Copyright Unknown

Tynemouth and District
1938
Leyland Titan TD5
Weymann H??F

More from my youth. 98 was one of eight 1938 forward entrance Weymann bodied Leyland TD5’s delivered to the Northern General subsidiary of Tynemouth and District. They were FT 4496/4503 numbers 96/103. About 1950 in common with many pre war vehicles they were given a new lease of life and re bodied.

Copyright Unknown

100 is seen here with its second body, and you could be forgiven for asking how ECW bodies came to be in a BET fleet? Well in fact they’re Northern Coachbuilders H30/26R. I’m aware of one example of the type that’s still around, NVK 341 is a beautifully restored 1950 Newcastle Corporation AEC Regent 111 and has been featured on this site. I don’t know if the doors on the Weymann’s were powered or manual and almost certainly they would not have been equipped with heaters, but they seem to have been well ahead of their time. Does anyone know of any survivors?

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

---

18/12/12 – 16:35

I am not familiar with Northern General, but the forward entrance Weymann body looks very much like the ones mounted on AEC Regent chassis for Midland General in the late 30s. I can remember travelling on one of these about 1953 on the C5 Alfreton to Nottingham route. I don’t think the sliding doors were powered. Trent also had some similar ones, but these were rebodied with conventional rear entrance Willowbrook bodies (lowbridge from memory) around 1950 I think. It’s remarkable to that immediately before WW2 Nottingham had three different operators with forward entrance double deckers – since Barton also had quite a lot of Leylands, some of them rebodies of older vehicles bought second hand. These were not Weymanns however.

Stephen Ford

---

19/12/12 – 07:32

I’m very pleased you mentioned those Stephen because one thing I noticed was that although the Trent and Midland General Regents both dated from 1937 and both were bodied by Weymann, they were somewhat different. The MGO bodies were basically same as the Tynemouth example above. The Trent examples had an odd, longer length second window bay which resulted in a much shorter rearmost side window on both decks. Also, the bulkhead under the canopy had a single window on the MGO vehicles whereas on the Trent ones, there were twin windows. So, it would seem that Weymann had more than one front entrance double deck design in production at the same time. It makes you wonder why certain operators preferred such subtle differences.

Chris Barker

---

19/12/12 – 07:32

Some very nice views there, Ronnie!

Pete Davies

---

19/12/12 – 08:45

Weymann were renown for their metal framed bodywork and classic designs. Pre-war, there were three separate products – Flexible, Coachbuilt and Metal. Coachbuilt approximated to the composite framework used by Charles H Roe up to 1968. The featured body is a composite body. Mansfield District/Midland General had both composite and metal bodies in the pre-war period.

David Oldfield

---

19/12/12 – 13:39

The first photograph – that’s an original, right ?

After classic coaches, the second love of my life is the amber nectar….I’m not a historian, but genuinely amazed that Carlsberg existed all those years ago and, even more amazement, they hoped to sell it in the North East in competition with Newcastle Brown !!

Stuart C

---

20/12/12 – 08:05

Stuart, according to the encyclopaedia website, that brewing company was founded in 1847, and now controls a fair number of brands. The list might make you weep into your drink but includes Tetley and Scottish & Newcastle . . .

Pete Davies

---

20/12/12 – 09:39

An equally surprising ‘brewing’ fact is that lager, per se, was so popular in an era when most folk seemed to drink ale, porter or mild and bitter. I’ve seen pre- 1914 adverts on trams for Tuborg lager and one, dated 1908, for ‘Alsopp’s British Lager’ To me, lager seemed to take off in the late 1950’s.

Chris Hebbron

---

20/12/12 – 09:43

Presumably you stuck your Carlsberg on a boat and just headed west. Do you notice that they were anxious to explain that Lager (or Pilsner if you not sure what to call the stuff although it was always a long way from Pilsn) was not just a cold summer drink…? They succeeded!

Joe

---

21/12/12 – 07:27

Unusual to see a bus that looked so good in both incarnations, though for sheer character I go for the front-entrance original. The nice lining-out and dignified fleet name are a fine finishing touch. Did Northern Coachbuilders build these ECW lookalikes on licence, or to order, or simply as the sincerest form of flattery? Their own designs always look very good to my eye as well.

Ian Thompson

---

21/12/12 – 10:40

Ian. An ECW man was enticed to NCB just before NCB’s major shareholder died and they were landed with crippling death duties which did for the company. This body is closer to ECW’s original than the Newcastle Regent III – which has slightly odd (uneven) bay spacing.

David Oldfield

---

22/12/12 – 14:55

I can remember seeing these front entrance double deckers on the Blyth – North Shields Ferry service 7 as a small boy around 1949-50 an once did a return trip on one accompanied by my aunt. These were very different to the usual AEC Regents allocated to this route.

Gerald Walker

---

07/11/14 – 06:19

I have enjoyed looking at the old photos I worked at Percy Main from 1963 until 1969 but I can not remember Ronnie Hoye but you sure know your buses.

Ray 33323

---

07/11/14 – 15:39

Ray, do you have a Brother called Brian, who was a fitter at Percy Main?

Ronnie Hoye

---

14/10/20 – 07:04

Regarding Ronnie Hoye’s observation on the re-bodying of Leyland TD5’s, I think he is wrong on this occasion. According to lthlibrary.org.uk they were given ECW bodies well before NCB came out with the new 8ft wide design in 1949/50. Below is the text pasted from the LTHL site.

"1938 Leyland TD5 No. 96 (FT4496) with original Weymann 55-seat forward entrance bodywork. It was re-bodied in 1948 by ECW with a 53-seat rear entrance body. (LTHL collection)."

Ray Jackson

---

16/10/20 – 06:10

Ray, I believe you are correct, In the Venture book about Northern Coachbuilders there is a photograph of one of these rebodies, that of FT 4500, complete with ECW makers label in the destination box. The photo is included to afford a comparison between the two products, ECW and NCB but it provides conclusive proof that the Tynemouth AECs were indeed bodied by ECW.

Chris Barker

---

17/10/20 – 06:19

That these vehicles were rebodied by ECW is confirmed by PSV Circle publications, which give the body numbers as ECW Series 2 nos. 2973-2980 (not in order) with 2973-6 being new in 10/48 and 2977-80 new in 12/48. However, there seems to be a doubt as to their seating. Fleet History PA6, which covers Tynemouth and District gives the seating split as L27/26R, although that is clearly wrong, as these were highbridge bodies, while Body List B1205 states that they were H30/26R, which was standard for this style of body. As the body list is a much more recent publication, it is, perhaps, more likely to be correct.

John Gibson

---

17/10/20 – 06:23

Before giving the wrong answer, Ronnie invited the question as to what ECW bodies were doing in a BET fleet, and that still stands. The answer is that the rebodying was completed by the end of 1948, and therefore would have been ordered long before ECW sales were restricted. Other non-Tilling operators for whom ECW were building at the time were Middlesbrough Corporation, Birch Bros and the Red & White group.

Peter Williamson

---

19/10/20 – 06:10

Following up Peter Williamson’s comment about ECW bodies supplied to non-Tilling companies, a quick trawl of "Bus lists on the Web" also shows substantial numbers of rebodying work on TD chassis for East Kent and Ribble, while Southdown took a batch of 25 PS1s with C31F bodywork, and Western Welsh took 62 PS1 with B35R bodywork, all in 1947. 4 similar buses went to Isle of Man Road Services in 1948. Southdown 1249 is seen at Bognor Depot in 1972 after conversion to a mobile left luggage office; IOMRS 57 in withdrawn condition at Ramsey in 1968.

Alan Murray-Rust

---

20/10/20 – 06:28

Not forgetting the batch of ECW bodied Leyland PD1s delivered to North Western in 1948 which were, in effect, lowbridge versions of the Tynemouth re-bodies, seen above.

Chris Barker

---

27/10/20 – 05:46

North Western was a rather different case, having been a Tilling company until 1942 and having not yet been forced to change its vehicle policy. Like some other Tilling companies, at that stage it only bought PD1s because Bristol could not build enough Ks to meet the demand.

Peter Williamson

---

29/10/20 – 06:15

A further comment on these rebodies, I recall them being used on service 5 between Newcastle and Whitley Bay (Cemetery). Tynemouth seemed to allocate batches of vehicles to specific routes. Another batch of vehicles were AEC Regents with NCB bodies of the earlier pre-ECW look-a-like design, these being used on service 7 between North Shields Ferry and Blyth, while my earliest memory of service 4 (Whitley Bay to Gateshead) was of the Pickering bodied Guys. That route, which was later renumbered 1 seemed to be allocated batches of new vehicles displacing earlier vehicles to other routes. I have a vague recollection that the1955 batch of Weymann Orion bodied Guys were initially used on the 1/4 before ending up on the 5 replacing the TD5s, not as far as I was concerned a change for the better.

John Gibson

---

01/11/20 – 06:03

John, the Weymann Orion bodied GUY Arabs (two batches of them) were sturdy and robust, typical of GUY’s.
That said, the bodies were rubbish, and soon gained the nickname of Rattletraps.

Ronnie Hoye

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1923
Leyland A13
Leyland B26

As photography is my hobby I have been busy restoring the old family photographs and I came across the above shot of my father and the bus he drove, he is the tallest person in the photo, I hope the photo maybe of interest to you. During the First World War my father was trained as a Heavy Lorry Driver and below is his War Office Warrant Card. He was always thankful for the Army as it had taught him a trade.

 

In the 1920’s a Bus Driver had to have a good mechanical knowledge in case the bus broke down, if it did he had to repair it himself, there was no AA in those days to get you going again. The route was Hull & Sutton.

 

Photographs and Copy contributed by Malcolm Burnard

---

09/12/12 – 15:49

Now! You do not see many shots of these on the internet, especially one of such good quality. You obviously take your hobby very seriously. Thank you for posting it.

Trevor Knowles

---

09/12/12 – 16:43

A super high quality photo, for which many thanks.
Can any of the EYMS chaps identify the vehicle as I cannot make out the reg. That very narrow rear side window suggests it is not a Leyland bodied A13.

John Whitaker

---

09/12/12 – 17:39

On the excellent EYMS website which I’ve mentioned before there is reference to a BT 8773, a 1926 Dennis bodied Dennis 50cwt, acquired with the business of Hull & District Motor Services. Could this be the vehicle depicted? I’m afraid that I’ve personally no knowledge of vehicles from that time, I wouldn’t be able to tell a Leyland from a Dennis or any other make.

David Call

---

09/12/12 – 17:40

The original poster says EYMS 64 Reg BT 8777. Keith Jenkinson’s book on EYMS states that D W Burn of Withernsea took delivery of a new 26 seater Leyland A13 in September 1925 followed by another of the same type in March 1926.He also purchased a Leyland C9 with 26 seats in 1926 and sold all three Leylands to EYMS in October 1926. It may well be that the bus in question is one of the A13’s bought from Burn.

John Darwent

---

To be fair to Malcolm I did the heading to the posting as it looked like BT 8?77 and working from Kieth Eastons fleet list on site I came up with a Leyland A13 originally owned by Noel Tompson of Sutton.

Peter

---

10/12/12 – 07:13

I would certainly support Peter’s identification as BT 8777. The fact that the bus is being used on the Hull-Sutton route is at least consistent, although one would have to know more about EY operating practice to be positive. Looking at the inset photo, there is no doubt that the first and last digits are 8 and 7 respectively, but the other two are less defined. Without the benefit of the EY fleet list, I would have guessed at 8177, possibly 8277. The third character might be a 3, although it would depend on whether local practice used a flat-top or rounded version.
From my less-than-expert point of view, I would also say that the radiator looks like a Leyland type for the period.

Alan Murray-Rust

---

10/12/12 – 07:14

Sorry, I hadn’t looked properly at the close-up of the registration – the final ‘7’ looks pretty definite and I haven’t been able to find a better match. It probably helps that the bus is shown operating between Hull and Sutton, although all respect to John Whittaker’s assertion that the vehicle shown is not a Leyland-bodied A13, of course.

David Call

---

10/12/12 – 08:56

Could well be a Leyland body David, as there were many variations. It just does not shout "Leyland" to me, body wise, but I am easily fooled!

John Whitaker

---

10/12/12 – 09:26

If you look in the top left rear window and use the ‘Ctrl +’ trick you can see the registration, as far as I can make out it is the BT and the last two numbers which look like the down strokes of a seven. I can not make out the first two numbers due to the woodwork. Can you do a blow up of the area.

Trevor Knowles

Don’t forget the ‘Ctrl 0’ to return to normal.

---

10/12/12 – 11:01

I thought you maybe interested in a shot of my father and his Model T Ford it appears to be taken at the same time and location. It’s a bit grainy but the original photo was very small.

Malcolm Burnard

---

11/12/12 – 07:16

Interesting that the bus had pneumatic tyres, by no means common at this time.

Slightly off-piste, but I just love the pose of your father, Malcolm, by his Model ‘T’ Ford. It reminds me of Jacques Tati’s ‘Monsieur Hulot’ and even me, I suspect, showing off my corporal’s stripes HERE:

Chris Hebbron

---

11/12/12 – 07:17

Firstly, apologies, my list is wrong in that BT 8777, was in fact numbered 54 not 64 by East Yorkshire.
The Chassis is definitely a Leyland, and the bodywork has a very striking resemblance to other early Leyland bodies. The destination reading "HULL & SUTTON" would indicate that it did pass to EY from Noel Thompson who was situated in the village of Sutton-on-Hull, it was at that time outside the city of Hull. My information on former owners is not at hand at the moment so I cannot comment on any former ownership of the vehicle. Finally it is good to see such a clear photo of such an early vehicle, well done.

Keith Easton

---

11/12/12 – 10:05

Well that was a bit of a struggle chaps, but it seems a consensus has been reached!

John Darwent

---

11/12/12 – 10:09

One small correction, Malcolm. Both the RAC and AA were providing roadside assistance from their inception (1897 and 1905 respectively) and the RAC campaigned successfully for the abolition of the man with the red flag walking in front of the car. Of course, how many patrols and where they were was another matter. It would certainly be practical for bus staff to be able to carry out minor repairs/adjustments/punctures where needed.

Chris Hebbron

---

11/12/12 – 11:32

Been looking at my dad’s Fleet list. He has 54 as BT 8981 Leyland A13 and 55 as BT 8777 Leyland A13, B26, New 7-23, ex Noel Thompson of Sutton. I am wondering if he has transposed these numbers by accident from another list. Luckily of course he has complete lists of the AT, BT and WF registration cards for the bus and carriers vehicles so it was easy to look in the BT list to see BT 8777 is chassis number 35638 later disposed to Peacock in Hull.[?] Handwritten notes, fun is! Curiously in some of the earlier photos Dad has there are several with staff and buses together, if I have time I will look to see if he is in any of them!
Apologies for another off piste swerve but I also love the Model T Ford, looks like a post 1915 Trafford Park built T. Clue is the black painted radiator. Great cars, electric lights, electric starter. I owned a later Tudor from 1926, not much different to this, no indicators, no brake lights, no speedo, no front wheel brakes! Happy motoring

Matt Gibbs

---

12/12/12 – 07:05

Please find attached a photo of Noel Thompson’s fleet prior to take over by East Yorkshire, buses are left to right: BT 9809, Dennis 2 1/2 ton 29 seats, (EY 53); BT 8981 Leyland A13, Leyland 26 seats (EY 55); BT 8777, Leyland A13, 26 seats (EY 54); the other three are unidentified, but appear to be a Vulcan (possibly BT 7852 EY 52?), and a Ford (possibly BT 8549) plus another totally unidentified.
I would be pleased if anyone could provide positive id’s for these. With regard to Matt’s comment: I took the numbers for 54 and 55 (BT 8981 & BT 8777 respectively) from the PSV Circle publication PB17 (page 7). If Matt has positive confirmation of the transposition, I would be pleased to amend my records.

Keith Easton

---

12/12/12 – 17:18

The fleet numbers of BT 8777 & BT 8981 seem to be causing some confusion, my copy of PB17 show 54 as BT 8777, 55 is BT 8981 & 53 is BT 9809, but one thing I have noticed from all this is that EY must have fitted the ex Thompson vehicles with roof destination boxes as the original photo of 54 shows and I have sent a photo of 53 now fitted with a roof box.

Hope Ian is getting better and I am looking forward to the Bridlington book.

Mike Davies

---

13/12/12 – 06:27

Yes Mike, My copy agrees with that also. With regard to the fleet numbers 49 to 52 which are on my list, none of these numbers have been officially confirmed, and I have a short essay detailing how I arrived at the conclusions I came to. If anyone is interested I can supply a scanned copy of it.
Also may I add my wishes for Ian’s speedy recovery, I was sorry to learn of his illness on the site. (Not to mention his work on the Bridlington book, for all us Bridophiles).
According to Ians book on EY, my photo shows BT 9808, BT 8981, BT 8777, BT 7853, BT 4718, AT 6517 and BT 8549. I hope this is of interest.

Keith Easton

---

13/12/12 – 16:28

Malcolm Burnard’s comment that, in the 1920s, bus drivers had to have a good mechanical knowledge reminded me that, a few years ago, I came across an extract from the Drivers’ Rule Book issued in 1929 by Ribble Motor Services. In the hope that these may be of general interest, here are those referring to mechanical aspects.
Rule 4. Immediately after reporting for duty, drivers MUST obtain wheel-changing equipment (jack, bar and brace).
Rule 21. Drivers must, when coasting, listen for chassis and body noises; these can best be heard when the engine is running slowly.
Rule 22. Ask your conductor to inform you of such items as loose and noisy windows, squeaking pillars, loose and drumming panels, loose floor traps, etc.
Rule 23. Tighten up any bolts etc found to be loose.
Rule 40. Drivers must not, in any circumstances, interfere with or alter the adjustment of the carburettor or magneto, the only exception to this rule being if a bus has completely broken down a considerable distance from any of our garages and one of these two units is suspected. In this case the driver must do what he thinks necessary to get home.
Rule 41. If it becomes necessary to adjust your brakes on the road, make as little adjustment as possible, care being taken to see that the near and offside are adjusted evenly, and after this from time to time all brake drums are to be felt for undue heating. To enable him to fulfil these tasks, the driver was issued with a tool kit, which he was required to have with him whenever on duty. The kit comprised:- bag (1 no), hammer (1 no), punch (1 no), tube spanners (3 no), tommy bar (1 no), pliers (1 no), chisel (1 no), screwdriver (1 no), double ended spanners (3 no), piece of rubber tubing (1 no), 6" King Dick spanner (1 no).

David Williamson

---

14/12/12 – 07:10

David, I’m intrigued about this 6" King Dick spanner, what would it be used for?

Andrew

---

14/12/12 – 10:46

Thx, David, for the 1929 Rule Book extract, bound to bring a smile to our faces in this day and age. It’s a wonder that any bus ran to time in those days. I’ll bet they didn’t provide bath/shower facilities on return from duty.

The 6" King Dick spanner might have been used to beat the conductor with for reporting, endlessly, various rattles and squeaks! Other uses are best left to the imagination! Seriously, I have a couple of their spanners from when my father died, in 1947. KD are a very old company and I was surprised to find it still exists today, although I’ve never seen mention of them.

Chris Hebbron

---

14/12/12 – 16:24

I’m afraid I have no idea of the intended use of the KD spanner, or any of the other tools for that matter. I can’t imagine what a chisel would be used for, for example.
The same Rule Book had some ‘dress code’ rules, which seem rather quaint by today’s standards.
Rule 3. Drivers when on duty must be clean and neat in appearance, courteous in demeanour and language, not lounge about, nor read newspapers.
Rule 9. The wearing of clogs by drivers when on duty is forbidden.
The following items of uniform were supplied:- winter coat (1 no), summer coat (2 no), cap (1 no), cap cover (1 no), brass buttons (15 no). Note that shirts, ties and trousers were not provided by the company. Presumably the brass buttons were attached to the jackets, and the company wanted the same number returned when employment ended, hence they were itemised separately.

David Williamson

---

15/12/12 – 07:43

The brass buttons were quite likely of the type attached by inserting the loop on the back of the button through a small buttonhole and fastening the button with a spring peg through the loop. This meant that the buttons could be removed and polished without the polish being applied to the material of the garment, and also the garment could be washed without putting the buttons through the wash. 15 seems a large number for a single garment, so there may have been enough for both summer and winter coats.

Alan Murray-Rust

---

15/12/12 – 07:43

The rule forbidding the wearing of clogs by drivers persisted in some municipalities until quite late. Halifax Passenger Transport Department had a similar embargo in the mid 1960s, on road safety grounds. Anyone familiar with the traditional wooden soled clog will know that, whatever its qualities may be, proper control of accelerator, brake and clutch is not numbered amongst them.

Roger Cox

---

15/12/12 – 07:44

The mention of a tool kit for a bus reminded me that London Transport provided in the cab of the RT a saw presumably to saw through the life guard. I can not recall any other operator doing this.

Philip Carlton

---

15/12/12 – 11:57

In contrast to Halifax Passenger Transport, neighbouring Todmorden J.O.C. apparently allowed the wearing of clogs (or else turned a blind eye) and it continued with a small number of staff certainly through into the Yorkshire Rider era.

John Stringer

---

29/03/13 – 17:13

When I conducted for West Yorkshire in the early 1960s, "clogging it" was the term for driving a bus at maximum speed, e.g. on the last trip of the day back to town. I remember having difficulty trying to count my change while sat on the rear seat of the bottom deck as the driver clogged a 1937/8 rebodied K5G over potholes and cobbles, of which there were many in Keighley.

Martin S

---

30/03/13 – 07:30

Martin, I too have heard West Yorkshire staff use the term "cloggin’ it", as well as "trammin’ on", "goin’ full pelt", and "goin’ full belt" which similarly related to driving at top speed. The only time I was actually frightened whilst travelling on a bus, was as a thirteen year old on board a WY KSW. I was returning home to Harrogate from school in Bradford, and having a ‘Bradford – Harrogate’ bus pass, decided to break my journey in Otley to look around the bus station and nearby Sammie Ledgard depot. As the KSW was about to turn into Otley bus station, I was descending the stairs, unaware that the driver had suddenly decided to "clog it" around through the middle entrance ready for the return journey to Bradford. The centrifugal force was hair-raising, and I honestly thought I would literally be thrown off the bus. All I can say is that I was glad of the solidity of the handrail and its mountings, and my hitherto undiscovered vicelike grip on same! To add to my predicament, in those days I didn’t even know any decent swear words to use to let the conductor know of my concern!

Brendan Smith

---

07/09/14 – 08:00

The 6" King Dick spanner referred to in the list of tools is an adjustable one, as shown in the attached picture. They were used for bolt sizes not catered for by the 3 ordinary spanners provided, or if two of the same size were required, one to hold a bolt while the other tightened the nut.

Lloyd Penfold

---

08/09/14 – 06:30

Interesting tale, Brendan: whilst many drivers from various companies would clog on a bit on an open road (except Tracky as I suspect the buses wouldn’t) my jaundiced views on Tilling/West Yorkshire (see elsewhere) are coloured, too, by experience of some of their drivers who never seemed to want to be seen by other motorists as Knights of The Road.

Joe

---

17/10/14 – 05:14

I’ve just found Keith Easton’s photo of Noel Thompson’s fleet and recognise it as a different angle to one I have of the same occasion. My view shows vehicles to the right of BT 8777 to be Vulcan BT -983, Atlases BT 5226 – AT 6517 – BT —- and Ford BT 8549.

Steve Thompson

---

17/10/14 – 10:51

Hello Steve. Any chance we can have a look at your photo of Thompsons line up ?

Mike Davies

---

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

---

28/04/16 – 06:49

I’m sat with my Dad looking at the photo in question and will try to send you a copy. However Dad has the following info. Dad thinks Vulcan is BT7093 and belonged to W. Cyril Dixon and the destination is shown as Preston which is where Dixon came from, he was a partner with Noel Thompson. Dad thinks their idea being if they sold out to EY and had more buses/routes they may have got more money from the sale! Dixon owned another bus and possibly there is another photo in the old EY files possibly of this vehicle. Sadly littke is known of the elusive Dixon! Dad seems to remember seeing a photo (prob too expensive sine he didn’t buy it! ) of a ramshackle bus side view and that Dixon is in the photo. This photo of the Thompson fleet was seen on a stall at the Pudsey postcard fair in a large wooden frame for sale? Several years ago. Dad has an excellent scan copy of it but can’t remember who from. Apologies if it was you Keith but I have no access to his files at present.

Matt Gibbs

P.S. he’s thinking of working on a history of the Hessle operators!

Copyright John Kaye

H W Hunter and Sons
1951/2
Leyland Titan PD2/12
Leyland H32/28RD

Standing at it’s terminus in Northumberland Square North Shields, this is one of two Leyland Titans (DJR 681 being the other) from the small independent of H W Hunter and Sons who were based in the Northumberland mining village of Seaton Delaval. The one in the shot above had a closed platform, I’m not sure if doors were fitted, whereas the other Titan DJR 681 was the more common open platform type.
At the same time they had the Titans I’m pretty sure they also had two Leyland single deckers, but I can only trace JR 6600. That started life in 1937 with a Burlingham B35F, but was rebodied by ROE in 1954 as a B39C. Hunters had one route that ran from Seaton Delaval to North Shields via Holywell, Earsdon, Monkseaton, Whitley Bay and Preston Village. From Monday to Saturday it was an hourly service, but rather strangely it was every half hour on Sundays. As well as the service vehicles they also had coaches but I don’t know the exact number, but to the best of my knowledge I don’t think the fleet ever exceeded about twelve vehicles in total. The appearance of this one is nothing special by Hunters standards, they were always immaculately turned out and meticulously maintained, when running, they didn’t tick over, they purred.

DJR 681 – Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

ETY 912 – Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

DJR 681 was about 1948/9 vintage and was defiantly all Leyland, so presumably it was a H30/26R Titan PD2/1 (Edit from a Michael Elliott comment 03/12 it was a PD2/3). The registration for ETY 912 dates it at about 1951/2, it could be an all Leyland as well, but if you compare the two photos there are several differences so I cant say for certain that it is. The window surrounds are rounded off in the corners and have an altogether much softer line about them and the slide vents are totally different. As you can see the platform was enclosed on ETY 912 but I can’t quite make out if doors were fitted.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

---

02/12/12 – 11:10

ETY 912 is an example of the definitive Leyland Farington body which was the the refinement of Colin Bailey’s 1930s design that had already been updated as exemplified by DJR 681.
The Farington first appeared in 1948 but wasn’t greeted with great enthusiasm so Leyland went away, thought again and produced a classic design.

Phil Blinkhorn

---

02/12/12 – 11:11

It’s unfortunate, Ronnie, that you don’t know who built the body on ETY. If someone else had posted the views, with the same uncertainty, I’d have suggested seeking your opinion! Leyland were still building bus bodies when ETY was built – I have gathered from other sources over the years that they stopped in about 1953 or 1954, so it could just be a very late one, with updated details. On the other hand, it could be a clone from Alexander or "Psalmsbury": someone will tell us.

Pete Davies

---

02/12/12 – 11:15

A bit of digging shows that ETY 912 is a PD2/12 with 27ft 6in length fitted with synchromesh gear box and vacuum brakes.
DJR 681 was delivered, according to "The Leyland Bus" in which it is pictured, in 1950. Unfortunately the caption doesn’t state the sub type.

Phil Blinkhorn

---

02/12/12 – 12:01

Among the original quartet of lady drivers at West Yorkshire’s Harrogate depot was a girl called Eileen Hunter who had a North Eastern accent – it might be my imagination, its around forty years ago, but I seem to recall hearing that she was some family relation of Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval. I wonder if anyone knows ??

Chris Youhill

---

02/12/12 – 14:16

It’s interesting, Chris, that you describe the young lady’s accent as North Eastern. I don’t know how true this is, but I have been told that a true "Geordie" is someone who hails from Newcastle Upon Tyne, while others are not "Geordies". Someone from Gateshead, for example, is just someone from Gateshead . . .

Pete Davies

---

02/12/12 – 16:20

Lets not go down that road, Pete, Newcastle was in the County of Northumberland, whilst Gateshead was in Co. Durham, and its a bit like a true cockney being born within the sound of Bow Bells. However, amongst the older generation, people from Seaton Delaval have a very pronounced Northumbrian accent and they roll the letter ‘R’.

Ronnie Hoye

---

02/12/12 – 17:05

Okay, Ronnie. "R" as in Retreat, then!
A Londoner by birth, but definitely not Cockney !!!!

Pete Davies

---

03/12/12 – 08:04

Looking at these glorious photos of the two Hunter’s PD2’s and their Leyland bodies, that on ETY having the characteristic Leyland taper to the front bay of what was to me the ultimate front engine rear entrance body style. I was in raptures over the superb livery of both buses and the obvious care and attention that must have been given to them. Their traditional (outside of this site that is an unacceptable word) style and appearance make todays garish and seemingly uncoordinated liveries of the big groups look even more as though, as was said of the camel, they were designed by a committee.

Diesel Dave

---

03/12/12 – 08:06

DJR 681 was a Leyland Titan PD2/3, new in 1950 with a Leyland H30/26R body. It was built to the then permitted maximum dimensions for a two axle double deck bus of 26 feet long by 8 feet wide (the PD2/1 was 26 feet long by 7 feet 6 inches wide).
During 1950 the Construction and Use regulations changed and the maximum length for a two axle double deck bus increased to 27 feet with the option of 7 feet 6 inch or 8 feet widths. The designations for the Titan incorporating these changes were PD2/10 (7’6" wide) or PD2/12 (8’0" wide). Triple servo vacuum brakes were fitted but it was around this time that Leyland was experiencing problems with its synchromesh gearbox and many PD2s were fitted with the constant mesh gearbox as used in the PD1.

Michael Elliott

---

03/12/12 – 08:08

A true Geordie is someone from the North East but north of the River Tyne. Back to ETY 912, this is definitely a Leyland body but from the design which was the last flowering of the classic Leyland body before Leyland pulled out of the bodybuilding business around 1954. A very attractive final development with inset rubber mounted windows that could have no doubt taken Leyland into the 1960’s if they had not stopped production. It always seemed a strange decision to me to quit while you are well ahead of the game with such a quality design with a strong market following. I did read somewhere that the decision was made because at that time Leyland needed the body shop floor space for lorry production.

Philip Halstead

---

03/12/12 – 10:41

Diesel Dave – Oh how I agree wholeheartedly with you – most of today’s totally meaningless and expensive "liveries" go totally un-noticed by the travelling public and its incomprehensible that the "marketing" fraternity have managed to gain such a stranglehold on common sense – and the railway companies are no better either !!
Michael – I know just what you mean about the PD2 and PD3 "synchromesh" gearboxes having wrestled many a time with their unpredictable "rubbery clunking" – a sad comparison with the "Swiss watch precision" of the glorious PD1 (yes, I’m unashamedly biased as a lover and admirer of the PD1).
Philip – Yes indeed the 27’0" x 8’0" final version of the Leyland body was indeed "the last flowering" and Mr. Samuel Ledgard must have felt a real glow of pride when, less than two months before he died, the arrival of PNW 91/2/3 took our operating area by storm.

Chris Youhill

---

03/12/12 – 13:59

Philip, the reason Leyland stopped bus body building was to concentrate on the production of lorry cabs which were quicker to build than a bus body and thus generated faster cash flow for the company which could both invoice for bus chassis as soon as they were complete and finish trucks more quickly.
In my view it was a great loss to the industry.

Phil Blinkhorn

---

03/12/12 – 14:00

Having spoken to a couple of my former colleagues who ‘like me’ can remember ETY, I still cant say for certain whether or not it had doors. However, the general opinion seems to be that it did, but rather than the conventional 2×2 powered concertina type, they were similar to the two piece manually operated folding version fitted to some of the early Lodekka’s

Ronnie Hoye

---

04/12/12 – 07:12

Leyland probably did need greater capacity for lorry cab production, but I have heard that part of the reason for the cessation of bus bodybuilding was strained industrial relations, bus construction involving more inter craft disputes than cab work.

Roger Cox

---

04/12/12 – 07:13

My favourite Sheffield PD2s were the OWBs with this sort of Leyland bodywork – a true classis despite its slightly anachronistic five bay layout. For many years it was proclaimed as the ultimate Farington but some years ago more knowledgeable folk than I pointed out that, whatever it may be called, it isn’t a Farington. Nonetheless, as Phil said, a great loss to the industry when Leyland gave up on bodywork – especially of this calibre.

David Oldfield

---

04/12/12 – 08:14

I imagine this is the type you mean, David: www.flickr.com/
Very handsome.

Chris Hebbron

---

04/12/12 – 09:14

Certainly is, Chris. Thanks for that. It is the publicity shot made by Leyland, pre-delivery, and is in the experimental green livery which lasted less than 18 months. These were the only buses delivered in green – the whole batch – but many buses and trams were repainted in green (some with darker green bands). There was such an outcry that they were all repainted into cream and blue as soon as possible – the Leylands into the Farington/Roe scheme with more blue than usual. [The Roe Regent IIIs and Roberts trams, also delivered in 1952, were cream and blue.] There is a story, unsubstantiated, that there was so much green paint left over that lamp standards in Sheffield were painted green for many years. [That they were so painted is fact.]

David Oldfield

---

04/12/12 – 11:35

Good story, David, and these stories are often true. Interchangibility is one of the advantages of being a municipal enterprise, although the reverse situation wouldn’t have worked – Striped cream/blue lamp standards; I think not!

Chris Hebbron

---

04/12/12 – 11:37

Roger, there were some disputes as there were at many body builders at the time. Doug Jack, in "The Leyland Bus" states that the decision was to increase space for cab construction and, I understand, years ago when he when he was Director of BL Heritage he always maintained that demarcation disputes were not critical to the decision.
With the de-nationalisation of road haulage under the Tories in 1954, the Leyland and AEC truck building received large numbers of orders and pressure for short delivery.
Apart from the necessity of meeting those orders, bus body building was slowing at the same time as was Leyland’s commitment to what was a slow and more complex process, compared to truck cab building.
No new coach design had emerged since 1950 and the single deck underfloor body of 1951 on the Royal Tiger had not been a success, so much so that the prototype/demonstrator Tiger Cubs of 1952 were bodied by Saunders Roe and Weymann, the integral Olympian had not been bodied in house and neither were the experimental Lowloaders, the contracts going to Saunders Roe and MCW.
Colin Bailey’s classic double decker body had been refined but there is no evidence of a replacement being moved any further than a few sketches.
As a company, Leyland was more interested in engine, drive train and chassis development and no doubt the faster cash flow generated by truck building helped fund the development of the Atlantean and more refined truck and bus gearboxes.

David, the use of the Farington name has long been a matter of debate. The 1948 refinement of Colin Bailey’s design brought in rounded window pan corners, flush glazing on rubber inserts and a number of other refinements, including the elimination of the external belt rails and mouldings below the windows, giving a much plainer and more modern look. This was called the Farington to distinguish it from the immediate post war version of the body which remained on the catalogue.
Production was very limited, partly due to a backlog of orders for the original post war model and partly because reaction to the body was unenthusiastic.
Manchester received some of the last in 1951/2 (3265-3299) which had sliding ventilators in some bays, separately mounted to the rest of the glazing, the lower glazing resembling the shape of the tins a famous brand of processed fish.
That, plus the substitution of metal interior finish for Leyland’s and Manchester’s previous wooden interiors and not least that the ventilators and some panels rattled soon after delivery, gained them the epithet of "Salmon Cans" .
The next incarnation appeared at the 1950 Commercial Motor Show with an example for Leicester based on the newly permitted 27ft vehicle length. This formed the basis of all future Leyland double deck bodies. The rounded windows pans and rubber inserts were retained but the flush mounting, which had received much criticism, was replace by a mounting slightly recessed which found greater favour with the industry and added to the looks of the design.
Double skinning of the roof, all side panels and all metal interior finish completed the changes. This was the true Farington and the Hunter’s bus above exemplifies the breed which most have agreed over the years is a classic.
There was one last version as supplied to amongst others, Manchester, BMMO, Plymouth and the final vehicles which went to Trent. Minor interior changes were made but the the most visible external change was the reduction in depth of the rear upper deck emergency exit windows. These were not officially Faringtons as the name seems to have been dropped from 1952.
Regarding your comment on the "anachronistic" five bay layout, there are proponents on both sides of the debate in both the professional and enthusiast camps.
Six bay construction certainly was anachronistic but the arguments for five bay have more than a degree of sense.
My most detailed information and knowledge comes from three operators, Manchester, Stockport and North Western.
Manchester never bought four bay designs for its traditional double deckers. The reasons I was given many years ago was that five bays gave more rigidity, replacement of glass and damaged body panels was cheaper and one engineer told me that the thinking in the Department was that five bay vehicles looked more "balanced" (tell that to fans of the London RT!). Certainly MCTD went out of their way with their Northern Counties orders to avoid that company’s standard four bay product.
North Western, having had just one batch of four bay Weymann bodied PD2s, quickly returned to five bays with its next PD2 order and Stockport, which could have ordered a five bay version of the Crossley built Park Royal design for its 1958 PD2 deliveries, decided on the standard four bay design but quickly reverted to suppliers offering five bays for all future deliveries.

Phil Blinkhorn

---

04/12/12 – 15:41

Chris, I’m sure those who visited Hillsborough on a Saturday afternoon would have been happy to see blue and cream striped lamp standards in that part of Sheffield

Andrew

---

05/12/12 – 07:20

Good point, Andrew!

Chris Hebbron

---

05/12/12 – 08:05

Continuing the deviation onto Sheffield’s OWB-series PD2/10s, four of these were bought by Oldham Corporation. I thought these looked particularly splendid in their crimson and white colour scheme as seen on 477 at the front. Two of them were repainted (actually in the early days of SELNEC) into the later pommard and cream and still looked good as seen on 475 in the background. This is the vehicle seen in green in the official Leyland photograph linked to earlier and therefore carried four very different liveries in its life.
Taken on 14th February 1970 I can readily identify all the buses in the row behind 475 and what a good rally contingent they would make. The first is an earlier ex-Sheffield PD2/1, almost certainly Oldham’s 465 (LWE 110). Next is the sole remaining PD1/3 246 (DBU 246), then PD2/3 342 (EBU 872) identifiable by its vestigial offside number blind, the last one to retain this. Both of these had Roe bodies. Last and just visible is ex-Bolton PD2/4 472 (DBN 330), meaning that all three principal styles of post-war Leyland DD body are represented in this line-up.

David Beilby

---

05/12/12 – 09:14

Andrew,
with OWLS as the decorative finial, no doubt!!!

Pete Davies

---

05/12/12 – 09:16

Another memory jogged by David B’s Oldham photo. How many Leyland bodies had sliding cab doors? I’d forgotten about that on 656-667 and I’m sure no other Sheffield Leyland bodies had sliding cab doors.

David Oldfield

---

05/12/12 – 11:04

Pity WL was not a Sheffield mark eh Pete?

David Oldfield

---

05/12/12 – 11:58

David, The mark which was really required in Sheffield was LS, then any number ending in 0 in front of WLS reversed, if that could have been reached would have been cherished.

Andrew

---

05/12/12 – 12:00

500 London RTWs had sliding cab doors but, other than the Sheffield PD2s I can’t bring any too mind.

Phil Blinkhorn

---

05/12/12 – 13:54

Certainly would, Andrew – and we all know how much support the OWLS need…..

David Oldfield

---

05/12/12 – 17:35

I cant say that I’ve ever seen one of this type with a sliding cab door. The first to have them in the NGT Group were the Weymann bodied GUY Arab 111’s of 1952, they were also the first 8ft wide vehicles, but the first Orion bodied PD2’s delivered to both Newcastle Corporation and Sunderland District both had hinge mounted doors.

Ronnie Hoye

---

06/12/12 – 07:04

Yorkshire Woollen Guy Arab 1 fleet number 483 was new in 1943 with a Massey utility body was rebodied in 1948 with a Brush body. This bus had a sliding cab door. It has never been explained why this bus gained this body when the rest of the wartime Guys were rebodied by Roe.

Philip Carlton

---

07/12/12 – 06:50

Strange how fallible the memory is isn’t it? I well remember travelling on the two Hunter’s double deckers [I lived in Preston Village] but can’t remember the door arrangement.
The original comment about the Sunday service is not so very surprising when you know that Whitley was a very popular holiday resort in those days, both in and out of season. The buses and trains were well used at the weekends.
I too am sure Hunters had single deckers at the time but sadly do not remember any details.

John Thompson

---

10/12/12 – 08:00

I thought you may find this interesting. Apart from the information on the front the only addition on the back is a Northumberland County Council Archives stamp. Hunters were established in 1926 so the picture was taken the following year, it gives no information as to who the two people actually are, but its not unlikely that its H W Hunter himself standing next to his first bus?

Ronnie Hoye

---

09/01/13 – 10:35

I am certain that ETY 912 did not have doors, and I am certain that there was another single-decker identical to JR 6600.
It was quite common in the area in the 1950s for bus services to be more frequent at the weekend. United service 40, for example, from Blyth to Whitley Bay via Seaton Delaval was every two hours Monday to Friday and every hour Saturday and Sunday. In mining settlements like Seaton Delaval the men would walk or cycle to work in the colliery Monday to Friday, and women would be at home or walk to the Co-op for shopping. Saturdays and Sundays were the days for travelling further afield to visit relatives, go to the cinema, hospital visiting and the like. Hunter’s coped with the extra weekend work by employing part-time staff who worked for NCB during the week. Sometimes on a Saturday the garage would be empty as all four buses and four coaches would be out on the road. Monday to Friday only one or two of the buses would be out.

Paul Robson

---

07/07/13 – 13:57

I used to travel regularly on Hunter’s bus when I lived in Preston Village. It was the only bus to actually run down Front Street.
I can confirm that ETY 912 did not have doors.
The weekday service was every hour from North Shields to Seaton Delaval (departing Northumberland Square at -45 each hour), but for most of the day there was an additional bus between Delaval and Whitley Bay giving a half-hourly service on that part of the route.
The half-hourly through service from Shields ran on Saturdays and Sundays, but I seem to remember on Sundays it only started in the middle of the day. I remember being told the more frequent service was to serve visitors to Preston Hospital.
Hunter’s used hand-written Bell Punch tickets which seemed very odd.

Percy Trimmer

---

20/05/14 – 10:37

Some months ago someone asked if was connection between Hunters of Tantobie in Durham and that of Hunters of Seaton Delaval Northumberland.
Available on ebay is a photo of a Hunters coach of Seaton Delaval showing Flint Hill. I took it that Flint Hill is Durham not Northumberland. Unless the information with ebay photo is incorrect. Anyone know the answer, separate companies?
A photo appears on Leylandleopard ebay listing showing OUP 425D a Vam to Hunters of Seaton Delaval.

Alan Coulson

---

20/05/14 – 16:29

The vehicle depicted in the photo advertised on eBay is OPT 425D, a Strachans bodied Bedford VAM new to Hunter’s of Tantobie in August 1966. It certainly isn’t depicted in Hunter’s of Seaton Delaval livery, so it would appear that the photograph seller simply assumed the wrong operator. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hunters-Seaton-Delaval

David Call

---

21/05/14 – 08:11

David Call. Thank you for your reply. Sorry about incorrect registration detail.

Alan Coulson

---

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

---

13/11/21 – 06:19

Pete Davies (02/12/12): ETY 912 had a Leyland body, and, according to BLOTW, was new in 12/51. The last traditional Leyland bodies (i.e. not including those built at Workington many years later) were on PD2s for Trent, the last of which entered service in 1/55. Leyland stopped taking orders a couple of years or so earlier, but ETY 912 easily made the cut.
The bodies built by Alexander and Samlesbury under contract to Leyland were, with one exception I believe, on PD1 chassis, and dated from 1946-8.

David Call