Tag: Weymann

Wallasey Corporation – Leyland Titans – BHF 497/AHF 854 – 78/58

Wallasey Corporation - Leyland Titans - BHF 497/AHF 854 - 78/58

Wallasey Corporation  –  1952  – Leyland Titan PD2/12  – Weymann H30/26R                            

Wallasey Corporation – 1951 – Leyland Titan PD2/1 – Metro Cammell H30/26R

The 75 buses of the quaintly named Wallasey Corporation Motors were absorbed – along with those of the Corporations of Birkenhead and Liverpool – into the newly formed Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive on 1st December 1969.
On an enthusiasts’ visit the following August I photographed this pair of Leyland Titans, still wearing their original livery and fleet names. I think they make an interesting comparison.
On the left, 78 (BHF 497) is a PD2/12 with Weymann H30/26R body new in 1952. To the right, 58 (AHF 854) is a PD2/1 with Metro-Cammell H30/26R body new in 1951.
It is quite amazing to me that this pair – both bodied by companies associated through the MCW group – were built within a year or so of one another, the design of 58 being a throwback to the early 1930’s yet still being built in 1951. Admittedly that on 78 can possibly also partly trace its origins back to a Weymann design of around 1939, such as that used on Brighton Corporation’s famous FUF-registered Regents and others, but how much more modern it looks.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

28/02/14 – 07:55

What is equally amazing is that some eight years after 58 entered service, Wallasey had one of the first production Atlanteans – a massive jump in design in an always interesting fleet.

Phil Blinkhorn

28/02/14 – 07:57

What a super pair! I was taken on holiday to New Brighton in my early years and still remember the Wallasey fleet such as those pictured. Just a pity the PTE had removed the ornate ‘Wallasey Corporation Motors’ fleetname from the side. Only 75 buses but one of the first Operators to put an Atlantean in service (another contender being the even smaller fleet of James, Ammanford). I think it was in Meccano Magazine that a photo showed a temporary ‘gangplank’ being used at Seacombe ferry where the buses reversed up to the loading points thus enabling passengers to board fleet number 1 in safety.

Ian Wild

01/03/14 – 07:10

Massive route numbers, didn’t Birkenhead have large ones as well? Perhaps lots of short sighted passengers on the Wirral?

Ian Wild

01/03/14 – 13:39

West Bridgford did big route numbers too – as did Douglas IoM. You could tell from three stops away whether it was your bus approaching or not! Much better than scrolling digital displays that include bits of advertising and strange route descriptions instead of numbers.

Stephen Ford

08/10/14 – 06:58

I was employed on Wallasey buses and I was one of the first to drive an Atlantean bus in service, I think it was route 2 from Harrison Drive to Seacombe via Liscard

Trevor Hall

15/04/15 – 10:48

Growing up in Liverpool with its 1,200 corporation buses, the Wallasey fleet ‘over the water’ was always fascinatingly old fashioned in feel and looks, even featuring a clock on the platform giving the time of the next ferry. Always remember that when a ferry unloaded at Seacombe and the lined-up buses filled up, a Wallasey Corporation inspector would blow his whistle and every single bus would pull out, in convoy, bound for the posh Wallasey suburbs or New Brighton.

Mr Anon

02/09/15 – 07:09

I grew up in Wallasey in the fifties and remember the affection we had for our bus fleet. The shared routes such as 9, 10 and 11 with Birkenhead would always cause conflict with yellow and blue buses leapfrogging in rush hour to maximise custom. I recall the annual outings to Helsby when at least 10 Wallasey buses would take us urchins on a day out with a slap up tea and games, I would try to get an upstairs front seat and if possible on bus number 80 which was my adopted favourite.

Alan Johnstone

03/09/15 – 07:12

The interesting thing about Mr Anon’s description of the look and feel of Wallasey buses is that in 1958, of course, Wallasey Corporation Motors was the first operator in the country to put a new-fangled rear-engined double decker into service. But step aboard that bus, and its interior is just as “fascinatingly old-fashioned in feel and looks” as everything else was.

Peter Williamson

05/02/18 – 06:39

I grew up in Wallasey in the late 50’s, 60’s. We used to call the Atlanteans the ‘new buses’. Later in 1974 I trained as a bus driver with MPTE. We were called Instant Whips by the older drivers because we had never been conductors. I often drove some of the original Atlanteans which were still in service. Historic but not as nice to drive as the new ones which we called Jumbos. Later I drove for Crosville where they still had lots of back loaders and conductors. I then drove for Henry C Cox of New Brighton, one of the nicest men and best boss I ever had.

Dan Kelly

13/09/18 – 06:48

Dan, I grew up in Wallasey in the 60s and 70s, and remember well the period you mention. I was wondering though if you know what happened to the Cox’s Coaches business? We used them for trips to Blackpool and Lancaster, but the seem to have vanished without trace. I was asking around about then at the end of last year, but no one I spoke to could recall them.

J Lynch

26/02/19 – 07:18

My grandparents: Mr and Mrs Rupert Jones lived in Grosvenor Drive in the 1960s. Grandad drove the buses and my sister and I used to rollerskate all the way to Birkenhead along the prom to take him his sandwiches! We loved it when he drove the number 1 yellow double-decker bus, because we used to board that one to go to the “Guinea Gap” swimming baths. He used to bring home bus tickets, ticket machines and Wallasey Corporation Driver uniform caps and silver buttons for us to play with. Happy days

Marianne Baddeley

27/02/19 – 07:16

Has the Weymann been re-paneled below the lower deck windows?
All the ones with similar bodies that I’ve seen had an outward curve at the bottom above the under run guard rail

Ronnie Hoye

28/02/19 – 06:23

I think the Weymann flared skirt must have been an option. I have just checked Alan Oxley’s book on Midland General/Notts & Derby Traction. All the pictures of post-war Regents with Weymann body (of which they had quite a lot) were without the flare. Some of the photos are of early date, so unlikely to have been re-panelled. I assume the same was true of Mansfield District, in the same Balfour-Beatty Group.

Stephen Ford

28/02/19 – 06:24

Here’s another member of the batch with the same panels: www.sct61.org.uk/  Earlier Weymann bodies had had the outswept skirt panels, but by 1952 the practice was being phased out. Here’s one delivered further up the coast the same year: www.sct61.org.uk/

Peter Williamson

28/03/19 – 07:23

We too lived in that neck of the woods from the mid 60s onwards. The Wallasey bus colour was known as either “yellow” or “white” by various locals. Of the early Atlanteans, there were eventually 30, but I believe those were the last mainstream buses purchased until MPTE took over. They mainly held down the various routes out to Moreton, where you rarely saw one of the older vehicles, and some of the trunk runs between Seacombe and New Brighton. Everything else was the old half cabs.
The departure from Seacombe every 10-15 minutes, following each ferry arrival, was indeed something to watch. The bulk of the service routes started from there, with vehicles all lined up in echelon, when it looked like the last ferry passenger had come out (and not until) the inspector would blow a piercing whistle (audible all round the terminal), following which up to 10 Leyland engines would instantly roar into life together, and they were off, like a Le Mans start, close manoeuvring, gestures between crews, all pushing across Borough Road together and then fanning out to the different routes. There must have been one or two collisions there from time to time.
Regarding this longstanding Liverpool perception of “posh” Wallasey, goodness knows how that originated about a place which was principally dreary red brick terrace houses, and which had no logical centre.

Bill

29/03/19 – 06:19

You make it sound like Formula 1, Bill!

Chris Hebbron

04/03/20 – 06:39

In reply to J Lynch, what happened to Cox’s Coaches. Henry C Cox started his business in the early 1930’s. Along with Hardings it was one of the oldest coach firms on the Wirral. When I drove for him in the 1970’s, Mr Cox was probably in his own seventies but still driving coaches. As I said in my previous post he was a lovely man and a great boss. He had two sons Tim & David but neither were interested in the business. Mr Cox kept going until the early 1980’s when he retired. The garage in Cardigan Road was bought by a damp repairs company who later sold the land for building. All that remains today is Mr Cox’s house at the very end of the road on the left. He built this house along with the garage in the early 1970’s when he moved the business from Mason St to Cardigan Road. He retired to a bungalow in Pensby and died in 1989. A True Gent of the Road.

Dan Kelly

18/01/21 – 06:17

The Wallasey bus colour was known as Sea Green in Wallasey. The story goes that the first manager of the corporation buses was Mr Green and when they bought the first vehicles someone from the coachbuilders called to the council offices and said ‘What colour do you want the omnibuses painting in?’ The clerk didn’t know and replied ‘Oh see Green.’ And so they were painted Sea Green.

Bill

North Western – Leyland Titan PD2 – KDB 666 – 666

North Western - Leyland Titan PD2 - KDB 666 - 666

North Western Road Car Co
1956
Leyland Titan PD2/21
Weymann L30/28RD

Until the arrival of ten of these in the North Western fleet in 1956, previous examples of the Leyland PD2 had featured traditional exposed radiators and bodywork by either Leyland themselves, or by Weymann, who had supplied six lightweight but otherwise classically styled bodies in 1953. This last batch featured the PD2/21 chassis with the concealed front – originally designed for Midland Red’s LD8 class, then adopted as standard by Leyland, even leaving the oddly shaped blank space above the grille slots intended for the BMMO badge. The PD2/21 was the less common air-braked variant of the more common vacuum-braked PD2/20. The bodywork was the lowbridge manifestation of the MCW organisation’s lightweight Orion, regarded by many as being particularly slab-sided and ugly, though personally I always felt that the equal depth windows (compared with the unequal ones of the highbridge version) at least improved the overall proportions.
It seems that they were generally unpopular with crews and most local enthusiasts, being accused of being very hard riding. They were quite a familiar site to me – particularly on Summer Saturdays when the usual ‘blacktop’ Tiger Cubs or Reliances were needed for greater things – as they would often pass through my home town of Halifax working on the X12 between Manchester and Bradford. Although this service passed our house, the limited stop conditions on that section left it out of bounds to us locals, so I never got to ride on one.
Although the other nine were scrapped, Neville Mercer has said that 666 was exported to Canada, so there is a remote chance that it could still exist. Similar looking examples were also bought by East Midland, and the Corporations of Luton and Southend.
Here 666 is seen on the parking ground off Wood Street in Stockport, alongside 258, a Leopard PSU4/4R with Duple Commander III C41F body of 1968.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

29/10/14 – 17:07

When I worked at Sharston (near Northenden) 666 from Manchester depot, took me on the first leg of my journey home to Royton. It was on the 64 service to Piccadilly (from Ringway) almost every day. I hated it. The suspension was indeed very hard. I usually sat on the front nearside seat in the lower deck, which was not too bumpy. The North Western drivers always gave me a fast run into town – they made good time by ignoring one or two intending passengers. As for sound effects, the journey was accompanied by sneezing noises from the air brakes!
At summer weekends it sometimes appeared on X12, Manchester – Halifax – Bradford. I had the misfortune to ride on it one Saturday from Bradford to Oldham. The West Riding road surfaces made for a miserable journey!
Wouldn’t mind a ride on it now though!!

Peter G

29/10/14 – 17:08

John mentions that these lowbridge PD2’s were familiar to him as they regularly passed through Halifax on the X12. This one actually passed through Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1972, on its way west, it certainly took me by surprise when I caught a glimpse of it. I’m not sure if it still exists or not, or just where it might be.

Dave Careless

30/10/14 – 07:18

The problem of harsh riding given by the lightweight Orion and its clones was shared by other makes of chassis, all of which were sprung to carry the typical weight of traditional, decent quality bodywork.

Roger Cox

30/10/14 – 07:19

Not only were they hard riding, they were finished to a cheap specification, rattled a lot and the crews hated the rear doors. All in all not the finest NWRCC vehicles.

Phil Blinkhorn

30/10/14 – 07:20

It’s lovely to see a photo of the registration number KDB 666 as nature intended, adorning a North Western Leyland Titan. In the late 1970’s the registration number could often be seen around Harrogate, attached to a very nice green Rover 3500. The bus connection was maintained however, as the Rover was used by one of NBC/West Yorkshire Road Car’s senior managers.

Brendan Smith

05/11/14 – 06:29

I have a note of seeing this bus in Frank Cowley’s yard in Fallowfield, re-registered KDB 499, in January 1972. I wonder what that mark was transferred from?

Michael Keeley

05/11/14 – 11:36

I’ve long wondered if “KDB 499” was a real registration mark. Given the fundamentalist tendencies of many North Americans I can understand why Cowley (given a Canadian buyer for the vehicle) might have decided to remove the original “Number of the Beast” plate, but would they really have gone to the trouble of officially re-registering it with a similar mark? My suspicion is that the plate was for purely cosmetic purposes.
Back in the late 60s I saw a few withdrawn NWRCC vehicles being ferried to Cowley’s Salford and Fallowfield premises using the dealer’s “BA” trade plates, and once the PD2/21 had gotten there its next trip was on a boat. I’d also be interested to find out when the WYRCC staff-car received the registration. Was there a noticeable gap?
The PSV Circle’s NWRCC fleet history asserts that KDB 499 was a genuine registration, but as aficionados of these histories will be aware the level of accuracy in this is not up to their usual standard. Does anybody have a record of Stockport registrations?

Neville Mercer

06/11/14 – 06:08

KDB 499 may well have been a real registration mark but not to NWRCC for a PSV. They had KDB 631 to KDB 700, all but 661-670 being applied to Tiger Cub deliveries in 1956 and 1957.

Orla Nutting

06/11/14 – 11:42

Hi Orla, I think you’ve forgotten the batch of Weymann Fanfares that started at KDB 626, making a total of 75 vehicles in the block allocation. KDB 499 was presumably allocated to a private car, and I really can’t understand why NWRCC would go to the trouble of re-registering the vehicle before selling it to Cowley. Back in those days this would have involved buying the previous vehicle to wear the marks – a rather expensive manoeuvre merely to get rid of one old bus. There’s obviously another story going on here – the allocation of 666’s old registration number to the WYRCC staff car. I appreciate that “KDB” looks vaguely like a WYRCC fleet number, but a staff car would look nothing like a Keighley based Bristol double-decker! Why would anybody (especially a no-nonsense THC subsidiary) pay good money to do this?
Do we have any ex-WYRCC readers who can throw further light on this?

Neville Mercer

06/11/14 – 14:15

Ah, yes. The AEC Reliances. I had forgotten them.

Orla Nutting

07/11/14 – 13:17

Neville, the senior member of staff arrived in Harrogate from elsewhere in the National Bus Company empire, and the Rover came with him, already bearing its KDB 666 registration. Maybe he had a soft spot for this particular bus (666) or perhaps there was something of significance in the registration. Alas we’ll probably never know.

Brendan Smith

11/11/14 – 18:18

I’ve done some digging in my records and find that KDB 666 was on a Rover 3500 that came under West Yorkshire admin on 16/1/75. However, it runs in my mind that the NBC ‘senior member’ was Robert Brook, and that he didn’t come to Yorkshire to join West Yorkshire, but to live. Certainly, it’s shown as being the ‘Chief Executive’s’ car. At about this time, if you remember, NBC was also running an area office in Darlington, to which Bill Stephen had been ‘shunted’ when he was removed as WY Chief Engineer, but whether that was where Mr Brook also worked I can’t now remember. I suspect he probably spent a lot of time commuting to London!

Trevor Leach

12/11/14 – 05:36

Presumably the Robert Brook who was General Manager of North Western at the time it was broken up? I seem to recall that there was another Robert Brook, although I might just have been confused by rapid ‘career moves’!

Nigel Frampton

09/04/15 – 07:05

I remember seeing a beige Rover in Cheadle in the late sixties or early seventies with the reg KDB 666. I loved occasionally having a lowbridge Titan on my journey to school. The routes 29, 30, 52 and 52A were predominantly Daimler Fleetlines, Dennis Lolines 2 and 3 and AEC Renowns (my favourite bus ever was AJA 121B one of the second batch with moquette upholstery on the upper deck) so a lowbridge Titan was quite a novelty.

Graham Bloxsome

23/05/15 – 07:05

There’s no mystery. Robert Brook was the last GM of North Western and he took the registration with him for his car when he left at the end of 1972. He also left with a photo I prepared for him of 666 as delivered in the old cream roof black wings livery. He and I left the Manchester area at the same time and he kindly let me speak to him in his office knowing my interest in North Western and as owner of CDB 206.

Bob Bracegirdle

01/09/17 – 15:14

I’ve just read through this thread and can definitely clarify, if there’s still any uncertainty, that Robert Brook was overall Chairman of NBC in 1978-80 at a time when Linda Chalker was Minister for Transport. My GM at the time would say ‘Oh dear, we’ve got another Dear Robert, love Linda.’ i.e. another memo from the Minister to our lord and master that had to be dealt with. Presumably Bob B’s ‘left’ didn’t mean retirement, or could have referred to another RB?

Nick Turner

Southport Corporation – Leyland Titan – CWM 154C – 54

Southport Corporation - Leyland Titan - CWM 154C - 54

Southport Corporation
1965
Leyland Titan PD2/40
Weymann O37/27F

New to Southport Corporation in 1965, with fleet number 54. She is a Leyland Titan PD2/40 with Weymann O64F body, converted from H64F. When Southport was absorbed into Merseyside, there was uproar among the natives, who wanted to remain in Lancashire. The place does, after all, have a Preston postcode rather than a Liverpool one! Do the residents still hold – as many in Bournemouth and Christchurch do in respect of Hampshire and Dorset – that they live in Lancashire, but Merseyside is allowed to look after certain aspects of life? We see her on Southampton’s Itchen Bridge on 6 May 1979, while taking part in the local operator’s Centenary celebrations.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

22/12/15 – 07:11

CWM 151C

Regarding the open top Leyland currently on site, please find attached a photograph of the bus? OR an identical one. It is seen on Trans Pennine 2015 and is in the William Hunter collection.

Tracked your picture down to 154 reg, my picture is of 151 !
How many did they get?

Roy Dodsworth

22/12/15 – 08:57

Hello, Roy! Thank you for your thoughts. I’m afraid I can’t help you, as the BBF ‘Lancashire Municipal’ book I found a few years ago doesn’t include this batch. I am, however, very confident that at least one of the other readers will be able to advise us both!

Pete Davies

22/12/15 – 08:58

Take a look here //web.archive.org/web/southport3.htm

Peter

23/12/15 – 13:53

There’s almost a Beverly Bar tumble-home to CMW 151C’s upper deck glazing, distinctive I suppose.

Stephen Allcroft

24/12/15 – 06:24

Yes, Stephen, there is. I hadn’t noticed on the view of 154. Can anyone tell us if they were converted at the same time? The fleet list noted above suggests they were still H rather than O at the time of transfer to Merseyside.

Pete Davies

24/12/15 – 06:25

Oh, Southport’s resistance to Merseyside has taken many forms over the years. In bus terms red wheels were one of the first signs, then the use of municipal livery on open toppers and more recently on park and ride buses.
As for the town itself since the abolition of the county council I suspect it’s less of a problem although sharing Sefton Borough with parts rather close to Liverpool has been a problem.
I believe they managed to get Merseyside off the postal address a while back but in these days of ceremonial and postal counties and fragmented political counties it’s all a mess. I prefer to go with geographic counties which spares poor old Middlesex and puts my old home town of Widnes firmly back in Lancashire.
On the Wirral they managed to get their postcodes changed from L to CH with a positive effect on insurance premiums….

Rob McCaffery

25/12/15 – 08:05

Prior to 1974 Southport was a County Borough: County Boroughs were created in 1889, when administrative County Councils were established, for larger towns/cities for which it was felt that administrative control by the County would be inappropriate/impractical – they were abolished by Peter Walker’s Local Government Act (1972). It’s my understanding that Southport was offered the option of incorporation as a Borough within either Lancashire or the Metropolitan County of Merseyside: the former would have allowed it to retain it’s transport undertaking but would have meant responsibility for education passed to Lancashire County Council, whereas Metropolitan Boroughs retained control of education (but lost control of transport to the PTE) – clearly the Aldermen and Councillors of the County Borough of Southport knew where their priorities lay. Initially it was proposed that the 1974 County boundaries would apply solely for administrative purposes and that existing County boundaries would be retained for postal and ceremonial purposes, but . . .

Philip Rushworth

25/12/15 – 09:40

I know exactly what Philip R means! In Southampton, there were moves to have the whole of Southern Hampshire – including Portsmouth – declared a Metropolitan County, so the local districts could maintain control of Education which, otherwise, would go to ‘those idiots at the County Council’. Gosport was what was called an “Excepted District” for Education, and Fareham was only an Urban District. It was, however, pointed out that a Metropolitan County would control the buses through a PTE, so the idea was dropped in favour of keeping the buses under local control and losing the Education.

Pete Davies

31/12/15 – 07:23

Along with at least two dozen fellow enthusiasts, I spent the best part of a week in the Spring of 1988 on holiday with 0651 as our principal mode of travel, the group having hired it, with several holding PSV licenses so that we could drive it ourselves.
It was a fine week, with plenty of time spent on the upper deck in the sunshine, and I shan’t ever forget the crackling roar the old PD2 made as it pounded surefootedly up the steep Matlock Bank on the way to Chesterfield and Sheffield on the last night of the holiday. What a fine tribute that superb machine is to the designers and workers who spent their careers at the Leyland factory.

Dave Careless

31/12/15 – 12:22

Dave C, I think someone had clearly attended to the governor on your vehicle. I remember joining a tour of West Yorkshire in 1977 which used similar but earlier PD2/44 and thinking that it couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding! I was used to the performance of Halifax’s almost-identical vehicles and the comparison was stark. I always assumed that Southport’s were governed down severely as they only ran on very flat routes.

David Beilby

31/03/16 – 06:35

Note this vehicle up for sale as of April 2016

Roger Burdett

25/11/16 – 07:27

I was an apprentice fitter at Southport Corporation, Canning rd. Depot in the late 60’s.
The batch of buses you were asking about were numbered from 43 – 57 and they all had vacuum brakes as opposed to air brakes and manual gearboxes not semi automatics and the 01 prefix numbers were only applied after the MPTE takeover.
The later batch nos. were converted to OMO operation by moving the drivers N/S cab window outwards over the bonnet and the driver had to literally turn round to the left and face backwards to collect the fares, something of a feat even in those days!
The Drivers who opted to become OMO drivers were paid the princely sum of 3d an hour more (note not decimal pence btw) to become OMO drivers!
Mr Alan Westwell (now Dr. Alan Westwell) designed the cab window arrangement conversion when he was ‘The Rolling Stock Engineer’ at Canning Rd., note the title of RSE as opposed to Chief Engineer, as the title was from the old tramway days of long ago!
The next batch of vehicles were Leyland Panthers which were numbered from 58-70

Norman Johnstone

25/11/16 – 10:38

When London Country came into being in 1970, it, too, set up the post of RSE (Rolling Stock Engineer). He was then supplied with an Assistant, so entitled, until the unfortunate acronym thus created subsequently led to the renaming of the post as ‘Deputy’.

Roger Cox

25/11/16 – 13:14

At Derby Borough/City Transport we had a Chief Engineer (the late Gerald Truran), and, a Rolling Stock Superintendent, and an Assistant Rolling Stock Superintendent.
The latter two posts being a throw back to Trolleybus days.

Stephen Howarth

25/11/16 – 14:08

I can assure you that the title of Rolling Stock Engineer is still alive and well in the tramway field. I am one!

David Beilby

25/11/16 – 14:17

I am a volunteer at The North West Museum of Transport in St. Helens.
We are at present in the process of restoring Southport Corporation 62 a 1946 Daimler Utility CWA6 which apparently is one of only a few surviving CWA6’s with genuine wartime utility bodies by Duple.
We have just fitted a replacement AEC 7.7 engine which by all accounts are as scare to say the least.
This particular vehicle finished it’s life at Aintree Racecourse as a Stewards Bus on the racecourse when the museum acquired it many years ago.
If anyone has any more information regarding this bus please can they get in touch as we do have some very limited information on it as it is a genuine wartime utility bus bodied by Duple.

Norman Johnstone

27/11/16 – 07:40

I am glad Ronnie Cox didn’t let him convert Glasgow’s 229 forward entrance Double decks for OMO and I am sure the surviving drivers from early GG PTE days are too!

Stephen Allcroft

27/02/18 – 05:58

In the foregoing comments there is a reference to a PD2/44. I am not acquainted with such, thinking that PD2 variants ceased at No 41.
Was 44 a special to Southport?

Orla Nutting

28/02/18 – 07:41

Blame the typist!
I was wondering who would claim it was a PD2/44 then realised who wrote the post….

David Beilby

28/02/18 – 07:42

Re. Southport 62, the Utility Daimler. I was a volunteer at Steamport in Southport when 62 arrived. It was exchanged for Birkenhead 15, a PD2. It had been used as a sort of grandstand for the motor racing circuit at Aintree and was possibly a commentary position though I can’t be certain of that. When there was a clear out of some vehicles at Steamport there was a danger that it would be scrapped. Fortunately, I was able to arrange for it to be towed to the former Large Objects Store in Liverpool where it remained for some years. Upon the closure of those premises I assisted in removing the bus to a position outside the building to await removal to St Helens. During this operation 3 out of the 4 of us who were involved were attacked by cat fleas, presumably rather upset that the wild cats that had been living on the bus had fled the scene!
Good luck with the work on 62. I was impressed all those years ago that the bodywork was so solid despite it being a Utility. If it still has a lot of blue seat frames stored upstairs, they are from Birkenhead 15, not being required for its role taking over from 62.

Jonathan Cadwallader

01/03/18 – 05:59

Typo notwithstanding, it isn’t true that PD2 variants ceased at 41. In the final “rationalised” range, the former PD2A/24, PD2A/27, PD2A/30, PD2/34, PD2/37 and PD2/40 were replaced respectively by PD2A/44, PD2/47, PD2/50, PD2A/54, PD2/57 and PD2/60. However, only the PD2/47 was actually built, for St Helens, Lowestoft and Darwen.

Peter Williamson

02/03/18 – 08:13

Thanks for that. I had a nagging feeling that I’d read about the PD2/47 somewhere.

Orla Nutting

10/06/18 – 08:38

Just an update on the Southport Daimler 62.
The replacement engine has now been fitted and runs extremely well and lo & behold only a couple of months ago we actually moved 62 in the museum to another space next to where it was parked, albeit basically 10ft to the right in the shunt, but it actually was ‘driven’ to the next space after well over 28 years of having no engine in it and although the brakes were shall we say not exactly functional the handbrake worked perfectly (except for the ratchet which was sticking) and so did all the pre-select gears including reverse!

Norman Johnstone

22/06/20 – 06:52

43-46 UWM43-46 Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1961
47-50 WFY47-50 Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1962
51-54 CWM151-154C Leyland PD2/40 Weymann 1965
55-58 GFY55-58E Leyland PD2/40 MCCW 1967
All looked identical but some detail differences: red or black radiator grilles front top deck opening vent windows or not side opening windows – some sliders, some rill type lower skirt panel near side immediately after door – some single panel with a slight curve to transition from the straight down door post to curved lower pane – some curved panel with no transition from straight down door post.

Trevor Wilson

Portsmouth Corporation – Leyland Titan PD1 – DTP 822 – 188


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

Portsmouth Corporation
1948
Leyland Titan PD1/1A
Weymann H30/26R

#

One of 19 identical PD1/1A’s delivered in 1948, 188 still looks very smart in its glossy maroon and white paint, with roof of grey, paint dipping at the corners a la London Transport’s post-war STL 18/20’s, which had identical bodies.
It has just entered Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, having just come down Commercial Road and under Portsmouth & Southsea’s High Level Station bridge, seen to the left of the bus. Behind, and to the right, is Brickwood’s Sussex Hotel, with its brown-tiled facade.  188 has come from Portchester and is en-route to the Floating Bridge, Old Portsmouth, not, literally, a floating bridge, but a vehicle ferry over to Gosport. Note the police telephone box and the holidaymakers, dad with suitcase, on what looks a lovely Summer’s day, by the look of 188’s open windows. The trolley wires would be used for another few months.
The photo was taken about 1962 and it’s nice to see one of these vehicles with a full blind display (perfectly set), since they were usually relegated to peak-hour working, with just a destination display, in this, the twilight of their lives. 188 was withdrawn in 1967, after 19 years service.
The city coat of arms on the side is in a separate photo. The motto’s in English; no fancy Latin for Pompey folk!
To the right of the main photo, just out of view, was the Taj-Mahal Indian Restaurant. In 1967, a colleague and I were invited to another colleague’s retirement lunch. He’d served in the Indian Army in the war and suggested we’d like a Madras Curry. It was our first curry and was so hot as be virtually inedible, but we couldn’t upset the man; so ate it! I never touched another curry for 20 years! For our host, however, it was not quite hot enough!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

A full list of Titan codes can be seen here.

25/12/11 – 06:38

An early example of “Leyland Loonacy”. Weymann’s classic post-war design marred by Leyland’s insistence on siting the Speedo unit in such a position and way that the windscreen had to be small and squared off. The logic was that the Leyland body had a far more attractive windscreen (it did) and therefore people wouldn’t buy bodies from anyone else (they did). Did they really believe their own argument in Lancashire?

David Oldfield

25/12/11 – 09:25

What an excellent picture and the highlighting of the City Coat of Arms. Perhaps others may be put on the site with the translation of the Latin inscription. Incidentally nowadays you never see suit cases being carried since the invention of the trolley case.

Philip Carlton

25/12/11 – 18:41

The early post-war Weymann body was certainly a classic but it always looked at its best on the AEC Regent chassis where the radiator, cab windscreen, and in fact the whole package came together just right.

Philip Halstead

26/12/11 – 07:05

I lived as a child in the Gosport area from 1949 to 1952, and well remember the Gosport – Portsmouth Point chain driven Floating Bridge, which opened in 1840 and finally closed in 1959. As so often with short term decisions based entirely upon capital renewal costs, the closure of this facility was misguided, and the result may be seen in the extreme traffic congestion that now plagues the Gosport peninsula. If this photo of No. 188 was taken in 1962, then the Floating Bridge was long gone by then. though the slipway at Portsmouth Point may still be seen today.

Roger Cox

26/12/11 – 07:06

The RT/RTL and RM were designed as a harmonious whole – and this is generally acknowledged – but there have also been unofficial collaborations.
Weymann always worked closely with AEC which probably explains why that combination seemed to work. [For a time, from 1933 to 1947, Sheffield Transport only had AEC and Weymann in that combination – their many Leylands always having other coachwork.] There was the Guy/Park Royal tie up – begun before Park Royal were taken over by AEC/ACV. Two others which, in Philip’s words “came together just right…” were the Bristol Lodekka (in all forms) and the BMMO D9.
It’s what I call balanced design. Bad and/or ugly design is not balanced, there is always at least one thing that “jarrs”.

David Oldfield

26/12/11 – 11:21

Looking at a picture of preserved Sheffield 904, I realise that all of their Roe/PD2s from 1957 and the PD3s had exactly the same windscreen as the final Leyland bodies (1951 – 1954). Strangely, the Weymann and ECW PD2s had a different, smaller, windscreen (with similar profile) which Chesterfield also had on its Weymann PD2s.
The other collaboration which I forgot (above) was Leyland and Metro-Cammell (as opposed to Weymann). Roger Davies, in his Ribble book, is only one person to state that there was tacit agreement, after Leyland gave up building coachwork, for business to pass almost automatically to MCCW.

David Oldfield

26/12/11 – 17:49

Tynemouth and Wakefield’s ‘Northern General’ had some AEC’s with this type of Weymann body, and Northern’s first 8ft wide buses were GUY Arab’s with a very similar body but with sliding cab door. When I started at Percy Main I did my training on one of them, the fleet number was 189 FT? ?89. It had a crash box, and you needed a block and tackle to steer it. One of them went to Chester Le Street depot where it became a full fronted dual control vehicle.

Ronnie Hoye

26/12/11 – 17:50

FLOATING BRIDGE took quite a while to disappear from the bus blinds, and local speech, too. Undoubtedly, it was old and worn out, but it was a shame it wasn’t replaced with a larger version which would have carried more vehicles. It was a tourist attraction, too. It’s hard to believe that the A27 between Portsmouth and Southampton (Itchen) also had a floating bridge until supplanted by a bridge in 1977, even though bridge plans had existed since 1936!

Chris Hebbron

26/12/11 – 18:51

Thank you Ronnie for that magnificent description of the action necessary to deal with heavy steering – its tickled me and I’ll be chuckling all evening now !!

Chris Youhill

27/12/11 – 18:09

Further to the comments above concerning Weymann bodies on chassis other than AEC, it is not difficult to find other post war exceptions to this tendency, but I never knew that Leyland deliberately tried to “dissuade” customers from purchasing non Leyland bodywork, as David so vividly points out!
In the pre-war period, the Leyland/Weymann combination was perhaps more common, the Plymouth fleet coming to mind, as well as those handsome full front TD5s of Bournemouth.
I also recall some comment in “Buses” in 1954, when Leyland had announced the end of bus body building, that MCW was the natural successor, a fact perhaps born out in the integral developments such as the Olympic/Olympian, and some of the lead up to the Atlantean.
If anything, Park Royal would seem to have been more “in league” with AEC in the pre-war period, the balance shifting towards Weymann in the post war era.
Classic Weymann bodies look magnificent on any chassis really, and my mind is so easily led to the pre-war Bradford fleet, where Weymann bodied Daimler COG 6s were a common sight.
Of all the many coachbuilders which we remember, Weymann must rank as the all time “classic”, as they kept their basic trade mark shape and profile from 1932, with the original Rackham inspired design, until the Aurora styles of the mid 1950s, which, for a time, ran concurrently with the newly introduced “Orion”

John Whitaker

27/12/11 – 20:53

John. Source for the “squared off” Leyland comment is Doug Jack’s “Leyland Bus” and for AEC/Weymann cooperation “Weymann Story Part 1” (Senior, Townsin and Banks). This book also quotes a tendency, in the immediate pre-war period, for senior staff to move jobs freely between Addlestone and West London.
Park Royal emerged from the ashes of Hall Lewis in 1931 but were only acquired by AEC/ACV in 1949. Weymann produced a one off, none to handsome, body for the prototype Regent which was exhibited at the Motor Show.
This became Sheffield Transport 66. It was after this that the first version of the classic Weymann design emerged – the first of many for Sheffield, but only on AEC until 1953, after which Leylands were also bodied for STD.
The Leyland /MCCW link was only really broken after Leyland “merged” with ACV in 1962 – after which Leyland/Park Royal-Roe was the preferred one stop choice.

David Oldfield

28/12/11 – 15:49

To add to the very knowledgeable comments made by John and David on the Weymann classical body of the thirties, forties and early fifties. a good livery such as Portsmouth Corporation was the “icing-on-the-cake” to show this body style at its best.
Sadly Weymann lost the plot in the mid fifties when their Orion body appeared, and despite some good liveries applied by some operators, this body was never in the same league as the their earlier classical-style body.
The Portsmouth Leyland PD1/1A Weymann was a gem, exuded quality and was very long lasting. In modern day language, it was a “value for money” bus.

Richard Fieldhouse

28/12/11 – 17:16

Just as a postscript to David’s comments on Leyland’s strategy to supply the all Leyland product, there is evidence to suggest that bodybuilding and chassis production were never of equal capacity, which is what surprised me about the undoubted truth which David has highlighted in this matter.
Regarding the relationship between AEC, Weymann, and Park Royal before the post war mergers, I would be interested to learn whether this was any more than just a friendly association. I have been counting up the bodies on AEC demonstrators pre-war, and Park Royal seems to have a lead there, if that is anything to go by.
All very “interesting stuff”, and, as Richard says, what magnificent vehicles (Weymanns) were, especially when adorned by a livery as attractive as that of PCT.

John Whitaker

28/12/11 – 18:17

More to the point, why did Leyland not have confidence in what was universally regarded as one of the best bodies around (style AND quality).
The Weymann book and the Hall Lewis/Park Royal web-site show the fascinating and labyrinthine connections between each other and AEC – let alone the ECW, Roe and Roberts connections (nearly forty years before British Leyland).

David Oldfield

30/12/11 – 07:39

Maybe the alliances and associations were purely pragmatic. Imagine Blankchester Corporation saying EITHER (1) “we want 30 standard 56-seat deckers, and the all-important criterion is that they are delivered by 30 June next year.” OR (2) “we want 30 PD2s (or Regent IIIs or whatever). We are not in a great hurry but we insist on the bodies being provided by XYZ in order to support local industry.” Sensible manufacturers reply (1) “We can do it, provided you are happy to accept bodies from JKL or QRS, who are the only manufacturers who can supply bodies within your timescale.” or (2) “We are happy to fit XYZ bodies in order to secure your business.” The daft ones say “It is our corporate policy only to associate with our own chosen partners, so we can’t meet your delivery schedule/we are not prepared to fit XYZ bodies – and you can like it or lump it!” Sooner or later they go (or went!) out of business.

Stephen Ford

30/12/11 – 08:55

…..but Stephen. That sounds just like the barmy idea of current coachbuilders (especially COACH builders) hitching their waggons to just one chassis – thus depriving twice as many people of their preferred vehicles.

David Oldfield

30/12/11 – 14:05

Adopting a ‘take it or leave it’ policy Eg the Leyland National, and giving the customer little or no choice in the matter proved to be the eventual downfall of the British commercial vehicle industry. For example, did you know that when AEC became part of British Leyland, they had a design on the drawing board for a totally new lorry but it was rejected because the new Ergomatic cab was being introduced more or less across the board, and Leyland wanted to standardise production, so the design was sold to SAAB, it became the SCANIA 80 and 100, and later the 111, the rest as they say is history.

Ronnie Hoye

30/12/11 – 17:08

You’re absolutely correct, Ronnie. British Leyland, as distinct from Leyland Motors, went a long way to destroy local industry – helped by the National Bus Company and then, ironically, by Baroness Thatcher when she broke up NBC with privatisation and deregulation.
There was a LOT of good in the Leyland Leopard but the AEC Reliance, particularly AH691/760s, was vastly superior. The AN68 Atlantean was an excellent bus but the consensus is that it would have had a run for its money had the FRM gone into production.
Then, of course, both Scania and DAF had licences to build the 0.600/0.680 engines – but ended up doing it so much better. DAF/PACCAR’s MX engine, originally based on the Leyland, is a world beater.
There are even more examples in the private car sector.

David Oldfield

31/12/11 – 07:32

I, too, have often thought that the FRM could well have dominated the rear-engined bus scene, had it gone into production. Dearer though it might have been, the fact that it was only a slightly modified RM, with a reliable pedigree, gave it the chance to sweep the board. Sadly, there were vested interests at work. Yet another might-have-been!

Chris Hebbron

11/01/12 – 06:50

Lovely to see this view of No 188 passing through the Guildhall Square, also the Cravens bodied trolleybus in another contribution here. I suggest that the picture date is a bit before 1962, nearer 1959/60. The bus still has a grey roof, and does not have flashing trafficators as far as I can see. The Corporation gave the motorbus fleet white roofs on repaint from late 1959/early 1960, and the exercise was completed by 1963 (apart from the odd older vehicle due for withdrawal, like vee-fronted Leyland TD4 No 129 (ex-127), withdrawn with grey roof in 1964). All the trolleybuses remained grey roofed until the end in July 1963. The simple lining out on the red paintwork, and the chromed radiator make the vehicle a proud sight. Some of the batch had painted radiators. When I was a young enthusiast, and read Buses Illustrated, there were several letters and contributions c.1958-60 about PD1 versus PD2 engines and performance – the PD1 always came off worst! In the early 1980’s (c.1985?) one member of the batch survived in a corner of a field with some other ex-CPPTD stock at Waltham Chase, on the Wickham / Bishops Waltham road B2177. I have no idea whether any of these survived or who was keeping them.

Michael Hampton

02/02/12 – 07:06

I was brought up in Portsmouth in the 60s and have clear recollections of this batch regularly taking us to the football grounds off of Eastern Road from Northern Grammar school for PE lessons. I remember seeing many of them delicensed in the side shed at Gladys Avenue Depot. interestingly one of the batch became a trainer bus at North End and was nicknamed Gladys! The bus referred to at Waltham Chase happily survives under the care of CPPTD.

Mark Southgate

07/05/12 – 09:26

I used to get the 145 bus each day from North End to Old Portsmouth. Cost 3d (three pence) from 1961 to 1971. The destination was Floating Bridge, although I never knew what that was, changed to “Point, Old Portsmouth”. Some buses in the early sixties also had letters. The A and B route along Commercial Rd for example, then became 1 and 2. Same route, different directions! Late night buses, “North End only”, would go to the Gladys Ave depot. Also Fratton Park specials from North End to “Football Ground”.

Jules

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

05/07/17 – 06:52

DTP 814

I’ve just come across a wonderful colour photo of a sister vehicle to 188, taken at North End Depot in 1966, on the cusp of being withdrawn the same year. It says so much of Portsmouth Corporation’s high standards that it could turn out a vehicle almost 20 years old, almost as good as new to look at. Note the white roof, which the corporation restored after WWII, in the early ’60’s.

Chris Hebbron

06/07/17 – 07:29

The steam powered vehicle transporting floating bridge ran between Gosport Ferry and Portsmouth Point, where the old landing stage can still be seen. Like the still running Sandbanks ferry in Dorset, it functioned by winding itself across by engaging chains laid on the floor of the harbour. It began operating in 1840 and received a new vessel, the Alexandra, in 1864, and she lingered on, spasmodically in the last years, until 1959. I lived near Gosport during the years 1949 to 1952, and remember it well, though I never actually travelled on it. Nowadays the Gosport peninsula is a traffic nightmare, and a vehicle crossing facility would surely be useful.

Roger Cox

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