Tag: Park Royal

Northern General – Leyland Titan – VUP 761 – 1761

Northern General - Leyland Titan - VUP 761 - 761

Northern General Transport
1957
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Park Royal H35/28RD

Pictured outside Consett Depot, VUP 761 is a Park Royal bodied H35/28RD Leyland PD2/12, it was the first in a batch of ten delivered in 1957 – VUP 761/70; We have seen Northern General Transport vehicles with the open platform version of this type of Park Royal body before on this site, the previous ones being the Guy Arab IV’s of Tynemouth and District. The order for these handsome vehicles was initially placed by Sunderland District Omnibus, but prior to delivery they were diverted to Northern and entered service as 1761/70, so I don’t know if any of them got as far as being painted in SDO livery. They were generally to be found earning their keep on the long routes to Darlington and Stockton/Middlesbrough that NGT shared with United, where they were eventually superseded by the Routemasters. 1761 is still looking very smart, but going by the lettering and livery style it was probably nearing the end of its service life at the time this photo was taken, but I don’t think any of these vehicles suffered the indignity of being painted in NBC poppy red.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

20/12/13 – 15:51

I didn’t ever encounter these particular buses, but the combination of the dependable and stolid PD2 chassis with the stylish and well finished Park Royal bodywork of the time always formed a sound and efficient piece of capital equipment. The reputation that Leyland double deckers acquired from the TD1 through to the PD3 was entirely merited, and Park Royal bodywork, until it descended from the sublime to the ridiculous, was always a sound choice. Buses like these attained a level of reliability that present day bus engineers can only dream about.

Roger Cox

20/12/13 – 16:43

Couldn’t agree more, Roger.

David Oldfield

20/12/13 – 17:58

It’s called rugged simplicity lads. There’s a lot to be said for power steering and fully automatic gearboxes -especially when the driver has to collect fares, ensure the passengers are safe and watch out for top deck vandalism – self diagnostics can be a boon to the engineers and heaters, fluorescent lights and high visibility grab rails with low floor accessibility might be great for passengers but the modern bus for all its sophistication is a potential nightmare when it goes wrong.

Phil Blinkhorn

21/12/13 – 07:13

…..and so say all of us, Phil…..

David Oldfield

21/12/13 – 07:13

Power steering can also be a bad thing, Phil. Our half cabs a Percy Main were well maintained, and although heavier, they were perfectly acceptable, and at least they had ‘feel’ whereas the MK1 National was a nightmare on a wet or slippery road. Half the time you didn’t have a clue where the wheels were pointing, and it was more by luck than judgement if you went in the direction you intended to go.

Ronnie Hoye

21/12/13 – 08:32

Only drove a Mk1 National once in good conditions. Light and vague sums up the handling!

David Oldfield

21/12/13 – 13:58

A bendy is even worse, gents! Imagine putting the foot down for a standing start on a frosty morning, and seeing – via your mirrors – the back end advancing sideways towards the wall of a nearby property, while the front end just sits there. I know of one instance in Southampton and I’m sure it isn’t unique . . .

Pete Davies

21/12/13 – 13:58

Notwithstanding all the supposed development work and the well publicised testing in near arctic and sub tropical climes, the National MkI was appallingly unbalanced design with very poor front/back weight distribution. Its one saving grace was the almost indestructible bodywork. Some of the early 11.3 metre production examples went to London Country who, despite the dual door configuration, put the things on the Stevenage Superbus, thereby applying to that ‘premium’ service its first kiss of death. Hatfield and Dunton Green garages were next to receive these bundles of joy for local bus routes. By now Leyland had relaxed its rigid stance and agreed to produce a single door option, and, despite the ultra basic bus seating, a batch of these gems went on Green Line routes 721. 706 and 711. I never drove a National; at this time I worked in the LCBS HQ next to Reigate Garage, where the vicissitudes of the LN were well known. The introduction of these things coincided with a spell of extremely hot weather which caused some kind of meltdown in the gear selection/control mechanism. Also, the misconceived microswitches in the engine cover required someone to push the back panel hard to enable engine starting – it was said that the National was the only bus that needed a boot up the backside to make it go. I did often ride on these early Nationals, and found them to be utterly nasty. Drivers had never experienced such rapid engine acceleration before, and progress consisted of a succession of savage starts and violent stops. The body roll on corners was extreme, requiring passengers to clutch at the handrails to avoid being deposited in the gangway. The very light steering coupled with the long rear overhang behind the back wheels led to a spate of rear end collisions due to the backswing. The much hyped heating system, the rearward pod roof location of which added to the weight imbalance of the design, must have been created by someone with no knowledge of simple physics, since hot air rises everywhere except, apparently, in Leyland, Lancashire. The roof interior soon became Henry Ford’s preferred colour. Certainly the National did improve with time, but the 500 series engine was always a lemon. The MkII addressed several of the problems, but it could never match up to the Bristol RE that Stokes deliberately killed off to boost National sales.

Roger Cox

21/12/13 – 15:22

Brilliant resume of the National, Roger. I am a little more generously inclined to the MkII – but there was no excuse nor was it a substitute for the Series III RE that never was.

David Oldfield

21/12/13 – 18:04

And how did the Lynx measure up to the Nationals I & II?

Chris Hebbron

22/12/13 – 07:17

Lynx? Swearing and bad language should never be allowed on this site.

David Oldfield

22/12/13 – 07:18

It would be fascinating to know just what the warranty arrangements were for the Mk1 Nationals. They were either a nightmare or a milch cow for Leyland judging by the throughput of spares at the Chorley operation in the first few years. There was many an old Leyland hand seen shaking their head and muttering about the legitimacy of the type.
On a different tack, just what is it that the Brits don’t like about articulated PSVs? They operate successfully all around the world, including in many countries where snow and ice reign for far longer than in the UK. Certainly those with the power pack driving the rearmost wheels are harder to control in certain conditions but I can’t recall hearing such criticism of the breed anywhere else.

Phil Blinkhorn

22/12/13 – 08:46

Is it the “London Transport Syndrome”, Phil? We didn’t invent it, we didn’t design it so we won’t make any effort to make it work. Oh, and whilst we’re at it, we’ll draw attention to the slightest fault – conveniently glossing over any faults in our own designs.
I’m a firm believer in the RM – having both ridden and driven numerous examples. It is fairly well documented, however, that there were numerous teething problems – which were eventually sorted out. [Pride wouldn’t let us design a dog.] The MB and DM(S) weren’t designed by LT, so could be jettisoned as rubbish and failures – but like the Cravens RTs they had long and honourable lives post LT. The Bendis fall into this category. They are not British – and therefore not worth consideration. Oh, goody. Some have gone up in flames. QED. [As a world-wide statistical point, this argument doesn’t hold water.] The Bendis are not bad, I simply don’t like them.
Now that is honest!

David Oldfield

22/12/13 – 09:04

According to Bus and Coach Magazine the Maltese Government in August ordered off the road the former LT Mercedes-Benz Citaros following nine fires in one year.

Peter

23/12/13 – 06:55

Roger’s summary of the Leyland National (perhaps a little off-topic here, but I didn’t start it!) is very accurate. For the passengers it was a lively ride accentuated, on those early models, by the shiny seats in an attractive shade of fawn.
LT passengers had long enjoyed the tactile pleasures of moquette and slithery seats requiring a steadying hold on the handrail were most unwelcome.

Petras409

23/12/13 – 11:19

This British anti-bendi-bus attitude could simply be the fact that we increase our bus capacity with double-deckers which are familiar here, but nowadays virtually unknown on the continent, so they do it with bendi-buses. Having said that, it seems to me that, as ever, it’s the few influential ones who make the fuss, like Boris, peddling untruths like the rear part squeezing cyclists off the road etc.

Chris Hebbron

23/12/13 – 14:00

David and Chris make excellent points re articulated buses plus there is the “not invented in Britain” syndrome. Berlin operates both double deckers and articulated singles very successfully across a massive area of both intensely urban and semi rural road networks London could easily do the same. London tourism, in particular, has traded on the red double decker for decades as if they were the only double deckers in the world, touting riding on the top deck as a unique experience. As David points out, too many otherwise successful designs have been condemned by LT in its various forms and it was only the break up of LT that catapulted so many industry standard designs onto the streets of London. TfL under Boris has now come up with a very expensive animal compared to the articulated Citaro (£330K new as opposed to £200K) which it has lauded as being the best of all things to urban London, whilst ensuring no-one else can buy one even if they wanted one for the foreseeable future and even then any order would include a licence payment to TfL. Presumably if it turns out to be a dog, work will be done to rectify problems that the rest of the industry will not find out about until years later, (apart from some unusually good journalism from the Mail) see this link www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ whereas the Citaros were stigmatised in short order and very vociferously.

Phil Blinkhorn

23/12/13 – 17:27

Chris Y- did you see (Daily Mail story link above) conductors on a Borisbus for 12 hours a day cost £60K per annum for each bus?

Joe

23/12/13 – 17:28

It always surprised me that, despite North’s selling lots of London Transport (and possibly non-LT ones, too) double-deck buses to European countries such as Belgium/Jugoslavia/Canary Isles/Spain/Portugal, the double-deck principle never really gained momentum. Berlin had DD buses before the war, of course.

Chris Hebbron

24/12/13 – 06:44

Ref. to Joe’s remark on costs of Borisbus conductors, I have never understood why the UK does not adopt the continental method of revenue collection, at least for urban routes – self-cancellation of pre-purchased tickets. It reduces to a minimum driver’s duties as a ticket seller/revenue protector and so cuts down on dwell time at stops. On-the-spot penalty for ticketless travel (spot checks by teams of roving plain-clothes inspectors) is fixed at about 25 times the standard fare. So, provided tickets are checked once in every 25 journeys the operator loses nothing, and the freeloaders gain nothing.

Stephen Ford

24/12/13 – 06:45

These “Borisbus” absurdities are nothing more than a vanity project for a publicity hungry London Mayor. I am not a great fan of the articulated bus, but Johnson’s hysterical condemnation of the Citaros in his self awarded parallel role of “Cyclists’ Champion” was just another headline grabbing stunt. Perfectly sound, expensive public service vehicles (I prefer the old expression) have been flogged off well before their properly depreciated lifespan, at a heavy cost to all national taxpayers (most of whom receive no benefit whatsoever from the huge and disproportionate subsidy handed out to TfL). In their place have come these ridiculous committee designed camels, each having a unit cost far above entirely acceptable, proven, modern designs. Within a few years, these things, neither fish nor fowl (nor barely recognisable as buses) will be deemed too old to continue in passenger transport service within the exclusive, rarefied bubble that seemingly now encompasses London. What then? I do not see realistic operators outside the Metropolis wanting Borisbuses for normal services. No doubt they will be sold off to dealers at hugely discounted prices for school transport operators once the rear doorways have been permanently nailed up.

Roger Cox

24/12/13 – 06:46

Leyland Nationals in the snow would go anywhere the problem was stopping them but the traction was amazing on snow covered roads going up hill.

Michael Crofts

24/12/13 – 06:47

David (Oldfield); living in the Morley area and working in Bradford, between about 1988 and 1990 I probably travelled on a West Riding Lynx up to ten times per week. As you will know West Riding built up a large fleet of these (as they did, of course, with the Guy Wulfrunian!), but the Lynx had a full service life. I found it an attractive vehicle to look at, not especially noisy, fairly comfortable and with very impressive acceleration. I admit I am not a professional busman, either a driver or an engineer, so why do they seem to be so unpopular? You are not the only person to condemn them on this and other forums!

Dave Towers

24/12/13 – 08:31

Boris buses do not have conductors. They are platform attendants – allegedly to prevent customers falling off. It patently hasn’t worked if recent news is to be believed. They do not have anything to do with fare collection or revenue checks. In central London there is already ticket-less operation similar to what you have suggested, Stephen.
Personally, I find the Boris bus ugly in the extreme, its linking with the name Routemaster an abomination and its whole existence pointless. Most, if not all, of its useful features are also found in the standard offerings of ADL, Wright-bus and Optare and its usefulness and desirability outside London (new or second hand) is, as Roger said, nigh on none-existent.
Dave/Lynx. As said elsewhere, the National had an unassailable body to mitigate against its dreadful engine and handling. The Lynx was so badly designed. The body depended on its bonded glazing and other such features to ensure body rigidity. In practice this didn’t happen. Rattling and twisty body syndrome did. In the general scheme of things the engine was too big for the bus – and contributed to body disintegration – and with the transmission contributed to as clog and anchor style of driving and ride. It didn’t hit the market at an auspicious time, but even so the poor sales represented what operators thought of it. Caldaire was the only big scale operator of the type and probably, like LT mentioned above, had to make it work. Getting rid of so many vehicles would have bankrupt them.

David Oldfield

24/12/13 – 13:45

I seem to be a Rare busman on these pages as I Liked the National. We used to operate them (Crosville) on the C84 service which was a five hour round trip and these buses worked for a living day in and day out fully loaded on lots of trips, they were T reg they spoilt the National by putting Gardener engines in them making them noisy and smelly with no performance !
I had a K reg Lynx as a training bus I believe it was one of the last to be made and always enjoyed driving it.

Michael Crofts

24/12/13 – 15:35

The Lynx came with four engine options, though not concurrently. Early examples had the Leyland TL11 or Gardner 6HLXCT coupled with the Leyland semi auto gearbox. The Cummins L10 and ZF fully auto box were added later, and became the standard when the Leyland and Gardner power options were withdrawn. Then Leyland Bus fell into the clutches of Volvo, and the THD102KF 245 bhp 9.6 litre unit – developed from the AEC engine – was offered as an alternative to the Cummins. All the Lynxes that I drove were Cummins powered, and had the endearing Cummins PT injection system characteristic of a total lack of logical liaison with accelerator pressure. Depressing the pedal brought no response until the engine revved up to a level way beyond that which was desired. Easing off the pedal again yielded no effect in reducing revs until the thing suddenly shut down again to idling speed. Effectively, Cummins engines were either ‘on’ or ‘off’, making it impossible in buses so powered to drive smoothly with consideration for the passengers. The driver might just as well had an on/off throttle switch on the dashboard. The transmission howl from gearbox and rear axle in the Lynx gave one a severe headache in no time; the semi integral body structure must have amplified the noise somehow. Yes, the Lynx could certainly motor, but progress was decidedly savage and unpleasant. I absolutely hated driving the Lynx; it was beaten for nastiness only by the Seddon Pennine IV, and then by a small margin. My distaste was shared by all the drivers of my acquaintance that encountered the things. In one depot where I worked the Lynx was nicknamed “The Scud” – it went like a missile and was just about as uncontrollable. The L10 powered Olympian was a nasty creature too, unlike its Gardner stable mate, but the Lynx was far worse. It is noteworthy that the ‘in house’ Cummins engines, latterly the ‘C’ family and M11, are no longer offered for the automotive market. The ‘B’ series and its derivatives, as used in ADL buses, was originally designed by the Case Corporation, and it employs the trusted Bosch type conventional fuel injection system. This web page www.aronline.co.uk/  gives one opinion of the Lynx, much of which I do not share, especially the comment, “The Lynx was a good vehicle to drive; Cummins and Volvo-engined buses had acceleration best described as alarming and were very popular amongst drivers”. Popular with drivers? Not in my experience.

Roger Cox

25/12/13 – 06:35

Just as matter of correction (and we are way past the 1970 cut off for this site) the Cummins C series engine had a conventional fuel injection system, same as the B series. I believe both types were built in Darlington for UK applications – as was the V6-VIM – now THERE is a pre 1970 comment!- Daimler Roadliner!

Ian Wild

25/12/13 – 09:39

Thanks for that correction Ian. my only driving knowledge of the ‘C’ engine came from a couple of Dennis Javelins at one garage, and, yes, they were less ‘snatchy’ than the L10s. Mercifully, I never had to handle a Roadliner.

Roger Cox

26/12/13 – 08:36

The interesting thing about the Lynx and Caldaire (West Riding/Yorkshire was that the single deck Lynx seemed to become a major part of the fleet, replacing double deckers such as Bristol VR’s. This (with real minibuses) seemed then to be the way forward: surely passenger numbers were declining & something simpler was needed, together with buses that could pick up around suburban estates. Then the megagroups formed and we have the lumbering megabuses which can scarcely squeeze into bus lanes: what is the real logic (not the public transport command economy logic) of this?

Joe

26/12/13 – 13:07

Re Michael’s comments on the National. The only ones I have ever driven were the early MK1, of K & L vintage, this covered the period from Aug 1971 to July 1973, and I don’t retract a single word I said about them, they were in my opinion an absolute abortion. By the time you got to the ‘T’ registered vehicles ‘Aug 78 to July 79’ that Michael speaks of, a further five years had passed during which time many of the problems had been dealt with. However, I can’t help thinking, that had the opposition not been killed off, and had the companies been given a free choice rather than having the National thrust upon them, the chances are that working for Crossville, Michael would have been driving a Bristol RELL rather than a National.

Ronnie Hoye

02/01/14 – 08:23

Returning to the photo of 1761, this batch of ten buses were very easy on the eye – Ronnie describes them as handsome and I can’t think of a better adjective with which to describe them. They were also very fast (for their day), particularly when given their head South of Durham on the 46 (Darlington) and the 55 (Middlesbrough). Their downside was the seating, which was cramped and provided inadequate legroom, especially for long journeys.
They were intended to displace the MCCW (Orion)-bodied Guy Arab IVs, themselves less than two years old, from the above services although I can well remember both types operating in tandem on the 47 and 55 during the early ’60s. The arrival of Routemasters at Chester-le-Street and Bensham depots in 1964/5 ousted these fine machines from the North Road but they continued to provide excellent service elsewhere on less prestigious routes. The 136, as seen above, was, at 11 minutes from Consett to Chester Road (Moorside), a bit of a comedown compared with Newcastle-Darlington (1 hour 55 minutes) and Newcastle-Middlesbrough (2 hours 9 minutes).

Alan Hall

18/05/14 – 06:24

VUP 769

1769 seemed to outlast its siblings of this batch as this was the only example I saw/travelled on. It often found itself on the scholars (of which I was one) run from Lanchester back to Consett.

John4521

18/05/14 – 11:56

I see from the colour of the wheels and logo that we have now entered the NBC era, and look how standards have dropped. Okay, the photo was taken on a damp and dreary day which is never a help, but both vehicles are showing signs of neglect. The Atlantean appears to have a broken fog light, and neither vehicle has any front wheel trims. Neither would have been acceptable under the old NGT regime, whatever the reason the wheel trims had been removed, they would have been replaced, and the broken light would have been attended to at the earliest opportunity, apart from anything else its an offence, fog lights are not obligatory, but if fitted must work.

Ronnie Hoye

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

04/08/16 – 08:54

I lived next door to the depot at this time, and I’m sure that the buses parked at that end of the depot were awaiting disposal, which would excuse the missing foglight.

Stuart Gunn

09/08/16 – 06:18

I have an update to the discussion about the New Routemaster which took place in this thread two-and-a-half years ago, although actually it is also closely linked to the main subject matter of this forum, because the story really begins with the original Routemaster.
Readers may recall that, when the Routemaster was finally withdrawn from normal London service, an urban myth started circulating, to the effect that its open platform had been specially designed for London to allow passengers to board and alight between stops during periods of heavy traffic congestion. (This has resulted in anything with an open platform now being called a Routemaster.) Of course we all know that, in reality, getting on and off between stops is something that was always discouraged for safety reasons, until Boris promised to being it back in order to get elected as mayor.
Well the update is that next month – a mere four months after the end of Boris’s second term – the ‘platform attendants’ on the New Routemasters are to be dispensed with to save money, and the rear doors are to be kept closed between stops. What a surprise!

Peter Williamson

09/08/16 – 09:23

And what a criminal waste of public money on a preposterous vanity project.

Roger Cox

10/08/16 – 05:54

It’s probably partly political, with a Labour Mayor in post, to dismantle one bit of the ‘Boris Legacy’, with a wish to get rid of his unattractive-looking buses, too, but that is a step too far! Politicians love these projects, Concorde being one of the most expensive for huge technical advances, but no direct benefit to more than a few rich and business folk.

Chris Hebbron

11/08/16 – 06:25

As one who has always thought of Concorde as being a simply beautiful design, I cannot bring myself to say the same about the New Routemaster.

Brendan Smith

Barrow Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – CEO 956 – 169

Barrow Corporation - Leyland Titan PD2 - CEO 956 - 169

Barrow In Furness Corporation
1958
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Park Royal H33/28R

CEO 956 is a Leyland PD2/40 with Park Royal H61R bodywork from 1958. She was built for Barrow In Furness Corporation (fleet number 169) and we see her parked on Middle Walk, Blackpool, on 29 September 1985. This is a date some of the readership will recognise, as being Blackpool’s Tramway Centenary day and she was taking part in a rally as part of the celebrations.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

03/09/15 – 07:17

What a handsome bus – helped by an attractive livery.

David Wragg

04/09/15 – 07:17

Thank you, David. I’ve always thought the livery bore some affinity with the Birmingham one, likewise that of St Helens (only in red).

Pete Davies

11/09/15 – 07:07

This vehicle along with No.170 (CEO 957), passed to the Furness Transport Group in the late 1970s, subsequently passing on to the Mersey and Calder Group.
On Saturday 25th October 1986 it was hired back for one day by Barrow Corporation Transport and operated the final service journey (11pm Town Hall – Abbey Road – Harrel Lane – Washington – Town Hall), thus marking the end of 66 years of municipal transport in the Borough.

Larry B

12/09/15 – 14:22

Honourably bringing up the rear, behind this fabulous Barrow vehicle, is surely one of the splendid Lytham St Annes Leylands too. Those were the days indeed.

Chris Youhill

13/09/15 – 05:49

There’s a name I’m glad to see here again – not Leyland or even Park Royal… or Barrow – but Youhill!

Joe

13/09/15 – 11:15

Thank you so much Joe , that is very kind indeed. I have been through the mill to some tune this last couple of months but am now making the best of it – what else can one do ?? I am definitely not one of those to burden everyone else with my difficulties as this does neither party any good I always feel, so no morbid details here. Thank you once again though for your greatly appreciated concern – I have had many good wishes from various quarters and forums (fora I suppose for Latin aficionado’s) and these of course mean a lot.

Chris Youhill

13/09/15 – 11:15

Enthusiastically seconded, Joe!

Chris Hebbron

15/09/15 – 06:41

Correct, CY, and welcome back. The vehicle concerned is GTB 903. I feel the original is too close-up for submission for Peter to consider.

Pete Davies

Southdown – Leyland Titan PD1 – GUF 669 – 269

Southdown - Leyland Titan PD1 - GUF 669 - 269

Southdown Motor Services
1946
Leyland Titan PD1
Park Royal H26/26R

Taken with my rather primitive Comet S camera in Brighton in 1960, this picture is not one of my best. There were twenty five of these PD1s delivered between June and September 1946, and 269, GUF 669, arrived with Southdown in July. 269 was withdrawn in 1963 and sold to Mexborough and Swinton who upseated it to H32/26R, but withdrew it for scrap just three years later. The PD1, with its 100 bhp 7.4 litre E181 engine and slow gearchange, was never a lively performer, and would have found some of the hills around Brighton to have been a bit of of a challenge, but several were based at Worthing depot, and in the picture 269 is operating along the relatively easy coastal route 9 from Arundel to Brighton.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

01/05/22 – 07:37

Poor photo you might feel, Roger, but photos of immediate post-war buses are often fascinating. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a Park Royal bodied one before, still five-bay. Weymann ones are seemingly more common. I agree with the painfully slow gearchanges on these vehicles; you could drink a cup of tea between gears, at least you could with London Transport’s austerity TD4 STDs, which sometimes would appear at Raynes Park, on the 77A route! Why they were given challenging routes in Central London and not allocated to Country services, I don’t know. But that’s London Transport for you!

Chris Hebbron

22/05/22 – 06:47

I went on a family holiday to Worthing in 1959, our first Southern holiday. I remember these PD1s from that holiday and this particular bus from its days with Mexborough and Swinton as I worked as an apprentice at Parkgate at that time just along the road from the M&S depot. I don”t recall ever travelling on it or its sibling. They have a certain rugged attraction to the bodywork and certainly dissimilar to any other buses that I came across. Thanks for the memories!!

Ian Wild

24/05/22 – 05:46

Chris, the utility London Transport STD class of 1941/2 comprised eleven “unfrozen” buses of the Leyland TD7 variety, a type that was introduced in succession to the TD5 in 1939. The TD6 was a special Birmingham only gearless version of the TD7, the model number being changed by Leyland for the wider market. In addition to being higher geared than the TD5, a significant change was the adoption of flexible engine mountings, and, to reduce rock, the engine was equipped with a heavier flywheel than before. This, however, resulted in the engine revs taking a long time to die between upward gear changes, which, added to the high gearing, made the TD7 painfully slow on intensive town services. Perversely, the London TD7s were all allocated to Victoria garage where they were regarded with an attitude bordering on hatred, and STD 101-111 were the very first utility buses to be withdrawn from front line service by London Transport. They all went unlamented for scrap. In practice, several provincial operators found that the flexible engine mountings of the TD7 weakened the chassis frame at the back of the engine and restored their examples to the solid mountings of the TD5, so was it all worth it, one wonders. The wartime bus industry is reported to have been utterly dismayed when the Leyland TD8 utility bus option was cancelled by the Ministry of War Transport, leaving only the suspiciously unknown quantity called the Guy Arab available to operators. Perhaps the heavy flywheel TD8 might not have proved popular in practice, whereas the Arab went on to earn a reputation as a truly dependable workhorse. Despite having a rigidly mounted engine the PD1 also precluded remotely speedy gear changes, and Geoffrey Hilditch declared that this model had the slowest gear change he ever encountered, though it seems that he didn’t come across the equally ponderous TD7. Strangely, the single deck PS1 of identical mechanical specification did not seem to earn a similar reputation. No doubt the lighter vehicle weight permitted better forward progress through the gears.

Roger Cox

East Kent – Leyland Tiger – CFN 104

East Kent - Leyland Tiger - CFN 104

East Kent
1948
Leyland Tiger PS1/1
Park Royal C32R

CFN 104 is a Tiger PS1/1 from the East Kent fleet. She has Park Royal body, listed as C32R. It has been discussed at length on these pages in the past, but I find it annoying that the vehicle clearly has a door, but the standard PSVC terminology doesn’t mention the feature. She is seen in the shot above at Amberley on 13 September 2009.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

02/07/14 – 11:02

To my eye the best-looking of all postwar coaches: straight waistline, restrained curvature elsewhere, radiator unashamed to be what it is, perfect choice of colours in simple livery. But I still wish that Leyland had offered a 5-speed box for the PD1/PS1; I’m not sure whether the advertised prewar 0.77:1 bolt-on overdrive (does anyone know of any actual examples?) was still available after the war. I suspect not.
Thanks for the posting, Pete.

Ian T

02/07/14 – 17:57

Quite simply, a glorious dignified classic vehicle – today’s designers and marketing gurus please note. What I would give to drive this wonderful vehicle for a good distance, or at all !! I must say that I was unaware of an optional overdrive (or “super top”) being offered on the prewar range, and no doubt such a fitting would have given the vehicles a higher top speed with economy, but perhaps Company engineers had some fear of torque issues – just an uninformed thought !!

Chris Youhill

02/07/14 – 17:59

There was always something special about these East Kent coaches, although I only saw a few of them when living in London, with an occasional trip to Dartford.
I love the light paintwork where the side-board is. I seem to recall that the pre-war overdrive unit was not carried forward postwar, Ian. Did they offer two-speed or re-geared rear axle, perhaps?

Chris Hebbron

13/06/17 – 07:31

I was wondering why the writer was surprised that the vehicle in question should not have a rear passenger door.
Thanks for interesting site.

Garth Wyver

13/06/17 – 09:14

Like Ian T, I know of no Leyland Tigers or Titans with an overdrive fitment. I am sure that, had one been available for the PS1, East Kent would have tried it out. The Company had a sizeable fleet of Dennis Lancet buses and coaches, all with the five speed ‘O’ type gearbox, and these, even the pre war four cylinder O4 powered versions, could really fly on an open road.

Roger Cox

15/06/17 – 07:13

In response to Garth’s comment, I was not surprised that the coach has a door with a rear-entrance. I would expect one wherever the entrance is, as in CxxF, CxxC or CxxR. I have never understood the idea which came (I believe in the 1930s) from the PSV Circle and the Omnibus Society that only double deckers should have the RD or R suffix. If you’re doing it for a double, why not for a single? Never mind – I’ve mentioned before in these columns that I’m glad am I not and never have been a member of either group. If I had been, they’d have roasted me for heresy years ago!
Oh, and what a wonderful Captcha code on this RM54

Pete Davies

09/08/19 – 08:52

Please can you tell me why the seats are not side by side but slightly back by about 2 inches? The driver at Tinkers Park was not sure why

Anon

10/08/19 – 07:40

My understanding of the seat situation is that it emphasised the luxury coach aspect of these vehicles. The passenger nearest to the gangway could see past the passenger nearer to the body side more easily for the view out of the windows – “oh! look at that lovely valley / hill / church / pub” or whatever. Otherwise the inside passenger is always having to lean forward, instead of enjoying the luxury seating.
Re the PSV Circle designation of CxxR, without a D for the door; when the codes were drawn up in the 1940’s virtually all rear-entrance coaches would have had a door as standard, to ensure passenger comfort and safety. However vehicles on bus work with a rear entrance were nearly all open platform – doors were exceptional until the mid-fifties, and by no means universal from then. So presumably the PSVC experts decided to only draw attention to the exceptions rather than the regular understood usages of the day. Of course, fashions and designs in coaching and service buses change, so these designations are presumably reviewed by those who decide such things, while trying to be consistent with past practice. I’m not a committee member of PSVC, only just commenting on my observations over the years.

Michael Hampton

10/08/19 – 07:42

At a guess, the offside emergency exit at the front would make it desirable for the seats to be set further back to give sufficient clearance. In contrast the seats on the nearside will be constrained by the rear doorway.
There is no real reason for the seats to be in line and the seat pitches can vary as they are spread out to fit the available space which is likely to be different on each side.

David Beilby

Bournemouth Corporation – Leyland Tiger Cub – RRU 901 – 264

Bournemouth Corporation - Leyland Tiger Cub - RRU 901 - 264

Bournemouth Corporation
1955
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/1
Park Royal B42F

RRU 901 was originally Bournemouth 264 – a Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/1 with Park Royal B42F body. It started life in Bournemouth 96 with an open rear entrance and front exit with doors in 1955. It was rebodied around 1957 for One Man Operation. It lasted until 1971 when it was sold to Burton on Trent (Maroon and Cream) and then transferred to East Staffs when Burton disappeared. It went into preservation in 1977 and went back to Bournemouth colours. It has had a bit of a chequered life in preservation and was in a sorry state in the early 2000’s.
Around 2008/9 it moved to Scotland where it was extensively re-panelled and repainted in a Western Scottish style livery, which is the way it is currently.
It had an overheating problem at Kirkby Stephen this year, but was in service on the Saturday, and since then the water pump has been removed and found to have been well and truly bodged by someone previously with a metal pin and black silicone mastic. It is seen in resting between duties at Kirkby Stephen West.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones, with additional information from Malcolm Davies

02/06/15 – 07:15

That livery wouldn’t look amiss in Southport!

Pete Davies

10/06/15 – 09:05

Compare this to Stockport’s Tiger Cubs, built by Crossley to the same basic design. Some have said the Stockport version has more than a passing resemblance to the RF and the Monocoach.

Phil Blinkhorn

12/06/15 – 06:31

RRU 903_1
RRU 903_2

A sister vehicle, RRU 903 is preserved in Yorkshire in Bournemouth Corporation livery. These photos show it in Grassington (in company with a much newer preserved bus, Pennine Dennis Dart R717 YWC) and a rear view at the farm near Skipton where the vehicle is kept. The rear end is very unusual, with the emergency door on the offside. I had the privilege of driving this bus a few months ago. It was the first crash gearbox bus I had driven for many years, and it was a great relief to feel the gears engaging without a “crunching” sound.

Don McKeown

13/06/15 – 06:44

Did this bus (and the rest of the batch) originally have a rear door in addition to the front? This was the normal Bournemouth fashion for many years. Although now clearly removed, it might explain the unusual rear design for the emergency door. A study of the Western SMT liveried bus reveals a similar layout at the rear.

Michael Hampton

14/06/15 – 06:54

NDB 356

Bournemouth did convert it’s dual entrance Tiger Cubs to front entrance as early as 1957 and did the same with the 1951 Royal Tigers later on. The unusual rear arrangements probably result from that change.
For comparative purposes here is a view of a Crossley bodied Stockport Tiger Cub on Park Royal design frames dating from 1958.

Orla Nutting

08/08/15 – 06:57

This batch of buses all had a rear open platform entrance, rather than a second door. The buses didn’t last long in this configuration before being rebodied, hence the “two” windows on the nearside as opposed to the one on the offside. On mine you can still see some of the framework for the steps underneath. This original set up would certainly explain why the emergency door is on the offside.

Malcolm Davies

08/08/15 – 11:39

I am still puzzled about access to that rear corner emergency exit. How would passengers get to use it in an emergency?
Is the rear seat moved forward to creat a gap behind it, or is the rear nearside seat a ‘three seater’ with a space on the offside?
It’s all rather unusual, but an expert with knoweldge of the interior layout will hopefully be able to resolve this puzzle.

Petras409

26/10/20 – 06:33

Close inspection of the picture of RRU 903’s rear suggests the rear offside seat pair is away from the rear end. Presumably, that would facilitate access from the gangway to the emergency exit, with clearances compliant with the C & U Regulations prevalent at the time of modification.

Terry Walker

31/10/20 – 06:26

Thanks Terry. Your suggestion has put my mind at rest. That’s 5 years of uncertainty finally resolved!

Petras409

ex Guernseybus – Leyland RTL – KYY 647

Preserved - ex Guernseybus - Leyland RTL - KYY 647


Copyright both shots Bob Gell

ex Guernseybus
1950
Leyland RTL
Park Royal H29/23F

A couple of weeks back we had a question on the ‘Q&As’ page regarding front entrance ex London Transport Leyland RTLs. In response Bob Gell contributed the above shots which were taken at the North Weald Rally, 6 July 2008 and the following information of an ex Guernseybus converted RTL.
As can be seen it is now preserved and back to carrying its original London Transport fleet number of RTL 1004 but not quite the original livery. Bob is led to believe that KYY 647 was converted by Guernseybus in their own workshops, for use as back up on inclement days to their open top RTs one of which was was RT 2494 registration KXW 123 with a Weymann body; it carried Guernsey registration number 54636. Guernseybus may have moved the entrance to the front, which I will come back to later, but as can be seen from the insert shot the staircase was only moved towards the centre of the bus and the stairs went rearwards.
The subject of the original query, JXN 366, the former RTL 43, new to London Transport in 1949 joined the A1 Services fleet in February 1958, owned by T & E Docherty of Irvine. A photo of that vehicle can be seen here. It is thought to have been converted ‘in house’ in this case, the staircase was moved to the front as per normal front entrance vehicles. In 1971, it passed to Duff, a fellow member of A1 Services, who operated it until December 1973. It is now in preservation.
Two questions arise out of this posting there is always at least one, firstly, KYY 647 carried two registrations 47312 and 995 during its time on Guernsey does anyone know why. Secondly whilst researching into these conversions other sites and documentation described the conversion of them to forward entrance not front entrance, Bob thinks that could spark a whole debate on its own, I think he could be right.

Photographs and Information contributed by Bob Gell

By common consent, Front entrance means just that – at the front, by the driver. Forward entrance means as far forward as possible – ie just behind the front axle (and engine) of a standard half-cab (or full-fronted) vehicle.

David Oldfield

I am guilty of using ‘front’ entrance for such vehicles but reading supports the use of ‘forward’ entrance. It seems that front entrance should be used for more modern vehicles, such as the Atlantean, Fleetline, etc. I think some confusion arises where fleet lists show anything not centre or rear entrance as a code ‘F’.

Scott Anderson

Not one, but two forward-entrance RTL’s from different sources. These were complete news to me. Thanks for the interesting post.

Chris Hebbron

The first picture gives the impression that the main object of the modification may have been one man operation – i.e. angled window on left hand side of cab, as was done to various half-cab single deckers by sundry operators.

Stephen Ford

I had quite a few enquirers regarding what the conversion of the rear entrance looked like, well, Bob obliged with the following shot.

Peter

KYY 647_rear_lr

Wow – art deco rounded glass at the rear – very expensive, I’d have thought. Better to see an off-centre rear view than full rear one, because the large rear pane of glass downstairs would be off-centre and the overall look quite asymmetric. Also the offside window ahead of the rounded one seems higher than its counterpart this side and the other side windows. In general, though, a neat job.

Chris Hebbron

Hi Chris I think the higher window you refer to is the new Emergency Door see the little shot inserted in the text.

Spencer

Ah Yes, Spencer, I missed the little photo: the door isn’t so clear on the upper photos. Thanks for clarifying.

Chris Hebbron

06/07/11 – 07:21

The team of inhouse coachbuilders at the then operating Guernseybus were tasked with relocating the rear entrance forward in order to allow the company to continue to operate its entire fleet with just a driver onboard – which was standard practice on the island.
As for the registration number changes, between 47312 and 995, it’s mainly to do with a relatively lucrative market for cherished number plates in Guernsey, which has numeric only registrations. The number 995 may well have been sold (or indeed bought as an investment) by Guernseybus during the double deckers tenure in the island. 47312 would, as a registration number have very little value.

Neil (Guernsey)

31/03/13 – 07:52

You have a photo of my guernsey bus I restored this bus in 1984 the reg on it was JPA 81V as this was the year it came over from the island it was sold for £65 and then it cost £110 pounds on the fery. I got Swansea to give me a reg for it’s year 1958 it was then LSV 748. Hope you find this of use.

John Sergeant

14/09/14 – 07:21

RTL 1004 was the Lambeth Safety Bus in the 1970.
The Abbots Langley Transport Circle bought it from a scape yard in Essex near Ongar. We had the bus for a number of years. We had to sell the bus on when we lost our parking space, and was unable to find another close to our base in Abbots Langley Herts’.

Stephen Norman

23/01/17 – 07:30

I use to own this bus wondered where it ended up and what is it doing now.

Alan Ullmer

A. H. Kearsey – Leyland 7RT RTL – KGK 797- 62

A. H. Kearsey - Leyland 7RT RTL - KGK 797- 62

A. H. Kearsey
1949
Leyland 7RT RTL
Park Royal H30/26R

The London Transport RTL class, known to LT as the 7RT, appeared from 1948, and consisted of a modified Titan PD2 chassis frame to accord with features of the AEC Regent RT, enabling the interchangeability of bodywork between the two types. Though fitted with the standard O600 engine, the gearbox was the AEC preselective epicyclic of the RT class, a transmission option that was not a standard offering by Leyland to operators elsewhere. A total of 1631 RTL buses was made, though, as with the 4826 of the RT class, that number never ran together in service. The majority of RTLs had Park Royal bodies, though 32 were originally fitted with Weymann and 500 with Metro Cammell bodywork. To these were added 500 of the mechanically similar eight feet wide RTW class, all of which had Metro Cammell bodies. Under the LT Aldenham overhaul system, bodywork became swapped about between chassis on passing through the works, and tracing individual bodies to chassis during their London Transport lifetimes is complicated. With characteristic profligacy, LT went ahead with developing its new wonder, the Routemaster, from 1954, despite the fact that large numbers of brand new RT and RTL buses were then languishing in store without ever having turned a wheel in revenue earning service. Four years later these stored buses eventually took to the road in 1958, the year before the first production Routemasters began appearing in volume, and they then began displacing the perfectly sound earlier RTLs of 1948/49 after a service lifetime of a mere nine to eleven years, during which full chassis/body overhauls had been undertaken. These withdrawn RTLs, in fine mechanical and body condition, soon found favour with operators at home and abroad (many went to Ceylon) where they rendered years of reliable service. The former RTL 133, KGK 797, delivered to London Transport in February 1949, was sold in January 1959, despite having received a full Aldenham overhaul in 1956, when its original body was replaced with another, also by Park Royal. It was then bought by A. H. Kearsey of Cheltenham, together with RTLs 138/149, KGK 802/813, and all remained with that operator when it was taken over by Marchant’s Coaches in January 1968. In the August 1970 picture above KGK 797, fleet number 62, in Kearsey’s sombre grey and blue livery, is seen (if I recollect correctly, though hesitantly after half a century) in Bishop’s Cleeve. Marchant’s continued to serve this area right up to October 2019 when all its bus routes were withdrawn following issues with Gloucestershire County Council over funding. More Kearsey pictures may be found here:- www.flickr.com/photos/tags/kearsey/

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

08/03/20 – 12:29

A minor correction to the details given here by Roger. The 500 Leyland 6RT, RTW class, had Leyland bodies and not Metro Cammell ones.

John Kaye

09/03/20 – 06:32

You’re right John. My error.

Roger Cox

09/03/20 – 06:33

Did some also have Cravens bodies?

Roger Ward

10/03/20 – 06:03

I think that there were some Saunders Roe bodied RT’s as well?

Andrew Charles

10/03/20 – 06:06

The Cravens bodies, as with the Saunders bodies, were on the RT class, A.E.C. Regent III.
RT1402-1521 had Cravens bodies, whilst RT1152-1401 and RT4218-4267 had Saunders bodies.

John Kaye

11/03/20 – 06:25

The bus has generous destination panels, yet, Kearsey left the bus completely ignore every one of them!
Marchant’s Coaches, Cheltenham, are still in fine fettle, with some 7 local school bus services, private hire and mystery tours, and regular day-out tours to places like Legoland. Nice to mention a well-established family concern not in trouble or to announce its demise.

Chris Hebbron

12/03/20 – 06:07

……though they recently pulled out of local service operation, citing too much bureaucracy amongst other issues. Until, I think, the 1980s, they had an amazing network of stage routes around the Cotswolds, worked from a base at Aldsworth, the timings of which they seemed to regard as a state secrets – the recently dropped work around Cheltenham had come from other sources, notably replacing the estimable Castleways when that concern closed.

Phil Drake

15/03/20 – 06:47

Those painted-over destination boxes bothered me as well. I grew up in a place and an era when the buses I saw displayed half a dozen via points on the front, back and nearside, and showed the destination front and back, and even now TfL buses have some route information on the front. So I’m baffled – how did Kearsey’s passengers know where the RTL was going? Was it only ever on one route, which was known to everybody who was likely to use it, or did the conductor shout from the platform “We’re only going to the Town Hall today, love, but we can drop you off at the shops if you like? No sir, we don’t go to the station, not on a Wednesday!”?

Don Davis

Like it, Don; good point well made. Mind you, there were good displays, but confusing ones, too. Portsmouth Corporation, in its middle years, had double-lettered routes. ‘A’ one way and ‘B’ coming back. there was never mention anywhere of this and folk would wait for an ‘A’ return journey and ignore the ‘B,s going by! And this at a seaside resort with lots of holidaymakers. I grew up with suffix letters on route numbers in London, although they never went very high,, but Portsmouth had one route, 143, which went from ‘A’ to ‘F’. ‘A’ was the whole route, then the higher the suffix the shorter the route. Much higher than ‘F’ and the route travelled would have been about a hundred yards!
Incidentally, Cheltenham, which historically only had numbered routes, now has some with letters. I’m surprised that Gloucestershire County Council, which controls bus route numbers, hasn’t forced a change.

Chris Hebbron

16/03/20 – 06:50

16-03-2020

The mention by Phil Drake of Castleways of Winchcombe reminded me of this photo taken in November 1973 of their Leopard PSU3B/4 Plaxton Panorama C49F, apparently named Countess, new in November 1972 looking absolutely stunning in their dark blue and silver grey livery. Taken in Cheltenhams somewhat bleak bus station amongst the autumn leaves.

David Lennard

17/03/20 – 07:07

17-03-20

My delight with Castleways was seeing their Temsa Safari coach, which looked absolutely gorgeous in the black with gold band livery. (Photo by R Sharman).
On one occasion, I took their coach on their route to Stratford-upon-Avon. Cheltenham Bus Station, although the late 1940s reinforced concrete shelters have now been replaced by light metal glazed ones, is as bleak, draughty and lacking any comforts as it ever was. Not even a toilet. Perhaps the bus is too uncomfortably reminding them of the Great Unwashed!

Chris Hebbron

18/03/20 – 07:02

They used single deckers on their routes, and the double deckers on schools/factories and as duplicates on stage services.
They were well kept up until Marchants took over. They lost the ladies college work and other work to Castleways and started to go down hill. Marchants was always to be avoided if possible. Its only in the past 20/30 years that Marchants have improved.

A number of years ago Cheltenham and Gloucester used the same numbers, so country routes were adjusted to 3 numbers, and some renumbered, Cheltenham went to letters, Red and White Forest routes renumbered.

Mike

19/03/20 – 06:39

Thx, Mike for that info.

Chris Hebbron

19/03/20 – 06:41

Chris Hebbron mentions Portsmouth’s confusing route numbers. Another seaside resort determined to baffle holidaymakers was Southport. Most routes were cross-town, and the route number went with the destination, so if you went from the town centre to Woodvale on an 11, you would return on a 10 bound for Preston New Road. Then when there was a timetable change, the routes would swap partners, and the 11 to Woodvale might return as a 2 to Marshfield!

Peter Williamson

19/03/20 – 06:52

Middlesbrough Corporation Transport used all the letters A – Z. That all changed when TRTB, MCT and Stockton were merged into TMT. Then they moved to numbers, as TRTB and Stockton used numbers. The “O” Bus or “0” ZERO was a joint Stockton/Middlesbrough Bus. 46 and 47 routes later. United then had to add a “2” so the 63 became the 263 to avoid confusion. Then it became Cleveland Transit, a disaster. Then Thatcher scrapped the buses!

Mr Anon

20/03/20 – 06:22

Castleways livery may have looked Black but was Trafalgar Blue.

Tim Presley

21/03/20 – 06:45

As my wife will testify, with a tut and a sigh, Tim, (“Do you think this colour suits me?”) I’m colour blind!

Chris Hebbron

21/03/20 – 06:47

Morecambe managed without route numbers until the sixties as did Ledgard until the very end of the company.

Chris Hough

21/03/20 – 06:50

Checked to see if my comment came and then thought no that’s not right it’s Wellington Blue.

Tim Presley

Stockton Corporation – Leyland Panther Cub – GUP 501C – S1

Stockton Corporation Leyland Panther

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation
1965
Leyland Panther Cub PSRC1/1
Park Royal B43D

Not the best shot in the world I think it was the first shot on the film and suffered from a touch of light getting into the cassette. Anyway there are not many shots of duel entrance vehicles on site so I think it is worth showing. The engine on the Panther was positioned horizontally under the floor at the rear and inline with the chassis as opposed to the Atlantean which had a transverse vertically mounted engine. As can be seen in the above shot the seats behind the centre door had to be raised to go over the rear axel and engine compartment. But having the engine at the rear did as can be seen enable it to have a very low step into the vehicle all though there is a step up immediately behind the driver. The coach version of the Panther had a one level raised floor but with having the engine at the rear it meant it had 120 cubic foot (3·4 cu.m.) underfloor storage for suitcases and the like. The engine was the reliable Leyland O.600 six cylinder diesel developing 125 b.h.p. in the bus chassis and 130 b.h.p. in coaches with a four speed epicycle gearbox with fingertip electric change and air suspension was offered as an option.

———

I know you are not meaning to mislead, but you haven’t mentioned that the Panther Cub (as opposed to the Panther) had the well regarded, but noisy, 0.400 engine.
This was the final version of the 0.300/0.350/0.375 Comet/Tiger Cub engine. The 0.400 was better known in the Bedford VAL/VAM14 and Bristol LH applications. It was necessary to fit this compact unit to the Panther Cub as it has a shorter rear overhang than the Panther.
The power output, at 125 b.h.p, was the same as the 0.600 but the torque (pulling power) and therefore potential life span was less.

David Oldfield

Manchester Corporation – Panther Cub – BND 872C – 72

BND 872C

Manchester Corporation
1965
Leyland Panther Cub PSRC1/1
Park Royal B43D

Delivered in April 1965 and photographed in June 1970 following the formation of Selnec is Manchester Corporation Panther Cub No 72, BND 872C. The Panther Cub was a shortened version of the Panther, the length being reduced from 36ft. to 33ft. 6ins. on an 18ft. 6ins wheelbase. With the 6.5 litre Leyland O400H engine instead of the Panther’s 9.8 litre O600H, the Panther Cub proved to be somewhat underpowered. The limited appeal of the model resulted in its being offered only from 1964 to 1968 during which 94 examples were built, though the same basic chassis with more powerful AEC engines was more successful as the AEC Swift. Manchester took eight Panther Cubs, BND 863C- 880C, Nos. 63 to 80, with Park Royal B43D bodywork, though the seating capacity was later altered on No. 71 to B36D and on No. 74 to B42D. The Corporation tried to improve the engine output on some of these buses by experimenting with turbocharging, not entirely successfully. The picture above is of additional interest in that the fleet number of BND 872C is displayed as 27 rather than 72. Was this just an inadvertent “numerical spoonerism” by the body shop?

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

09/02/20 – 08:31

The legal lettering on a Southampton Atlantean mentioned, for some odd reason, PROTSWOOD Road rather than the correct PORTSWOOD. I saw in Stubbington on one occasion a road marking for GOPSROT, and there is a hotel in Southampton which ‘failed’ some years ago. The rot seems to have set in after the opening of a brasserie, spelled incorrectly after one has to assume the sign writer was distracted by the presence of a lap-dancing club opposite. Who knows what distractions the fellow applying 27 had?

Pete Davies

09/02/20 – 10:22

The fleet number is correct – it had been renumbered not long before when Manchester renumbered their single-deckers from 46 upwards as 1 upwards (so fleet numbers were reduced by 45). The whole batch of Panther Cubs totalled twenty with the original pair new as 61/62 (ANF 161/2B).

David Beilby

10/02/20 – 06:47

CPPTD made a success of our Panther Cubs, mainly because the city is mostly dead flat. One survives.

Dave French

10/02/20 – 06:48

Thanks for the corrections, David. I overlooked the original two. I did not know that these buses had been renumbered – Peter Gould’s LTHL listings do not record this. Apologies also for the typo in my copy. Eight should read eighteen.

Roger Cox

10/02/20 – 06:50

I didn’t know about that renumbering, and evidently I’m not alone, as Peter Gould’s fleet history in the Transport History Library says that 61-80, 81-99 and 101-110 passed to SELNEC retaining the same fleet numbers. I wonder, did the missing Panther 100 (destroyed by fire at MCW before delivery) result in a missing 55, or were 101-110 reduced by 46 instead of 45?

Peter Williamson

10/02/20 – 11:12

I suppose Portsmouth (CPPTD) could be described as making more of a success of the Panther Cub, but they were still rather short-lived compared with more traditional vehicles. Typically, the PD2s and PDR1 Atlanteans worked for around 16 years, those converted to open-top even longer. But of the 26 Panther Cubs, nine went in 1977, at just ten years old. Four more went in 1979/80. The remaining 13 were withdrawn in 1981, which may have been life-expired withdrawals, but was also influenced by the results of the then-recent MAP project. The result of that saw a “rationalisation” of services, and saw all 14 of the five-year old Leyland Nationals sold as well! The Panther Cubs did look smart when new in their traditional CPPTD livery, but I did not like the eventual transformation to an almost all-white scheme with just a red line. I wonder whether drivers, mechanics, etc saw them as a “success”?

Mr Anon One

10/02/20 – 11:13

It was SELNEC which renumbered the ex Manchester single deckers.

Mr Anon Two

11/02/20 – 06:53

To add to the comments from Mr Anon Two, according to the P.S.V. Circle SELNEC Fleet History (PC7), the vehicles transferred to SELNEC under their old numbers on 1st November 1969, and the fleet renumbering was introduced in March 1970.
Peter W asks about the Panther Cubs and the Panthers. 61-99 became 16-54, and 101-110 became 55-64.

John Kaye

11/02/20 – 06:55

SELNEC 55 was GND 101E, so there was no gap in the new numbers for the missing GND 100E.

Dave Farrier

11/02/20 – 16:26

Thanks everyone for clarification. I hadn’t noticed the date of the photo, and I was fooled by the apparent survival of the “City of Manchester” fleet name, though I must say whatever is above it doesn’t look much like the city coat of arms.

Peter Williamson

12/02/20 – 16:46

Did the registration number GND 100E signify the bus was fitted with a Ford side valve engine? If so, it is not surprising that it was missing, although not in the accepted sense of the word. Try changing the plugs!

Mr Anon Three

13/02/20 – 06:06

72/4/6/8/80 were allocated to Queens Road Depot from new. I used to travel to school on them sometimes on service no 142. There was one regular driver who always started in third gear, another started in second then slammed it into fourth without a pause. I always thought they were lively performers.
I believe 61-70 had the turbocharged engine. Some if not all of these had machines to cancel prepaid tickets which were bought in books of ten. These ten also had lever controls for the exit door, while 71-80 had the exit door controlled by an extra position on the gear lever, as later became standard on the Mancunians. All had the front door controlled by a foot control.

Don McKeown

15/02/20 – 06:31

It was 71-80 that had the turbochargers, but they were troublesome and usually disconnected. I too thought the Panther Cubs were lively performers, as long as the revs were kept up. I’m quite surprised at the widespread view that they were underpowered.

Peter Williamson

London Transport – Leyland Cub – CLX 548 – C111

London Transport
1936
Leyland Cub SKPZ2
Park Royal RC18F

CLX 548 is a Leyland Cub SKPZ2 and dates from 1936. New to London Transport with fleet number C111, she has Park Royal C18F bodywork in what used to be called an ‘observation coach’ style. Some people call this body layout as HDC18F while others call it RC18F. This view was taken at Southsea on 9 June 1985. I’ve never seen her since.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

09/10/15 – 07:29

Lovely photograph! If only more observation coaches survived, especially the elegant Whitson versions of 1948-52. The correct body code for observation coaches is “RC”. “HD” refers to a Crellin-Duplex half-decker with a continuous roof line and interweaving compartments on two levels. Anybody who describes observation coaches as “HD” clearly hasn’t understood the PSV Circle body code system (and, sadly, this includes some compilers of published fleet histories who SHOULD know better, so I understand confusion on the subject!). Airport coaches such as the 4RF4s of BEA and the similar Leylands at Manchester are also correctly prefixed with an “R” as this actually stands for”raised floor-line” rather than “raised roof”.

Neville Mercer

09/10/15 – 07:29

Both this, and sister CLX 550 are listed as survivors in the PSV Circle’s 2015 edition of Preserved Buses. But they both seem extremely camera shy. I’ve never seen either of them in real life.

Petras409

09/10/15 – 17:25

The non-LT livery was used on these vehicles, because they operated the night-time Interstation service around Central London, where their large luggage capacity was invaluable. There is some argument about the seating capacity, being also quoted as both 19 and 20! If memory serves, they were replaced by ST’s during the war, no doubt to increase passenger capacity.
Not only have these buses (bar one) disappeared, but so also has our 24-hour rail network!

Chris Hebbron

13/10/15 – 06:30

Some photos of this taken last year here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rw3

Paul Turner

13/10/15 – 06:30

The tube is to run 24hr from later this year and you will find many more night buses (although no night trams or trolleys) in London than when CLX 548 was built.

Stephen Allcroft

13/10/15 – 08:58

LT inner 1
LT inner 2

Here are internal photos of C107, showing 4×2 seats (8 passengers) in the lower saloon and 4×2 (8 passengers) and 1×4 (4 passengers) in the upper, total 20. It would seem that, although the rear seat would seat 5, it was designated for 4.

Here is a photo of sister (just) survivor CLX549, How folk can let this sort of thing moulder into dust is beyond me. Windows open and all!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rw3-497alh/15006248806/in/photostream/

Chris Hebbron

14/10/15 – 07:19

One worry when the 24-hour tube services start (commencing I believe on a few lines to start with) is when will the track cleaning and maintenance get done? Some years ago there was a programme on tv about the night staff maintaining the Underground and it was amazing the amount of dust, fluff and other debris that accumulated each day on the track and tunnel walls. A team of ‘fluffies’ were employed each night to walk the tracks after the power had been switched off, simply to clear it all away. This it was said, was on safety grounds, not least to help reduce the risk of fires. I sincerely hope the powers that be are aware of this, especially in these days of cost-cutting in the public sector..

Brendan Smith

14/10/15 – 16:12

Yes, Brendan, I remember that programme. Don’t for a moment think that such realities might have entered the heads of the present management, though!

Pete Davies

14/10/15 – 16:13

I double-checked on the TfL website and it reinforced my thoughts that this 24 hour service is only on Friday/Saturday nights and, initially, not on all tube lines. Maybe with the backlog of maintenance behind them, one assumes that they can deal with doing it in the remaining time in the rest of the week.

Chris Hebbron

15/10/15 – 07:13

For the record, the very sad picture of the Cub mouldering away somewhere in Epsom isn’t C112 (CLX 549), but is C113 (CLX 550). At least, that’s what the PSV Circle says and I am inclined to believe them.
But, thank goodness that C111 (CLX 548) has been rescued and returned to the road, so that she can be seen and appreciated by all. Well done, Mr Cross, the owner.

Petras409

16/10/15 – 06:05

First of all, well done whoever took the interior shots. Exterior shots are always the most important, but it is very helpful sometimes to be able to see inside, especially with such an unusual layout.
I remember seeing a BTC film many years ago ago about night maintenance and cleaning in the deep tube tunnels. The Friday and Saturday night operation will mean a very heavy accumulation of dirt for Sunday night, and I wouldn’t mind betting that Sunday night is the peak period for absenteeism. All it would need is a spark and given the strong winds that blow through the tunnels because of the pressures created by moving trains in tight spaces, and one could soon have a fire out of control.

David Wragg

02/12/17 – 10:55

CLX 548 and CLX 549 were both sold to London Fire Brigade, in the early 1950s. CLX 548 was used as a coach for the Brigade’s sports teams, and CLX 549 was used as a control unit. According to ‘The Fire Brigade Handbook’, CLX 549 was written off, in a collision, in 1959. I would be very interested to see CLX 548, if someone can tell me where, in Kent, it is stored.

Bill Edwards

06/12/17 – 09:53

I would like to see photographs of CLX 548 when in service with London Fire Brigade. Colour pics would be best but any would be very welcome.

Ian Morrison

07/12/17 – 08:49

No sooner said than done, Ian M! www.london-fire.gov.uk/

Chris Hebbron

10/12/17 – 06:20

Many thanks to Chris Hebbron but I need pics of CLX 548 which was the London Fire Brigade sports team coach. I believe it was painted dark green by the brigade but have no pics so do not know what shade or if the vehicle had any other colour with the dark green and carried any brigade markings etc.

Ian Morrison

11/12/17 – 07:01

According to this site https://cazana.com/uk/car/CLX549
CLX 549 was MoT tested and passed! in September 2008
It also had a registration number change in April 1984 It had been previously registered under SV 4837.
Registered as a Leyland National!

John Wakefield

12/12/17 – 08:33

Interesting comment, John W! It reminds me of an airshow once where a young lad (6 or 7 at the time) was proudly telling his father that the plane performing was a Lancaster Bomber (it had 4 propellers, you see, and was actually a Hercules) and father either didn’t know better or didn’t bother to correct him. Likewise, an aircraft with four jet engines was a Nimrod (USAF B52 which actually has four pairs). Ah, well!

Pete Davies

13/12/17 – 07:35

Pete. I dont think this is a mistaken id, the MoT refers to the MoT test of the Royal Enfield motorcycle (now registered SV 4837). It begs the question as to how the motor bike got the CLX 549 reg from the Leyland in the first place & why was it then re registered as SV 4837, SV is an age related series issued by DVLA for vehicles in the 1920/30 age group. That registration could have been obtained directly from DVLA on production of a dating cert for the RE motor bike. So what is the id of the ‘Leyland National’ now registered as CLX 459? Looks like there has been some fiddling going on here with registration numbers!
I have recently obtained the following info from a PSVC member
“According to Alan Cross, Mr Rubery did buy CLX 550 from Scotland. Both CLX 549 and CLX 550 were sold to W North (dealer); CLX 549 became a henhouse in Perthshire”

John Wakefield

13/12/17 – 07:35

DVLA has a number of the Bristol Cars products registered as BMCs.

John Lomas

03/05/22 – 06:04

CLX 548_2

Following on from comments regarding this vehicle. It stopped briefly at The Maybury Inn in Woking Sunday night (Sunday May 1st 2022). Had a quick chat with the owner who told me the vehicle had recently undergone some restoration but will be attending shows in the coming months.

Gary Avery