Old Bus Photos

Manchester Corporation – Leyland Atlantean – UNB 629 – 3629

Manchester Corporation - Leyland Atlantean - UNB 629 - 3629

Manchester Corporation
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
1959
Metro-Cammell H44/33F

I feel prompted to make a first contribution to your fascinating forum after stumbling across it whilst looking for information concerning the jointly operated Stockport/Manchester Corporations’ Service 16 Chorlton – Stepping Hill.
I was born in Chorlton, attended the grammar school there and recall the day my mother took me for a trip to Stockport on the newly introduced Service 16 on what, to me, was an unusual and interesting single decker with a central exit/entrance. Manchester had no such curiosities (the Royal Tiger ‘Crush Loaders’ with their central doors were still years away and the single deck Leyland (TS5?) used on Service 22 Levenshulme – Eccles was a back loader of sorts.
Little did I know then that I should have the thrill of driving a Royal Tiger on Service 22 myself some 12 or 13 years hence!
All this underlines my love of anything relating to Manchester buses from the period 1958 to 1989 when I finally put my pen away and began drawing my pension. Having worked alongside John Hodkinson in Devonshire Street’s Traffic Office, I was delighted to see his contribution on the piece about jointly operated Service 95/96. In fact it was this that prompted to make contact.
Above is the shiny new Atlantean 3629 at Parker Street on it’s maiden outing, it had spent many weeks in Birchfields Road Garage with the rest of the delivery whilst Union issues were resolved. I remember seeing them there, looking so forlorn, becoming increasingly covered in dust as the weeks dragged by. They had to be put through the wash before going on the road!

Photograph and Copy contributed by David Cooper


10/07/14 – 07:12

David, your piece has brought back many memories of the period when the Evening News had regular articles on the dispute (allegedly sought by management by detailing the vehicles for Northenden depot routes where strong union opposition was expected) and the paper dubbed the vehicles Red Dragons -heaven knows why.
Whilst the majority may have been gathering dust in Birchfields Rd, there were forays driven by management and inspectors. A number of runs were done down Wilmslow Rd during rush hour mornings for some reason, to the bemusement of many a prospective passenger, and one particular day three of the buses were parked at the side of Northenden depot on the public road.
Once the unions and management found agreement the buses entered service on the Wythenshawe routes, then the 50 to Brooklands before moving to Parrs Wood where lower mid panels were often grazed at the tight left turn at the bottom of the ramp!
If I can help with info about the 16 please ask.

Phil Blinkhorn


10/07/14 – 09:55

David I worked with John 1973 – 1975 at Princess Road Depot. Princess Road Depot like so many of the old Manchester Corporation/City Transport depots now gone.

Stephen Howarth


10/07/14 – 11:31

It’s a small world. I too worked with John Hodkinson briefly whilst a Schedules Clerk at Frederick Road, Salford in 1972/73. There were five of us in the Schedules Office – David Broadbent in charge, John, Peter Caunt, George Boswell and myself. I was the lowly junior, the only ‘foreigner’, who commuted every day across from ‘the dark side’ of the moors in Halifax. Incredibly all five of us were enthusiasts, with yet another – the late Keith Healey – working downstairs, it was a wonderful atmosphere to work in – sometimes it seemed more like a hobby than a job. I then took up the position of Traffic Clerk with the Corporation in my home town. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but it was the complete opposite of what I had experienced at SELNEC and boy did I quickly come to regret it!

John Stringer


10/07/14 – 14:05

I’ve done that more than once, John, with both musical and teaching posts. When I’ve arrived at the new job, it’s been a poison chalice. "Beware of what you wish for ….."

David Oldfield


11/07/14 – 06:55

John and I have exchanged notes of our experiences in the Halifax Traffic Office. In 1964 I travelled 200 miles to take up that job, but the atmosphere was such that I quit within two years. That was 10 years or so before John gave it a go, so it shows how deep seated was the malaise in the place. The Halifax GM might have been a ‘character’, but the tunnel vision at senior subordinate levels was utterly dispiriting.

Roger Cox


11/07/14 – 06:55

There were also a couple of times when I went out of the frying pan etc………………..also!

Chris Hebbron


11/07/14 – 06:56

Phil, such intimate knowledge of the entrance to Parrs Wood Depot via the ramp suggests to me that you might have had personal experience. You have certainly roused my curiosity, or am I barking up the wrong tree?
The early Fleetlines and Atlanteans were, in my view, nowhere near as enjoyable to drive as a back loader.
Most disturbing factor was the relative absence of sound from the engine. It all seemed and of course was, so remote from the ‘sharp end’. And then there was that awful ‘yaw’ (for want of a better word) that resulted from traversing a series of gullies with the nearside wheels. So much easier to control it when driving a conventional bus.
I never got to drive a GM ‘Standard’. Perhaps they had had all the initial quirks ironed out?
Those names from the Frederick Road Schedules Office certainly took me back, John. I worked with almost all those guys at some stage or other, though left Devonshire Street in 1972, returning in 1974 after a sojourn in the Hotel business. John H. could always be relied upon to provide the answers whenever we Mancunians needed to know something with a Salford bias. And I seem to remember he had an affinity with a certain Devon-based coaching operation!!
I could reminisce all night but I can almost hear the yawns.

TWA 520

To close, here is a shot taken at the back of Hyde Road Works of 3520 awaiting disposal. She never looked right to me in Selnec livery but was a fascinating bus to drive – usually on Service 1 – Gatley.

David Cooper


11/07/14 – 11:31

David, my knowledge of the ramp at Parrs Wood comes from regular observation over the period from 1958 to 1965 when I would disembark from what was originally the #1 outside the depot to walk across Kingsway to take the #9,#16 or #80 to home on the way back from school. I also had irregular access to the depot through an friend’s neighbour who was an inspector.

3520 looks forlorn in your photo. It looked at its best when on the #1 in original livery, immaculate as Parrs Wood always turned out its star performers, and sounding more like an RT than a PD2.
A few more observations about this batch of Atlanteans. They were delivered with thin, low back seats which were non standard. The rear wheel discs, standard on new deliveries at the time, were absent – probably to the relief of the fitters. Was Albert Neal compensating for the extra weight of the longer bus and higher passenger capacity in his continual fight to keep costs down? Whatever the reason, the next foray into rear engined buses, Fleetlines delivered in 1962, had standard seats and rear wheel discs. The Atlanteans were re-seated with standard seats from withdrawn Burlingham trolleybuses around 1966.
Some drivers complained about the intrusion of both conductors and passengers into their workspace. Another driver complaint was lack of nearside visibility. There were signs instructing passengers not to stand on the platform area, something many did on back loaders after leaving their seat on approach to their stop, but the habit died hard. A more permanent annoyance for the drivers was the door construction with two part windows in each folding leaf, giving a restricted view to the left – and the doors would not open when in gear. The Fleetlines had full length glass in each leaf.
Schoolboys quickly learned where the emergency engine stop was. Located above the bustle on the nearside, it was in reach and many a stop near schools became prolonged until authority in the shape of inspectors and head teachers jointly overcame the problem.
Manchester took a long time to be convinced about the rear engine layout. Combined with the City of Manchester Police’s antipathy to 30ft buses in the city centre, it was nothing short of a revolution when the Mancunian appeared, just ten short years after 3629 and its sisters.

Phil Blinkhorn


13/07/14 – 06:54

Wow, may I join the reunion party please? I also worked at Devonshire Street, with David Cooper, David Broadbent and George Boswell among others. However, I was at the other end of the office, beyond Fred Thomas’s goldfish bowl, wherein he sat smoking his pipe and giggling to himself about the latest traffic absurdity. After three years on the lowest grade I was told that there was no prospect of promotion in the foreseeable future (which I can’t understand now, because we all knew that SELNEC was coming, and that changed everything). Basically it was dead men’s shoes and no-one was thinking of dying, so if you wanted to get on you had to move around. So I moved to Newport, which proved to be my poisoned chalice, and after five months I left the transport industry for good.
The photo of a brand new Atlantean on the 101 stand reinforces a memory I’ll never forget. The 13-year-old me was so gobsmacked by these things that I just stood there while the entire 101 allocation came and went and the first one came back again. I suppose I could have got on one, but I had no idea where Greenbrow Road was.

David, you may like to look at www.sct61.org.uk/index/operator/mn

Peter Williamson


13/07/14 – 09:26

Hi All! Maybe this page should be titled "Old Boys Club"!
Comments have referred to the ramp into Parrs Wood. When the guard-walking-in-front-of-the-bus type smog used to come down, the garage staff used to keep one bay clear inside the depot so the cars that had faithfully followed the bus to find their way home, found themselves inside the depot instead and needed to get out!

John Hodkinson


13/07/14 – 18:22

Peter, that SCT.61 site was new to me (I don’t get out much these days!) and I found it totally absorbing – rather like ‘The Manchester Bus’ but with the superfluous bits left out. Many thanks.

David Cooper


14/07/14 – 07:46

Here’s a link to how 3520 looks nowadays – much happier but evidently suffering from delusions of Hyde Roadness. www.flickr.com/photos/

Peter Williamson


14/07/14 – 09:53

Apart from the blinds, that could be 3520 on any day of its first couple of years in service.

Phil Blinkhorn


14/07/14 – 17:25

Like John I had a "couldn’t believe my eyes" moment when I first saw an Atlantean. It was an exciting day in 1960. I had just passed my "eleven plus" and as a reward my mum bought me my first "Combined volume" loco spotting book. We made the purchase in the city centre when changing buses en route to visit relatives. We just missed the #101, which was one of the usual 44xx Daimlers so we stood waiting for the next one, which turned out to be my first sighting of an Atlantean. On seeing the flat front, my first thought was "How did a trolleybus get away from the wires?" but then I noticed the number – 3627 – so it was obviously a Leyland. And we were going to ride on it, two bits of excitement in one day! I couldn’t wait for our return journey that evening, but to my great disappointment it was just another CVG6. A few weeks later we made another visit, riding on 3630 and 3628, but after that they disappeared from the #101.
In the autumn of 1963 I noticed an occasional Atlantean running through Middleton, my home town, with "special" on the blinds. These were driver training runs before the batch was transferred to Queens Road Garage, at first on the #163 but soon moving to the #121. I became a regular traveller on the #121 in the school holidays, just for the pleasure of riding on these buses. I always went for the inward facing front seat, which offered not only good forward vision but also a chance to watch the driver.
In later life, some of the batch had minor differences. 3621 had "LEYLAND" spelt across the rear bonnet in separate letters (I believe this one also had an O.680 engine at one point), 3626 had a much newer steering wheel with a slightly different design, and our friend 3629 was only a 77 seater while all the others seated 78, the difference being the inward facing front seat which was a treble on most of the batch, but a double on 3629. Finally, 3624 was the only example to receive Selnec livery.
Eighteen months later Queens Road Depot got the first of the PDR1/2 Atlanteans (3721-35) for the #163, but these were very different sounding, thanks to their Daimler gearboxes.

Don McKeown


 

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

 


 

Southend Corporation – Leyland Titan – CJN 438C – 338

CJN 438C

Southend Corporation
1965
Leyland Titan PD3/6
Massey H38/32R

This picture was taken sometime in the early seventies at what is now to me an unknown location in Southend, it shows No 338 CJN438C one of a batch of twelve Leyland PD3/6s with Massey H38/32R bodywork delivered in April 1965 after Massey had changed to a severe upright front profile in stark contrast to it’s very curvaceous shape although personally I liked the upright look, so I imagine my view of most modern vehicles is quite obvious but then like most people who use the site live in the past like me.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave


07/07/14 – 07:59

I agree, Dave, that the upright front end looks better than those exaggeratedly backswept Massey front profiles of earlier days. Wonderful contrast in seating capacity (70 and 34) between this Southend Titan and the magnificent Thornycroft posted by Pete Davies, yet the overall lengths differ by only five feet or so. Each, in its way, a very handsome bus.

Ian T


07/07/14 – 08:00

I had just been riding on ex-Ramsbottom no 8, an East Lancs bodied PD3/4, at Peterborough Bus Rally when I got home and opened up this superb shot. The sounds of the O.600 engine and ‘solid’ gearchanges still ringing in my ears. Sheer bliss!
I can’t make my mind up whether I preferred the curvy Massey front or this upright version but whichever front they had Massey bodies always looked so solid and well built. The Southend livery is a classic too, a lovely shade of blue.
Thanks for the post it has really made my day.

Philip Halstead


07/07/14 – 08:02

CJN 435C

I don’t know a lot about this vehicle (CJN 435C) only that my boss borrowed it for me for driver training at Midland Red North it was in beautiful condition and must be a preserved vehicle. Around about 1994.

Michael Crofts


07/07/14 – 10:17

This batch of superb vehicles were delivered during the time when I was regularly on Leeds – Southend Airport tour feeders for Wallace Arnold. I had already fallen in love with "The County Borough" and the Corporation’s glorious and fascinating fleet, but these buses really were the bees’ knees. Avoiding that possibly exclusive word "favourite" I’m sure that these must be amongst the most handsome and well proportioned "back loaders" of all time.

Chris Youhill


07/07/14 – 15:50

I think there is scope for confusion in respect of what is meant by a ‘curvy’ Massey body. In the photograph linked to below, the right-hand vehicle has one of the the most curvy Massey bodies produced, these were current late 1940s to mid-1950s. The vehicle on the left has a body which isn’t quite so curvy, this style was current mid-1950s to mid-1960s – but it’s still more curvy than the upright style shown above, produced in the very few years from the mid-1960s until the end of Massey production.
These two additional buses are also from Southend, one of Massey’s most regular customers. www.sct61.org.uk/ss307b

David Call


07/07/14 – 15:51

I think that the curvy Masseys look dreadful, but I agree with everyone else that these "upright" versions look rather special.

David Oldfield


08/07/14 – 07:30

Massey seemed to increase the ‘curved back’ angle for lowbridge bodies more than they did on highbridge versions. The Daimler in the photo linked above is a good example. I don’t recall any lowbridge versions being built with the ‘upright’ front but stand to be corrected. By the time the upright design was introduced lowbridge (ie sunken gangway type) buses were pretty rare.

Philip Halstead


08/07/14 – 07:30

Thanks for your thoughts in respect of this and my posting of the Portsmouth Thornycroft, Ian. I was more familiar with the Massey double deckers of Morecambe & Heysham than the more upright version seen here.
I have a (bought) slide of an A1 Service Fleetline with a Massey body of the same era, "B" suffix. It seems to me to be more reminiscent of the MCW offering. At least we should be thankful it isn’t like the Park Royal which Southampton had on PD2, PD2A and Regent V chassis!

Pete Davies


08/07/14 – 07:31

David O, I have to totally agree with your comments about the Massey bodies. This upright style I would probably rate as my joint 3rd favourite style of half-cab double decker. As a patriotic Yorkshireman 1st has to be the early 1950’s Roe bodies,2nd the ECW on Bristol K chassis & joint 3RD the postwar Lelland

Keith Clark


08/07/14 – 07:32

These buses had red steering wheels to denote that they were highbridge and therefore banned from certain routes.

Philip Carlton


08/07/14 – 07:32

I enjoyed the ‘spot the difference’ contest between these two photos of the upright Massey bodies – I much prefer these to the dated curvy style, even though I used one of the latter as my wedding transport.
The difference is, of course the London Transport stencil holders, which remained on this batch of buses after their hire to Croydon Garage to work route 190 Thornton Heath – Old Coulsdon in 1975. I think that Southend felt that they were some sort of badge of honour and the stencil holders remained on these buses, i think, to the end of their days, despite serving no purpose back home.

Petras409


08/07/14 – 07:33

The intermediate style of post-war Massey bodywork (as displayed by Southend 307 in the above linked picture) was available to the end of Massey production, concurrent with the more upright style. Very few operators took the upright style – Chester, Wigan, and Birkenhead spring immediately to mind as users, in addition to Southend.

David Call


08/07/14 – 08:00

The link given by David Call does not compare like with like. Both vehicles depicted are the lowbridge type, which had a more exaggerated curvature to the frontal profiles than the corresponding highbridge versions. Alan Murray-Rust’s OBP gallery ‘Massey Bodies with Independents’ includes examples of the later highbridge design before the introduction of its upright successor. Personally, I prefer the older style – the upright type has an air of ungainliness that is absent from the classic East Lancs design that Southend turned to for its last PD3s. Massey were very late entering the rear engined bodywork market – the first examples of the firm’s new design entered service with Maidstone in January 1967 – but the initial concept must have been drafted much earlier. I think that the upright design for front engined chassis was conceived to allow a degree of commonality of components with the rear engined body. These Southend PD3s travelled far beyond the borough boundary. From September 1975 they appeared from Croydon Garage on London Transport service 190 (originally a Croydon Corporation tram route as far as Purley) between Thornton Heath High Street and Old Coulsdon. This was at a time of market domination by Leyland, when the entire bus industry was suffering late deliveries of new vehicles and severe shortages of spare parts. LT hired ten PD3s on a rotational basis from Southend, the vehicles being returned to their owner for maintenance. The drivers ’lucky’ enough to be trained to drive the clutch/synchromesh gearbox, ‘modestly’ braked Titans must have found themselves in another world entirely from the fully automatic, hydraulically braked Routemasters. I have to say that the PD3 design certainly had the heaviest controls of all the buses I have ever driven.

CJN 434C

MHJ 347F

The pictures show Massey bodied CJN 434C and East Lancs MHJ 347F at South Croydon en route to Old Coulsdon. When LT finished with these buses they passed on to London Country, who based them at Harlow Garage. (Some of the drivers’ comments that I heard cannot be repeated on a family site like OBP.) It is a tribute to the indestructability of the PD3 that it survived some pretty unsympathetic treatment in unfamiliar hands. London Country finally ended the hire arrangement at the end of January 1977. One aspect of this tale that intrigues me is how Southend (and Maidstone as well – between six and nine Atlanteans were on loan to Chelsham Garage in 1977)) should have so many buses surplus to requirements that it could hire them out to others.

Roger Cox


08/07/14 – 11:10

Petras 409 – I’ve often, over the years, reflected wryly on the displeasure that the London Transport "pre-selector" chaps will have expressed when driving the excellent PD3s. Similarly just after the War when borrowed Bristol Ks and LT’s own new Leyland PD1s appeared – ah, I’m going into happy memories now of the glorious PD1s – Yorkshire ex Bristol and ex Lancashire examples which gave me so much pleasure both privately and in my career.

Chris Youhill


08/07/14 – 11:11

A friend of mine who was an operator of high end coaches had a saying: I want professional drivers, not steering wheel attendants. This portrays the eternal problems. Leylands, such as these, were definitely engineers buses – solidly built with reliable operation in mind. They were not "drivers" buses – heavy and ponderous with suspect brakes. [Although an enthusiast/enthusiastic driver may take a pride in taming the beast and driving it well.] This could be said of all Leylands up to about 1970 (when power steering was becoming universal, along with better braking systems). On the other hand, AECs were drivers buses – in the words of another operator friend, thoroughbreds. Sadly, thoroughbreds can be temperamental and the wet liner 470s and 590s let the side down in the reliability stakes – and did quite a lot to tarnish the good reputation of AEC. Subsequent engines (505, 691 and 760) regained the old standards, but too late, as many had abandoned ship by then.

David Oldfield


09/07/14 – 07:59

Chris Y is so right when he talks about London Transport’s drivers being wedded to their pre-selective vehicles! Among other cases were the eight brand-new all-Leyland PD1 STD class allocated to Potter’s Bar Garage in late 1946. They replaced some 1929 open-staircase LT’s but, within the month, they had been swapped with Loughton Garage’s almost-as-old LT’s!

Chris Hebbron


09/07/14 – 07:59

Back to the Masseys. I prefer what one commentator was known to call an honest box (shape). I think there is far more class in a Setra or Van Hool than in fussy, curvy coaches just as I am an admirer of the Mancunian, the standard Park-Roe body (1968-1981) and the subsequent ECW/Roe body on the Olympian. All outside our time frame here, but examples of simple classic design.

David Oldfield


09/07/14 – 07:59

In my own defence perhaps I could make the point that I was trying to show that there were various degrees of ‘curvy’ Massey bodies. The fully sweptback style I think only featured on lowbridge bodies, highbridge of the period having much the same sort of profile as the mid-1950s to late-1960s style. In respect of the latter, I’ve never been conscious of any great difference in the rake between highbridge and lowbridge models.

David Call


09/07/14 – 07:59

I wonder if being a "drivers bus" equates to "being popular with drivers" though. Certainly I read in one of the many articles/books by that recent great loss to the transport world, Geoffrey Hilditch, (not sure which one though) that at Halifax it was custom to keep a Regent V conspicuously parked in the depot doorway, as a warning to any crew asking for a changeover, presumably from a PD2 or PD3, that that would be the vehicle they would be given as a replacement. Or was it just as in so many fleets, the minority vehicle type tends to be less popular? I would imagine noise levels in the cab of any synchromesh Regent V or Renown would be pretty high which some drivers probably did not appreciate.

Michael Keeley


12/07/14 – 06:44

The practice of leaving an even more unpopular replacement vehicle in a conspicuous place was not restricted to Halifax. I’m sure I’ve read of the practice elsewhere and certain that Charles Baroth used the same deterrent at Salford, even on the trams.

Orla Nutting


12/07/14 – 09:11

Having undesirable vehicles available for changeovers was a practice which was widespread. Towards the end of my stay with Burnley & Pendle it was accepted that if your vehicle needed to be changed, the replacement would be a Bristol RE, which was not only the oldest type in the fleet, but compared poorly with the contemporary standard. Didn’t this practice deter drivers from reporting bona fide defects?

David Call


14/07/14 – 07:50

It’s good to see the Massey and East Lancs versions together like that. I agree that the East Lancs is more elegant, but it’s also more bland; the Massey has more character. For some strange reason they put me in mind of the difference between dark chocolate and milk chocolate. I prefer dark –
I prefer the Massey.

Peter Williamson


14/07/14 – 09:49

Compare the Massey body to that of Manchester’s 3520 in the current thread about Manchester’s 3629. In 1958 Manchester wanted more upper deck space and had Burlingham straighten and tone down their somewhat over curvy design and came up with this elegant design – which looked far better on the Leyland chassis than the Daimler version. Massey seemingly followed suit.

Phil Blinkhorn


02/01/15 – 09:16

The top picture of 338 I believe was taken in London Road Southend, just by Victoria Circus. The bus is heading west (it is a 3A to Canvey Island). Buses don’t use that part of the road any more since the road behind this bus has now been pedestrianised and a bypass (Queensway) was built just to the north.

Brinic


16/01/15 – 08:28

CJN 436C

CJN 436C_2

CJN 436C._3

Photo of CJN 436C at Castle point Open Day, also two photos of the same vehicle as a playbus

Brian Pask


18/10/15 – 07:45

I was delighted to see the photograph of Southend 335 (CJN 435C) at Midland Red North’s Cannock Depot. My introduction to the Massey Highbridge PD3s was when one picked me up on my way to school when first introduced in 1965 and made an impression with that smell of ‘newness’. Nineteen years later a friend encouraged me to help at the Castle Point Transport Museum on Canvey Island and I found myself helping to extract a stripped vehicle from the rear of the building ready for the collection by the scrap merchant. Once it had been moved an old friend was revealed – 335 – and I asked what was happening to the ‘Old Lady’ sadly down on her luck. The answer was blunt – she would be leaving for the scrap yard once the other vehicle had left. When I mentioned my memories of 335 and her sisters the owner offered to sell at scrap value if I was interested – and in a moment of madness I agreed.
Within a month 335 was removed from the rear of the building and tucked-up inside the Museum. Progress was slow and the engine was found to have a defective block. In the July of 1986 my dad, who had been helping me, suddenly died and my wife and I decided 335 would be rebuilt in memory of dad. The rebuild was extensive with the bodywork undertaken by Roy Hawkes – including new rear platform, staircase, stress and external panels. At that time was working part-time for Southend Transport and had got to know Chris Hilditch who was Chief Engineer as well as other senior staff. With the bodywork renewed I offered the mechanical overhaul, repaint and seat re-trimming to Southend Transport. I remember the day she was towed from Canvey to Tickfield Works in plain aluminium finish and the greeting the ‘Old Lady’ was given on her arrival. Chris made me a promise and he kept it. On the first anniversary of dad’s death, with the engine from a Portsmouth PD2 installed, 335 made her first test run. At the following Canvey Open Day she worked on the Shuttle Service crewed by Southend Transport Drivers. Chris moved to Midland Red North and 335 fitted the bill to retrain drivers with automatic licences to drive stick motors. She did two periods of duty at MRN but also had a spell with Southend when her sister, by then on loan as a trainer, was in the works. After regaining her PSV status she worked for the late Brian Smith of S & M Coaches on school contracts until rear-platform vehicles were phased-out. She also spent time at Mangapps Railway Museum at Burnham-on-Crouch. Unfortunately the on-set of arthritis meant it was becoming difficult to drive her and a friend, Carl Ireland, stored her for me where she caught the eye of a French gentleman. After a fresh repaint she came south for the Canvey Open Day allowing me a last opportunity to drive her before crossing the Channel where she was well looked after. Eventually she returned and was gutted to be a Playbus in the Southend area. After that I quit ‘bus preservation but I have been told she is back in preservation and would be delighted to hear how she has fared. I cannot recall the year I sold her but it must have been around 1989.

Frank Spence


28/10/15 – 07:04

Many thanks to Frank for having preserved this bus and to the snap a photo of old 335, it really was a magnificent effort to get her back to better than new standard about 1987 and I was to leave Southend in 1988 to join MRN, I saw this vehicle as above in the yard of Cannock and recognised it immediately, I had a bit of sleeplessness as I was really worried about how much it cost Frank to have the bus rebuilt at professional fees even doing the best I could, I do hope the vehicle survives and what a waste to turn it into a playbus the interior was done in original style by Seph our trimmer in original new moquette.
Good luck I hope it survives I too would be pleased to here how it goes on.

Chris Hilditch


04/05/16 – 06:23

I was delighted to see Chris Hilditch’s response to my notes on Southend Transport 335. He was very supportive of my efforts to return the Old Lady to her former glory and that enthusiasm extended to everyone in Tickfield Works. I was fortunate to be on Southend Transport’s part time driver panel so I was able to come and go at the Works whenever I wanted to monitor the progress and discuss directly with the staff any issues. Even the spiders in the deepest recesses of the stores were disturbed as odd PD3 parts were discovered. When 335 was stripped to become a playbus the seats survived and found their way into her sister, Lulu, as she was returned to her former glory by new owners.

Frank Spence


28/02/17 – 06:11

The Top picture is in London Road, Southend virtually opposite what was at the Time ENOC’s Southend Depot. Behind the bus is Southend Victoria Circus & an area nicknamed ”Cobweb Corner” in Tram & Trolleybus days due to the high amount of Overhead wires. I remember Chris Hilditch wayback when I was at ST in 1986 as a 18 year old handyman-31 years later I part-run a Bus & Coach company in Rochford with 3 Routemasters.

James Sadd


13/08/17 – 07:41

Glad I stumbled on this site! CJN 436C (Lulu2 above) was sited in the grounds of Darlinghurst School for a while and somewhere along the way was bought by my father, Don Hebden who was Duty Crew at London Road. 436 arrived in Tickfield and stood there for a number of years. Eventually it was sold to someone in the Worthing area, I believe. My dad reported that with a bit of attention, it started up and ran OK and was then driven to Worthing under its own steam! I actually heard it running as my dad’s mobile phone made a "pocket call" to mine part way through proceedings! I have a photocopy of the log book somewhere which I found when clearing out his paperwork after he died. Greetings to Chris Hilditch, too – fellow piper in SSPB!

Mike Hebden


CJN 438C Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


02/11/18 – 07:34

CJN 435C

I came across this publicity shot of Southend 335 (copyright unknown), which now resides at PenYBanc Farm, not too far away from where I now live in West Wales. It has been converted to an upmarket camper van, although it is stationary on site. From previous comments, it seemed that 335 was well on the way to being preserved in running condition. Anybody know what happened? I will have a look at the bus at some time and get some more photos.

David Field


 

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

 


 

East Kent – Leyland Tiger – CFN 104

East Kent - Leyland Tiger - CFN 104

East Kent
1948
Leyland Tiger PS1/1
Park Royal C32R

CFN 104 is a Tiger PS1/1 from the East Kent fleet. She has Park Royal body, listed as C32R. It has been discussed at length on these pages in the past, but I find it annoying that the vehicle clearly has a door, but the standard PSVC terminology doesn’t mention the feature. She is seen in the shot above at Amberley on 13 September 2009.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


02/07/14 – 11:02

To my eye the best-looking of all postwar coaches: straight waistline, restrained curvature elsewhere, radiator unashamed to be what it is, perfect choice of colours in simple livery. But I still wish that Leyland had offered a 5-speed box for the PD1/PS1; I’m not sure whether the advertised prewar 0.77:1 bolt-on overdrive (does anyone know of any actual examples?) was still available after the war. I suspect not.
Thanks for the posting, Pete.

Ian T


02/07/14 – 17:57

Quite simply, a glorious dignified classic vehicle – today’s designers and marketing gurus please note. What I would give to drive this wonderful vehicle for a good distance, or at all !! I must say that I was unaware of an optional overdrive (or "super top") being offered on the prewar range, and no doubt such a fitting would have given the vehicles a higher top speed with economy, but perhaps Company engineers had some fear of torque issues – just an uninformed thought !!

Chris Youhill


02/07/14 – 17:59

There was always something special about these East Kent coaches, although I only saw a few of them when living in London, with an occasional trip to Dartford.
I love the light paintwork where the side-board is. I seem to recall that the pre-war overdrive unit was not carried forward postwar, Ian. Did they offer two-speed or re-geared rear axle, perhaps?

Chris Hebbron


13/06/17 – 07:31

I was wondering why the writer was surprised that the vehicle in question should not have a rear passenger door.
Thanks for interesting site.

Garth Wyver


13/06/17 – 09:14

Like Ian T, I know of no Leyland Tigers or Titans with an overdrive fitment. I am sure that, had one been available for the PS1, East Kent would have tried it out. The Company had a sizeable fleet of Dennis Lancet buses and coaches, all with the five speed ‘O’ type gearbox, and these, even the pre war four cylinder O4 powered versions, could really fly on an open road.

Roger Cox


15/06/17 – 07:13

In response to Garth’s comment, I was not surprised that the coach has a door with a rear-entrance. I would expect one wherever the entrance is, as in CxxF, CxxC or CxxR. I have never understood the idea which came (I believe in the 1930s) from the PSV Circle and the Omnibus Society that only double deckers should have the RD or R suffix. If you’re doing it for a double, why not for a single? Never mind – I’ve mentioned before in these columns that I’m glad am I not and never have been a member of either group. If I had been, they’d have roasted me for heresy years ago!
Oh, and what a wonderful Captcha code on this RM54

Pete Davies


09/08/19 – 08:52

Please can you tell me why the seats are not side by side but slightly back by about 2 inches? The driver at Tinkers Park was not sure why

Anon


10/08/19 – 07:40

My understanding of the seat situation is that it emphasised the luxury coach aspect of these vehicles. The passenger nearest to the gangway could see past the passenger nearer to the body side more easily for the view out of the windows – "oh! look at that lovely valley / hill / church / pub" or whatever. Otherwise the inside passenger is always having to lean forward, instead of enjoying the luxury seating.
Re the PSV Circle designation of CxxR, without a D for the door; when the codes were drawn up in the 1940’s virtually all rear-entrance coaches would have had a door as standard, to ensure passenger comfort and safety. However vehicles on bus work with a rear entrance were nearly all open platform – doors were exceptional until the mid-fifties, and by no means universal from then. So presumably the PSVC experts decided to only draw attention to the exceptions rather than the regular understood usages of the day. Of course, fashions and designs in coaching and service buses change, so these designations are presumably reviewed by those who decide such things, while trying to be consistent with past practice. I’m not a committee member of PSVC, only just commenting on my observations over the years.

Michael Hampton


10/08/19 – 07:42

At a guess, the offside emergency exit at the front would make it desirable for the seats to be set further back to give sufficient clearance. In contrast the seats on the nearside will be constrained by the rear doorway.
There is no real reason for the seats to be in line and the seat pitches can vary as they are spread out to fit the available space which is likely to be different on each side.

David Beilby


 

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