Old Bus Photos

Southdown – Leyland Leopard – 8156 CD – 1156

Southdown - Leyland Leopard - 8156 CD - 1156
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Southdown Motor Services
1962
Leyland Leopard PSU3/3RT
Weymann C49F

A few weeks ago this photograph arrived in my inbox with no senders name no e-mail address and not a word of comment. Well as it is a good colour shot of a very nice vehicle and from a southern operator which I would like more of to make the site more balanced I decided to post it.
Checking into the information embedded in the jpg file it states that the shot was taken at the Southdown depot on Hyde Park Road, Portsmouth. Having just been for a drive down Hyde Park Road courtesy of Google street view I don’t think it is there anymore. The Southdown fleet unfortunately did not enter into my spotting days, way out of my area, so only know what most people have read. Anyway I still think it was worth posting, thanks for the shot Mr Anon.

Photograph Mr Anon – Copy Peter


07/08/12 – 14:44

Sorry if I offend anyone, but to me this just doesn’t look right. For my money the fanfare was a classic, but this looks as if one has been been decapitated and repaired in a hurry with whatever could be found lying around, from this angle the back window and the trim under the side ones look very Harrington like, and the end result is neither one thing or another, perhaps a bit more of the darker shade of green above and below the windows and also in the trim on the front may have made a difference. No doubt someone will shoot me down in flames, but that’s just my opinion.

Ronnie Hoye


07/08/12 – 17:40

Was this body style unique to Southdown? Never mind about the shape, just look at the livery – it oozes quality!

Ian Wild


07/08/12 – 17:49

Southdown operated 20 of these PSU3/3RT Leopards with Weymann ‘Castillion’ bodywork. They were delivered in 1962/3. The first 5 were as illustrated, and the final 15 had longer side windows, which improved the appearance somewhat. Not as pretty as the Harrington Cavalier or Grenadier though!

750 DCD_lr

Here is a shot of this superbly restored Harrington bodied example. The bodywork is a short ‘Grenadier’ as opposed to the earlier Cavalier.
This example was delivered in 1964, and was fitted with 28 seats in 2+1 configuration for Southdown’s Coach Cruises.

Roy Nicholson


08/08/12 – 07:23

I have to agree with Ronnie. It doesn’t look right. I have it on one side of my screen as I type this, together with a view of XUF141 taken at Wisley. XUF141 is, clearly, one of the shorter Leopards with Weymann body (Fanfare?) but, to me, this shows definite traces of Harrington. Hybrid, anyone???

Pete Davies


08/08/12 – 07:24

This is a Grenadier 3110 with a Cavalier front.

Philip Lamb


08/08/12 – 07:25

I see Ronnie’s point of view but the design does have some character and certainly looks a solid job. It seems to me that the front line bus body builders never seemed to quite hit it off when moving to building coaches. They always ended up with a dual-purpose look about them, like a ‘flashy’ bus. The Weymann Fanfare was an exception but does anyone remember those unhappy efforts East Lancs made at building coaches for Accrington and Widnes. At least they had the good grace to stick to buses after that!

Philip Halstead


08/08/12 – 07:26

8157 CD_lr

Although the photo of 1156 was not my submission, I thought you might like sight of 1157, another of the same batch, but this time in the livery of Southdown subsidiary Triumph Coaches.
I took the photo in July 1967, on the parking area adjacent to Southdown’s Hyde Park Road, Portsmouth premises.

Bob Gell


08/08/12 – 07:27

Ronnie,
Yes, you’ve guessed – I like it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder – which is why I guess Southdown purchased them . . . unless Weymann offered a cheaper "look-a-like-Harrington-style" than Harrington could offer. Those windscreens look identical to those on Bradford’s 256-270/286-300 batches of MCW-bodied Atlanteans (and "Manchester"-style bodies elsewhere?). Anyway, I prefer the smooth roof-line of the "Castllian" to the stepped roof-line of the Harrington offering, which . . .
Roy
Has a Cavalier front panel . . . why? Why not just produce a short Grenadier, full stop?? Did Southdown request this bastardisation, and why??? Perhaps because it looks better . . .

Philip Rushworth


08/08/12 – 08:46

Philip,
All of Southdown’s Grenadier’s had Cavalier front panels, so I suspect it was a matter of standardisation. Southdown were renowned for specifying follow on batches in similar body styles to previous batches……….Probably to disguise the age of older vehicles before the days of ‘Paddy plates’

Roy Nicholson


08/08/12 – 08:47

First an apology for the fact that the photo arrived without the text, at the time I was having a self inflicted problem connecting the two.
In answer to the comments made yes these vehicles were unique to Southdown and the second batch of 15 No’s 1160-1174 with the longer side windows did look infinitely better sleeker and more elegant (a personal view I know) this batch also lacked the perspex lights in the front dome which tidied up the looks.

160 AUF_1

160 AUF_2

160 AUF_3

Here are some B/W photos of 1160 at a very wet 1963 Brighton coach rally, this particular vehicle was also on the Weymann stand at the 1962 Earls Court show.
Regarding Hyde Park Road the name was changed in the early 70’s to Winston Churchill Avenue and the depot name changed at the same time

Diesel Dave


08/08/12 – 15:08

A lovely batch of photos for me to enjoy, especially the Triumph one, which bring back Southsea memories. Certainly the later ones with fewer windows look sleeker.

Chris Hebbron


09/08/12 – 07:13

Are there any photos of the Accrington or Widnes coaches mentioned above?

Jim Hepburn


09/08/12 – 07:14

Apologies to Pete Davies for being picky but XUF 141 No 1141 like all Southdown’s Fanfares was on a Tiger Cub chassis. As Philip says the Castillians look a solid job and indeed they were just that and very pleasant coaches to drive, I drove for Southdown from 1969-91 at Eastbourne depot where at different times we had No’s 1160/61/62/65 all of which were among the six with only 45 seats which were low backed and leather covered in two tone green the rest were 49 seaters, 1156-59 the short window batch had high backed moquette covered similar to the Fanfares so were not as light and airy inside. These coaches looked and drove very much better than the following batches of Plaxton bodies.

Diesel Dave


09/08/12 – 07:14

Following the demise of Southdown’s favoured coachbuilder Beadle, the company switched allegiance to Weymann acquiring 35 Fanfare-bodied Leyland Tiger Cubs, bringing it more into line with contemporary BET preferences. The arrival, however, of the more powerful L2 Leopard and the availability of Harrington’s Cavalier prompted Southdown to renew its ageing coach cruise fleet with a batch of 43 vehicles of this combination in 1961/62, supplemented by a pair of Cavalier-bodied PSU3/3RT 36-footers. The same year saw the arrival of the initial five Castillians (clearly a relative of the Fanfare), also on PSU3/3RT chassis, of which three were allocated to Triumph, entered service the same year. These five coaches are sometimes wrongly described as 36ft-long Fanfares. That particular animal was never built, and if it had have been, would have looked quite different. A Fanfare stretched to 34ft and heightened to 11ft 9in was built on an LHD Worldmaster chassis in 1956 as an export demonstrator. No orders were received and the sole example, given the name Arcadian, was exported to Spain. What is more interesting about this coach is that it featured three ‘panoramic’ side windows with no ventilators — two years before the arrival of Plaxton’s Panorama! The Castillian, on the other hand, in both short- and long-window form was in the main a new design. It only found favour with Southdown probably as a follow on to its Fanfare fleet, The 15 long-window Castillians, which I agree make for a better looking coach, were also improved by their lack of ventilators, and would have looked even better in Triumph colours . . .

Philip Lamb


09/08/12 – 11:19

No offence taken, Dave! I’ve amended my records. Southdown is a foreign fleet to me . . .

Pete Davies


09/08/12 – 18:17

Granted the later version with the larger windows does look better, but it still looks like a racehorse designed by a committee. Harrington? yes – Weymann? yes but not a hybrid of the two.

Ronnie Hoye


09/08/12 – 18:18

Jim,
You’ll find a Widnes example at www.flickr.com/photos/

Mike Grant


11/08/12 – 07:09

Been away for a while, hence my silence. Back to quality over appearance – which is why Southdown probably bought them. I agree, generally, with others. I am a Fanfare fan and think the later long windowed Castillians work better.
Shortly after, Weymanns closed down and all production went to Birmingham and the newly formed MCW. Now the Topaz really was a visual dog. The later "Metropolitan" coaches were a little better – but only available on Fords and Bedfords. Some were sub-contracted to Strachans. Am I right in thinking that Starchans also produced some Orions? On sub-contract?

David Oldfield


11/08/12 – 12:02

Nice to see you’re back, David, and that you remain concentrated on the quality/performance/appearance theme. Keep watching, ‘cos your sharp and informed observations, (especially about AEC), are always worth reading.
It may be that quality influenced Southdown, but with due respect to Weymann, I can’t think that could have been a determining factor in a comparison with, say, Harrington. Nor, I suspect, would price, because although price was important, Southdown depreciated their fleet over 12 years, which minimised the effect of small price differences. Availability may have ben a factor, but it may just have been a matter of preference – beauty in the eye of the beholder again. Southdown’s choice of Queen Mary double-deckers, which many enthusiasts admire greatly, was not all that popular elsewhere. It was largely a matter of consistent overall fleet image as perceived by top management.
I found Diesel Dave’s driving experiences interesting, too. I never drove a Southdown Plaxton – only a Castillian, which, (you may like this, David), I didn’t think was a patch on M&D’s Reliances.

Roy Burke


12/08/12 – 07:13

Thanks for your kind comments Roy but, including yourself, I am by no means the only expert on this forum. There are no doubt many others who could claim that laurel. Your observations are equally on target.
A few observations. The Cavalier was a big improvement on its predecessor, possibly, therefore a holding pattern before the arrival of the Cavalier. ….. also, were they comparing metal frames on the Weymann bodies with composite on the Harrington? Finally, the rear end of the Castillian still looks like a rip off of the Cavalier – so which did, indeed, come first?

David Oldfield


19/03/13 – 07:20

Sometime in the early 1970s Hyde Park Road in Portsmouth was remodelled with some of it being renamed Winston Churchill Avenue. I was working at Yelloway at the time and, through our joint operator Associated Motorways (of which Southdown was a member), we were asked to include an extra note in the timetable for the Rochdale-Portsmouth/Southsea service for a couple of seasons which read something like ‘Winston Churchill Avenue Coach Station was previously known as Hyde Park Road Coach Station’. I called there once when passing through on holiday and I have a vague recollection of the coach station building standing all alone in quite a wide open space of redevelopment.

David Slater


19/03/13 – 11:46

You’re quite right, David, but calling it a coach station was stretching the imagination! It was a nondescript depot building with a storage yard and lots of bombsite land around it on which to park all the vehicles. The depot was not mentioned on blinds, merely ‘PORTSMOUTH – HYDE PARK ROAD’. Summertime, Southdown/Triumph coaches were stored there ready for the seafront tours.

Chris Hebbron


21/03/13 – 10:55

I can well imagine the poor state of the property Chris! Regarding the location. A comment on Flickr from ‘PD3’, a person who has taken lots of photos of Southdown vehicles including some Harrington Cavaliers parked around the Hyde Park Road garage, reads ‘The [Ibis] Hotel would have been next door to where the depot was, the land now has a building used by Portsmouth University upon it’.
Some of his photos at Hyde Park Road, which feature buildings in the background, include: //www.flickr.com/photos/one  
Without realising it, I already had a photo on Flickr of the timetable for the Summer 1973 joint Yelloway/Associated Motorways Rochdale-Portsmouth/Southsea service which features the statement ‘Winston Churchill Avenue Coach Station was previously known as Hyde Park Road Coach Station’ //www.flickr.com/photos/two

David Slater


02/02/14 – 16:21

With regard to Chris Hebbron’s comment about Southdown/Triumph coaches being parked at Hyde Park Rd ready for Excursions, that is not really correct as the Triumph fleet was permanently based there, including the 3 Weymann-bodied Leopards. Had you visited on a Saturday/Sunday you would have found very few coaches there as they were either in the North (mainly) of England having worked Forces leave services on Friday evening, returning overnight on Sunday. While away from Portsmouth, they worked on the Saturday for local operators, so that fore example a coach working to Leeds on Friday would then be ‘on hire’ to West Yorkshire and work from Leeds to Scarborough or perhaps Morecambe on the Saturday.

Paul Statham


8156 CD_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


31/08/17 – 05:00

One thing one has to admit about the Harrington bodies was that they remained rattle free long after others had deteriorated. 1750, shown above, was most famous for being ‘The Albion Car’, piloted by Bert ‘Crasher’ Mills for the Brighton football team.
Having renamed Hyde Park Road in the early ’70s, I well remember an indignant patriot sending in a complaint to Southdown House in Brighton. All that could be squeezed into the destination box was ‘Portsmouth W C’hill Ave’ and our complainant was incensed that our wartime leader had been reduced to ‘W C’hill’.

Nick Turner


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

Pennine – Leyland Royal Tiger – MTC 757 & MTD 235

Pennine - Leyland Royal Tiger - MTC 757

Pennine - Leyland Royal Tiger - MTD 235
Both photographs by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Pennine Motor Services  
MTC 757 MTD 235
1950 1952
Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13 Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/15
Brush B44F Leyland C41C

There has been some discussion on another posting about the former Leyland demonstrators, MTC 757 and MTD 235, the latter being still with Pennine and mentioned in the new PSV Circle listing on preserved buses. I have "bought" slides of these two, and I know when and where they were taken, but I’ve no idea of the photographers. MTC 757, the bus version, is seen in Malham in June 1964. MTD 235 is seen in Gargrave in September 1967. MTC 757 had a Brush bus body, while MTD 235 is quite clearly Leyland’s own. ‘The Dalesman Cafe’ on the right of the lower shot was still thriving when I was last in Gargrave a few months ago!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


05/08/12 – 12:31

Wouldn’t you put the dates of these two the other way round? The bus looks remarkably modern and simple for 1950- even the peaked front dome (or is that a trick of the light?) Could it be a rebuild? On the other hand the Leyland (export?) body looks a bit 1940’s Detroit at the front, especially that chrome "dribble".

Joe


05/08/12 – 14:11

Joe, it’s definitely a trick of the light – MTC 757 did not have a peaked dome, and was a very neat looking bus for the time. It was built in 1950, and acquired by Pennine in 1951. They withdrew it in 1967 and it is believed to have been scrapped.
MTD 235 was the prototype for the Leyland Royal Tiger coach body, and as originally built it did not have the multi-windowed ‘lantern’ type windscreen arrangement seen here and familiar on all the production examples, though it must have been modified very early on, as all the photos I’ve seen of it with Pennine show it as it is here. I must rack my brain (quite difficult nowadays) and try to remember which book I have that shows it in its original form and report back. Don’t hold your breath !

John Stringer


05/08/12 – 14:34

I had – please note the past tense! – black and whites of both these vehicles, and taken at Lancaster Bus Station. MTC most certainly did not have a peaked front dome. I have a copy of the Pennine history by Donald Binns in collaboration with the operator, which has a photo of her on page 49. The caption includes "It was scrapped in August 1967 after 16 years service and with 825,000 miles on the clock".

Pete Davies


05/08/12 – 14:35

The dates given in the posting would seem to be correct. MTC 757 was a Royal Tiger PSU1/13 with Brush B44F body built as a demonstrator in 1950, and bought by Simpson of Gargrave t/a Pennine in 1952. Brush ceased building psv bodies in 1952. MTD 235 was also a Leyland demonstrator, and it carried the standard Leyland 41 seat coach body for this model, though the chrome trim was adapted to meet customer choice, and some examples did not have the "swept under" front panelwork. This body continued to be available up to the time that Leyland closed its coachbuilding facilities in 1954. The PSU1/13 version of the Royal Tiger had the horizontal O.600 engine coupled with a four speed synchromesh gearbox and vacuum brakes.

Roger Cox


05/08/12 – 15:06

MTD 235 is still owned by Pennine and is kept at Barnoldswick and is worked on when time permits.

Philip Carlton


06/08/12 – 07:27

The Brush body was a nice design and must have been one of the very earliest on an underfloor engined chassis (apart from BMMO). Quite different to those supplied to Yorkshire Traction/Woollen. Presumably it was 7ft 6in wide?

Chris Barker


06/08/12 – 08:34

Chris, MTC and MTD were both to the usual 8ft width for underfloor engined vehicles of the time, so far as I am aware.

Pete Davies


11/08/12 – 07:23

Think 8′ was standard width for these underfloors. Although they still existed quite recently as a heavy engineering and railway manufacturer, Brush effectively became Willowbrook in bus terms. [Not sure who bought whom.] The next Royal Tigers for Tracky were Willowbrook – but built by the same men in the same factory.

David Oldfield


11/08/12 – 12:07

Several Royal Tigers were built to 7ft 6in width, it was offered by Leyland as an option. Hebble and Devon General had some Willowbrook bodied examples.
Brush are still very much in business, in Loughborough adjacent to the railway station. It was just their bus building activities which they disposed of in 1952. All production was then transferred to Willowbrook including some double deck Daimlers for Derby which were in build at the time and Brush designs disappeared almost immediately.

Chris Barker


12/08/12 – 07:16

Willowbrook existed in Loughborough from 1931, totally independent of Brush. They occupied the retail site now known as Willowbrook Park.
Brush voluntarily quit the bus body building enterprise in 1952, but locals tell me that their designs were passed to Willowbrook.
As Chris says, Brush are still in business, but they are a mere shadow of what they once were, and are no longer the town`s biggest employer. Once upon a time, they were the second largest tramcar builder in the UK, and that was just part of their total business!
What about Pennine though! Still in business, and they have seen it all and survived it all, and still continue as a small independent. I remember them well from my courting days, with wife to be living past Settle, on the Pennine route!
Good old Happy Days are getting even happier!

John Whitaker


12/08/12 – 07:18

I thought Pennine only had a garage in Skipton, but from Philip’s comment above, and from looking at their current timetable showing some early morning services starting in Barnsoldswick, I realise they have a garage there as well. Does anyone know how many vehicles are accommodated there; presumably only 4 or 5?

Dave Towers


28/08/12 – 14:29

The Pennine garage at Barnoldswick was acquired with the business of Ezra Laycock Ltd in 1972. As an ex-Laycock employee I ought to be able to confidently tell you the depot’s capacity – I can’t quite do that, but I think that the answer is five, although in Laycock days vehicles were parked outside as well. According to the timetable three buses start and finish at Barnoldswick, so that is presumably how many operational buses are kept at the depot. I did have it in my head that MTD 235 had been moved to Skipton, but I may have imagined that bit.
As far as I am aware Pennine also continues to use the small depot at Settle, capacity two vehicles.

David Call


29/08/12 – 07:26

I notice that Pete Davies has mentioned (on the Pennine LWY 702 posting) that MTD 235 is indeed now resident at the Skipton depot.

David Call


29/08/12 – 18:59

All is explained, at last. The section about MTC 757 & MTD 235 appears under a total of four headings – Brush (bodybuilder), Leyland (bodybuilder), Pennine (operator), and Leyland Royal Tiger. Only under the heading of Leyland Royal Tiger is there a section devoted to Pennine’s LWY 702, and it is at the foot of that section where Pete Davies has mentioned that MTD 235 is now at Skipton depot.
I would not expect LWY 702 to be mentioned under Brush, of course, but I am surprised that it does not at least get a mention under Pennine (operator). As to whether it should appear under Leyland (bodybuilder) or even Leyland (chassis builder), I suppose you will have to draw a line somewhere regarding what gets included and what doesn’t, there were an awful lot of Leyland buses manufactured. In passing perhaps I could mention that I noticed that under the heading of Leyland Royal Tiger Cub, only one of the three sections actually relates to an example of that model. The other two refer to the infinitely more common Leyland Tiger Cub.
Should I trawl through the other headings checking for similar errors/anomalies? It would beat counting sheep, I suppose.

David Call


30/08/12 – 06:56

The comments engendered by entries to this Forum frequently range far and wide, often well beyond the strict confines of the original submission. We have all had at least one reprimand, not, be it noted, from our webmaster, for straying from the initial subject, but that is entirely within the spirit of this site. The wealth of interest, information and detail that emerges thereby is invaluable. I think that we should go on regarding ourselves as a bus enthusiasts’ equivalent of Dr. Johnson’s Literary Club, with free ranging discussion. Cross referencing every point made in the "comment" columns would be a nightmarish task. Let us just be very grateful for this splendid site.

Roger Cox


30/08/12 – 11:47

Agreed, Roger. It’s worth remembering, too, that, although not as good as cross-referencing, there is a search facility on the website which I’ve found useful a couple of times.

Chris Hebbron


31/08/12 – 07:24

I think most of us form a loose group of cyber friends with a common purpose. I think that overrides any jobsworth tendency to pedantry – and that comes from one of the world’s biggest pedants!

David Oldfield


31/08/12 – 07:25

Contrary to what I stated above, it seems that the section devoted to LWY702 actually appears under all the headings I mentioned – I hadn’t realised that many of the headings lead to multiple pages. It does not help, of course, that my search engine (google) only picks up words and phrases which are contained in the first of those multiple pages – not the second and subsequent.

David Call


11/05/14 – 11:14

On the Pennine (operator) pages, Chris Wright and Orla Nutting comment on the forthcoming closure of the company.
There has been some confusion about MTD 235. Some sources say she’s at Barnoldswick (spoken locally as Barlick) and some (including me, based on reports I’ve had) say she’s at Skipton. To a degree, both are right and both are wrong! On withdrawal, she spent MANY years gathering dust at Barnoldswick garage. About 2 years ago, she was moved to head office with a view to start of restoration. The inspection was duly undertaken and it was found to be [I quote] ‘a massive job’ which would divert too many staff hours, so she’s back at Barnoldswick, apparently with one of the Leopards new to Ezra Laycock.
I suspect that a number of readers will be concerned about the future of MTD maybe she should could go either to the Leyland Museum or to the one in St Helens if the family don’t keep her.

Pete Davies


12/05/14 – 08:37

The ex-Laycock Leyland Leopard reputedly stored at Barnoldswick depot can only be OWY 197K, since that was the only Leopard ever owned by Laycock’s.
An interesting point is that throughout the few months of its time with Laycock’s, and into Pennine ownership, it carried the incorrect registration OWY 179K.

David Call


13/05/14 – 06:34

Thank you, David, for your comments about the Leopard. In the Donald Binns book about Pennine, there are two photographs showing her with OWY 197K, but the listings in the book show both registrations! She is shown in the book as being stored at Ingleton, but that is clearly out of date if my information from company staff the other day is correct.

Pete Davies


23/05/14 – 07:51

Pete. I paid my respects to Pennine on the last day 16th may I Actually wrote to Maurice Simpson wishing him well for the future and how sad it was Pennine Motors was closing down. I suggested MTD 235 should be restored in memory of his father and the company and what his plans are for the vehicle.
Work was carried out on the brakes and other bits and pieces the chief engineer tells me, however she is to be towed back to Skipton in the coming weeks but what the future is it is not clear as yet.

Mark Mc Alister


25/05/14 – 10:33

Thanks, Mark, for your update.
Before I retired, I worked in the passenger transport team of Southampton City Council, dealing with the local operators over aspects of their services. The national concession scheme was just coming into use. My managers commented on several occasions that the regulations said that the level of reimbursement must be strictly neutral, in that the operator must be no better off and no worse off through taking part in the scheme.
The reports I have read in various places all suggest that North Yorkshire County Council have a different view.

Pete Davies


26/05/14 – 09:28

The point made by Pete Davies was first specified in the Ridley 1985 Transport Act when each local authority had the power to determine a concessionary fare scheme. This led to wide variations throughout the country, and some authorities, of course, chose not to offer any meaningful scheme at all, which was one of the reasons why the Labour government, in reality, John Prescott, decided to ensure that mandatory schemes were available everywhere from 2001. This was followed up in 2007 by a national scheme for England. The Welsh and Scottish administrations pursued their own policies. This new scheme maintained the requirement that "Travel Concession Authorities are required by law to reimburse bus operators for carrying concessionary passengers, on the principle that the operators are "no better off and no worse off" by taking part in concessionary travel schemes. The aim is not to subsidise bus operators, but to pay for any increased costs that they have incurred". The legislation goes on to say, "The national bus concession in England is available at any time on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, and from 9.30am to 11pm on any other day. TCAs are able to offer concessionary travel outside these hours on a discretionary basis". I understand that North Yorkshire allows the passes to be used from 9am until 6am the following morning, which is entirely lawful under the clause stated above.

Roger Cox


26/05/14 – 09:29

The situation in respect of the depot premises is as follows.
Skipton: To let at £40,000 p.a. or might sell
Barnoldswick: Sale agreed
Ingleton: Sale agreed
Settle: For sale (‘Guide price’ £75,000) or might let
As Mark McA says, the future for MTD 235 is not clear – it looks even less clear now. We can only hope that it will be, as suggested by Pete, donated to one of the established museums.

David Call


26/05/14 – 14:01

Quite right, Roger, but it’s the amount of reimbursement that seems to have upset matters in this case.

Pete Davies


21/02/16 – 15:44

Re MTD 235 – can anybody give me an update on this coach’s current condition and location please?

Howard Piltz


21/03/16 – 15:54

It appears to have been offered for sale on Ebay in 2014 but the highest bid, just over £2K, didn’t meet the reserve price. Since then it has been off the radar.

Mike Morton


23/03/16 – 05:42

"Just over £2K", Mike? That’s just silly, given the nature of the beast. I’d have expected another ‘0’ on the figure . . .

Pete Davies


23/03/16 – 17:10

Pete
That’s the reality of Bus Preservation lots of effort/money but nothing like the financial return of vintage cars.

Roger Burdett


23/03/16 – 17:14

Sadly Pete, the generation of enthusiasts that remember and appreciate this era of classic vehicle are getting on in years and fewer in number, and probably feel that it is a bit late in the day to start getting involved in such a substantial and expensive restoration. The majority of active preservationists nowadays are more into the vehicles of their youth – such as Nationals, Olympians and Metrobuses, and even more recent types than those.
I attended the open day at the Dewsbury Bus Museum the other week and thought I’d sample a few rides on the free bus service into Dewsbury and back. I rode on the superb recently restored West Riding PD2 and then the West Riding PS2 but was surprised to note that though plenty people were photographing them, there were relatively few that chose to ride on them, whereas the Olympians, RELL, Leopard and even the virtually new Arriva Enviro Whateveritis were packed out with excited punters.
Time moves on, and so will we, and I fear for the long term future of many of our favourite classic buses.

John Stringer


24/03/16 – 05:56

Re MTD 235. It did not meet reserve on eBay in 2014 (highest bid £2250) so presumably its still with Simpson (t/s Pennine Coaches) Skipton.

John Wakefield


24/05/16 – 08:58

MTD 235 once again on Ebay.

Dave Philpot


30/05/17 – 06:42

MTD 235 has been sold on in Yorkshire.

Phil Clark


22/11/17 – 07:37

I can report that restoration of ex-Pennine Royal Tiger MTD 235 is continuing with the mechanics receiving a thorough overall and work commencing on the body. It is hoped that it will make a return to the road one day soon, keeping fingers crossed!

Phil Clark


23/11/17 – 07:09

Wonderful news!

Pete Davies


23/11/17 – 07:10

Good news indeed Phil-thanks for the report.

Stuart Emmett


23/09/18 – 06:14

I am currently restoring the ex-Pennine Leyland Royal Tiger MTD 235 – has anyone got a destination blind for this or any Pennine posters or notices or timetables that were displayed in their buses in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s? I will be pleased of any help or copies of anything that will add to the restoration. Thank you, you can contact me through this website.

Phil Clark


05/11/18 – 13:38

The only blind I have seen also covers 1972, 1983 and 1986 changes and includes the former routes of Laycock, Skipton and the ex Ribble locals and Burnley etc.
1950’s’/1960’s when MTD was in main service then the range was small. Therefore would suggest only needs to include Malham, Tosside, Morecambe, Lancaster, Ingleton, Gargrave, Settle, Skipton, and Contract.
On further materials-assume, you already will have the Donald Binns 2000 book called Pennine Motor Services that includes many timetables.
Hope this helps and that your worthwhile project continues on. Any ideas when it might be completed?

Stuart Emmett


MTD 235_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


18/11/18 – 09:26

I’m trying to locate the Leyland Royal Tiger MTD 235 mentioned in your website. My dad is a retired bus driver and it’s his favourite bus. I’m trying to arrange just to see it really.

Steven Davies


27/01/19 – 07:41

Thanks for your info on MTD 235 destination names that will be useful, at the moment it has no blind gear as this must have been removed some time ago, so I am trying to find replacement blind gear (if anyone has some!). I haven’t found that book on Pennine but I hope I’ll find it some day. I have found some old Pennine excursion flyers which I hope to make use of. Restoration continues albeit slowly as I’m finding much of the rear end wood frame has decayed or is missing and this is not my favourite job! I am part way through rewiring the coach as much of the original is in a very poor state. I think it will be a while yet before it is finished, but if anyone has any memorabilia, old Pennine notices, posters or unpublished photographs I will be pleased to know!

Phillip Clark


28/01/19 – 07:39

Pennine book available right now suggest be quick www.abebooks.co.uk/

Stuart Emmett


29/07/22 – 05:56

Hello Phillip – wondering how the preservation of MTD 235 is progressing please.

Stuart Emmett


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

West Riding – AEC Reliance – JHL 717 – 817

West Riding - AEC Reliance - JHL 717 - 817
Copyright Chris Hough

West Riding Automobile
1956
AEC Reliance
Roe B44F

In the nineteen fifties West Riding bought very few batches of saloons They were used on a selection of routes. Seen in Leeds bus station is a Roe bodied AEC Reliance fleet number 817 registration JHL 717 which dates from 1956. It is on the "back roads route" from Leeds to Castleford via Swillington and Fryston. West Riding did not always bother with route numbers as is evident from this shot The bus certainly shows the effect of road grime on paintwork as it stands in Leeds bus station in 1967.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough


01/08/12 – 07:19

Odd design- front not very Roe? It may well have picked that spray up that day on that back roads route- could be off the fields or clay slurry from mining. Note the single mini-wiper and the gloop around its perimeter, the state of the wheels/tyres and (possibly) the wet muck behind the rear wheels. It got better when the windows were covered too- that’s where the idea for the all-over adverts came from.
Nearly on thread: West Riding’s successors, Arriva, have just managed to provide a new batch of deckers with facing fore and aft seats over the rear wheels. Now where do the local yobbery put their muddy feet/boots? Arriva are now providing notices to try to stop people dirtying their clothes on muddy seats. Come back practical designers… conductors… inspectors!!

Joe


01/08/12 – 08:53

Actually, very Roe, Joe. For a time in the early fifties, this droopy windscreen was a feature of Roe saloons – and distinguished them from their Park Royal cousins built on the same frames. I like your theory about the origins of contra-vision adverts, though!

David Oldfield


01/08/12 – 11:59

As we Geordies would say "wor bairns hacky mucky" rough translation "the baby is in need of a wash"

Ronnie Hoye


01/08/12 – 12:01

What a dismal scene! Obviously a grotty day, when some photographers would leave the camera at home because of a) the weather and b) the resulting dirty appearance of the vehicle. There are some photographers of buses who capture only "pristine" views but there is a real world out there and it often happens that the cleaners can’t keep pace with the weather. It may just happen that the photographer is on holiday and wants to record the local transport. I know that doesn’t apply in this case, but what’s the photographer supposed to do, come back next year and hope the same bus is still in service?
Very atmospheric, and the black and white print enhances that. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting comment from Joe regarding back to back seating over the rear wheels. I first noticed this with Bolton Corporation, but the idea still persists. The original idea was to have greater seating capacity. The inward facing arrangement seems to me to be far better. Clearly, a candidate for the "nice idea, but . . ." file!

Pete Davies


01/08/12 – 15:38

While "facing seats" are not by any means ideal the abuse of them on both buses and trains is absolutely abominable. Its almost certain that, as you walk past any stationary bus, if you look inside you will see passengers with their filthy footwear planted on the opposite seat – and not just placed there either – there will be plenty of "scrubbing" in every direction just to plant more filth and to cause as much wear to the material as possible. It might be thought that those responsible would just be the yobs of Society, but not a bit of it – the culprits are just as likely to be smartly dressed businessmen or secretarial young ladies. It is a despicable and costly habit, of which the perpetrators are fully aware and, apart from the burden placed on transport operators, the ruination of decent peoples hard earned nice clothing is scandalous. In summary the phrase "Blow you Jack I’m alright" springs to mind, and in reality there can be no cure for it – its sadly just another sign of "Today."

Chris Youhill


01/08/12 – 17:37

You’re dead right, Joe and Chris. However, it seems to be a universal problem. I remember once risking my life by photographing a couple of youths on a German train with their feet on the seat directly under a large and unambiguous"Halten Sie Füße weg von den Sitzen"(or similar) sign and graphic image. Needless to say, they just laughed at me, but (who knows) maybe the memory of the occasion may just hit home to one of them in years to come? Staff, particularly on railways, rarely bother to challenge the offenders as they prefer a quiet life, and who can blame them? However, one can sometimes come unstuck by making big assumptions – like the time I worked myself into a Victor Meldrew Harumph on seeing a lady with outstretched legs onto the opposite seat in a first class carriage. I was on the brink of saying something when I thankfully noticed that she had removed her shoes and placed a newspaper on the seat to rest her stockinged feet! Phew! Nearly an "I’ll get my coat……." moment!

Paul Haywood


02/08/12 – 07:12

Would, the would be perpetrators on arriving home put their muddy /dirty shoes on their own furniture thus defiling their property, I think not.

David Henighan


02/08/12 – 07:13

Sometimes a bit of sarcasm works wonders, when I was at Armstrong Galley one of our drivers had a notice in his coach ‘if the floor is full please don’t hesitate to use the litter bin’ strangely enough it seemed to work

Ronnie Hoye


02/08/12 – 07:13

I acknowledge your knowledge, David. I was thinking of exclusive Roe users like Doncaster, but at that time they were still on half cabs! Underfloor came much later.

Joe


02/08/12 – 07:14

I thoroughly agree with Joe regarding back to back seating over rear wheel arches, they seem to be obligatory with modern day low floor buses. I witnessed one of Stagecoach leather coach seated Scania/ALX 400’s when only days old being so treated despite various notices asking that it not be done.
When I was a driver I would wherever possible make a point of loudly asking for all feet to be taken off all seats it seemed popular with most passengers except the thoughtless culprits, as Chris says another sign of "today" I’m glad that I retired 9 years ago.

Diesel Dave


02/08/12 – 07:15

I wholeheartedly agree about the comments made about yobs (and non yobs) putting their feet on the back to back seats, who knows what they could have stood in? A few years ago I went for a lengthy trip on the Yorkshire Coastliner service between Leeds and Scarborough and felt the need to contact the company about some matter or other, I honestly can’t remember what it was now. Anyway, I took the opportunity to mention that this seating arrangement was not ideal for such a long journey and that people sat on the back seat tended to use the facing seat as a footrest. Coastliner’s suggestion was that I should have had a word with the perpetrators!

Dave Towers


02/08/12 – 11:18

Dave Towers received a somewhat pathetic and "resigned" reply from Coastliner – did they also include a list of A & E departments along the route where Dave could receive attention to his injuries after the quite likely "smack in t’ mouth" which could result from "having a word."
I share Diesel Dave’s sentiments and I am glad that I retired eleven years ago – the level of appalling conduct by too many passengers is now beyond a joke – and I loved the career to a passion – so I can well understand how most drivers who are doing the job "just for a living" must feel.

Chris Youhill


02/08/12 – 11:20

Joe. This comes down to personal experience – if you had never come across the droopy screens then you would assume they did not exist, or were an aberration. I happen to be a Roe fan/"expert" – but presumably, with Doncaster connections, so are you. I’ve been caught out in the past myself.

David Oldfield


02/08/12 – 17:12

Tough attitude of passengers both young and old can be yobbish but to a degree the companies are also at fault. In Leeds the interior of vehicles are often filthy with old newspapers, tickets etc on buses just out of the depot. Minor vandalism such as graffiti is left in situ so Joe Public see an unloved uncared for bus that they think hmm the company don’t care why should I. I am old enough to remember buses smelling of disinfectant on leaving the depot not last nights takeaway!

Chris Hough


02/08/12 – 17:13

I seem to remember being told that the reason for the demise of inward facing seats over wheelarches, in favour of back to back ones, was an ‘elfen safety’ issue. It was reckoned that passengers could fall off these seats too easily when the bus cornered (yes, they did actually sometimes!).
I agree entirely with all the above sentiments regarding inconsiderate, yobbish behaviour on buses these days, and as someone who still has to drive buses for a living (albeit part-time now, after nearly 40 years full-time) for a major operator, it is heartening to know that at least a few of you sympathise with the hopeless situation we find ourselves in.
All too often, present day bus drivers are criticised for being uncaring and disinterested, and held totally to blame for the state of the industry today. Physically we may have it easier with our automatic gearboxes, power-steering and computerised ticket machines – no more grappling with crash boxes, heavy steering or snipping away at piles of Willebrew tickets etc. – but the job is much more stressful, frustrating and demoralising in a host of different ways that the PSV drivers and conductors of yesteryear could never envisage.
Passengers often complain that the "bus driver should have done something" when there has been yobbish, unsocial behaviour taking place but, as Chris rightly implies, one is certainly putting oneself at risk of abuse – at the very least of the foul verbal kind, and quite possibly of the violent physical kind – if one intervenes. It’s just not worth it.
The companies pay lip service to their official intolerance of this kind of behaviour, but otherwise just ignore the issue – probably for fear of appearing too authoritarian. Even yobs are fare-paying passengers so we must not upset them too much.

John Stringer


03/08/12 – 07:55

I remember these buses coming through Dewsbury on the joint West Riding/Yorkshire Woollen service 3 to Cullingworth. I believe one is being prepared at the Dewsbury Bus Museum.

Philip Carlton


09/08/12 – 09:30

If I may climb back over the seats to the subject of Roe Underfloor Designs of the 50’s…. checking with Peter Gould’s list, I see that Doncaster actually bought a single centre entrance Regal IV in 1951…it must have been a sort of Festival of Britain experimental fling, because they also bought the two 8ft double deckers- Regent III and CVD6- which they sold on as two wide (for the streets or the washer- the jury is out) and then the two all-Leyland PD2’s which were the last non-Roe deckers ever bought and, trolley-bodied, lasted nearly 20 years: the next year, I see they bought nothing! Anyway… the party was clearly over and they reverted to half cab Regal IIIs in 1953, which were more typical of this traditional fleet. But… my point is that I have found a pic of 21 and it doesn’t have droopy windscreens… angled two piece, it seems…… so the droopy screens came later…

Joe


11/08/12 – 07:27

Pontypridd U.D.C. had three 1957 Guy Arab LUF’s with Roe rear-entrance bodies and ‘droopy’ windscreens – try this link:- www.sct61.org.uk/  Lancashire United Transport had some Atkinson PM746H’s with Roe bodies with similar fronts also, see:- www.flickr.com/photos/

John Stringer


11/08/12 – 09:20

I’ll throw another one at you Joe. You mentioned square screens on Regal IVs – just like Sheffield’s 12 – 14. The droopies were only on Reliances (and contemporary underfloors) which would make them 1953 onwards – but still from "the early fifties".

David Oldfield


12/08/12 – 07:21

As Manuel said… I learn… I learn. Curious that the "square" underfloor body designs look better or more modern…like that Pennine Royal Tiger.

Joe


16/11/12 – 09:04

John mentions (02/08/12) the yobbish attitude of passengers sadly this attitude to other peoples property is prevalent in all walks of life. I work in the NHS and we have a constant problem with mindless vandalism to furniture in particular. I once asked a culprit if he would do the same to his own property and was met with a torrent of four letter words and told I pay your effin wages so shut it.

Chris Hough


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


04/07/14 – 07:41

You get a fine from Merseyrail Electrics if you put your feet on their seats. There are signs up warning about it and they seem to work. Not that I use their trains very often.

Geoff Kerr


 

Quick links to the  -  Comments Page  -  Contact Page  -  Home Page

 


 

All rights to the design and layout of this website are reserved     

Old Bus Photos from Saturday 25th April 2009 to Wednesday 3rd January 2024