Tag: Weymann

West Midlands PTE – Leyland Tiger – JOJ 252 – 2252


Copyright Ian Wild

West Midlands PTE
1950
Leyland Tiger PS2/1
Weymann B34F

PMT went through various vehicle shortages in 1969/70 mainly as a result of the unreliability of the Roadliner fleet which was sucking maintenance resources from the rest of the fleet. East Midland and Trent loaned Tiger Cubs but a real surprise was the hiring of up to nine of these quite antiquated looking buses from West Midlands PTE. They were absolutely immaculate inside and out and with plenty of power from the 0.600 engines in such a small vehicle. This particular bus had three periods on hire of which this was the third, earlier it had the Birmingham coat of arms rather than the WMPTE logo on the side. They were unsuitable for OMO so ended up in many cases on heavily loaded urban services normally operated by 72 seat Atlanteans or Fleetlines – not ideal. The bus is pictured outside Stoke Depot on 19th April 1970.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

16/02/12 – 07:07

JOJ 245_lr

Fortunately a number of these splendid and reliable vehicles have been preserved. This example looking resplendent at the Wythall Museum in 2010.

Nigel Edwards

16/02/12 – 07:08

Strange how these vehicles had chromium plated radiators as late as 1950. I believe Manchester Corporation specified them also.

Chris Barker

18/02/12 – 07:14

Manchester Corporation had chromium plated radiators on their PD2 Titans right up to the final batch delivered in the mid-sixties. These were invariably painted red at the earliest opportunity completely ruining the appearance of the elegant Leyland exposed radiator and giving a very tatty appearance to the vehicles.
I believe the pressed metal chromium plated radiator cost less than the cast aluminium unit which by this time was the norm. Previous posts on this site have referred to the then GM, Albert Neal having a frugal approach to vehicle purchasing.

Philip Halstead

27/09/12 – 07:19

I have to disagree about Manchester painting the chromium plated radiators red “at the earliest opportunity”
Certainly there were many examples of over use of the spray gun but the majority of the PD2s were not so abused. Parrs Wood depot in particular, which had a majority complement of PD2s, was known for “spit and polish” and it wasn’t until very late in the 1960s that the standard dropped, with the exception of a couple of the Northern Counties bodied PD2s of the 1953 batch which received their 1958 spray booth scheme second repaint in the mid 1960s when loaned out to another depot (Sharston if I remember) and were left looking less than happy compared to their stable mates.

Phil Blinkhorn

28/09/12 – 08:01

I always used to think that chromium plated radiators were painted into fleet livery at some later date but surely this cannot be. It would be virtually impossible to apply paint on top of chromium plating and it would very quickly come off anyway. The necessary treatment, I imagine, would be to immerse the thing into a sort of acid bath to remove the plating prior to applying paint. Does anyone know if this was the case, or if the radiators were simply replaced as complete units?

Chris Barker

28/09/12 – 14:36

The radiators weren’t replaced. Albert Neal, under whose regime the so called overall red scheme came in and during which period most of the Leyland radiators were painted, was far too frugal and beset with the problem of balancing the books for that.
The Leylands that were so treated were generally allocated to primarily Daimler garages, or received their treatment whilst on loan to them. From 1953 all Daimlers had tin or fibreglass fronts and were all red and were just put through the bus wash. The Leylands were supposed to have had their chrome work wiped off after passing through the wash, so presumably the Daimler garages wanted to skip this step.
The method used to spray MCTD vehicles from 1957 onwards was a hot spray method which baked the paint on as it was applied. This may have helped the paint to stick to chrome, I don’t know, but I do know that, in general, the paint was extremely shiny when new and even the all red scheme looked good – for a couple of weeks – but the paint rapidly dulled and that on the radiators certainly chipped.
Over the last few days I’ve looked at dozens of pictures of MCTD PD1s and PD2s, in books and on the Net as well as using my memory. The vast majority of photos show chrome radiators unpainted, even after the second all red repaint in the mid 1960s.
Exceptions are 3000-3049, 3050-3099, 3100-3199 where many of the batches received painted radiator cowls as they had aluminium cowls which pitted and were dull.
A couple of the 3300-3329 batch had their chrome overpainted red, as previously mentioned. 3318 at one time had a black cowl which was horrible. One or two of the 3471-3520 Burlingham batch were overpainted later in life – and were then overpainted orange in SELNEC days, so the paint must have stuck OK.
The greatest number of examples of chrome overpainting on PD2s happened to vehicles in the batches numbered from 3521- 720, but even these were in the minority.

Phil Blinkhorn

Birmingham City – Leyland Tiger – JOJ 245 – 2245

Birmingham City - Leyland Tiger - JOJ 245 - 2245

Birmingham City Transport
1950
Leyland Tiger PS2
Weymann B34F

This superb combination of Leyland Tiger and classic Weymann single-deck body is further enhanced by the application of Birmingham City livery. 2245 is well-maintained by the Transport Museum, Wythall. Chassis number is 495582, body number M4624 and seating is B34F.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

05/07/15 – 07:32

Don’t you just mourn the demise of municipal transport when you see vehicles like this, with their distinctive livery and civic coats of arms. And in the case of many of them, including Birmingham, never letting an advert blemish the bodywork!

Chris Hebbron

05/07/15 – 11:54

I agree wholeheartedly Chris H, and the beautiful vehicle in the picture is a exceptional example of “how things should be.” I readily admit, in my dotage, to be horrified at many of today’s presentations of meaningless mobile artwork which totally destroy what could have been acceptable shapes of modern buses. For example, the latest craze from FirstBus in this area, as if the insipid white, lilac and purple wasn’t bad enough, is to plaster the top decks around the destination displays with gaudy purple offerings for “The Pulse” – services of better than ten minutes frequency. The effect of this gripping marketing wheeze is to render the electronic destinations and route numbers virtually unreadable, especially in bright sunlight. The cost ?? – I imagine that no-one dare publicise that figure and,far from increasing patronage, is simply a further annoyance to already disinterested passengers.

Chris Youhill

05/07/15 – 11:55

To be fair, Chris, even Birmingham had succumbed to the exterior adverts when I was there in my student days of the mid sixties, although I never saw a single decker in service with the ‘feature’, only the doubles.

Pete Davies

06/07/15 – 06:38

I agree entirely about the advertising. Bournemouth was another municipal operator that did not carry advertising. Worst of all today are those advertisements and so-called route branding that are actually carried over the windows – and I do like to be able to look out of the bus!

David Wragg

06/07/15 – 06:39

Birmingham’s civic pride would not countenance the idea of advertising on its buses for many years – although most of the trams carried them throughout their lives, resulting in a fair bit of extra revenue for the Transport Department.
However, once the trams were gone by 1953 this source of revenue was lost and the Transport Committee were reluctantly forced to accept advertising on the buses. After all, the next time the Department applied for a fares increase they might well have been refused on the grounds that while the buses had no adverts there was now an untapped source of income that the Transport Department should use first!

Larry B

06/07/15 – 06:40

Very fair comment Pete, and I suppose that “we outsiders” can’t condemn operators for making some revenue from commercial advertisements, those in the traditional tidy formations on double deckers particularly. My strong objection nowadays is to ludicrous extremes of expensive “in house” blurb plastered all over windows inside and out on already ghastly “liveries”, and of no interest whatsoever to the travelling public who, to use those apt but well worn words, “only want a comfortable bus on time at a reasonable fare.”

Chris Youhill

06/07/15 – 08:35

When the first of these ‘dot matrix’ adverts appeared on a Southampton Citybus vehicle, it was allegedly possible to see out, but not in – rather like the net curtains of old. Even outward vision is impaired, however. As for route branding, well, it works in some places, but not in many. The attitude seems to be one of ‘if it’s marked for the 3 and it appears on the 27, then its an advert for the folk along the 27 about the highlights of the 3’. Balderdash!

Pete Davies

06/07/15 – 11:07

It is possible from a passenger’s point of view to see through those Contravision adverts when they are looking out at 90 degrees to the glass, though there is a significant darkening effect.
However they can be a real problem and a safety hazard from the driver’s point of view. When emerging from a junction of the 90 degree variety the driver will look through the door windows to check for oncoming traffic, but there are very many others – especially on the routes that I drive – which are at an acute angle where the driver has to lean forward, twist round and look back through the first nearside window. This can already be difficult enough if there are standing passengers (because they always congregate at the front), the nearside luggage rack is stacked with pushchairs, or if the company has thoughtfully decided on siting a side route number/destination box right in your line of view, but looking through Contravision at 45 degrees you can see nothing at all. Those responsible for specifying it will not have even considered this aspect.
I also can not fathom the mentality of bus company managers who specify ‘stylish’ new vehicles with extremely large, heavy and expensive windows, then mask half their area with promotional vinyls.

John Stringer

07/07/15 – 06:54

Very valid comments John, and I’m very surprised that the folk from VOSA haven’t banned Contravision (Controversial vision?) on safety grounds for the reasons you cite. One wonders what the union view is on this too. I read recently that many women boarding buses in the evenings or at night do not like Contravision at all, as they cannot see if any potential nuisance passengers are on board before they get on. Also, many older people out at night are wary for the same reason. So much for certain operators’ duty of care to their passengers and staff.

Brendan Smith

07/07/15 – 06:55

This bus was one of nine hired by PMT at various times during 1969 and 1970 to cover vehicle shortages. Lovely buses, exceptional condition, well powered …… but pretty useless on services normally operated by 72 seat Atlanteans!! Although any bus was better than no bus at all.

Ian Wild

15/07/15 – 05:55

Having been brought up with BCT buses, although these Leylands, nor the AEC ever came my way, I do remember the furore that arose when it was announced that adverts were going to be carried. Even the bus crews themselves were against the idea and of course worst was to come, when the rear platform numbers already diminished from large shaded gold into a smaller gold style were lifted up to just under the registration number ‘to make room for further advertising. But whichever local bus company you favoured, all of them Birmingham, West Bromwich, Walsall (what an interesting fleet) and Wolverhampton all produced buses and crews that compared well with any in England..and then of course there was the ‘daddy’ and in their minds the leader in the field Midland Red. How uninteresting now when apart from the body shape, the only way of knowing what chassis/power unit is involved is by looking at the steering wheel badge. Why is at that the modern bus fleets don’t want anyone to know the make of bus or body?

R. G. Davis

15/07/15 – 15:27

You’re so right with your last point, RG, in that such coyness is in stark contrast to past chassis/body builders!

Chris Hebbron

16/07/15 – 05:35

To me, the (non) distinguishing feature about modern buses is the fact that they all look, sound and perform the same, with a total absence of individuality. Thus anonymity is entirely apt.

Roger Cox

17/07/15 – 12:35

RG Davis asks why we don’t know the make of bus or body these days….?
I wonder if it was always a bit like this…?
Until Fleetlines (when they went to the other extreme) you usually only knew a Daimler CVD by its fluted radiator or later, possibly a discreet radiator badge, or a Leyland by perhaps its hubs, especially if the fleet had plonked its own name on the radiator instead of theirs. This hardly improved with Atlanteans with just the badge on the back. Older Bristols had tiny little badges, although Guys had an easy name to promote. Did any bodybuilders have anything more than a little plate or transfer- except perhaps CH Roe with those lovely transmission covers?
Am I wrong? I suspect that proud municipalities didn’t want makers promoting themselves.
You do now see Alexander-Dennis or Wright on buses- but who makes what, especially which screaming engine- they all sound like old diesel buzz-boxes anyway, desperately hunting for a gear!

Joe

18/07/15 – 08:18

While I agree with all the previous comments re Advertising and Identification badges, oh and Joe’s observation about the “screamers”, we lost touch with this beautiful machine that started the post! So, having followed the restoration of 2245 (and many others) at Wythall here are some additional views from frequent visits.

Nigel Edwards

JOJ 245_2
JOJ 245_3
JOJ 245_4
JOJ 245_5

Birmingham City – Leyland Tiger – JOJ 231 – 2231

JOJ 231

Birmingham City Transport
1950
Leyland Tiger PS2/1
Weymann B34F

JOJ 231 is something of a rarity for the Birmingham fleet – a single decker! It is a Leyland Tiger PS2/1 with Weymann B34F body, new in 1950. We see it in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979 – where the combination of Kodachrome II film and lighting combine to give the appearance of the Royal Blue coach alongside having the same shade of blue. Is it really the same, or does it just look that way?

JOJ 231_2

The second view shows the Municipal Crest, and was captured on film in the Southsea rally a few years later.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

04/10/16 – 05:34

Pete, what a wonderful Municipal Crest. We are used to seeing heraldic shields and the like on municipal buses, but the figures on the Birmingham one make the Crest even more special. The way the artist has painted not just a sheen, but also creases into the clothing on the original design is nothing short of amazing. Thank you for posting.

Brendan Smith

05/10/16 – 07:01

My pleasure!

Pete Davies

28/10/16 – 07:34

The two figures on the crest represent Industry and Art and were posed by Art students of the time.

Tony Martin

28/10/16 – 10:57

What an interesting snippet, Tony! Thanks for that

Pete Davies

09/12/17 – 07:43

I’m sure you buffs already know that the No. 27 ran from West Heath to Kings Heath.The reason for the single decker was to travel beneath the railway bridge in Bournville Lane, just by Cadbury’s works.

David Palmer

09/12/17 – 09:14

Thanks, David. My student days were in the Saltley area of Birmingham, but I did get down to the Bournville area occasionally, and I saw the Tigers there.

Pete Davies

Jones, Aberbeeg – Leyland Tiger Cub – 889 AAX – 98

Jones Aberbeeg - Leyland Tiger Cub - 889 AAX - 98

Jones, Aberbeeg
1961
Leyland Tiger Cub
Weymann B44F

889AAX is a Leyland Tiger Cub from the fleet of Jones, Aberbeeg. According to the Keith Jenkinson book of 1978, she is an OPSUC1/3 from 1959 with conversion to OPSUC1/3T at a later date. The PSVC listing for 2013 shows her without the ‘T’ suffix and says she was first registered in 1961, so she must have been stored for a while. The body is by Weymann, to B44F configuration. We see her in Netley, on her way to the rally on 9 July 1995.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

18/06/15 – 10:50

It’s quite unusual for there to be a significant delay between construction and entry into service. The chassis numbers of these vehicles indicate that construction of their chassis was commenced in late 1958, and most vehicles with similar-age numbers entered service in 1959. The Weymann body numbers similarly indicate 1959 vehicles, but chassis/body numbers were often issued when the relevant bit was ordered, rather than when it was actually constructed, so it’s not possible to draw any firm conclusions there. (Leyland were an exception to this).
The registration AAX reversed dates from 11/60 to 2/61, so it would appear that these vehicles were indeed registered (or possibly re-registered) in early 1961.
BLOTW gives the chassis designation as home-market PSUC1/3 rather than OPSUC1/3, but, either way, it would seem that these vehicles were among the minority of Tiger Cubs to feature epicyclic gearboxes.

David Call

18/06/15 – 16:48

I believe this bus was part of a cancelled export order for Trinidad, which would explain the delay between construction and registration.

Roy Nicholson

20/06/15 – 15:11

Do you mean that it would have taken a while to get the vehicles back from Trinidad? I’m not sure I follow the logic.
I see that I omitted to mention the fact that the batch was of three vehicles, Jones 98-100 (889-91 AAX).

David Call

21/06/15 – 05:56

David, I may be wrong – I usually am! – but I suspect what Roy means is that the vehicles were constructed but never exported, being stored until a buyer was found.

Pete Davies

21/06/15 – 05:57

As originally built the windscreens included push-out ventilators at the bottom, as might be required for hotter climes. These were removed by Jones because, as far as I recall, they were not water-tight.
I presume the order must have been cancelled at a very late stage during bodying (why? – penalties would have to be paid), and that the bodied vehicles then sat around until an operator was prepared to pay for some semi-auto Tiger Cubs . . . and that operator must have been Jones.

Philip Rushworth

21/06/15 – 05:58

Doug Jack refers to these in ‘The Leyland Bus’ – “Three overseas OPSUC1/3’s with Weymann bodywork (B44F) were diverted in 1960 from Trinidad Agencies to Jones of Aberbeeg.”

David Williamson

22/10/15 – 07:26

889 AAX

The picture of the Jones Tiger Cub on the way to Netley rally has me driving it as I was the owner at the time. Regarding the difference in build and going into service was as was mentioned, a cancelled order. Three were left at Southampton docks so I was told. They originally had full length sliding side windows as well as the push out vents in the windscreens.
While at Netley rally, I discovered I had a slow puncture in the front offside tyre, so had to put the spare on. This was of dubious condition as it was on the bus when I bought it. I took it easy on the return journey to South Gloustershire, but as I exited the roundabout at Salisbury collage there was a bang , it had blown. So there we were with no back-up Luckily I had a good few passengers, so we jacked it up intending to put the original tyre on. As luck would have it, another old bus from the rally appeared and the owner offered to take it to a garage and inflate it, so although it was slowly leaking, we got back home safely, albeit with a rather deflated tyre.

Alan Roberts

08/10/18 – 08:52

Alan R, being the owner of 889 AAX in 1995, I wonder if you could confirm that the vehicle had:
1) semi-automatic transmission, with a direct air selector pedestal;
2) a two-speed axle.
Assuming it was indeed two-pedal, this doesn’t appear to have impressed Jones, who continued to specify manual transmissions for vehicles purchased new, even though their operating territory would perhaps have favoured semi-automatic. As for the two-speed axle, these were never as common on semi-auto vehicles as manual, although certainly not unknown.

David Call

Merthyr Tydfil Corporation – Tiger Cub – 964 DTJ – 100

964 DTJ

Merthyr Tydfil Corporation
1958
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/1
Weymann B44F

I haven’t seen any offerings of Merthyr Tydfil vehicles on this site so to correct that, here is an ex-Leyland demonstrator 964 DTJ which found a home with said operator. This classic Weymann B44F body (M8461) was mounted on chassis number 577569 and new in 1958 but is seen on home turf at Bus & Coach Wales 2009.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

08/09/16 – 05:39

Nice, Les! Thanks for posting. I have a bought slide of this one, with more cream – presumably your view shows the first Merthyr livery after she ceased her ‘demonstrator’ career

Pete Davies

16/09/16 – 06:31

For anyone interested in Merthyr’s buses there is an excellent site at www.alangeorge.co.uk/buses.htm

Peter Cook

Hull Corporation – Leyland TB2 – CRH 928 – 3

Hull Corporation Leyland TB2 Trolleybus CRH 928_lr

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport
Leyland TB2
1937
Weymann H28/26R

The first trolleybus route in Hull commenced in June, 1937. It replaced the tram route SWC, but not directly, as a short lived motorbus service, numbered 12 ran in the interval between the end of the trams and the start of the trolleybuses. The route ran along Spring Bank, Spring Bank West and Chanterlands Avenue. A new route number series for trolleybuses was instituted at this time, the first number being 61, along with a short working to Goddard Avenue turning circle, which was numbered 61A. This latter was renumbered to 65 in 1943.
To start the service, along with the Newland Avenue (62, 62A) routes, 26 trolleybus chassis were purchased from Leyland. These were of the TB2 type, equivalent to the Titan TD2 chassis. Numbers were 1 to 26, which commenced a separate series from the motorbuses. Registrations were CRH 925-50. The trolleybuses carried the newly introduced streamline livery.
During the war, in 1941, due to service cuts four trolleybuses (1 to 4) were loaned to Pontypridd UDC, being returned the following year. No 3 is shown at the Old Bridge in Pontypridd, seeming to be causing interest to the gentleman on the bridge! Although still carrying the streamline livery, the white has been over painted in a light blue colour, making the livery a two-tone blue. Of note is the pre-war “HULL” on the upper deck side panels, and “Corporation Transport” being on white lozenges.
I have seen this batch also quoted as being of the TB4 type, but if anyone can provide a definitive answer I would be grateful. Chassis numbers were in the series 12280 to 12306.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Keith Easton

I wonder who over-painted the white to light blue – Hull or Pontypridd? Interesting photo – not many wartime photos exist, especially of those who went to foreign climes for a while!
Headlamps restricted and white painting around the front edge, but no window netting. Maybe they didn’t feel there was a strong likelihood of air raids in that area.
Pontypridd must have had an acute shortage of buses/trolleybuses in the war, for Portsmouth Corporation sent several trolleybuses there, too. Imagine having to tow and steer these vehicles such long distances!

Chris Hebbron

I believe that Hull was responsible for the over-painting, as native buses and trolleybuses were also treated similarly. I cant say about window netting, as I’m not quite that old! Hull certainly did have some air-raids during the war, and lost 35% of the bus fleet in May, 1941. No trolleybuses were affected, however.

Keith Easton

The over painting was carried out by the Transport Department over a period of ten days in late May 1941. All trolleybuses were parked along main roads at night to prevent their loss if a garage was hit by bombs but the white could be seen from the air and the undertaking was asked to do it, Geoff O’Connell (whose father was an inspector) told me that he remembered seeing TB7 no 52 being all blue at the front and offside but with normal livery on the other!

Malcolm Wells

Hi Malcolm, can we can confirm that these trolleys were actually TB4 and not TB2? I have seen them quoted with both model types but the date would make TB4 more likely. I have a photocopy sheet from Geoff, which shows the layout of the original Black on white blinds, with routes 61, 61A, 62, 62A, 62B, 62C, 63, 63A, 64, 64A, 65 and 66. Of course the 65 and 66 were not operated as such, but were the 62B and 62C ever operated? The ‘A’ route numbers are shown as being blanked out along with 65 and 66. You mention the Anlaby Road route as being 99, but I have no record of this, was it actually used in service?

Keith Easton

Do not know if the following will help but the dates below are for when the TDs first appeared.

TD1 – 1927        TD2 – 1932        TD3 – 1933        TD4 – 1935 
TD5 – 1937        TD6 – 1938        TD7 – 1939

Spencer

The reference to service 99 was a typing error – it was 69.
Leylands 1 to 26 were designated TD4 in the original tender from Leyland Motors in July 1936 and this was quoted in the minutes but was subsequently altered to TB4.
The 62B and 62C were never operated but no reason for doing so has ever come to light although a difference in headways might have contributed – there were more trolleybuses per hour on Beverley Road than on Newland Avenue.

Malcolm Wells

I’m sure most people who have posted on this subject already know this but there are some really fantastic short videos on YouTube concerning Hull trolleys and motor buses from before WW2 to the present day. It seems Hull has been more fortunate than many places in having such a wonderful pictorial transport record!

Chris Barker

25/02/14 – 16:12

Having lived in Hull from 1946 to 1963, I can clarify the route number situation.
61 was Chantlands Avenue (up to Cottingham Road)
65 was the shortened version of 61 terminating about 200 yds from the start of Chantlands Avenue- peak only
62 was Princes Av/Newlands Av (to Cottingham Road)
66 was the shortened version of 62 terminating at Pearson’s Park.
63 was Beverley Road (up to Cottingham Road)
67 was the shortened version of 63 up to Pearson’s Park – peak only
All of the above originally ran on the pre-war Leyland Buses, but were replaced in 1950 by the forward control dual entrance and dual staircase Sunbeams – which were supposed to have counters on the stairs with the forward staircase for ascending and the mid-bus staircase for descending- this was not a success.
64 was Holderness Road
68 was the shortened version up to East Park – peak only.
These used the 1940 Leyland vehicles for the duration of the trolleybus system
69 Analby Road – almost to Boothferry Park
(There were 169 and 269 shortened but these did not come about until after the end of the trolleybus system)
70 Hessle Road – almost to City Limits
(a shortened version (170 or 270) ran but only after the end of the trolleybus system.
All 69’s and 70’s used 1948 vehicles which (from memory) were B.E.T. (which was a joint A.E.C./Leyland venture) for the duration of the trolleybus system.

Frank Burgess

26/02/14 – 07:52

The joint Leyland and AEC was actually BUT. They also supplied engines for early railway Diesel Multiple Units. The sight of Hull trolleys in Pontypridd must have confused any potential German Spies!!!!

Philip Carlton

26/02/14 – 12:13

Chris Hebbron is certainly right in an early comment that Pontypridd needed extra vehicles during the war. However the Portsmouth and Hull trolley-buses were probably not operated concurrently. The main caption above mentions the Hull quartet on loan to Pontypridd in 1941 to 1942. The Portsmouth quartet went to Wales in August 1942, so presumably were replacements for the Hull ones returning north. Pontypridd gained an extra six seats per vehicle. But they lost out on standardisation, as two Portsmouth vehicles were AEC 663T, and two were Sunbeam MS3s. Two had MCCW, and two EEC bodies, one on each make of chassis. Also two had EEC motors, but one regen the other augmented field, the other two having BTH motors, one regen, the other regulated field. Such was Portsmouth’s desire to experiment! None of them had traction batteries, and had been in storage at Portsmouth since c.1940 so that they wouldn’t block the streets in the event of power cuts due to bombings etc. Three of them stayed at Pontypridd until November 1945, the fourth returning in August 1946.

Michael Hampton

26/02/14 – 16:40

Can I provide the following route details at 1 January 1958:
61 Chanterlands Avenue North
62 Newland Avenue (Cottingham Road)
63 Endike Lane – much further north than Cottingham Road – there were no turning facilities at the eastern part of Pearson Park on Beverley Road
64 Ings Road
65 Goddard Avenue – short working of the 61 – originally the main service – was used at peaks and during the day in later years
66 Pearson Park – short working of the 62 – used only in days immediately preceding holidays such as Christmas
68 East Park – short working of the 68 – alternate trolleybuses turned here from 29 June 1952
69 Meadowbank Road – extended from the roundabout at the Boothferry Road junction on 30 March 1947
70 Dairycoates – well short (over a mile ) of the city boundary.
71 Boulevard – short working of the 69 – used for rubgy league specials on Saturdays (mainly)
The twenty Leyland TB7s (nos 47-66) were delivered in the Summer of 1939 – Nos 47/48/51/52 were licensed from 1 August 1939. By December 1960 only seven were left (48/54/55/61/63/64/66) and several Crossley TDD4s were sent to Holderness Road to maintain the 64/68 service. All seven were withdrawn on 28 January 1961 when service 70 was withdrawn.
KHCT never operated BUT trolleybuses – the 1948 vehicles were Sunbeam F4 with Roe H60R bodies (8 feet wide). All ten entered service on 1 June 1948 but were later split between the 69 and 70.
The dual door trolleybuses were Sunbeam MFsBs with Roe H54D bodies. No. 101 arrived in later 1952 whilst the further fifteen entered service from November 1954 to May 1955. they were intended for one-man operation using tokens and tickets – no cash and Mr Pulfrey, the GM, wanted the 63 to be the trial route but due to Union opposition they never ran in that form. No. 116 was fitted with an electronic counter on both stairs but it was not successful. No. 116 also had a Grant farebox fitted but never ran in service as such. They gained the nick name “Coronations” as no. 101 entered service in January 1953.
The service 67 was the renumbered 63A which ran to Chanterlands Avenue North via Beverley Road and Cottingham Road at times during the war and for a short time thereafter. The Original 63A was intended for short workings to Haworth Arms. KHCT wanted a roundabout here so that alternate vehicles on Beverley Road could turn here but nothing came of this partly due to the start of the war.
The 61/62 were the preserve of Leyland TB4s pre-war whilst the Crossleys ran the 63 – they were kept apart in Cottingham Road garage!
Nos 1 to 4 were recalled from Pontypridd to permit the Anlaby Road tram route to be converted to trolleybus operation.
Full details of the fleet list were posted on this site by Keith Easton some time ago and can be viewed at this link.

Malcolm Wells

There is is also a very in depth article that maybe of interest at the following link Bus, Trolleybus and Tram Routes of Kingston upon Hull Corporation

Peter

North Western – Leyland Tiger Cub – FDB 586 – 586A


Stephen Howarth collection

North Western Road Car Co
1955
Leyland Tiger Cub PCUC1/1
Weymann B44F

FDB 586 a Leyland Tiger Cub was new to North Western RCC in 1955.
It was converted, along with the rest of the batch to OMO in 1958/9, as denoted by the ‘A’ suffix after the fleet number.
586 is shown here (in rather a grubby state) working the 1 hour 36 minute duration Service 65 from Ashbourne to Buxton. The picture was taken outside the Devonshire Arms Hotel in the picturesque Derbyshire village of Hartington, a view which has changed little over the years. There was still over 50 minutes to go before it reaches the end of the journey in Buxton Market Place.
It was withdrawn in 1968, and passed to Worth’s Motor Service Enstone, Oxfordshire.


Stephen Howarth collection

Taken from their website “Worth’s were established in 1922 in the village of Enstone by Thomas (Dickie) Edmund Worth who started, like a lot of Bus and Coach Companies of that time by repairing motor bikes, bicycles and lawn mowers. He later progressed to running Ford Model T taxis’, and then on to Char-a-Bancs running day trips to the coast.”
This year the company will be celebrating 90 years in business and continues to be run by the Worth family with the motto still being well known as:- “For a rattling good ride”.
There website can be found at www.worthscoaches.co.uk
FDB 586 is shown here outside the Garage in Enstone.


Stephen Howarth collection

I have included a modern day picture of the premises, and as can be seen the garage building, unlike the fleet, has altered little.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth

25/09/12 – 16:45

Purely from the “observer” point of view, Worth’s has always struck me as being one of the better operators. Others, of course, may feel or know otherwise! As for North Western, what can one say other than “R.I.P.”?

Pete Davies

25/09/12 – 18:57

Pete: yes and yes.

David Oldfield

26/09/12 – 07:07

The No. 65 doesn’t look overburdened with passengers does it? And to think, until the late 50s this route was paralleled by a railway line, whose stations, on the whole, were nowhere near the villages they purported to serve!

Stephen Ford

East Yorkshire – Leyland Panther – JRH 323E – 823

East Yorkshire - Leyland Panther - JRH 323E - 823

East Yorkshire
1967
Leyland Panther PSUR1/2R
Weymann Topaz II

The Panther and Panther Cub were Leyland Motors’ rear underfloor-engined offerings during the mid- to late-1960’s. By this time AEC had been taken over and its Swift model shared the same chassis as the Panther, each using their own engines (O600/O680 and AH505/691 respectively), the Panther having a front mounted radiator, whilst the Swift’s was at the rear. Both bus (with a stepped chassis frame) and coach (with a high, straight frame) were offered, the Swift also being offered with a constant-mesh gearbox in place of the more usual semi-automatic. The shorter Panther Cub – originally introduced to meet the requirements of Manchester CT – had a shorter rear overhang and of necessity had to feature the smaller O400 engine. An equivalent shorter Swift was offered with the AH505 engine only.
Several operators – both municipal and company, and some overseas – bought the Panther and Panther Cub in their bus form, and operated them with varying degrees of success, many having relatively short lives mainly due to bodywork deficiencies. The coach version was relatively uncommon though, the largest operator probably being Seamark’s of Bedfordshire, along with Skill’s of Nottingham.
East Yorkshire took 24 Panthers and 17 Panther Cubs. The Panthers consisted 15 buses, 4 DP’s and 5 coaches – but all based on the PSUR1/2R coach chassis. The second batch of three coaches had Plaxton Panorama bodies, but the first pair (823/824) had very rare Weymann Topaz II C44F coachwork.
Here 823 is seen emerging from the company’s Anlaby Road, Hull premises in 1972.The pair were repainted into the NBC corporate white livery in 1973, but were to pass to the NBC’s vehicle cannibalisation centre at Bracebridge Heath, near Lincoln in 1976 to be stripped for spares, after which the remains were sold to Pickersgill & Laverick, the Carlton breakers.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

29/11/17 – 08:24

A Willowbrook DP-bodied PSU3 of 1962 also in view.

Mark Evans

30/11/17 – 08:14

Not a bad looking coach but a bit let down by the rather oversized front grille.

Philip Halstead

01/12/17 – 06:53

Good point, Philip. One expects something better from Weymann.This is a touch vulgar.

David Wragg

02/12/17 – 07:30

I think it’s unlikely that the Topaz II was designed by Weymann, and even more unlikely that it was built by them, since the factory had been closed for 18 months by the time it was delivered. Blame MCW.

Peter Williamson

02/12/17 – 07:31

Can you see that the outline of the grille is basically Duple 1963-1965 (Bella Vega/Vega Major)? By this time, of course, Weymann no longer existed. It is strictly speaking a MCW body.

David Oldfield

13/12/17 – 08:00

Maybe a bit of a BET Group thread here; EYMS with Panther buses and a few coaches, similar to PMT with Roadliners. I wonder how reliable the Panthers were? Would they be used on extended tours? The zig zag flash on the body side forward of the rear wheel arch looks strange and as already commented the front is rather bland with its unappealing grille.

Ian Wild

13/12/17 – 09:48

I took a photo of another coach in Ilfracombe whilst on holiday in 1969 and there is one of these Panthers parked up in the background, so it seems likely they were used on extended tours. I’m very surprised now that I didn’t photograph the Panther also. //www.sct61.org.uk/zzrdf880g

John Stringer

15/12/17 – 07:24

The entire design looks rather untidy to my eye. Not just the bizarre zig zag on the side and the “parts bins” frontal appearance, but also the fractionally deeper first side window, all conspire to give an insipid, rather than an ugly effect. Wasn’t the original Topaz of circa 1962 redesigned around 1965, which would make the example above a very rare Topaz II?

Roger Cox

15/12/17 – 11:03

About 6 on Bedford VAL14, I believe, and the East Yorkshire Panthers. That was it.

David Oldfield

16/12/17 – 09:20

I have to confess to liking this design: it is all the things the 50’s juke box styles were not- simple, easy on the eye- very 60’s, perhaps Farina. Shortcomings in appearance are surely down to an unsympathetic livery: the white roof dropped down the front, giving too much emphasis to the darker grille- no attempt to use a colour or shade that would draw the necessary elements- lights, vents, displays- together: imagine the dark East Yorks blue overall here and generally replacing the insipid lighter blue : similarly the windows, where the smaller front group would provide the point at which the flash could (if anywhere) begin.
I now digress: purely on livery, has anyone seen a Borismaster in adverlivery? Window dividers on examples I have seen are not then camouflaged to give the impression of a single glazed area, and one I saw had white dividers: the result just emphasises the bizarre design.

Joe

17/12/17 – 07:22

I must point out that the ‘white roof dropped down at the front’ actually, erm…doesn’t. The original slide was a bit on the pale overexposed side and in editing the scan I boosted the colour saturation but it couldn’t bring out the primrose at the front without overdoing the rest of it. In fact I don’t think the roof was white either! I normally wouldn’t submit such a print but it just seemed a bit of a rarity and there wasn’t one on the site.

John Stringer

17/12/17 – 09:19

FWW 809C

This Bedford VAL was parked at Gosforth Park races sometime in the late 1960s, my only ever sighting of a Weymann Topaz body.

Richard Slater

17/12/17 – 10:22

This was operated by Billies coaches of Mexborough, The previous VAL purchased having been a much more traditional Duple bodied item meant this one seemed quite exotic at the time. I assume being a bit of an oddball just meant that they got it for an attractive price.

Andrew Charles

22/12/17 – 07:04

I feel that this coach has a stylish charm of its own. In my humble opinion, the chief problem is that the zigzag flash at the back goes DOWN. If the flash went UP at the same point, it would give a ‘Get up and Go’ impression, rather than its unfortunate ‘Down at Heel’ look.
But I do accept that these things are subjective and our personal tastes will all differ.

Petras409

23/12/17 – 07:57

Interesting to look at other EYMS bus liveries using the dark blue- under EY on this site. Dark blue worked well for the late lamented GNER trains too.

Joe

23/12/17 – 07:58

Petras409, I can’t help but agree with you that the overall design did have a charm of its own, let down by the zigzag flash. A simple straight moulding front to rear would have improved things I feel, especially if positioned to ‘kiss’ the top of each wheelarch. Alternatively, the ‘new’ horizontal moulding could have been stepped down to subtly match the window line at the first bay. In either case the moulding could then have terminated at the centre line of the upper headlamp, which would have made more of a feature of the radiator grille.
With respect to Joe’s comment re the livery, East Yorkshire’s coaches looked splendid in primrose and blue and were always very smartly turned out. Use of the dark blue, primrose and white livery on 823/4 would have meant that they had been demoted for bus work, although it has to be admitted they would still probably have looked just as smart. Now is my memory playing tricks, or am I right in thinking that for some reason the Topaz-bodied Panthers did not carry the usual EYMS ‘xxxxxx Star’ names on their sides?

Brendan Smith

03/04/18 – 07:00

I remember the Topaz bodied Bedford VAL FWW 609C of Billies Coaches very well & in later years it passed to Howards Coaches of Whitby who named it “Concorde”. Even though the VAL has always been one of my favourite types of PSV,the driver would have his work cut out winding one up to 65 MPH on the motorway so they were not Supersonic in any way!.

Andrew Spriggs

05/05/18 – 06:43

Weymann did all the Topaz II bodies on VAL14. The two on Panther were built by MCW.

Stephen Allcroft

07/05/18 – 07:11

Phillip and David W – I couldn’t have described the radiator grille any better – “a touch vulgar” indeed.

Chris Youhill

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Olympic – RPA 771 – 211


Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1952
Leyland Olympic HR44 
Weymann B44F

Sheffield bought three early Leyland Olympics in 1951 and followed up two years later by the acquisition of this former Demonstrator. It put in a good service life lasting until 1968 when it was sold to Dodd, (Dealer) in Dromera, Ireland. I wonder if it found a buyer or whether it was scrapped? The bus was originally fleet number 211 being renumbered as shown in the 1967 scheme. This photo was taken on 10th June 1967 at the Hillsborough terminus of the 31 Lower Walkley service which was characterised by narrow streets and steep hills.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

25/04/12 – 05:16

I think I remember these in Sheffield: were they the “integral” versions? Some had an Olympic torch badge on the front, I think. They always seemed high-floored (the opposite to what you could expect) and a bit awkward, but presumably suited the route.

Joe

25/04/12 – 05:17

From 1952 until 1956 I lived on the 31 and travelled on these and the back loader Royal Tigers. This is now a terminus for Stagecoach 52 and is also close to where the Malin Bridge branch leaves the main Supertram line to Middlewood.

David Oldfield

25/04/12 – 08:36

Can anyone tell me what size engine were in these Olympics please. I believe the King Alfred Olympic that is currently being restored and nearing completion was rescued from Ireland. I always thought it was a great shame that one of the Halifax Corporation Worldmasters were not saved for preservation especially fleet No1 – KCP 1 what a great registration number! Two of these vehicles ended up in Ireland with Keneallys coaches.

Richard McAllister

25/04/12 – 09:20

The Olympic was the integral predecessor of the Royal Tiger and shared all the same mechanical units – including the 9.8 litre 0.600. They were high floored and probably awkward – but what else would you expect of an early underfloor vehicle? [The open backed Royal Tigers 222/223 were even more awkward.] As for suiting the route, they only suited it for the operator (dimensions and power for a hilly route) certainly not passenger friendly – especially the aged and infirm. Passenger comfort only became a priority from about ten years later when technology and new designs allowed it.

David Oldfield

25/04/12 – 15:27

Yes- they looked like the ugly sisters in the sixties- especially as you say, the Tiger rear loaders. My point is that I assume in an integral bus you are not fixing a body to a one-size-fits-all chassis and could therefore make some allowance for the passengers… or what’s the point (I think that was the problem- there wasn’t one…?… or was weight reduced?) What were the advantages? You were presumably stuck with the basics of the original body for good?

Joe

25/04/12 – 16:33

Modern integral buses are monocoque, just like cars (which also used to have separate bodies/chassis)and, I think, are almost universal nowadays. You’re right, though, Joe, you picks your body length, they bold on all the mechanicals and you’re stuck with it. London Transport’s tram/trolleybus department, separate from its bus department, created integral trolleybuses around 1937, using several companies to build them, including Brush and Leyland. Strange how long it took for this system to begin to become popular, around the time when Olympics were coming off the lines and said trolleybuses were starting to go to the scrapyard!

Chris Hebbron

25/04/12 – 16:37

Leeds single deck requirements were few in post war years indeed they only bought 10 saloons in the fifties but managed to have three chassis types! These were 5 AEC Reliances 3 Leyland Tiger Cub and a pair of Guy Arab LUFs. All had the same body layout which was B34C + 14 crush load standees in a central vestibule opposite the doors. Like Sheffield’s Royal Tigers the steps were vertiginous and deep most off putting for intending passengers. Getting a push chair aboard was a major logistical exercise! The overall body shape was common to all ten but the final pair of Reliances had a more upright profile. They were mainly confined to two routes one of which passed under a low bridge and another which crossed the canal on abridge with weight restrictions.

Chris Hough

25/04/12 – 17:39

Joe, the intention with all early integrals was to save weight – it was impossible to be passenger friendly until the dawn of the rear-engined bus. Unfortunately, all of the major manufacturers found that the weight saving margin was no where near enough and that, quite the opposite, there were major weaknesses – often around suspension mountings. This was certainly true of the Bristol LS which transformed after five years into the almost identical MW chassis. Similar problems beset the AEC Monocoach which died out in favour of the Reliance. The other problem was that British operators preferred, and still do, to choose their own bodywork – cf the Leyland National of later years. Ironically the change from LS to MW and Monocaoch to Reliance were not so evident as the separate body chosen for the separate chassis tended to be identical, in all other respects, with the earlier integral body. [Come to think of it, many moved over to the Royal Tiger with identical Weymann coachwork!]

David Oldfield

25/04/12 – 17:39

Just wait until someone discovers the advantages of “demountable” bus bodies: bodies can be changed or swapped on a “chassis”, giving greater flexibility, more opportunities for upgrading, and cutting service times. Why didn’t anyone think of that before?

Joe

26/04/12 – 06:14

1904 is beyond most people’s memories, Joe.

David Oldfield

26/04/12 – 11:39

There were demountable bodies in the early twenties, Joe, although they were usually in the form of exchangeable lorry/charabanc bodies. It never carried over, though into exchangeable bus bodies, to my knowledge, at least, not in a big way.

Chris Hebbron

26/04/12 – 11:40

Nice one, Joe. However, the idea of demountable bodies does actually go back a long way. Maidstone and District started in 1911 with three Gilford chassis; these had bus bodies during the day which were changed for lorry bodies at night. I believe the lorries were used to carry vegetables to and from Covent Garden. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples elsewhere, too.
No doubt David is right when he talks about weight saving being a factor in the development of integrals, but I rather suspect that other motives in early post-war attempts were to use parts from pre-war chassis, and to generate extra work for the maker. Beadle, of course, were prominent in this field; others included Harrington and Saunders-Roe.

Roy Burke

27/04/12 – 07:22

I remember this bus from my student days and wondered why there was an odd one with a Surrey registration.
It would have demonstrated for Weymann, who were based at Addlestone. Evidently it was never fitted with standard Sheffield blinds. I never rode on the 31 although I had “digs” near Crookes on the 52 route.
The open-platform Royal Tigers used on the same route looked odd and a bit reminiscent of Edinburgh; I think the local Inspectorate had something to say about the arrangement.

Geoff Kerr

27/04/12 – 08:39

Yes, Geoff, there were responsible for the fitting of the odd looking emergency door at the rear – NEXT to an open rear platform!
Roy, what said is true but Weymann and Park Royal never did a Beadle with second-hand parts.
I type this about my home town of Sheffield from two miles up the hill from Addlestone. Funny old world.

David Oldfield

27/04/12 – 09:34

And I, a Surrey-ite, who long ago moved away, still visit my brother in Ottershaw, just across the M25 from you, David. Incidentally, whatever happened to Weymann’s works? I assume it no longer exists.

Chris Hebbron

27/04/12 – 10:35

Well, for the initiated Chris, I’m typing IN Ottershaw itself! [Funny AND small world.] Until I retired a year or two back, I passed it on the way to school – St George’s College – but ever since the turn of the millennium it has been a deserted, speculative, office block awaiting tenants. All glass and security guards with nothing to do! You must know that Addlestone Garage is a gated development (yes, in Addlestone) and the Co-op long ago made way for Tescos.

David Oldfield

28/04/12 – 08:48

A remarkable coincidence, indeed, David!
Pardon my irony when I say that the changes you mention pass, nowadays, as progress. The supreme one, though, is the gated development!
My abiding memory of Ottershaw is the Aldershot & District Dennis Lances passing by to and from Woking and the occasional ride on them as part of my journey from Portsmouth by rail.
Lovely buses. The whole area was a hotchpotch between London Transport and A&D and you could never be sure what company’s bus would pop out from some side turning.
Also, Ottershaw was the last/first telephone exchange in the London Area and I would use a callbox there to make calls to my London relatives at local call rates. Some would say miserly, I call it ‘being careful’! Happy days.

Chris Hebbron

28/04/12 – 14:47

You could have been a Yorkshireman!!!

David Oldfield

20/07/12 – 15:48

One of the benefits of the open platforms was that passengers could “hop off” whilst the vehicle was approaching the stop, preventing the driver having to do steep hill starts. The conductor would be ready with his finger on the bell to let the driver know he did not have to stop. No H&S in those days, conductors encouraged it. I got very good at jumping off buses coming up Haymarket to turn right up high street on my way home from school. I believe that is why London kept the Routemasters so long, people could hop on & off where they liked, speeding journey times.

Andy Fisher

21/07/12 – 07:38

Is that Haymarket, Sheffield, Andy?

David Oldfield

21/07/12 – 12:10

While the subject of bell-ringing comes up (not campanology, silly!) I recall, post-war, the LT conductors giving three rings to signify to the driver that the bus was full up and he could ignore queues at future stops until some passengers got off. Standing was unlimited post-war, I seem to recall, or the limit was ignored, then became eight, and eventually five. Admittedly, buses engines/brakes are more powerful (the latter more vicious, too!) but it was amazing how much more fluid passenger movement was then. They moved around the vehicle, up and down stairs and got on/off the platform effortlessly ‘whilst the bus was in motion’, moved around the vehicle. Despite my advanced years, I’m still fit, yet wouldn’t do those things now, apart from moving to the exit before the bus stops and that with great care and a tight grip on stanchions!
I used to love travelling on worn-out LT/ST’s, overloaded beyond belief. Juddering clutches, slow acceleration in waves, the vehicle leaning alarmingly round any corner. Despite all that so-called gentleness, an aunt of mine failed to stop me, as a baby, from falling out of her arms when she was climbing the open staircase of an LT and being caught by a surprised man, unharmed, so they say! Some of you might regret this, boring you with such tales!

Chris Hebbron

23/09/17 – 07:02

Regarding the bells, I was a conductor in Sheffield, with a good driver you became a good team and could trust each other, so not just quick bells for passengers getting off but when the last passenger had one foot on the platform and one hand on the pole it was ding ding, if in doubt assist them on with their spare arm. Yes for us three bells was full up and a shower of bells was emergency stop. We didn’t like the passengers using the bell because it sometimes confused things, we preferred the request of next stop please verbally.

Pete

Halifax Corporation – Leyland Leopard – OCP 231 – 231


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

Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee
1961
Leyland Leopard L1
Weymann B34D

I thought that this bus was a one off being a dual entrance vehicle with Halifax Corporation, but on research I find that they had half a dozen Karrier WL6 with Harris & Hassall duel entrance bodies in 1928. The above bus was only a dual entrance for three years before being modified to to a front only entrance and seating 42, it was then re-seated the following year to a B44F.
As a matter of interest the 1928 Karriers were all withdrawn by 1932 they were not even re-bodied, dual entrance did not seam to work for Halifax. I think dual entrance buses were more useful in cities rather than towns mainly for the speed of on and off loading of the passengers.

With reference to the Karriers, many vehicles built prior to the late twenties weren’t expected to have lives of much more than five or six years anyway -timber-framed bodies, stiff springing, solid or narrow-section tyres and granite setts didn’t make for longevity.
Karriers were probably the worst motorbus ever perpetrated on the industry, even at a time when there were a lot of poor quality specimens on offer -rebodying these atrocious machines wouldn’t have made sense to anybody however many doors they had!

David A Jones

Earlier comments about these Karriers are well-founded! Another problem was that it was not realised then that if you had two driving rear axles, you needed a third crown wheel and pinion BETWEEN the axles. Thus, many half-shafts needed replacing regularly! And to compound the problem, Karrier never bothered to keep spares much beyond the time when a model had been replaced! Apart from getting extra length with 6-wheelers, one bonus was having braking on all four rear wheels. At that time, effective front wheel braking was not easy to achieve in the late ’20’s.
This was told to me by an old boy who’d worked for Portsmouth Corporation who had made the mistake of buying half a dozen Karriers, they also didn’t last beyond about 1932!

Chris Hebbron

This was actually the prototype Leopard, to spec L1, it had a unique badge different to all other leopards and was built 2 years before any others, in essence a Tiger Cub chassis with a Worldmaster engine and synchromesh gearbox, clearly Mr Lefevre decided to experiment at this time.

Christopher

27/11/11 – 08:06

I remember driving this bus during my time at Halifax, by which time it had lost its centre door. When one took it straight out from the garage, with cold engine and gearbox, it was virtually impossible to change gear with the thing, so stiff was the linkage (and, presumably, the gearbox internals). Even when warmed up, it was a serious challenge. All Leyland buses of that era had very heavy controls, but this bus, No. 231, was in a class of its own.

Roger Cox

27/11/11 – 09:16

Roger, you’ve brought back vivid memories to me of the earliest batches of 36 foot Leopards which were operated by Wallace Arnold. They were hard work with a vengeance – cold or warm. The clutches were far too heavy and the brakes were poor to the point of inadequacy, especially when needed frequently at speed or on gradients. The four speed gearbox was ludicrous, and these luxurious vehicles were unable to ascend certain hills on some of the most arduous tours, or at least were prohibited from doing so “just in case.” A further constant irritation was the enormous steering wheel, mounted by the bodybuilders far too close to the dash assembly. To be fair the 30 foot Leopards were far more acceptable in general, being less cumbersome and far more spritely. The comparison between the large Leopards and the big Reliances from AEC was incredible – the latter being swift (small “S” and no pun intended) ideally geared, and a joy to handle all day – and capable of speeds which, after all these years, I’d be reluctant to mention in print !!

Chris Youhill

28/11/11 – 10:28

I well remember as a child looking out of out the bedroom window of our house at Stump Cross early one Saturday morning – it would be 1961 – and catching my first fleeting glimpse of 231 as it flashed by at great speed towards Hipperholme. It was most likely travelling empty to Brighouse to operate the local Stoney Lane-Brighouse-Field Lane 51 route, to which it had already been banished apparently. I had never heard of a bus having two doors, let alone seen one – it looked very strange. I saw it again a week or two later travelling in the opposite direction, then that was that. Though its appearance was very similar to the earlier Worldmasters, it made a different sound – louder and with much more rasping exhaust.
The following year another sixteen similar buses arrived – nine for the Corporation (31-39) and seven for the Joint Omnibus Committee (232-238). The Corporation ones immediately replaced the preselector Regent III’s on the Northowram route – my daily bus to school. The badge on the front announced that they were Leopards – 231 did not have such a badge at the time and looked a bit blank. The front number plate was attached slightly higher, above the dividing strip between the upper and lower panels, whereas 231’s was in the lower panel. Inside, the interiors were all painted metal – typical MCW of the period – with dark green lower panels and pale green window surrounds, but the inside of the doors was all over dark green, whereas 231’s were divided half and half like the rest of the interior. Trivial differences, but features that made them instantly identifiable from one another. The seats were upholstered in an uncomfortable, slippery green vynide, unlike the moquette-covered ones on the Regents. They were also incredibly noisy inside. The route continued to be crew-operated for quite a while, and the older drivers did appear to struggle with them at times, and it was clear many did not approve.
The next time I saw 231 it was a conventional single door bus just like the others. I did not subscribe to ‘Buses Illustrated’ at the time, and knew no other enthusiasts – indeed I believed I was probably the only person in the world who was interested in buses. I eventually concluded that the two doors had been all in my imagination, and it was to be a few more years before the truth was verified, and a lot longer before I was able to obtain a photograph.
I had always a soft spot for these buses, due to my childhood school bus associations, but years later when I was to drive them in service, that spot was burst for ever ! They were utterly unsuited to Halifax’s hilly local routes, frequently stopping and starting and negotiating awkward turns – the driver constantly grappling with the heavy, stiff gear change linkage and hard pedals. The accelerator was frustrating, the revs taking their time to build up and die down. The steering was relatively light, but like all Leylands of the time the wheel was enormous in order to achieve that. Many would jump out of gear when climbing long hills. Frequent bashing of the steering wheel rim by omo drivers’ heavy metal Ultimate ticket machine boxes had chipped the covering, leaving patches of cold bare metal, and jagged plastic sticking out to cut the fingers. The driving position was very low – it was like you were sitting on the floor with the passengers towering above. The destination winders behind a flap above the windscreen were awkward to access, the door operating lever was a long reach forward. The change dispenser mounted above and behind the driver’s left shoulder was literally a pain – though this feature was common to all HPT buses. The demisters were totally ineffective, so the windscreens would quickly mist over, especially with a full load of standing passengers, so a goodly supply of paper towels was always called for. In winter they were always freezing cold, and the windscreens would often freeze over on the inside, requiring frequent stopping to scrape a clear patch.
In fairness, once up through the gears and on the go they would motor on nicely. They could eventually achieve a fair speed, and their road holding was excellent, but it was not often you got them on a long run. Occasionally one would find its way onto the Rochdale route as a changeover for a newer type, and they would usually romp noisily up from Littleborough to Blackstone Edge and over the moors in fine style with good sound effects from the exhaust. The engineers would probably have argued that they were more reliable and durable than the subsequent AEC Reliances, but as a driver I certainly know which I preferred !

John Stringer

28/10/15 – 07:08

The early Leopard L1 had a basically Tiger Cub chassis with a Worldmaster engine, not that this mattered it was a Leyland so Le Fevre would buy it, Halifax later choose Reliances because of the spare wheel carrier, would you believe that Leyland refused to move this and thus Halifax went AEC and as you have noticed the AEC had nicer steering, easier clutch, good brakes and was a more pleasant vehicle to one man, those with 505 engines could go, I recall coming back from London on one of 273/4 running at 85 miles/hour only overtaken by an EYMS Leopard with 2 speed axle. Once the L series was discontinued in favour of the PSU3 type (11 metre) or PSU4 (10 metre) then Halifax switched back to Leylands.
231 had a special Leyland front badge that was slightly different to others that came later, I cannot say how it was different but it was.

Christopher