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

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 basically10ft the 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

Brighton Corporation
1939
AEC Regent I
Weymann H56R

FUF 63 is an AEC Regent I of the O661 variety, built in 1939. She is at Dunsfold on one of the occasions the Wisley event wasn’t at Wisley, on 10 April 2011. The second view is a close-up of the fleetname and Municipal Crest. I have memories of reading – many years go and probably in Buses magazine when it was still called Buses Illustrated – that the arrangement shown results from an agreement between these two local operators, but not Southdown, whereby the buses and trolleybuses run by the Corporation and by Brighton Hove and District had the same livery and fleetname. The distinguishing feature for most people was that the Corporation vehicles carried the Crest as well. I suppose they had different ‘legal lettering’. Histories of the Borough of Hove I have seen suggest there was some jealousy there, because Brighton was elevated to the status of a County Borough, while Hove – seen as more genteel – was not, and had to keep East Sussex registrations while Brighton was allocated its own. "So you live in Brighton?" and the response "No, I live in Hove, actually." seems to stem from this and some sources attribute it to Lord Olivier who did live in Brighton. A former colleague went to work for one of the Sussex Councils, and moved to Royal Crescent, Brighton. Lord Olivier lived next door on one side, and Dora Bryan lived on the other side.
The Titan 23 ACD next to 63 is a 1963 PD2/37 with a Weymann H37/27F body and was fleetnumber 23.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/11/15 – 06:41

What is most striking is how route information has been reduced over the years, especially important in a town with so many visitors. Bus operators should remember the old saying, ‘If you can’t tell, you can’t sell!’

David Wragg

05/11/15 – 16:49

Yes, David, I suppose there is ‘some’ improvement recently with the scrolling dot matrix display, but it’s still nothing like the London style or that shown on 63.

Pete Davies

06/11/15 – 07:05

But the London style is now just a single line display showing the destination.

Geoff Kerr

09/11/15 – 06:45

Of significance is that 23 ACD was the first double-decker operated as an OMO bus.

Dale Tringham

09/11/15 – 08:53

Ah, Dale! I bought some slides from your collection some years ago. Thank you for that piece of information. Was 23 "the first" in UK bus operations generally, or Brighton’s first?

Pete Davies

12/11/15 – 12:00

Brighton Corporation obtained a statutory dispensation enabling them to work this Titan driver -only in advance of general legalisation of double deck driver operation.
Great Yarmouth waited until the law changed to operate their PDR1/2s driver only, and were the second.

Stephen Allcroft

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

03/11/15 – 06:43

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

Michael Hampton

03/11/15 – 15:04

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

Chris Hebbron

03/11/15 – 15:05

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

Pete Davies

03/11/15 – 16:19

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

Chris Youhill

03/11/15 – 17:21

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

Nigel Edwards

04/11/15 – 06:47

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

Chris Hebbron

04/11/15 – 06:48

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

Chris Youhill

04/11/15 – 16:05

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

Peter Murnaghan

04/11/15 – 16:07

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

Pete Davies

05/11/15 – 06:38

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

Roger Cox

05/11/15 – 06:37

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

Joe

05/11/15 – 16:57

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

Pete Davies

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

Stephen Allcroft

05/11/15 – 16:59

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

Peter Williamson

06/11/15 – 07:08

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

Geoff Pullin

06/11/15 – 07:08

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

Allan White

06/11/15 – 16:42

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

Stephen Allcroft