred purely in the course of business; there was no inter company control. I am grateful to David for endorsing my belief that these Ashton Guys had 6LW engines. The revelation that the Bond bodies were built on Metal Section frames also ties in with the visual and quality similarities to the fine Harkness products of that time.

Roger Cox

15/09/13 – 19:19

Dave, I’m a little surprised that either Coventry or Rotherham accepted tenders from the Bridlington operation of East Lancs as I always understood this arm of the operation was to be wound down from the end of 1951, thus my thought that the reference to Bridlington in the link posted by Roger was in error. If the operation was still functioning in 1952, as seems to be the case, then it’s demise must have been delayed then brought on in very short order for vehicles to be moved to Bond, implying a hasty decision and that the Blackburn operation was operating at capacity.
Again, the movement to Bond doesn’t imply any legal connection or association. As mentioned before, Bond completed orders for a number of body builders, including three of the 1953 Royal Tiger half decker airport coaches for Manchester for which Burlingham supplied the frames, the Blackpool concern completing the other three itself.
David, as I mentioned previously, I’m away from home at the moment so can’t access my own records. If 6LW engines were fitted, they would certainly have been the only ones in the fleet and from a power point of view the bigger engine, as Roger points out, would be more logical though the references I can find say 5LW. The fleet list to which you refer has long been on my “must have” list but seems to be as rare as hens’ teeth.

As a rider to the above, the Commercial Motors’ archive which often can clear up seemingly contentious issues with contemporary news items is silent on both the demise of the Bridlington operation and the Ashton order for the Arab IVs.

Phil Blinkhorn

16/09/13 – 06:28

Bond were initially active in rebuilding before they turned their hand to building new bodies. Ribble was a big customer and most memorable were the early SLT trolleybuses that were given a new lease of life at Wythenshawe.
Significantly it appears from the fleet list elsewhere on this site that the Rotherham Bristols that went to Bond were also lengthened to (almost) the recent 30-foot limit, whereas the others were rebodied and remained the original length.

David Beilby

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

17/09/13 – 05:06

Phil, the story of East Lancashire Coachbuilders (Bridlington) Ltd., and sister company, Yorkshire Equipment Company, is a most interesting one. Apparently the latter built school furniture, desks and cupboards etc., and even constructed a furniture van body on an old Rotherham Bristol JO5G chassis with which to deliver the items to schools around the country.
Unfortunately, as orders for bus bodies and school desks inevitably dwindled, and commitment from owners wavered, the search for a buyer was unsuccessful, and both companies went into voluntary liquidation in mid-1952.

Dave Careless

19/11/13 – 18:04

In the comment above you make reference to Yorkshire Equipment being a subsidiary of East Lancs and being a school furniture maker. I had my own website back in Gocities days and had a page for makers. In doing research for Mann Egerton of Norwich, I found a US site that had school desks made by them. At one time they also made radios! Varied markets for many!

John Turnbull

Southdown – Beadle – Leyland – MUF 488 – 649

Southdown - Beadle- Leyland - MUF 488 - 649

Southdown Motor Services Ltd
1953
Beadle – Leyland
Beadle FB31F

MUF 488 is one of those curious vehicles built by Beadles using Bedford or Leyland parts. The Leyland ones came from Tigers or Titans. In this case, the combination was delivered to Southdown in 1953, and has a FB31F body on TD5 running units. We see it outside the Southdown garage at Amberley on 13 September 2009.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/03/17 – 16:03

I suppose these days this would be called ‘recycling’. It is quite a nice looking coach although the front end lets it down a bit. Rather plain around the grille area and the joint between the upper windscreen sections and the destination display sits a bit uncomfortably.

Philip Halstead

06/03/17 – 07:08

If my information is correct, the NGT group had 18 of the type. They were all built on refurbished pre war AEC Regal chassis, and although mechanically an AEC down to the last nut and bolt., none of them carried AEC badges or logos. Northern had 10 FC35F versions DCN 83/92 – 1483/92; all similar to the example above, 1483 is currently undergoing restoration in the very capable hands of the NEBPT Ltd, who set themselves very high standards, I look forward to seeing the end result.
The other eight were for Wakefields Motors at Percy Main depot. Six were delivered in 1952, FT 7275/80 – 175/180, and were FC35F, the fronts differed to these, in that they had more bright trim, and an altogether softer look about them. A photo of 178 is posted elsewhere on this site. The other two FT 7791/2, 191/2 arrived in 1953, they were FC39F, as well as a larger seating capacity, they had a similar front to these which had a different destination layout incorporating a number section, to allow them to be used as D/P’s. All the P/M intake were different to those of NGT, in that they had twin cab doors and a full bulkhead separating the cab from the passenger saloon.
191/2 were sold to Garner Bridge of Weir, and 175/80 were exported to Yugoslavia of all places.

Ronnie Hoye

06/03/17 – 07:08

The running units for this coach came from pre-war Leyland Tiger TS8 FCD 368, which was delivered to Southdown in January 1939. The original Harrington B34R body, which had been temporarily converted to B30R perimeter seating (plus up to 30 standing) during the war, was rebuilt (not rebodied) by Portsmouth Aviation in August 1947. This body was removed and sold for scrap in February 1953, and the chassis was then cut to form front and rear running units for attachment to the integral Beadle body structure. The same construction principle was adopted some years later for the London Transport Routemaster. The Beadle body was offered in 30ft or 26ft lengths, and Southdown had examples of both. (Southdown also employed Beadle to fit full fronts of similar appearance to its Duple bodied PS1 coaches of 1947 to 1949 vintage.) Beadle Rebuilds (as the integral conversions became generally known) were introduced also at around the same time (early 1950s) by Maidstone and District and East Kent, again using Leyland running units.

Roger Cox

06/03/17 – 07:09

This vehicle has SOUTHDOWN in capital letters, which would make it a bus rather than a coach.

Chris Hebbron

06/03/17 – 17:12

Thanks for your thoughts, folks. The PSVC listing for this vehicle does not show whether it is TD or TS, but it does say B31F (not FB31F). Jenkinson says TD5 with FC35F. I note that his 1978 descriptions have been out of synch with other sources before! Chris H, yes, the general view is that it is a bus, but study the script on the front. I can understand why some consider it to be a coach. Now, where did we leave the discussion about bus, coach or dual-purpose?

Pete Davies

08/03/17 – 16:35

MUF 488 used the running gear from TS8 1468 (FCD368). It was delivered as a coach (888) but downgraded to bus work and renumbered 649 in 1958. Block lettering was usually, but not exclusively used on Buses. For example, the 15xx East Lancs Royal Tigers were delivered as DP’s with block lettering, but received ‘Mackenzie script’ when converted to OMO buses. The utility Guy open topers and Northern Counties DP Leopards also had ‘Mackenzie script’ and I have seen pictures of Beadle PD2/12’s similarly adorned. The front plaque with ‘Mackenzie script’ was a device used on many vehicles in place of the usual ornate Leyland marque badges. They were also used on ‘Queen Mary’s’. Hope this helps to clear up a few points noted previously.

Roy Nicholson

09/03/17 – 06:52

Thanks, Roy

Pete Davies

01/12/18 – 07:07

I recall this bus on omo operations with Southdown in the 50’s-60-s before sale to a Scout Group where it was painted blue. A friend of mine Ray Oliver from Chichester bought it and ran it for a time before selling it to whoever did the current repaint restoration. Alas we lost contact many years ago.

Keith Styles

03/12/18 – 09:26

I think the current owner has a couple of Southdowns and maybe this one will be out and about soon.

Roger Burdett

10/02/19 – 07:35

Re the Beadle re-bodied Southdown buses. Although they were mainly on the private hire/excursion work, they were used on a trial Service from Worthing to Steyning, I think numbered 66. The service ran from Worthing via North Lancing to the Sussex Pad, then along the narrow road to Bramber and Steyning. I don’t think it was a success.

Paul Kidger

Northern General Transport’s PD3/4s

In 1958, the Northern General Group took delivery of 53 Leyland PD3/4 vehicles. To the best of my knowledge, they were their first 30ft double deck buses; they were also the last rear entrance, although not the last half cabs, that particular label went to the Routemasters of 1963/4. I know a few half cabs were drafted in post NBC, but that was after the lunatics had taken control of the asylum.

The independence NGT allowed its subsidiaries in vehicle choice and specification has been discussed before on this site, and here is another example.
13 were ordered by Sunderland District Omnibus YPT 286 to 298; 286/298
They were primarily bought for use on SDO’s longer routes, and had Burlingham H41/32RD bodies, and very smart they looked in the understated Navy blue and white livery.

The remainder were all H41/32R MCW Orion bodies.

3 for Tyneside NNL 48 to 50; 48/50 Sage green and cream.

5 for Gateshead & District HCN 475 to 479; 75/79 Chocolate and cream.

20 for Northern YPT 825 to 484; 1825/1844 BET red and cream.

12 for Percy Main of which ten AFT 224 to 233; 224/233 for Tynemouth & District and two
AFT 234 and 235; 234/235 for Wakefields Motors Ltd. All twelve in BET red and cream.

I think its fair to say that the Orion would not be everyone’s first choice for favourite body, and the least said about the early ones the better. However, lessons were learned and these 1958 versions were a vast improvement on those on the earlier Guy Arab’s and Leyland PD2’s. As was the practice with Gateshead and District, theirs had a Newcastle Corporation style destination layout, but that and different liveries apart, outwardly, all the Orion’s looked to be pretty much the same. The interiors were finished in brown with Rexene covered seats. However, the 12 for Percy Main were finished to a much higher interior specification, as well as a different colour, ‘green’ they had moquette upholstered seats. Shortly after delivery, the front number plates were moved from the radiator to the front panel below the windscreen. AFT 930, had an extended life as a driver training vehicle, and I’m pleased say that it has survived into preservation, and is currently in the extremely capable hands of North East Bus Preservation Trust Ltd where it is undergoing extensive restoration. There was also a Sunderland District Omnibus example ‘YPT 289’ which was listed as awaiting preservation, but it seems to have dropped off the radar, does anyone know anything about it?

AFT 229 fleet number 229 is pictured above round the back of Percy Main depot, and looks to have just arrived from MCW, but in fairness, their vehicles were always well turned out, but this was in an age before ‘pride’ became an outdated idea that was surplus to requirements.

Ronnie Hoye
01/2016

28/01/16 – 09:55

‘The front number plates were moved from the radiator to the front panel below the windscreen’.
I have often wondered why, when the majority of operators were content to have the front number plate in the traditional position below the radiator, some chose to locate them in odd places.
Below the cab windscreen might have been something to do with better visibility than down at ground level. But why have them up on the waistrail, beneath the destination indicator? Southdown had consecutive batches of buses in this period with number plates ‘up there’ and blow the radiator. So there seems to have been no company policy.
And Barton was famous for putting adverts down below the radiator ‘Parcels by Bus’, for example, with the number plate high up on the body. Clearly, they weren’t worried about road dirt obscuring the number plate, as it would have been their own advert that would have been obscured.
Was it to do with identification of buses in the depot? Then surely prominent fleet numbers would have been the answer and operators have total control of where these are sited.
Does anybody here know the reason ?

Petras409

28/01/16 – 11:39

Usually when operators moved the number plate from the radiator onto the bodywork it was to allow radiators to be swapped from one bus to another without having to swap the plate as well.

John Stringer

28/01/16 – 16:08

YPT 289 is included on the NEBPT’s list of preserved buses with a North-East connection, dated 27/2/14, and that seems to be regarded as the ‘current’ list. It’s given as awaiting restoration, with owner Ritchie, Peterborough.
Is there reason to suspect that its status has recently changed?

David Call

29/01/16 – 07:11

I find it fascinating to note the allocated registration series of these buses. Clearly Northern General allowed it’s subsidiaries to use their local office for their particular batch, so we have, AFT, HCN, NNL, and YPT. One (AFT) is just starting a three letter forward series, one (HCN) is about a third through, one (NNL) just over half-way, and the other (YPT) is the last in a forward series, about to start reverse issues. Quite fascinating when all these issuing offices were in the same area! No doubt that all changed in the 1974 sort-out.

Michael Hampton

29/01/16 – 17:35

Yes Michael, prior to 1974, apart from vehicles acquired by way of a takeover, all vehicles new to United, were registered in Darlington ‘HN’, whereas NGT group vehicles were registered in several different authority areas. Vehicles new to Tyneside were Northumberland ‘JR-NL or TY’ Tynemouth & District and Wakefields Motors were Tynemouth ‘FT’. SDO were County Durham ‘PT or UP’ and Gateshead & District were Gateshead ‘CN’. A handfull of Northern vehicles were registered in South Shields ‘CU’ the remainder were all either Gateshead or County Durham. Strangely enough, Sunderland had two registrations, ‘BR & GR’ but neither seem to have been used by the NGT Group

Ronnie Hoye