Birmingham City Transport
1950
Leyland Tiger PS2
Weymann B34F

This superb combination of Leyland Tiger and classic Weymann single-deck body is further enhanced by the application of Birmingham City livery. 2245 is well-maintained by the Transport Museum, Wythall. Chassis number is 495582, body number M4624 and seating is B34F.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

05/07/15 – 07:32

Don’t you just mourn the demise of municipal transport when you see vehicles like this, with their distinctive livery and civic coats of arms. And in the case of many of them, including Birmingham, never letting an advert blemish the bodywork!

Chris Hebbron

05/07/15 – 11:54

I agree wholeheartedly Chris H, and the beautiful vehicle in the picture is a exceptional example of "how things should be." I readily admit, in my dotage, to be horrified at many of today’s presentations of meaningless mobile artwork which totally destroy what could have been acceptable shapes of modern buses. For example, the latest craze from FirstBus in this area, as if the insipid white, lilac and purple wasn’t bad enough, is to plaster the top decks around the destination displays with gaudy purple offerings for "The Pulse" – services of better than ten minutes frequency. The effect of this gripping marketing wheeze is to render the electronic destinations and route numbers virtually unreadable, especially in bright sunlight. The cost ?? – I imagine that no-one dare publicise that figure and,far from increasing patronage, is simply a further annoyance to already disinterested passengers.

Chris Youhill

05/07/15 – 11:55

To be fair, Chris, even Birmingham had succumbed to the exterior adverts when I was there in my student days of the mid sixties, although I never saw a single decker in service with the ‘feature’, only the doubles.

Pete Davies

06/07/15 – 06:38

I agree entirely about the advertising. Bournemouth was another municipal operator that did not carry advertising. Worst of all today are those advertisements and so-called route branding that are actually carried over the windows – and I do like to be able to look out of the bus!

David Wragg

06/07/15 – 06:39

Birmingham’s civic pride would not countenance the idea of advertising on its buses for many years – although most of the trams carried them throughout their lives, resulting in a fair bit of extra revenue for the Transport Department.
However, once the trams were gone by 1953 this source of revenue was lost and the Transport Committee were reluctantly forced to accept advertising on the buses. After all, the next time the Department applied for a fares increase they might well have been refused on the grounds that while the buses had no adverts there was now an untapped source of income that the Transport Department should use first!

Larry B

06/07/15 – 06:40

Very fair comment Pete, and I suppose that "we outsiders" can’t condemn operators for making some revenue from commercial advertisements, those in the traditional tidy formations on double deckers particularly. My strong objection nowadays is to ludicrous extremes of expensive "in house" blurb plastered all over windows inside and out on already ghastly "liveries", and of no interest whatsoever to the travelling public who, to use those apt but well worn words, "only want a comfortable bus on time at a reasonable fare."

Chris Youhill

06/07/15 – 08:35

When the first of these ‘dot matrix’ adverts appeared on a Southampton Citybus vehicle, it was allegedly possible to see out, but not in – rather like the net curtains of old. Even outward vision is impaired, however. As for route branding, well, it works in some places, but not in many. The attitude seems to be one of ‘if it’s marked for the 3 and it appears on the 27, then its an advert for the folk along the 27 about the highlights of the 3’. Balderdash!

Pete Davies

06/07/15 – 11:07

It is possible from a passenger’s point of view to see through those Contravision adverts when they are looking out at 90 degrees to the glass, though there is a significant darkening effect.
However they can be a real problem and a safety hazard from the driver’s point of view. When emerging from a junction of the 90 degree variety the driver will look through the door windows to check for oncoming traffic, but there are very many others – especially on the routes that I drive – which are at an acute angle where the driver has to lean forward, twist round and look back through the first nearside window. This can already be difficult enough if there are standing passengers (because they always congregate at the front), the nearside luggage rack is stacked with pushchairs, or if the company has thoughtfully decided on siting a side route number/destination box right in your line of view, but looking through Contravision at 45 degrees you can see nothing at all. Those responsible for specifying it will not have even considered this aspect.
I also can not fathom the mentality of bus company managers who specify ‘stylish’ new vehicles with extremely large, heavy and expensive windows, then mask half their area with promotional vinyls.

John Stringer

07/07/15 – 06:54

Very valid comments John, and I’m very surprised that the folk from VOSA haven’t banned Contravision (Controversial vision?) on safety grounds for the reasons you cite. One wonders what the union view is on this too. I read recently that many women boarding buses in the evenings or at night do not like Contravision at all, as they cannot see if any potential nuisance passengers are on board before they get on. Also, many older people out at night are wary for the same reason. So much for certain operators’ duty of care to their passengers and staff.

Brendan Smith

07/07/15 – 06:55

This bus was one of nine hired by PMT at various times during 1969 and 1970 to cover vehicle shortages. Lovely buses, exceptional condition, well powered …… but pretty useless on services normally operated by 72 seat Atlanteans!! Although any bus was better than no bus at all.

Ian Wild

15/07/15 – 05:55

Having been brought up with BCT buses, although these Leylands, nor the AEC ever came my way, I do remember the furore that arose when it was announced that adverts were going to be carried. Even the bus crews themselves were against the idea and of course worst was to come, when the rear platform numbers already diminished from large shaded gold into a smaller gold style were lifted up to just under the registration number ‘to make room for further advertising. But whichever local bus company you favoured, all of them Birmingham, West Bromwich, Walsall (what an interesting fleet) and Wolverhampton all produced buses and crews that compared well with any in England..and then of course there was the ‘daddy’ and in their minds the leader in the field Midland Red. How uninteresting now when apart from the body shape, the only way of knowing what chassis/power unit is involved is by looking at the steering wheel badge. Why is at that the modern bus fleets don’t want anyone to know the make of bus or body?

R. G. Davis

15/07/15 – 15:27

You’re so right with your last point, RG, in that such coyness is in stark contrast to past chassis/body builders!

Chris Hebbron

16/07/15 – 05:35

To me, the (non) distinguishing feature about modern buses is the fact that they all look, sound and perform the same, with a total absence of individuality. Thus anonymity is entirely apt.

Roger Cox

17/07/15 – 12:35

RG Davis asks why we don’t know the make of bus or body these days….?
I wonder if it was always a bit like this…?
Until Fleetlines (when they went to the other extreme) you usually only knew a Daimler CVD by its fluted radiator or later, possibly a discreet radiator badge, or a Leyland by perhaps its hubs, especially if the fleet had plonked its own name on the radiator instead of theirs. This hardly improved with Atlanteans with just the badge on the back. Older Bristols had tiny little badges, although Guys had an easy name to promote. Did any bodybuilders have anything more than a little plate or transfer- except perhaps CH Roe with those lovely transmission covers?
Am I wrong? I suspect that proud municipalities didn’t want makers promoting themselves.
You do now see Alexander-Dennis or Wright on buses- but who makes what, especially which screaming engine- they all sound like old diesel buzz-boxes anyway, desperately hunting for a gear!

Joe

18/07/15 – 08:18

While I agree with all the previous comments re Advertising and Identification badges, oh and Joe’s observation about the "screamers", we lost touch with this beautiful machine that started the post! So, having followed the restoration of 2245 (and many others) at Wythall here are some additional views from frequent visits.

Nigel Edwards

Southdown Motor Services Ltd
1964
Leyland Titan PD3/4
Northern Counties FCO39/30F

This Titan PD3/4 in the Southdown fleet is seen in somewhat strange surroundings. She is adjacent to a public park outside Dock Gate 4 in Southampton on 23 August 1982 while on hire to Southampton City Transport on park and ride duty in connection with the Tall Ships Races. Portsmouth and Thamesdown loaned buses for the event – I saw some of the Portsmouths but none of the Thamesdowns. My apologies to those of our number who cannot abide the NBC green . . . She has Southdown’s normal Northern Counties body of (in this case) FCO69F layout. She dates from 1964.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

29/06/15 – 06:55

Like many, I prefer buses with half cabs, but I quite liked the Southdown ‘Queen Mary’ Titans in their original form and I think that this one may have curved windows at the front which really didn’t go with the overall design. I also hated National green.

David Wragg

29/06/15 – 10:24

Thank you, David. I, for one, have never quite understood how a full front could possibly help with cooling the engine (and/or the cab!) Now, it could be achieved quite easily with a half cab. Still, design is what matters, rather than fitness for purpose. There are schools in Southampton which won design awards, but the roofs leak like sieves!

Pete Davies

30/06/15 – 06:43

At least this NBC Green is fresh, with a gloss. Probably done specially for the occasion! Three weeks hence and it would be faded and matt finish!
Of course, I exaggerate, but only slightly!
Nice to see a three-quarter rear view of a Queen Mary.

Chris Hebbron

30/06/15 – 09:53

This is an interesting question Pete. Forward control "Queen Mary" lorries became almost universal in this country but I suppose the driver tended to be over rather than alongside the engine. Nevertheless smaller goods vehicles had the engine in the cab. Was it also a question of designing buses for looks- with poor insulation and airflows? On the other hand, half-cabs gave better access and better visibility, especially on the kerbside- allowing for some tin-fronts, but at the cost of looks and municipal pride. Then we got Wulfrunians, Ailsas and a whole lot of rear engines… problem solved?

Joe

30/06/15 – 09:55

Thank you, Chris. There were two of these in overall advertising livery, "Maritime Britain" which are too dreadful for publication, as well as some of the early ‘flat front’ VR members of the fleet. I have one in mind for a future offer.

Pete Davies

01/07/15 – 06:29

There are hundreds of photos of the iconic Southdown Northern Counties/Leyland Titan PD3/4 showing the front near quarter but not so many of the rear end. At first glance I wasn’t sure if I was looking at a Bristol VR top half or a Bristol FLF bottom half. I was never a fan of the NBC livery or the fact that so many interesting liveries were lost, if only we all had digital cameras in those days.

Ron Mesure

02/07/15 – 05:56

There’s an old saying -"An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance". By the early 1960s in the psv world, the ‘modern look’ was enshrined in the likes of the Atlantean, Fleetline and Wulfrunian, none of which remotely rivalled the traditional front engined chassis in terms of reliability or cost effectiveness. Southdown, amongst others, sought to achieve the best of both worlds by fitting full fronted bodywork to front engined machinery, progressively pursuing this policy to the bitter end with curved glass and panoramic windows. The public, it was thought, would be taken in by appearances. It was the adoption of one person operation for double deckers that finally knocked this philosophy on the head. I agree that the best of the Southdown PD3 "Queen Marys" (there is a school of thought that vociferously refutes this nickname, but it was widely used nonetheless) were the original flat screen versions. The desperate later efforts with curvy glass and panoramic side windows looked like creatures from the Heath Robinson Design Bureau to my eye, akin to fitting wide tyres, twin headlamps, bonnet airscoops and a rear spoiler to a Reliant Robin.

Roger Cox

02/07/15 – 08:35

Well said, Mr Cox!!!

Pete Davies

03/07/15 – 06:36

…not to mention go-faster stripes!
Patrick Hutber, a Sunday Telegraph journalist/economist coined the saying that "Improvement means deterioration" which equally applies to the sort of problems which arose with changes from front to rear engine’d buses you mention, Roger. The slightly later Ailsa, while not perfect, trod a good path of compromise in both engineering and OMO terms and was quite popular, if not the runaway success it arguably merited, being everything the Wulfrunian was not!

Chris Hebbron

Jones, Aberbeeg
1961
Leyland Tiger Cub
Weymann B44F

889AAX is a Leyland Tiger Cub from the fleet of Jones, Aberbeeg. According to the Keith Jenkinson book of 1978, she is an OPSUC1/3 from 1959 with conversion to OPSUC1/3T at a later date. The PSVC listing for 2013 shows her without the ‘T’ suffix and says she was first registered in 1961, so she must have been stored for a while. The body is by Weymann, to B44F configuration. We see her in Netley, on her way to the rally on 9 July 1995.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

18/06/15 – 10:50

It’s quite unusual for there to be a significant delay between construction and entry into service. The chassis numbers of these vehicles indicate that construction of their chassis was commenced in late 1958, and most vehicles with similar-age numbers entered service in 1959. The Weymann body numbers similarly indicate 1959 vehicles, but chassis/body numbers were often issued when the relevant bit was ordered, rather than when it was actually constructed, so it’s not possible to draw any firm conclusions there. (Leyland were an exception to this).
The registration AAX reversed dates from 11/60 to 2/61, so it would appear that these vehicles were indeed registered (or possibly re-registered) in early 1961.
BLOTW gives the chassis designation as home-market PSUC1/3 rather than OPSUC1/3, but, either way, it would seem that these vehicles were among the minority of Tiger Cubs to feature epicyclic gearboxes.

David Call

18/06/15 – 16:48

I believe this bus was part of a cancelled export order for Trinidad, which would explain the delay between construction and registration.

Roy Nicholson

20/06/15 – 15:11

Do you mean that it would have taken a while to get the vehicles back from Trinidad? I’m not sure I follow the logic.
I see that I omitted to mention the fact that the batch was of three vehicles, Jones 98-100 (889-91 AAX).

David Call

21/06/15 – 05:56

David, I may be wrong – I usually am! – but I suspect what Roy means is that the vehicles were constructed but never exported, being stored until a buyer was found.

Pete Davies

21/06/15 – 05:57

As originally built the windscreens included push-out ventilators at the bottom, as might be required for hotter climes. These were removed by Jones because, as far as I recall, they were not water-tight.
I presume the order must have been cancelled at a very late stage during bodying (why? – penalties would have to be paid), and that the bodied vehicles then sat around until an operator was prepared to pay for some semi-auto Tiger Cubs . . . and that operator must have been Jones.

Philip Rushworth

21/06/15 – 05:58

Doug Jack refers to these in ‘The Leyland Bus’ – "Three overseas OPSUC1/3’s with Weymann bodywork (B44F) were diverted in 1960 from Trinidad Agencies to Jones of Aberbeeg."

David Williamson

22/10/15 – 07:26

The picture of the Jones tiger cub on the way to Netley rally has me driving it as I was the owner at the time. Regarding the difference in build and going into service was as was mentioned, a cancelled order. Three were left at Southampton docks so I was told. They originally had full length sliding side windows as well as the push out vents in the windscreens.
While at Netley rally, I discovered I had a slow puncture in the front offside tyre, so had to put the spare on. This was of dubious condition as it was on the bus when I bought it. I took it easy on the return journey to South Gloustershire, but as I exited the roundabout at Salisbury collage there was a bang , it had blown. So there we were with no back-up Luckily I had a good few passengers, so we jacked it up intending to put the original tyre on. As luck would have it, another old bus from the rally appeared and the owner offered to take it to a garage and inflate it, so although it was slowly leaking, we got back home safely, albeit with a rather deflated tyre.

Alan Roberts

08/10/18 – 08:52

Alan R, being the owner of 889 AAX in 1995, I wonder if you could confirm that the vehicle had:
1) semi-automatic transmission, with a direct air selector pedestal;
2) a two-speed axle.
Assuming it was indeed two-pedal, this doesn’t appear to have impressed Jones, who continued to specify manual transmissions for vehicles purchased new, even though their operating territory would perhaps have favoured semi-automatic. As for the two-speed axle, these were never as common on semi-auto vehicles as manual, although certainly not unknown.

David Call