W. C. Standerwick Ltd
1963
Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R
Plaxton C49F

After the renumbering from a plain consecutive series (2777 seems to have been the highest reached) in September 1950, Ribble adopted a numbering system whereby numbers were reused. Those of the Standerwick subsidiary were in the 1-200 group. This policy was changed again after the acquisition of Scout Motor Services, whose vehicles kept their old fleet numbers, with ‘S’ prefix until the 1963 coach deliveries, when the common number series was adopted. Ribble had just the number (744, for example) but Scout had the prefix (S751, for example) while Standerwick had a (suffix, 731S), as we see above. TRN 747, in the Ribble fleet, reached Morecambe depot late in 1963 and was stored for the winter, entering service early in 1964.

TRN 731 pictured above is a Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R (though I have seen some references to PSU3/3RT chassis for this batch) with a Plaxton C49F body. We see it in North Albert Street, Fleetwood, arriving for Tram Sunday on 18 July 1999. For more precise ‘placing’ of the shot, the fire escape of the North Euston Hotel is in view top left!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

30/11/16 – 09:22

I remember travelling on one of these on a Keswick-Manchester relief. It rode very nicely,but at Kendal depot the driver disappeared into the workshops. He reappeared muttering to us all (only about10) "Well we are going home without top gear". I had not noticed any problem, but the roads in the Lakes were not conducive to speed. As we were all going to Manchester we went on the M6. I am not certain what gearbox was in these vehicles, but the driver had no problems and the run was smooth and quiet. Somewhere along the M6 insult was added to injury when we were overtaken by one of the original Ribble group 36 footers, a Leopard/Duple that had been ordered by Scout.

Andrew Gosling

01/12/16 – 06:50

Andrew, The expression "ouch!" springs to mind.

Pete Davies

01/12/16 – 06:51

I remember this fine coach when with Ingleby York

Ken Wragg

01/12/16 – 09:09

Not having thought about"real Plaxton" bodies recently I have looked at the different models again. The design of the above is really quite simple, but to my mind is the smartest that Plaxton produced. It has a sleek business-like look. Much the same can be said of the Alexander Y type.
Please note: other makes of coach are available.

Andrew Gosling

02/12/16 – 07:14

As far as I can recall, the highest fleet number reached by a Ribble vehicle was 2797, the batch 2778-97 (CRN 978-97) comprising Burlingham bus-bodied Leyland PS2s which became 228-47 in the 1950 renumbering. I don’t remember any vehicles numbered 2798 or higher, but anyone with access to a copy of the publication ’52 Years of Ribble’, produced by the Ribble Enthusiasts Club, should be able to immediately confirm or deny whether there were such vehicles.
An interesting aspect of the 2778-97 batch was that, intentionally or otherwise, there was a last two digit match between fleet numbers and registrations, Ribble vehicles not having three-digit matching registrations until 1963. A few batches of vehicles did have a last-digit fleet/registration number match, but, prior to 1963 the only other batches I can recall with even a two-digit match were Atlanteans 1656-1700 (NRN 556-600) and 1801-14 (RRN 401-14).

David Call

Eastbourne Corporation
1928
Leyland Lion PLSC3
Leyland B32R

HC 8643 is a Leyland Lion PLSC3 some sources omit the P prefix for 1930s Leyland single deckers, but I’ve no idea why, new to the County Borough Of Eastbourne in 1928. It has Leyland’s own B32R body – with door – and we see it arriving at Duxford on 28 September 2003.

This second view shows the fleetname and crest.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

24/11/16 – 09:32

The Lion was a very successful model. The initial letter ‘P’ stood for pneumatic, indicating that it was devised from the outset to accept such tyres rather than being a conversion from solids. The 1926 vintage Lion was designed by J. G. Parry Thomas, who very soon afterwards turned his attention towards the car racing world. It was powered by an overhead valve four cylinder engine of 5.1 litres driving through a four speed crash gearbox, all mounted in a dropped frame chassis, though this was not as low as that on the Rackham designed six cylinder Tiger that appeared in the following year, 1927. According to G. G. Hilditch, who had one at Halifax for a time, the Lion had a top speed of about 25 mph, well above the legal limit of 12 mph that was then in force for buses.

Roger Cox

24/11/16 – 16:44

Thank you, Roger, for the explanation of why some had the P and some did not.

Pete Davies

27/11/16 – 07:36

The PLSC lion was replaced in 1929 by the Lion LT1, and at the same time the Lioness PLC was replaced by the Lioness-Six LTB. The Cub Passenger models (except the REC) carried a P as part of the designation, eg Cub SKPZ2, the first three Gnus were TEP1, although the later design with front end as the TEC1 Steer wagon was the TEC2.
P on post-war Leyland models from the Comet to the Titan meant Passenger.

Stephen Allcroft

27/11/16 – 09:30

I think that we’ve had this discussion about the PD/PS Leyland codes before, Stephen. The generally accepted view is that the ‘P’ stood for ‘post war’ in the passenger models, just as the Daimler ‘V’ in CVG/CVD stood for ‘victory’. Having initiated the ‘P’ classification in 1946, Leyland stuck with it for several years afterwards, by which time the understanding may well have changed to ‘passenger’.

Roger Cox

28/11/16 – 13:34

Roger, it was "generally accepted" for many years that the 27ft Leyland Titan body was the Farington: only it has now been found that was the final 26ft style. Doug Jack for one concludes that Passenger was intended. He had access to the Records. If post war was meant then surely it would have been applied to the freight range as well.

Stephen Allcroft

29/11/16 – 07:47

Stephen, this is a debate that, like the meaning of ‘RT’ and ‘SOS’ continues to run and run. The PD1 was originally designated the TD9 (the TD8 was the projected utility chassis that didn’t materialise), so the subsequent use of ‘P’ for ‘Passenger’ seems illogical, as, indeed does the classification ‘Passenger Double Decker/Passenger Single Decker’. The ‘P’ there is surely redundant, since lorries don’t fall into those categories. Unlike the haulage range, for which a variety of names was adopted, the bulk of the passenger range from Leyland in the early post war years consisted of Titans and Tigers, model names that were carried over from 1939. Given the general public and political mood if the time, I remain convinced that the ‘P’ stood for ‘post war. ‘Passenger Double Decker Type 1 makes no sense when seven versions of the Titan had preceded it. John Banks, for another, agrees with the ‘post war’ understanding, but I am sure that this debate will never be finally settled.

Roger Cox

30/11/16 – 06:57

The menmonics were designed, I’m sure you are aware Roger for the convenience firstly of Leyland production staff and secondly to enable the customers to order the right spare parts. In a way it is immaterial what the letters actually stood for, although we all want to know.
The first Leyland peacetime model was the 12.IB ‘Interim’ Beaver with the same drivetrain as the PD1/PS1 which could on your contention have been the ID1/IS1 as they were also intended as interim models until the "O600 TD9" and its single-deck version became available.
The major difference was the frame, which was dropped for a Passenger application, wheelbases and spring rates then determined the differences between the Tiger and the Titan, so if we disregard names they were always variants of the same passenger model.
If you are right then Leyland designated the Comet bus as Postwar and not the Comet Lorry, although both were launched in 1947, that would be bizarre.

Stephen Allcroft

30/11/16 – 15:49

I am afraid that I remain unconvinced, Stephen. In the cases of the Titan and Tiger, I believe that the change in the initial letter from T to P was intended to mean ‘post war’. The Comet was a haulage model that was adapted to passenger functions, and yes, the ‘P’ did signify ‘passenger in the designation CPO1 etc. However, I think you are reading a degree of consistency in model naming that was probably never there. If your theory is correct, the Comet bus/coach should have been called the PCO1. In the Comet, the letter ‘O’ stood for oil engine, but the same letter ‘O’ was used in export Tiger models such as OPS1 and OPS2, in which case it meant ‘overseas’.

Roger Cox

02/12/16 – 07:06

God Forbid I should accuse any manufacturer of consistency in nomenclature! The OPSU1, 2 and 3 were replaced by the ERT2 3 and 1, while the Leyland designed BUT ETB1 ran concurrent with both. The OPSU3 had been forgotten when the 36 foot Leopard became PSU3, and not L3, the RTC and L1/L2 being replaced by PSU4 in 1967 and PSU5 launched in 1968 which is 23 years after the end of World War two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Royal_Tiger_PSU  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Royal_Tiger_Worldmaster  
AEC is presumed to have chosen 2 for semi-automatic transmission and 3 for synchromesh based on the number of pedals, but when a constant mesh gearbox came from Thornycroft, that became 4 (still using three pedals) and the ZF torque converter option on Swift became 5 (still using two). It is more than probable the P used in Swift and Sabre stood for Panther.
Also as the PSUC1 designation came before the Tiger Cub name and that chassis used modified Comet running units rather than anything from the Cub discontinued 12 years earlier that the C originally stood for Comet.
As a purely passenger model, the Tiger Cub had a P at the front, but as demonstrated above, nobody was consistent, the last Comet buses were sold in the early 1970s; here’s a link to one:
//www.sct61.org.uk/lagos1

Stephen Allcroft

Maidstone & District
1968
Leyland Panther PSUR1/1R
Strachans B48F

LKT 132F is a Leyland Panther PSUR1/1R new to Maidstone & District in 1968. It has a Strachan B48F body, somewhat unusual for a BET firm, and we see it in the Netley rally on 14 July 1996 so the body at least is more or less ‘home’ as Strachans later products were built just along the road in Hamble. The Parish Council calls it Hamble Le Rice now, and it’s nothing to do with puddings. In this sense, it means ‘rich’.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

20/11/16 – 15:48

Yes its a standard BET front, but the livery does a great deal to hide the uneven window and panel spacing layout. Just by example if you were to look at Liverpool 1097 currently in the heading on the ‘other’ bus blog page, it shows how neat this one really is. Its a pity we don’t have sound on here as Panther exhausts were in a class of their own.

Mike Norris

21/11/16 – 07:54

Mike there is a section on here for bus noises. To be found at the ‘More pages’ tab top right in the menu, then select ‘Old Bus Sounds’.

Stephen Howarth

05/11/17 – 07:30

With reference to 3251 (ex SO251) as I knew it when I drove it. This was always a delightful vehicle to drive and was usually requested by our depot engineer – Ernie Marks – at Gravesend. I remember using it on many runs to High Halstow, Cliffe and also Meopham & Harvel. I have a photo slide of it taken when I used it.
With reference to S1-S5 or 3701-5, again when I drove all of them, these would often tread there way onto the 122 London to Brighton run and I had the pleasure of driving them between Gravesend and Tunbridge Wells. The only problem I found was the bodywork rattle caused by over-inflated tyres, something which Tunbridge Wells was usually in favour of. Hence, all vehicles from both garages had bodies that were shaken to pieces – sometimes almost literally!

Freddy Weston

09/11/17 – 07:14

Although my memory is not so good nowadays, I have to hand a fleet allocation list for 1st October 1971. From that it looks as if Freddy’s and Ernie Marks’ favourite Reliance 3251 had left the fleet by then. 3701-6 are shown as allocated to Tonbridge and 3125 was allocated to Maidstone. With regard to comments about high tyre pressures, it is relevant that M&D had three tyre mileage contractors in 1970. I think Gravesend and possibly Borough Green were covered by Michelin who would only have used radial ply tyres which have more flexible walls. The Tunbridge Wells district (inc Tonbridge, Hawkhurst and Edenbridge) was covered by Firestone with cross ply tyres which may have felt harder. Dunlop was the third contractor. This made it a bit difficult when vehicles were re-allocated across contracts! Around 1971, Dunlop were contracted to cover the whole fleet using a new centralised tyre workshop for fitting new and re-grooving tyres. Mobile inspectors examined the fleet regularly for pressure and tread depth. Each depot had a supply of wheel assemblies with fit tyres for failures in service. An interesting aspect of this was that quite a few vehicles were found to be fitted with wheels of the incorrect offset, so a supply of new wheels had to be bought to facilitate a sorting out!

Geoff Pullin

PS – I meant to add that Panthers 3131 and 3135 were delicensed for repair of fire damage and 3127 for major body repairs! Engine compartment fires were a bit endemic for Panthers and also Reliances at the time. As I have said elsewhere, M&D found that the Willowbrook bodied Panthers were better than the Strachans bodies which suffered a lot of panel movement and aluminium dust permeating the insides. They were strengthened by a scheme devised by Wiollowbrook!