Copyright Ian Wild

Poole’s of Alsagers Bank
1960
Leyland Leopard L1
Burlingham B43F

Pooles of Alsagers Bank (on the outskirts of the Potteries) ran a stage service from their home village to Newcastle under Lyme. One of their fleet was 9513 RF which is almost identical to the ex Sheffield Leopard shown on the site with Stevensons of Spath.
Pooles bought 9513 RF new and its Burlingham body (no7064) must have been built at the same time as the Sheffield batch (two of which had body numbers 7061 and 7062) – this information from ‘Bus Lists on the Web’.
The bus is wearing a Leyland Tiger Cub badge, although per ‘Bus Lists on the Web’ it is a Leopard L1, I am pretty sure at least the first two of Sheffield’s Leopards (1300/1) had Tiger Cub badges – maybe one of the Sheffield correspondents could confirm that. The bus looks to have high backed seats despite ‘Bus Lists on the Web’ quoting it as B43F. The photo was taken at Poole’s Depot in June 1971

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

22/06/11 – 13:24

As per my post for Leopard fanfare 1002. The original batch were first intended as PSUC1 specials before being announced as L1 Leopards. I never saw them with Tiger Cub badges – but maybe these were removed and replaced after the official launch of the Leopard in November 1959.

B43F? The seats look like coach or DP seats to me.

David Oldfield

26/06/11 – 08:03

One other strange thing about this vehicle is that it was the only Poole’s service bus never to receive a fleet number. Those before it did, and so did those which came afterwards, right up to the family selling the business to the haulage contractor who drove it into the ground. Does anybody know why it didn’t merit a fleet number?

Neville Mercer

It is listed above with a fleet a number of 9 is this correct or is Neville on to another bus mystery

Peter

22/06/12 – 06:58

It is usual, if a vehicle is given a fleet number, for the number to be visible on the vehicle. As we see in the illustration, there does not appear to be one, however. Is it, perhaps, on the nearside or the back, or is it just for administrative purposes? Is Neville right to say it never received one? I’m supposing you mean not at all, not nohow even on paper, young sir! To my mind – or what’s left of it after a career in Local Government – the fact we don’t see one suggests very strongly that "not nohow" is correct.

Pete Davies

22/06/12 – 11:23

I walked around this vehicle on numerous occasions and also studied its interior, and I can confirm that it carried no fleet number, at least until mid 1972 when I last saw it. I think the mistake (in listing it as fleet number 9) may originate in PSV Circle publication 2PD7, covering Staffordshire independents, where it is so listed. The compilers seem not to have noticed that Pooles were operating a genuine fleet number 9, Tiger Cub/Seagull coach 938 CRE, from 1954 to 1968 which overlaps with the first eight years of 9513 RF’s stay in the fleet!
Having said that, it wouldn’t be unknown for an independent to operate two vehicles with the same fleet number at the same time, but in the absence of any photographic evidence I’m sticking by my original assertion.
I am forced to eat humble pie however, as I’ve just noticed in my own records that Poole’s Reliance/Park Royal bus 4399 E (delivered the year before 9513 RF) also failed to acquire a fleet number throughout its career with the operator. It seems that Pooles temporarily abandoned allocating fleet numbers in 1958-59 and then started again in 1960 without giving numbers to the two recently delivered service buses. Perhaps somebody else was in charge for those two years who considered fleet numbers to be a "big fleet" affectation!

Neville Mercer

23/06/12 – 06:01

Also meant to add that I agree it should be classified as a dual-purpose vehicle – the seats were of a higher standard than those on North Western’s contemporary "black top" saloons and comparable to those on North Western’s Reliance/Alexander Z types which NWRCC listed as coaches rather than "semi-coaches" on their internal fleet listings. In honesty it should be said that 2PD7 is not one of the PSV Circle’s most accurate publications, but in the absence of anything better was still used as a source for most of the enthusiast publications (Capital, AM Witton Fleetbooks etc) of the ’70s and ’80s. I’ve seen many of its known errors copied elsewhere over the years, so presumably Bus Lists took their data (ie B43F) from these sources.
As I’ve said before on this site, the PSV Circle do a marvellous job but any enthusiast who takes every word in their publications as "gospel" is slightly deluded. Everybody makes mistakes and they only get corrected if people point them out… and sometimes not even then!
Needless to say, if anyone spots any errors in my books, please feel free to air them on this site. I’d rather know than not know – it’s the only way we end up with better history.

Neville Mercer

23/06/12 – 14:24

Oh Dear!! I’ve just been looking through a copy of my own book "Independent Buses in Staffordshire" and I’ve noticed that the caption to a photograph of 9513 RF describes it as fleet number 9. Whoops. In my defence I didn’t write the caption (the original photographer presumably used 2PD7 as a reference), but on the other hand I should have picked it up when adding the details to the captions typescript or at the proof-reading stage. As I said above, "everybody makes mistakes", but I didn’t expect to be pointing out one of my own.

Neville Mercer

30/06/12 – 05:28

I would just like to add to the info on Pooles bus 9513 RF, I have been researching Pooles for a number of years and have now approx 300 Pooles bus and coach pics in my collection, and can confirm that 9513 RF DID carry a fleet number of 9 positioned each side of the front of the bus just below the sidelights, and I have a photo to show this, the other buses of Pooles to carry fleet number 9 were – 938 CRE, and XFA 967S, of which I also have pics to confirm, The buses purchased during 1958-59, and some later buses and coaches, did not seem to carry fleet numbers,. If I can be of any more assistance please get in touch, and any more info or pics to help me in my research would be most welcome, many thanks.

Dave G

30/06/12 – 11:23

Thanks for that info, Dave G, now I wonder if you can date the photograph which shows the fleet number? What I’m getting at is, did 9513 RF become number 9 after the disposal of the Seagull which carried that number in 1968? I’ve seen around a dozen decent quality shots of the vehicle over the years, none of them with it carrying fleet numbers in the position you describe, but it could be that all of these were taken prior to 1968. My personal visits to the operator (and to the N-u-L terminus) were concentrated in the years 1965-68 although I did see their vehicles in passing between 1968 and 1972 on sporadic visits to the area. By then however I had begun to devote more time to girls and less to buses!

Neville Mercer

30/06/12 – 18:46

The photos I have showing the fleet number I’m afraid have no dates on them, but seem to be early pics in black and white, I have other colour pics that do not show a fleet number. Pooles still owned this bus in March 1978. Two older Pooles buses also had fleet number 9, ORE 676, a Foden of 1947 vintage, and JVT 52, a 1945 Bedford. I am hoping to one day produce a book about Pooles when I have enough information. Also I have a collection of the old Duggins/Princess buses pics that shared the same routes as Pooles.

Dave G

26/04/21 – 06:36

Further to the above caption, Poole’s actually had two services. The main one was Audley to Newcastle-under-Lyme, via Miles Green, Halmer End (or Halmerend), Alsager’s Bank, Scot Hay, Park Site (or Estate), Silverdale, and Knutton. If you were wondering whether or not all those fitted into the destination screen, they didn’t, not all at the same time, but perm any four/five or so. //www.sct61.org.uk/zzxre912h
Few journeys made it through from Audley, at least as many starting at Halmer End, which always surprised me, given the relative sizes of Audley/Halmer End.
The second service was much shorter, between Knutton and Newcastle-under-Lyme, this I believe went by a different route to the Audley service.

David Call

Copyright Ian Wild

Stevensons of Spath
1960
Leyland Leopard LI
Burlingham DP41F

Sheffield Joint Omnibus Committee was an early user of the Leyland Leopard L1 taking six Weymann Fanfare bodied vehicles for the B fleet in 1959 and then five identical for the C fleet in 1960. Later deliveries in 1960 were nine with what I always thought were very attractive Burlingham dual purpose bodies (four for the B fleet and five for the C fleet). The bus in the photo was originally fleet number 1307 renumbered as 1007 in the 1967 renumbering. They originally had single piece hinged coach type doors, lever operated from the cab but were modified for OMO with power operated bus doors later in the 1960s. The Leopards were regular performers on the Peak District services and also on the 48 to Manchester. Not many Sheffield buses escaped the scrap man but during 1972 Stevensons of Spath (near Uttoxeter) bought five Leopards from Sheffield, two with Weymann bus bodies, two with Burlingham bodies and a single Weymann Fanfare example. Stevensons fleet number 18 looks very smart here on 29th August 1972 in their yellow and black livery and what a superb registration number!!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

———

02/03/11

I always thought it was a nice body, simple and smart. Somehow, it never seemed to make the big time, though, at least not in my part of the world.

Chris Hebbron

———

02/03/11

Could never, as a kid, understand why these were only classified as DP41F, not C41F. Can only assume that it is because the body is basically the Burlingham bus with a Seagull front grafted on. (…..but it is isn’t that much different from the Seagull VI ordered in volume by Ribble). A point to consider, though. Duple took over Burlingham in about 1960 – and the factory continued first with Burlingham designed Duples and then their own designs. Is it too fanciful to think that these were constructed of left over parts, to use them up – rather like the Plaxton 321 some thirty years later, using up Duple 320 parts in a like manner?
Over to you, Mr Mercer – esteemed Burlingham guru!
There were more Weymann Fanfares and the ECW Leopards to follow. An incredible collection of high quality and interesting non-mainstream vehicles for basically a local operator – albeit railway owned and for long distance routes. They were good, but its a pity JOC never bought any AECs for coaching. (Unless you consider the pre-war Regal/Roberts for the Gainsborough route!)

David Oldfield

———

03/03/11 – 09:01

Thanks for the compliment David! Burlingham’s standard bus body for underfloor engined chassis first appeared in 1951 and went through various updates until it was discontinued in 1960. The first major change came at the 1956 Commercial Motor Show when the entire front-end was redesigned to give a more modern appearance. To many of us this was the best version of the body and was in production from early 1957 to late 1958. Sales were generally poor by this point (the best known examples of the 1956 design were probably those operated by famous independents such as Clyde Coast and Tor Bus) and at the 1958 Show Burlingham presented the version shown in this photograph. Sheffield’s were among the first production examples and (as far as I know) the only other "big fleet" to buy them was Northern General.
As you suggest the window pans were identical to those used on the Mark 6 Seagull as was the lower panel on the front end. I suspect that this was an economy move by Burlingham to standardise on fewer parts. By late 1958 the company was already in dire straits and I’ve heard it suggested by one former employee that all those full-fronted PD3 Titans they built for Ribble were actually delivered at a "below cost" price in a desperate attempt to recover the prestige lost by the later Seagull variants. A classic example of large numbers of units coming off the production line but no money going into the bank in exchange. The obvious parallel is with the early Mini which appeared to be a success but nearly bankrupted its manufacturer.
As a regular traveller on these vehicles back in the 1960s I can assure you that the seats were nowhere near as luxurious as those fitted to Seagulls – although much better than those fitted to North Western’s contemporary "Black Tops" which barely qualified as anything other than buses in a really nice colour scheme! I’ve done the trip from Manchester to Sheffield in both types on many occasions and the Burlingham vehicles were perfectly adequate from a comfort point of view whereas NWRCC’s Willowbrook "DPs" were as bottom-numbing as a regular service bus. The livery made us forgive them….

Neville Mercer

———

03/03/11 – 10:20

Some of Sheffields Burlingham bodied Leopards also ran for Halifax/Calderdale these being 5875-5879 W The Halifax Dual Purpose livery of cream orange and green gave you the ideal a good bus in an equally good livery!

Chris Hough

———

04/03/11 – 07:38

As recorded before, I am a huge Burlingham fan but always defer to Neville’s comprehensive knowledge. (Thank you, as ever.) Such a shame that things bombed out a mere decade after the launch of the Seagull.
It is also significant that Manchester bought 50 PD2s and a similar number of CVG6s in 1958 with Burlingham bodywork, at the same time as Ribble’s PD3s, and they were highly regarded vehicles.
A friend of mine, a well respected professional bus man, reckons that the weight of Burlingham bodies was a disincentive to many cost and fuel economy conscious operators. I always thought this a short sighted attitude – which still prevails today. [Van Hool bodies are "heavy" but their quality is self evident. Iberian bodies, of varied manufacture, are lighter but are rot boxes which fall apart long before the Van Hools.]

David Oldfield

———

05/03/11 – 06:40

I have always been rather puzzled about the designation "dual purpose". It seems that it settled down at some point to identify a vehicle with a bus shell and coach seats (or occasionally, possibly, vice versa). But originally it must have meant a vehicle which could equally serve as a bus or a coach. So why exactly is a bus shell more suitable for bus work than a coach shell would be? We have to bear in mind that this started before one-man operation, so it can’t have been anything to do with fare collection equipment.
Lancashire United’s DPs of the early 60s were particularly well appointed I remember, more so in fact than the laminate-infested coaches which replaced them. I always preferred the term "service coach".

Peter Williamson

———

05/03/11 – 08:25

I would hardly call the Duple Dominant E (with bus seats) dual purpose. It’s obviously a convenient short-hand but, if there are coach seats, it’s not terribly suitably for bus work as there is always less circulation room in gangways. [You still have to navigate down a coach almost sideways on to avoid getting stuck.]
I can think of a number of DPs which were at least as well appointed as some so-called full coaches – often with extremely comfortable seating.
Three examples:
i) Scottish RE/Y types (originally London coaches)
ii) Ribble BET Leopards (Marshall, Weymann and Willowbrook) – also seen elsewhere.
iii) East Midland RE with full coach seats in bus body.
These are probably equivalent to the LUT vehicles and what I think of as DPs – not bus seats in a coach or pretty paintwork (as at North Western). Coach standard of comfort, destination equipment and, latterly, ticket equipment must be the pre-requisites for use on longer or long distance services.

David Oldfield

———

11/03/11 – 16:26

Nottingham City Transport had a fleet of Duple Dominants called ‘Lilac Leopards’ which were coach bodies with bus seats.

Roger Broughton

———

12/03/11 – 07:00

They were examples of the aforementioned Dominant E.

David Oldfield

———

29/03/11 – 07:38

In fact Stevenson’s bought three of the Weymann Fanfare-bodied Leopards from Sheffield – 1500 WJ, 1501 WJ and 1914 WA. And what with two PD3s and a Regent V from the same source, a large chunk of Stevenson’s fleet in the late 70s originated from Sheffield. I took my test with Stevo’s in 1978 and drove most of these buses on school contracts.

Tim Jeffcoat

———

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

———

11/01/13 – 14:18

I have discovered this lurking in my slide collection.
5907 W when still with Sheffield as its 1007, seen leaving Halifax along Skircoat Road and approaching HPT’s Skircoat Garage on the 68 slow stopping service to Sheffield in March 1971.

John Stringer

———

14/01/13 – 07:16

I’ve just caught up with Roger Broughton’s comment on Nottingham’s Lilac Leopards. In fact, Nottingham’s Dominant E vehicles came in two variants. Those painted in the lilac livery, the true ‘Lilac Leopards’, did have coach seats, and were intended for the park and ride services introduced as part of the short lived Zone and Collar traffic management scheme in the city. The idea was that coach seats would help to attract car drivers to the park and ride services. They were never considered to be more than semi-luxury vehicles, so the seats were not to touring specification. There were originally 18, but most were disposed of after the abandonment of the scheme, just 3 remaining as coaches in the fleet, although they were generally to be found on bus services.
There were a further 24 Dominant E buses, with essentially the same shell, but less chrome trim and with standard bus seats. These were painted in the reverse version of Nottingham’s green and cream, and were always known as ‘White Leopards’. They appear to have been accorded DP status in fleet lists on the basis of the body being a coach shape, but they were never treated by NCT as anything other than service buses.

Alan Murray-Rust

———

16/01/13 – 05:10

Thanks for the photo of 1007, John. Interesting to see it with the later Sheffield Transport fleet name after the abolition of the B and C fleets. Didn’t Halifax acquire some of the C fleet batch 5875-5879W about this same time?

Ian Wild

———

16/01/13 – 07:14

…..and eagle eyes will see the folding power doors – these were new with full (and heavy) coach doors.

David Oldfield

———

16/01/13 – 13:08

Yes, they had all five Ian.
5877-5877 W had passed to Hebble as their 160-162 (soon after renumbered 656-658). They were acquired by Halifax J.O.C as part of the Hebble takeover, and numbered 305-307.
5878/5879 W had passed to Yorkshire Woollen as their 293/294, but were also transferred to H.J.O.C. as part of the Hebble takeover, and numbered 308/309.
All passed to Calderdale J.O.C. on its formation at the time of the Todmorden takeover, and were withdrawn in 1972, passing to operators in the Irish Republic.

John Stringer

Wallace Arnold Tours Leeds 
1958
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2
Burlingham Seagull C41F

I don’t claim to be more expert than anyone else but I am a huge fan of Burlingham and regard them as one the very best coachbuilders ever. Mark/Series numbers are a bit of a mystery since they were extremely small variations between certain types – and a new number for each.
This is putting 2 and 2 together and getting into the making 5 territory, but I think I can piece most of the Mark numbers together from what little evidence I have.

Mark I – The original centre entrance Seagull on heavyweight chassis such as an AEC Regal IV and Leyland Royal Tiger.

Mark II – Basically the same centre entrance body on a medium weight chassis such as an AEC Reliance and Leyland Tiger Cub. The earlier Ribble Motor Services 1953/4 Leyland Tiger Cub Seagulls Fleet numbers 926/945 FCK 426/440 & FRN 675/679 are certainly of this mark.

Mark ? – Forward entrance/lightweight chassis such as Bedford (SBG/SBO) and the Commer Avenger was this the Mark III

Mark IV – Front entrance body on medium weight chassis such as an AEC Reliance and Leyland Tiger Cub.

Mark ?

Mark VI – Front entrance interim style with radiused (bus?) window panes. The later Ribble Motor Services 1956/8 Leyland Tiger Cub Seagulls Fleet numbers 977/1018  LCK 889/732 I think are of this mark

Mark VII – Final full coach version (similar to Mark IV but with Duple rear end screens)

I believe new numbers were given for the slightest variation. That being said, what was the Mark III and could the missing Mark V have anything to do with the Ford 570E when it was finally introduced? If you know the differences between the Marks or if you can through a little light on any of the above please leave a comment.

Copy by David Oldfield photograph by Paul Haywood

———

The Mark numbers you refer to are the ones which were used for Seagull bodies on underfloor engined chassis. The Mk2 differed from the Mk1 in having a doubled chrome "tank shape" moulding beneath the window line. The Mk3 (introduced in 1953) reverted to a single chrome moulding and had a slightly restyled rear end. The Mk4 offered the alternative of a front entrance (all previous Seagulls had been centre entrance) and also had the option of a front dome destination blind box. The Mk5 replaced the Mk3 in 1955 and differed from it in offering a choice of front or centre entrance. It also featured flat one-piece glass panels in the front windscreen as opposed to the two-piece, slightly curved units previously fitted. The Mk6, as you correctly state, differed from the Mk5 in having its side windows fitted into radiused (and slightly recessed) window pans for ease of maintenance. The variant was built at the request of Ribble Motor Services and there were few other customers. The final "heavyweight" Seagull in this sequence was the Mk7, introduced in 1958 and featuring much longer side windows than previous models. This was in response to Plaxton’s introduction of the trendsetting Panorama design, but the Burlingham model proved less popular than they might have hoped. As a result it was replaced in 1960 by the Seagull 70 with its pseudo-American styling, and this was used by Scottish Omnibuses, East Midland, Trent, and other operators although only in penny numbers.
Lightweight chassis such as Bedford SBs were given a design of bodywork which mimicked the then current Seagull design, but as far as I know the body never had an official name although many (including some Burlingham employees) referred to it as "the Baby Seagull". The final, rather ugly version of this body made its appearance in 1959 and was the butt of so many unfavourable comments that it lasted just a single year. In 1960 it was replaced by the Seagull 60, similar in styling to the previously mentioned Seagull 70 for heavyweight chassis. It sold well, but operators soon discovered that the slightly raised "clerestory roof", made of see-through plexiglass, was prone to leakage. The design was relaunched the following year, with the leakage problem solved, as the Seagull 61 which featured far too much front-end chromework for most tastes. The last two new Burlingham-badged designs emerged in 1962. The Seagull 62 was barely distinguishable from its immediate predecessor, but coach operators were offered an alternative, the curiously named Burlingham Gannet which featured a restyled front end and more glasswork. Both models sold poorly and from 1963 onwards were replaced by the Duple (Northern) Firefly.

Neville Mercer

———

19/09/12 – 07:11

Ribble Motor Services FRN 679 mentioned in Mark II above was definitely a Royal Tiger rather than a cub.
I used to travel to school in it and always liked to sit at the front as the view was superb. Comfy seats too.
Any idea where it went?

David

———

29/09/12 – 12:35

The small batch of coaches featured in Paul’s photo, 8338 – 8343 U, were indeed splendid vehicles but with "minor" limitations of which the Company seemed blissfully unaware. I can speak from bitter experience, having operated the Yorkshire – Torquay/Paignton night service with them. The passengers all seemed to equip themselves with enough enormous luggage to suffice for emigration to the Southern Hemisphere – and it was the very devil to stow it all in the shallowish boot of the "Seagulls."
The return journey (non stop for we drivers) was scheduled at around thirty hours and, due to the lack of motorways/by-passes, we were always very late back into Leeds on Saturday nights – the Tiger Cubs and the top speed limit for coaches meant that there was no chance of achieving the timetable – it was not a pleasant assignment at all in those days. That’s in no way a criticism of the Tiger Cubs or of the Seagulls – simply wildly over optimistic and unrealistic scheduling by the Company.

Chris Youhill