Old Bus Photos

Yorkshire Woollen District – Leyland Titan – HD 8553 – 699

Yorkshire Woollen District - Leyland Titan PD2 - HD 8553 - 699

Yorkshire Woollen District Transport
1963
Leyland Titan PD2
Roe H63R

Now this gets interesting according to my book this is a 1950 Leyland Titan PD2/3 with a Roe H56R body. Well it is defiantly not a rear entrance that’s plain to see and the registration of just two letters I think came well before 1950. I think its time to get Googleing
Here is a result found on the SCT ’61 website the link takes you to a better photo of the same bus, the info found does make sense to me it is as follows.
“Yorkshire Woollen rebuilt a number of Leyland Tiger PS single deckers as double deck vehicles in the 1950s and 1960s. One such is HD8553, a PS2/5 given a Roe front entrance body in 1962 and numbered 699 – later renumbered 502 by YWD.
This bus and its brethren survived long enough to receive NBC livery.”


I think your history is wrong.
A large number of PS1s were rebodied. I saw one of the first which was painted "Poppy Red" in Frost Hill depot parked in the middle of the depot It looked terrible then. The new bodies were MCW Orion.
They weighed less after re-bodying than when original.
They were very noisy and cold as the new bodies were single skinned.
The photograph is one of a small batch of PS2s which were rebuilt much later. the chassis were rebuilt by YWD with new chassis sides, they originally had a bolt on chassis extension as the rules changed when they were originally built. I think there were only 8 rebuilt. A like number were sold to Yorkshire Traction for rebuilding the only difference was that the Yorkshire Traction rebuilds were reregistered. I never found out why.

E. Malone


I will investigate this further find my own information and get back, check with the ’Latest Comments’ page for any update.
Here are the details of a batch of six Leyland Tiger PS2/5 chassis that were re-bodied by Roe to H35/28F in 1963 Reg no HD 8551-4 and HD 8562-3 they went into service with fleet nos 697-700 and 708-9 respectively.
The above photograph is one of this batch and this information backs up the original article.
An extra piece of information I found is that the original Tigers were probable bodied by Willowbrook with a B38F body and were first built in 1950.
The PS1 chassis you mention were a batch of 24 originally built in 1948 the registrations are a bit haphazard but are late HD 7800s and very early 7900s the fleet nos are a bit the same but they all fall between 562-631. These were re-bodied by Metro-Cammell with H56R ‘Orion’ bodies in 1954-5.

Peter


Richard Malone is wrong about the colour. Poppy red only came in with NBC.  The closest to the original colour was Post Office red. I know this from a YWD Fleetline I owned at one time.
There were 75 Brush bodied Leyland Tigers PS1s, fleet numbers 558-632 registration HD7841-7915. In 1954 12 of these were rebodied as double deckers with fleet numbers (562/75/7/97/8/9/603/11/3/4/6/20) with a weight of 6.8.1 tons. A further 12 were rebodied in 1955 as fleet numbers (570/4/83/7/8/96/618/24/7/8/30/1) with a weight of 6.7.0 tons. It is interesting to note that they weighed 6.9.1 tons as Tiger single deckers.
I own the only survivor of the original batch of Brush bodied Tiger PS1s fleet no 622 registration HD 7905 which can be seen here.
The Willowbrook/PS2s, 697-725, HD8551-79 (and OPD2s, 728-733, HD8710-5) were built in 1949. They were originally 27’6" long with B32F bodies these were then lengthened to 30′ B38F by Willowbrook between June 1954 and June 1955. Six were rebodied by Roe as H63F (697-700/8/9) for YWD a further nine went to YTC (701/4/6/7/10/1/2/4/6) in 1962, rebodied by Northern Counties as front entrance double deckers. (One of these still exists.)

Gordon Brooke


The subject of re registrations of bus rebuilds is an interesting one. I was always curios about the batch of Leyland PS2s that were rebodied as double deckers by both Yorkshire Traction and Yorkshire Woollen. The Y W D ones kept their old 2 letter HD marks yet the YTC ones were allocated new YHE marks of the time. Another example of these double standards concerns County Motors of Lepton owned by YTC, YWD and West Riding. In 1955 they had two elderly single deckers rebodied as double deckers. They wanted to give them new registrations but Huddersfield CBC would not allow this so they were transferred to Barnsley where they were given new marks of the time.

Philip Carlton


Difficult to tell from the photo if the width of this vehicle, was a PS2/5 7ft 6in or 8ft wide? The original batch of re-bodies, from PS1 chassis were certainly 7ft 6in Orions. When Birch Bros had some PD1’s re-bodied with Orions by MCW a year or so later, they were virtually identical even down to the destination display. Maybe the same drawings were used!

Chris Barker


01/01/14 – 09:14

I drove these buses in 1965 at this time I lived in Heckmondwyke and worked at Becklane Depot I remember the P duties they worked Mirfield Bradford 65 service they seemed to be sluggish pullers..

Jack


03/01/14 – 10:00

I would like to comment on the "Hales Cake" vehicle shown in Colin Shears yard. It is a Leyland TS7 and was East Midland Motor Services No10 BAL 610. In the 1950s I worked at EMMS Chesterfield workshops at this time after I left school and remember this vehicle well it was one of eighteen rebodied by Willowbrook in 1948 it looked far better in EMMS livery of biscuit cream and brown picture shown in Mikes afterlifes.

Jack


26/10/16 – 06:41

I remember the forward entrance versions of these rebodies on B and C services from Ossett to Fir Cottage in YWD red and cream and then NBC poppy red not bad for a bus built as a single decker in the late 1940s and still in service in the 1970s we cannot say that today, by the way I liked them as much as AEC Regent Vs.

David Parkin


27/10/16 – 08:17

To answer Chris Barker’s question from way back, the PS2/5 was 8 feet wide.

Peter Williamson


28/10/16 – 07:37

Peter W, thanks for your answer, I’m certain that these vehicles reverted to their original length of 27ft 6ins. upon rebuilding as double deckers, the seating capacity of 63 seems to support this. However, when they ran as single deckers, presumably they had drop frame extensions to enable the provision of luggage boots and then they were extended to 30ft length, still with drop frame rears, so was the chassis itself extended? When they became double deckers, a drop frame extension would have been of no use on a front entrance d/d but if it was simply removed, the rear overhang would have needed supporting somehow, I imagine new chassis frames were the only answer. Perhaps it might have been easier to rebody them as 30ft double deckers!

Chris Barker


31/03/17 – 15:37

The registration of just two letters I think came well before 1950.
Dewsbury didn’t reach HD 9999 until November 1953 – while it took until April 1960 for Bootle to reach EM 9999 and August 1960 for Rutland to reach FP 9999.
And nine Scottish counties didn’t reach 9999 with two letters before the year suffix system was introduced in 1964/5 – Buteshire famously only getting as far as SJ 2860.

Des Elmes


06/09/17 – 06:44

Chris Barker, I think you will find that NONE of the PS1 or 2’s owned by YWD had luggage boots. The emergency door was in the middle at the back on both those models.

Ron Lake


 

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

 


 

West Riding – Leyland Tiger PS 2/12 – EHL 337 – 726

West Riding - Leyland Tiger PS 2/12 - EHL 337 - 726

West Riding Automobile
1952
Leyland Tiger PS2/12
Roe B39F

According to my Ian Allan book which I have now found West Riding was the second largest Independent operator in the UK not sure who the first one was LUT perhaps. The book British Bus Fleets no 9 Yorkshire (company operators) was published March 1962 and cost 2s/6d by the way.  I have come across a YouTube Video of a preserved Leyland Tiger from the same batch as above you can see it here the first Minute is bit the same but it gets better when the camera goes outside the bus.


24/07/11 – 10:46

I think the largest independent was Barton

Stan


24/07/11 – 17:08

I seem to remember reading an article on Venture Transport of Consett, Co. Durham in a Buses Annual of about 1968/9 and it stated Venture was the third largest independent in the country. Perhaps by this time though, West Riding belonged to BET or NBC thus taking them out of the equation, so that would leave LUT and Barton to "fight it out" for first and second place.

Eric


25/07/11 – 08:47

Well as a starter regarding the LUT/Barton question, I have a copy of BBF 17 (North Western Area) for March 1964 which lists LUT as having 416 vehicles!

Dave Towers


25/07/11 – 08:59

I seem to remember from somewhere that LUT was the largest independent and Barton the second.

Stephen Ford


25/07/11 – 09:01

BBF17 Second Edition, undated but apparently 1965, says that LUT was the largest. BBF5, Second Edition 1965, says that Barton was the third largest.

Peter Williamson


23/11/17 – 07:18

What appears to be missing from the West Riding memories is any picture of the AEC Regent with the central entrance. They were bought to replace the trams, were painted red, and used mainly on the former tram routes. Kettlethorpe to Leeds via Wakefield (route 10) and Wakefield to Ossett (route 20)

Geoff Bragg


24/11/17 – 07:19

I would have thought Midland Red would have been the largest independent.

Roger Burdett


25/11/17 – 08:02

Midland Red was surely BET?
There is a debate over West Riding being independent but LUT was bigger than WR with Barton next?

Stuart Emmett


26/11/17 – 06:15

There is even doubt about LUT being independent (especially since Neville Mercer excluded it from his book on Lancashire Independents), but I haven’t been able to find out anything about its ownership.

Peter Williamson


28/11/17 – 07:39

Ian Allan’s ‘The Little Red Book’ 1965/66 has West Riding’s rolling stock as 433 buses and coaches (336 d/deck; 56 s/deck; 41 coaches). Lancashire United is given as having 400 buses and coaches (301 d/deck; 63 s/deck; 36 coaches), whilst sadly Barton’s entry simply states 323 s/deck and d/deck buses. (As Chad might have said: "Wot! No coaches!"). Venture Transport is shown as having 52 s/deck buses; 32 semi-coaches; 7 coaches – which I total up to be 91 vehicles. Maybe the fleets concerned varied slightly in size over the decades – contracting or expanding as various social changes took place – which could account for a certain amount of ‘jostling for 1st, 2nd and 3rd position’ – he suggests tactfully!

Brendan Smith


29/11/17 – 08:20

Brendan,
There was always friendly rivalry between Lancashire United and West Riding as to who was the largest company in pre- grouping days, both having about 400 vehicles.
In early days they in fact shared the same director (Harry England) who was West Riding’s first MD and close friend of LUT’s MD (Ned Edwards) The garter symbol on the rear of both companies’ buses was an indication of their early association developing from their tramway systems in the 1920s.

David A


30/11/17 – 08:11

Thank you for that fascinating information David. It’s much appreciated. It’s always interesting to hear about friendly rivalries that develop between bus operators. West Yorkshire Road Car and United Automobile are two others that spring to mind, although they were obviously both ‘Tilling’ companies rather than independent concerns. I’m sure that some of our OBP Team will be along soon to furnish us with details of a few more operators who ‘rubbed along nicely’ in ‘friendly rivalry’ all those years ago.

Brendan Smith


 

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

 


 

Northern General – Leyland Leopard PSU3/3 – CCN 718D – 2518

Northern General Leyland Leopard

The Northern General Transport Company
1966
Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R
Marshall DP49F

Photo taken at Wellington Street bus station Leeds. The X97 route was Liverpool to Newcastle via Leeds obviously.
Information for this photo was found on the ‘Bus Lists on the Web’ website a very good site indeed can be seen here.


05/01/12 – 07:24

I think that the air intake below the windscreen of the Northern General Leopard indicates it was fitted with the UHV (underfloor heating & ventilation) system designed in conjunction with BET, supposedly a fully automatic system with temperature sensors and air operated valves and flaps opening and closing various air ducts through which fresh or recirculated air passed in theory. In practice it was a very different matter as the only automatic thing was both driver and passengers were very cold in winter and very very hot in summer there being few opening windows and two permanently open roof vents with plastic trays underneath to disperse the incoming air. The worst aspect from the drivers point of view was that there wasn’t a motor and fan in the demister the system relied on the forward motion of the vehicle you can imagine how well this worked on a local stopping service. I encountered this system when working for Southdown who also had it fitted to a batch of Plaxton bodied coaches, fitted with vinyl covered seats, there were of course no opening windows and only the two roof vents already mentioned plus two more under the driver or passenger control, no Jet Vent blowers were fitted and of course the same inadequate demister system which still did not work on long runs These vehicles were known as "sweat boxes" very inappropriate in winter and loathed by drivers and passengers alike.

Diesel Dave


07/01/12 – 08:52

How times have/haven’t changed. Fully automatic heating and ventilation systems are now commonplace, but they still don’t work!

Peter Williamson


07/01/12 – 10:15

…..problem is, passengers insist on breathing whatever the temperature or weather conditions.

David Oldfield


31/01/12 – 09:23

There was one automatic heating and ventilation system that worked very well and that was the one fitted to the A series Leyland National providing the filters were kept clear of the inevitable debris that collected it was very reliable. It appeared to defy the fact that hot air rises with the outlets in the roof coving,which had the added bonus of the demister clearing from the top of the screen first, much better for the driver, in fact the whole bus was comfortable. The B series was no better than any other vehicle with underseat box heaters. Although much maligned the National was not a bad bus to drive, personally I thought the Mk 2 with the 680 engine was one of the best buses I ever drove. That may stir up some controversy.

Diesel Dave


31/01/12 – 15:29

Because the National was integral it was considered as a whole. The 500 series engine, especially the 510, was abominable and overshadowed the fact that the body – admittedly very spartan – was very good. The National 2 was what it ought to have been from the start – and a worthy successor to the vehicle it killed off (or murdered?) the Bristol RE. I agree with you fully about the National 0680 – but what about the TL11 version, or for that matter the Gardner?

David Oldfield


31/01/12 – 16:35

There is a nice essay on the 500 and its problems on the AROnline site here: //www.aronline.co.uk/

Gary T


31/01/12 – 16:38

Are Leyland Nationals too late for this site? I never got too close to them for some reason, but they were certainly quirky – the Meccano body must have been the death-knell of "coachbuilding" -and they could also be used on the railways! Can any of our resident panel explain: -why they sounded like industrial food mixers (which engine was that)? -why they emitted clouds of diesel particulates which would put them off the road these days (ditto?) and -what that pretend (?) air conditioning unit/1930’s luggage box on the roof was?

Joe


01/02/12 – 07:56

Yes Joe, that’s the famous 510 engine you’re talking about – and they are strictly "too late". The fixed head was novel, and extremely unreliable, smoky and sounded like a can of marbles. The roof box was an advanced, but expensive, heating unit.You could, however, get me really wound up about the LEZ (London’s low emission zone). You only need eyes to see the filth which can come out of modern "clean" vehicles and some TRC Tigers and Leopards (to name but two)would not "pass the test" and yet are possibly cleaner. [You certainly don’t choke in a smoke cloud behind them!]

David Oldfield


01/02/12 – 07:57

I have to take issue with Diesel Dave on the heating system defying normal laws of physics. Things may have been better in the cab but I recall many instances of getting on what I thought was a ‘warm’ National, passing under the warm air curtain at the door and sitting down. After a while your feet told you exactly where all the cold air had gone! There was a real temperature gradient. I would agree about the demisting effect though, even the saloon windows had less of a propensity to steam up.

David Beilby


01/02/12 – 07:58

I cant comment on the MK2 National as I’ve never driven one, but the early MK1’s were an abortion. When we first got them at Percy Main they were sometimes used on dual crew, and the conductors claimed that when they went round a corner they leaned over that much that they were almost walking on the windows. They soon became known as the ‘kick start buses’ as some of the myriad of sensors on the lower inspection panels were so touchy that a hefty boot had to be administered to ensure that contact was made and the vehicle would start, the steering was far too light and had no feel, they scrubbed off front tyres at an alarming rate, and on a wet road, if the vehicle went in the same direction that the wheels were pointing it was more by luck than judgment, as for the heating, on cold winter days you could be sitting with sinus trouble in you nose and frostbite in your feet, they must have had some good points but off hand I cant think of any.

Ronnie Hoye


01/02/12 – 08:00

Well I can’t answer Joe’s questions but I do remember very well the roof mounted air conditioning and heating system with outlets along the length of the interior, just above the cove panels, which quickly became blackened by the warm air, or should I say fumes of the heating. It’s astonishing that it never occurred to the designers that the heat (such as it was) would collect in the roof whilst your feet were like two blocks of ice on the floor!

Chris Barker


01/02/12 – 08:00

Thanks Gary: answers to my questions are in your quoted article (except the roofbox which was presumably the heating….)… and I thought it was just the cars (I had a Princess & lived- never to buy BL again). Let’s get back to the good old days…

Joe


01/02/12 – 08:01

As an apprentice working for West Yorkshire Road Car when they were still very much a Bristol – ECW – Gardner operator, I noted that anything built by Leyland was viewed with the deepest suspicion by the old guard. So when WY’s first Nationals arrived, and caused major headaches for the engineering staff, those deep suspicions seemed totally justified. ("We’re all doomed – aye doomed!" to quote a well-known Scotsman).
As Diesel Dave comments, the ‘A-Series’ heating and ventilation system worked very well, even in the depths of winter. The system also provided a ‘hot air curtain’ (Leyland parlance) over the entrance to reduce heat loss when the doors opened. The 510 engine was its Achilles heel as David states, and in the early days engines were covering less than 100,000 miles before the big end and main bearings disintegrated. However, following various Leyland modifications – large and small – WY examples were achieving well over 300,000 miles between overhauls in their later years. (Regarding your comment about the National killing off the RE David, three of WYs RELLs suffered the indignity of being fitted with 500 engines when new in 1970, as part of the National development programme. To add insult to injury, they still sported SRG 118-120 as their fleet numbers, even though they did not receive Gardner 6HLX transplants until a few years later, by which time they had become 1318-1320).
With regard to Joe’s queries, the ‘industrial food mixer’ sound may have been due to its engine design, being a ‘small’ unit developing 180 bhp in the National and capable of greater outputs in other applications. Cam lobes were very pointed in profile compared to a 680 or Gardner engine for example, meaning that the 510 valves snapped shut faster. Also, if memory serves correctly, the injector pressures were higher on the 510 too, adding to the cacophony. The engine was also of overhead camshaft layout, with a train of large, straight-cut gears supplying the drive from the crankshaft. The smoke problem certainly persisted, despite revised injectors, revised fuel pump settings and a different type of turbocharger. I personally wondered whether the air inlet manifold may have been the culprit, as this was simply a rectangular pressed steel box bolted onto the side of the engine. Gardner turbo engines in contrast had nicely shaped manifolds to aid the flow of air being forced into the engine, whereas the 510’s affair could not have provided anywhere near such a smooth airflow in comparison.
As for the ‘luggage box on the roof’ Joe, that housed the automatic heating and ventilation system mentioned by Diesel Dave. The system was generally pretty reliable, but I do recall one occasion sitting towards the rear of a Mk I National en route to Bradford, and being dripped on every time the bus came to a halt, or went down a gradient! Needless to say the beast had sprung a leak, and the driver had it signed off at the Interchange, but I did wonder what fellow passengers thought about the roof leaking…….

Brendan Smith


01/02/12 – 16:21

Gentlemen, as someone who was never employed in the bus industry, I am fascinated to read that the commercial vehicle side of "BL" was every bit as bad as the car division. In 1971 I bought a new Morris 1300GT and it rained the first day I had it. Next morning I found around a gallon of water in the boot so drove back to the dealers where I was told to "Drill ‘ole in the floor and it won’t fill up then", Obviously a BL man to the core!
From memory, didn’t the Nationals also have a tendency to catch fire as I clearly recall one suffering a burnt out rear in Ashton Way, Keynsham and also reading of two or three others going the same way. I know I thought them very cheap and basic things so much so that I near enough gave up any interest in anything later than 1972 onwards!
I shall look out for any preserved examples and try to get a "sound effects" recording but from what you all say, finding one with a "510" engine still running seems unlikely!

Richard Leaman


01/02/12 – 16:22

Yes Brendan, and there were rather too many VRs with the 510 as well. Gary Ts link to aronline includes a query/comment about the New Zealand REs having the 510. This was yet another example of Leyland "choice" – you choose to take what Leyland "offered" or you choose to go elsewhere!

David Oldfield


02/02/12 – 07:10

The Leyland engine option in the VR was the naturally-aspirated 501 rather than the turbocharged 510. I expect operators had similar problems with them, but from a passenger point of view they were an absolute delight. They were very quiet, with none of the National’s clatter (which I believe came from a cooling fan coupling or something like that), and unlike the kick-you-in-the-back 6LXB, the power delivery was always ultra-smooth no matter how heavy the driver’s boot. And when coupled to the 5-speed gearbox they could motor too.

Peter Williamson


02/02/12 – 07:11

Richard, British Leyland shouldn’t be confused with Leyland Motors; the latter had stiff competition in the bus market from AEC Bristol Daimler and Guy, ‘Albion were already a subsidiary of Leyland’ and whist it’s fair to say they all had their share of lemons, it was a very competitive market and in the main they were all good vehicles, there were other manufacturers in the market but the companies I’ve mentioned all became part of BL. Before they eventually disappeared, ‘or to be more accurate were killed off’ most names became little more than badge engineered versions of the same BL know best product. BL had a guaranteed market as long as National Bus company was in existence, but as soon as deregulation came they found that their product was no longer in demand. An example of BL’s policy can be seen in the car market, pre BL, Rover’s were built up to a standard, then they became part of BL who in their wisdom or otherwise decided it would be a good idea to put a Rover badge on a Metro. Enough said

Ronnie Hoye


03/02/12 – 06:34

Just after West Yorkshire had converted its three experimental 500-engined RELLs (1318-20) to Gardner 6HLXs, in pursuit of standardisation and improved reliability, guess what came next? Yes, three VRT3s with ‘National’ engines fitted! Numbered 1971-73, these had the vertical 501 versions with turbochargers. (If memory serves correctly Peter I seem to recall that the naturally-aspirated versions were 500s in either vertical or horizontal form, but don’t ask me why as Leyland’s logic was a law unto itself in those days!). Reliability-wise they were marginally better than the 510s, but they suffered oil leaks, and engine vibrations caused problems with gearboxes, engine and gearbox mountings, and exhaust systems. Needless to say they too were converted to Gardner power (6LXB) a few years later. Viewed from the engine compartment, the 501 looked like a mass of pipework with an engine attached somewhere beneath. I think Leyland had tried to place everything on the accessible side of the engine for maintenance purposes, such as the injection pump, compressor, heat exchanger etc. More often than not however, it seemed that you couldn’t remove the faulty bit without first removing half a barrow load of other bits to get to it! As Peter states though, from a passenger viewpoint they did seem fairly smooth and quiet in the VRTs, but I’m afraid I’ll have to side with David that there were far too many VRTs with the ‘headless wonder’ fitted. Poor old East Yorkshire appeared to have lots, which seemed most unfair.

Brendan Smith


01/11/13 – 08:07

One Leopard I remember fondly is MRU 551W, a PSU5C/4R with Plaxton Supreme IV C57F bodywork new to Marchwood of Totton. I used to drive for Country Lion of Northampton. They operated it from May 1986 until July 1987. Most of the drivers could not master the Pneumocyclic Gearbox, which was why it went in PX for a Volvo B10M Duple 320 C57F in July 1987. Shame, as it was a lovely motor to drive.

Stemax1960


CCN 718D_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


01/11/13 – 13:54

I loved the National. For three years in the 1970s the breed provided me with a great deal of commission as BL sought to master the monster it had created. I was supplying the BL spares operation in Chorley and the Workington factory with tags, tickets, labels and plastic ties and almost from first entry into service of the production models those products relating to the National showed a marked increase in demand.
It has to be said that "real" Leyland employees at Chorley hated the National for whilst it provided a constant stream of work, it also provided a constant stream of problems as sometimes the production of spares, many from outside suppliers, lagged behind the demand and the yard and workshops at Chorley always seemed to have more Nationals than any other Leyland product awaiting investigation.
Peter Williamson is quite correct in blaming the cooling fan coupling for much of the clatter.

Phil Blinkhorn


 

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