Plymouth City Transport
1938
Leyland Titan TD5c
Leyland L53R

The chassis of ADR 813 was new to Plymouth City Transport in 1938, but it received its present Leyland L53R body in 1953. As all I have read about Leyland’s body manufacturing facilities says they finished in 1953, this must, surely, have been one of their last. The chassis is noted in the PSVC listing for 2012 as being a Leyland Titan TD5c, which was probably very useful on Plymouth’s hills! We see it at Winkleigh on 6 October 1996.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

07/07/16 – 09:15

Leyland ceased body production in December 1954. The last coach body was built for Wilkinson of Sedgefield, the last bus bodies were on a batch of PD2s for Trent.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/07/16 – 09:15

This very bus appears in the (now) very ancient book, "Building Britain’s Buses", in which some school boys are given a guided tour of the Leyland works. Ian Allan published it, but there is no publication date. However it is clear from the photos and text that Leyland’s body building plant was operative at the time of writing this book. The caption to the photo, which shows ADR 813 in the Customer Inspection Department, gives no indication that the bus is a re-body. Midland Red LD8’s are in the background. Because of that caption, it was many years before I understood that this was a re-body rather than an all-new bus. It must have been quite un-nerving to see a PD2 look-alike approaching, only to find pure Leyland TD5 sounds as it pulled away! As even the picture in this view is 20 years old, I do hope that this bus still survives.

Michael Hampton

07/07/16 – 16:13

Thank you, Phil and Michael, for your comments. I can’t speak in respect of recent developments, but this bus was alive and well last time I visited Winkleigh, in 2012.

Pete Davies

07/07/16 – 16:13

What a wonderful combination, but are we sure that its a TD5c as the normal Autovac is usually replaced by a much deeper device on torque converter chassis. I may well be wrong in always having assumed that this was universally the case.

Chris Youhill

07/07/16 – 16:14

A further thought. I wonder if the radiator shell was not replaced as part of the rebodying contract because Leyland didn’t want a TD5 totally in PD2 clothing.

Phil Blinkhorn

08/07/16 – 06:32

Many operators removed the torque convertors from their Leyland Titans c.1945-47, replacing them with standard Leyland gear boxes for the TD series. If Plymouth did this, perhaps that would account for the replacement of the deeper autovac by a standard size? I don’t have any lists for Plymouth, so this is just a guess. But Southdown and Portsmouth along with others took this option – possibly Leyland put on a "special offer" to cover this change in the early post-war period.

Michael Hampton

08/07/16 – 06:33

In contrast to Pete’s comment about the hill climbing usefulness of the TD5c, I was always under the impression the torque-converter fitted Leylands were very poor on hills. Many operators removed them and fitted a conventional crash gearbox and that could be the case here. The ‘c’ suffix was not always removed from fleet listings when this occurred. I remember riding on the Lytham St Annes Leyland Lion which was still torque-converter fitted at a Heart of the Pennines Rally at Halifax several years ago. The driver insisted on an alternative ‘low level’ route to the mountainous climbs this event always featured as he knew it wouldn’t make it!

Philip Halstead

08/07/16 – 06:33

Chris, presumably by the time of the rebodying the torque converter had been replaced by a conventional transmission. The deeper Autovac was in fact a dual unit containing the hydraulic converter fluid as well as fuel header tank and, after conversion, would have been replaced by a conventional Autovac.

Phil Blinkhorn

08/07/16 – 06:34

I’ve seen a few mentions on this site of the SCT61 website. A look on there shows that, while ADR 813 WAS a TD5C, the rebodying included replacing the gearbox with a conventional one, so I suppose ordinary TD would be the correct caption now.

Pete Davies

08/07/16 – 07:46

I believe the convention is for the chassis designation to remain as built with a note regarding modifications, for one thing the chassis plate would almost certainly retain the original designation. An example of this would be Halifax’s Daimlers which were fitted with Leyland engines, which remained as CVG6 with Leyland engines and not CVL6, which would be an enthusiasts’ designation as such a model didn’t (to my knowledge anyway) exist.

David Beilby

08/07/16 – 09:06

Thanks everyone for clarifying the torque converter query, and for telling me something I certainly didn’t know – that the large tank also included a normal Autovac – I believe the rather intriguing maker’s name of the converters was "Smiths-Lysholm."

Chris Youhill

08/07/16 – 17:13

In the early 1930s Leyland was looking to ease the lot of driving buses in what was then considered heavy traffic. Up until 1932 all its chassis featured a sliding mesh gearbox/friction clutch transmission but Daimler had introduced its preselector system and transport departments were looking to retrain tram drivers as bus drivers so something different was required.
A semi automatic torque converter which had been patented by Alf Lysholm under the manufacturing name of Lysholm-Smith was experimented with in 1932. Dr Haworth, Leyland’s Chief Engineer adopted the principle and developed it so that, at the 1934 Commercial Motor Show, the Tiger, Titan, Titanic and Lion chassis were offered with automatic transmission as an option, the first time any production bus chassis had been offered with the option anywhere in the world. The system offered a single lever with direct, converter and reverse drives plus neutral.
The vehicles were badged as "Leyland Gearless Bus". The company made its own converters but acknowledged Alf Lysholm’s base patent in its own patents.
The gearless chassis sold well and an interesting experiment took place in 1934 when London Transport sent the chassis of STL221, a standard AEC Regent, to Leyland to be fitted with the system. After several days in Lancashire it returned to London, was subsequently bodied and ran with the torque converter until August 1937. The comments from Southall have either been lost to or censored from the annals of history!

Phil Blinkhorn

08/07/16 – 17:14

ADR 813 certainly still exists. It was part of the late Colin Shears’ West of England Transport Collection, so was resident at Winkleigh. ADL is still listed on the collection’s fleet list.
The usual open day at Winkleigh in October is taking a rest this year, so it won’t be until October 2017 that we will be able to see this old girl again for real.

Petras409

09/07/16 – 06:36

Phil, your little side-issue concerning LT’s STL221 being fitted with a torque-converter between 1934 and August 1937, as ever, shows LT’s illogicality at times! At about the time the decision was being taken to remove STL221’s converter, LT was taking delivery of 100 Leyland TD4’s with Leyland copycat STL bodies, the last 10 of which were fitted with torque-converters! Like STL221, they were soon discarded in favour of crash gearboxes, in 1939, to match the other 90 of the class. To add to this illogicality, if these STD’s were STL clones, why were they not all fitted with pre-selective gearboxes?

Chris Hebbron

09/07/16 – 10:37

All very interesting and valid points indeed Chris H.
Turning now to the immediate postwar period, where supply problems were definitely a feature, I’ve no doubt that the sudden arrival of hired in Tilling Group Bristols and the glorious batch of all Leyland PD1s caused much discontent amongst the drivers involved – after all I doubt if many of them were admiring enthusiasts like me !! I absolutely worshipped the STDs for their unexpected individuality in London. A large number where allocated to Victoria Gillingham Street (GM) and they appeared frequently on the long and arduous 137 route from Highgate to Crystal Palace via Streatham. As a youngster, holidaying in the latter, I was a frequent visitor to the free swings and roundabouts in Norwood Park, which involved stopping the PD1 on the steep of Central Hill – even at that tender age I had a conscience about stopping the driver at such an awkward spot. Never in my wildest dreams then did I imagine that I would one day pass my PSV test on an identical glorious PD1 in Leeds. Oh, why can’t we magically turn the clock back ??

Chris Youhill

09/07/16 – 16:32

Whilst strictly not within the scope of this thread, the mention of Lysholm Smith reminded me that the first Derby Lightweight DMUs of 1954 featured this transmission. To quote from Derby Lightweight DMUs by Evan Green-Hughes, the following may be of interest.
"The West Riding sets were made up of two cars, both of which were powered in view of the heavily graded nature of the territory in which they were to work. The well-established Leyland L600 125hp horizontally mounted six cylinder engine, as used in many buses and trucks, was specified and two were fitted to each coach. Riddles had chosen to fit the Leyland Lysholm Smith torque converter transmission which had been used in an earlier LMS three-car experimental unit. This had a double-acting clutch that either connected the engine output to the torque converter pump or directly to the output shaft and was bolted directly to the engine. The clutch was controlled by the driver who could select one of four positions,off, neutral, converter drive and direct drive.Converter drive was used for pulling away or hill climbing, whilst direct drive would be used when going downhill or when travelling along easy graded sections at speed. However, by the time the units were completed, the Lysholm Smith transmission system was already obsolete and the buses for which it was originally designed were being equipped with pre-selector transmission"

John Darwent

09/07/16 – 17:15

Chris, to answer your question re the lack of preselector gearboxes on the STD class, the STL class through its many variations generally had crash gearboxes though a number had Daimler preselector boxes. AEC and Daimler had formed ADC for a short period in the mid/late 1920s and presumably relations were such that AEC could source from Daimler. Leyland was very much its own man and presumably either would not or could not deal with Daimler and a crash box would not have been seen as disadvantageous at the time.

Phil Blinkhorn

Hanworth Acorn
1970
Seddon Pennine IV
Plaxton C51F

Hanworth Acorn of Bedfont, Middlesex, was ever an enterprising operator, if not entirely wise, in its choice of vehicles. In 1958 it bought 776 LMU, one of the two rear engined Rutland Clippers made – the other was TKE 741 which went to Aston’s of Marton (though it is rumoured that a third one was constructed), both of which were fitted with Whitson C41C coachwork :- www.flickr.com/photos/
Though generally having been previously a Bedford operator, from 1970 Hanworth Acorn became firmly wedded to the recently introduced Seddon Pennine IV chassis equipped with Plaxton Panorama Elite coachwork:-

CLK 100H and CLP 200H (both C51F, 1970)
BYH 500H (C45F, 1970)
DAN 300H and DAN 400H (both C51F, 1970)
DLD 800J and DLD 900J (both C44F, 1971)
HMF 600K (C53F, 1972).

The picture shows DAN 400H at Brighton during the 16th British Coach Rally in 1970.
In the Pennine IV, the raucous Perkins 6.354 engine of 5.8 litres was fitted vertically, low down, at the front of the chassis, which had a high flat frame throughout its length. The earlier machines had the naturally aspirated version of the 6.354 which developed 120 bhp at 2800 rpm, and drove through a five speed, direct top, Eaton synchromesh gearbox and an Eaton two speed rear axle. HMF 600K had the turbocharged T6.534 giving 145 bhp (later 155 bhp) at 2800 rpm coupled with an overdrive top five speed box, and this vehicle was tested by the Commercial Motor journal in September 1971. A comment was made about the stiff and and highly sensitive steering that required perpetual correction to keep the machine in a straight line, and this resounded with my own experiences of the Pennine IV. I took one of these, albeit with Pennine bus bodywork, from Gomshall to Loughborough, and I unhesitatingly declare that it was the most horrible psv that I have ever driven in my life (though the Cummins engined Leyland Lynx runs it a close second). The racket from the engine was truly deafening, and the decidedly erratic steering characteristics were exactly as described by the CM tester. Like all vehicles with the gearbox mounted behind a front mounted engine, the gear selector was awkward to use, and the brakes and suspension seemed in keeping with the generally primitive character of the entire design. Even contemplating the handling characteristics of the Pennine IV when fitted with heavy coach bodywork makes my blood run cold. What this chassis was like when equipped with the optional 8.36 litre 170 bhp Perkins V8.510 doesn’t bear thinking about.
From 1972 Hanworth Acorn persisted with the fundamentally similar T6.354 powered replacement model, the Pennine 6 (Seddon went back to Arabic numerals) taking the following with Plaxton Coachwork:-

HYV 700K (C57F, 1/72)
LGJ 444K and LGN 222K (C51F, 2/72)
LLD 333K (C57F, 3/72)
LLY 111K (C45F, 4/72)
RLO 300L and RLO 400L (C57F, 6/73)
RLO 500L (C51F, 6/73)
SMH 100M and SMH 200M ((C57F, 6/74)

Hanworth Acorn suffered cash flow problems and ceased trading early in 1975. One wonders if the standard of “sophistication” offered by the Seddon Pennine contributed to this ignominious outcome.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

04/07/16 – 08:59

A Pennine IV has been preserved by Roger Burdett – picture and details at //www.sct61.org.uk

Ken Jones

05/07/16 – 06:47

Interesting views. I am enjoying driving mine which is fitted with a Perkins V8 540.I will give you the steering is a little twitchy but the gearbox is a delight and when cruising the V8 "noise" I find not overloud.
Maybe it has been "sorted" after 45 years and certainly the 6.354 engine had a noisy reputation whereas the V8 burbles.
Mine is fitted with Girling air over hydraulic brakes system and they are really sharp.
It will get a good test at Alton RE Running day on July 16 with full loads and all day running so be interesting to see how I feel after that

Roger Burdett

05/07/16 – 06:48

The usual wisdom is that the Pennine IV had the naturally aspirated 6.354 or the V8, and only the Pennine 6 had the T6.354. HMF 600K is described in the September 1971 Commercial Motor road test variously as Pennine VI and Pennine Six, and the test coincides with the announcement of that new model in another part of the same issue. However, BLOTW has it as a Pennine 4 (sic), so perhaps the truth is that it was built as a Pennine IV to a development spec which became the Pennine 6.

Peter Williamson

03/08/16 – 08:57

The Pennine VI is a very different animal to the Pennine IV. The Pennine VI was designed as a 12M chassis using the T6354 as the V8 was too heavy for the front axle. The Pennine VI used a totally different braking system too. I own probably the sole surviving Pennine VIs. Did my time on them and the VI was an excellent machine which certainly served us well.

Russell Price

04/08/16 – 09:10

The Pennine IV had air hydraulic brakes, whereas the Pennine 6 was equipped with a full air system. Though fundamentally very similar, the Pennine 6 chassis ended just behind the rear axle while that of the IV continued beyond to give rear support to the bodywork. Also the 6 had tubular chassis cross members instead of the channel section variety used in the IV. I note that the two present day owners of Pennine coaches are well satisfied with their machines. All I can say is that, when, with a splitting headache, I handed over that Pennine IV at Loughborough, I took a Bedford YRQ back to Surrey, and the difference was profound, like exchanging a Massey Ferguson tractor for a Rolls Royce. I had driven YRQs many times before, and admit to having had a bit of a patronising attitude towards Bedfords in general, but that visit to Loughborough imbued in me a new respect for the marque. Yes, General Motors had far greater resources than Seddon, whose products were basically an assemblage of proprietary parts, but at least it got the thing right. Mercifully, I never drove another Seddon.

Roger Cox

04/08/16 – 13:30

Roger, Think if I drove my Seddon every day I might share your opinion!

Roger Burdett

09/08/16 – 06:07

After the above revelations about the differences between the Pennine IV and 6, I have gone back to the Commercial Motor road test, and there is no doubt that they thought HMF 600K was the latter – it is described as having full air brakes and tubular chassis cross-members. The announcement of the new model can be viewed at //tinyurl.com/gphfoe4  and the road test report at //tinyurl.com/j3zbhye

Peter Williamson

12/08/16 – 11:08

The comments above are very interesting. However, some of the information is quite wrong!
Former Managing Director
Hanworth Acorn Coaches, Ltd.

Mr Anon

13/08/16 – 07:07

Well, Mr Anon, by all means put things right. We, on OBP, are entirely happy to have our errors or misapprehensions addressed. None of us on here are sensitive plants fearful of different views. That’s what makes this site the lively forum that it is.

Roger Cox

14/09/16 – 06:20

The Pennine 6 was fitted with Centrax Stopmaster brakes as later fitted to Volvo F6 trucks and later on the Bedford YNV in beefed up form. The Pennine IV had full air Girling brakes as fitted to Bedfords YRT rather than a air over hydraulic system. The Pennine 6 also featured spring parking brakes. The Pennine 6 also featured a very early use of intercooling too.

Russell Price

16/09/16 – 07:15

Just checked my workshop manual and parts books and yes the Pennine IV was on full air Girling brakes with the lever parking brake.

We ran about 10 Pennine 6s between 1975 and 1989 and would agree that when putting drivers in them for the first few days they hated them, but after that we found that they took to them and generally thought well of them.

Russell Price

16/09/16 – 08:56

Thanks for your first hand corrections and experiences of these machines, Russell. I sincerely trust that your Plaxton bodied coaches were significantly better soundproofed than the Pennine bodied bus that I drove. That thing required the driver to wear industrial specification earmuffs. I have never driven anything else so noisy. The steering was also a very suspect feature of the Pennine IV, hopelessly over sensitive.

Roger Cox

16/09/16 – 17:04

The front axle wasn’t really up to the job and we converted a couple to Bedford YRT Front axles which helped the twitchy steering, however the primary reason for the axle change was because the axle beam used to wear allowing the pins to move in the beam which would give you the steering you describe. we only had a Later Pennine IV V8 Plaxton on Demo and sent it back as it was found for our operation to be not as suitable as the Pennine 6 which we already knew well.

Incidentally one of ours was the last Hanworth Acorn coach SMH100M. Incidentally the photo is taken at the gate to the old Seddon Works at Royton at the last factory open day before closure. The chassis was assembled in the building partially visible through the gate. CDC with its 2 speed Eaton axle is a super drive and will fly and return 17-18 mpg.

Russell Price

16/09/16 – 17:05

Here is a picture of the Seddon I drove up to Loughborough, Pennine IV KWW 901K, with Pennine B56F bodywork. I can’t find the negative, so I have had to scan the print. It was previously owned by the firm of Morris of Bromyard, and a picture of it may be seen on this site:- www.flickr.com/photos/nebp2/ Tillingbourne (understandably) only used it in service for a month before selling it on to Yeates in September 1977. I believe that, in order to save weight, these Seddon bus bodies did not have a full body underframe, and were attached directly to the chassis. The Perkins 6.354 was ever a raucous beast, but these Pennine bodies certainly seemed to act as effective amplifying chambers, a view confirmed by passenger trips on the Provincial examples. I have certainly never driven anything else so noisy, especially at motorway speeds.

Roger Cox

17/09/16 – 18:33

KWW was of course new to Wigmores at Dinnington and nearly made it into preservation! It lasted a good long old time in West Wales and suvived until the mid 90s! This followed on from a line of Willowbrook bodied VALs Wigmores had. Whilst i would agree the pennine IV was a fairly crude piece of equipment by UK standards Seddon couldn’t build enough of them for their export markets where the Pennine IV with its simplicity would have been its main point. Bermuda, Phillipines, Cyprus Australia all took the Pennine IV . There was a Pennine V too , there only being one in the UK , the rest of which there were a good number built were all exported. That was a rear engined monster. Your comparison with a Bedford YRQ was interesting as i would think that there were more Pennine IVs built than YRQ Bedfords. The YRQ was a very Competent machine upon which many rural operators relied on. We were a mainly Bedford Fleet with the Seddons thrown in the mix too and a couple of Leylands too. A Mk 1 National and a Tiger bought new.

Russell Price

16/10/18 – 07:30

Here is another shot of DAN 400H taken at the 1970 British Coach Rally.

Roger Cox

Premier Travel (Cambridge)
1959
AEC Reliance 2MU3RV
Burlingham Seagull C41F

The final Mk. VII incarnation of the classic Burlingham Seagull coach body is generally considered by most to be something of a travesty, compared to the earlier versions. With its squared off side panel and slight nod towards tail fins – becoming popular at the time on cars – and longer and fewer side windows attempting to vie with Plaxton’s first Panoramas, it just didn’t work and soon afterwards a complete redesign resulted in the introduction of the Seagull 70 which seemed to some degree to be inspired by the ‘new classic’ – the Harrington Cavalier.
85 UME had been new to Valliant of London W5 in 1959 but had later passed with others to Premier Travel, along with similar examples from Yelloway, joining a further one which Premier had bought new and resulting in probably the largest number of Mk. VII’s in any one fleet.
It is seen here on an enthusiasts’ tour in 1971.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

30/06/16 – 06:38

John, I agree absolutely with your comments about this final version of the classic Seagull design but strangely the angle of the photograph in your posting makes this one look really rather nice. I’m intrigued though, about those dividing strips in the side windows, it seems very odd to have panoramic windows and then divide them into smaller panes.

Chris Barker

30/06/16 – 08:05

The Seagull never seemed to look right without the centre sliding door. It was fundamental to the original design and the later front entrance versions always seemed to me to be something of a ‘lash-up’.

Philip Halstead

01/07/16 – 06:14

I’ve never seen a picture of this one when it was new, but I suspect that the window dividers were a later addition. Quite a few of the Seagull Mk VII bodies needed remedial work as Burlingham’s designers had been rather optimistic about the load-bearing strength of the original window pillars! As far as I know this was never a problem with the Plaxton Panorama of the late 1950s (or any of its successors), but the problem did re-occur at the Blackpool factory – by then Duple (Northern) – in the 1960s with the original Viceroy. Several of those rolled on to their backs resulting in window pillar collapse and crushed passengers.

Neville Mercer

01/07/16 – 06:15

The stenghtheners between the window pillars seem to run inside the glazing, and my guess is they were put in at recertification as the Mk VII had a reputation for flexibility…

Stephen Allcroft

01/07/16 – 06:16

Strangely, despite editing the photo for submission, I’d failed to notice those dividing strips. I’m going to have to search for a photo showing it (or similar ones) with Valliant to see if they were built like that, or whether it was a Premier Travel modification.
I agree, Philip, that the original centre-entrance version was by far the the best looking, but I think the front-entrance Mk.IV’s and V’s still looked pretty decent too. I think the worst looking Seagulls were the Mk.VI with flat windscreens and little bus-type windows (though they were undoubtedly a more practical proposition from Ribble’s point of view), and the downright ugly 1959 season model for the Bedford SB.

John Stringer

01/07/16 – 16:18

Setting aside the possible involvement of the Safety Elf or his predecessors, could it be that the centre-door version was more "coach" as used by one’s local holiday tours firm, and the front/forward entrance one was more "express bus" as used by North Western, Ribble, etc?

Pete Davies

04/07/16 – 15:58

Here is a picture of 86 UME without the strengthening in the middle of the windows (at least on the offside): www.sct61.org.uk/

Stephen Allcroft