Old Bus Photos

Leon Motor Services – Leyland Lion – JP 42

Leon Motor Services - Leyland Lion - JP 42
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Leon Motor Service
193?
Leyland Lion LT5A
Northern Coachbuilders UH55C

Over the years there have been many fascinating vehicle rebuilds, many based on sound economics and engineering feasibility, but this one must surely be one of the most bizarre and ambitious. The chassis is a Leyland Lion LT5A, registration number JP 42, which had originally been a Santus bodied coach with Smith’s of Wigan – nothing particularly unusual in that. The Lion LT5A was, though, essentially a lightweight chassis fitted with either a 5.1 litre petrol engine or a 5.7 litre diesel unit – adequate for moderate single deck bus or coach work. Therefore to fit such a chassis with a double deck body seating 55 and, no doubt in WW2, frequent large numbers of standing passengers was, in my view, "pushing it." The photo shows that the small wheels of the light Lion have been retained – hopefully stronger springs were fitted – and the downward slope of the bonnet towards the rear raises the awful spectre of chassis distortion best not thought about. Personally I would have had great trepidation in driving or travelling on this unique vehicle, although normally I was always eager to sample anything new or out of the ordinary – and unique it is said to be as it is believed to be the only centre exit utility double decker ever made, by Northern Coachbuilders or anyone else. The source of the picture, sadly one of poor definition, is unknown to me – but as it was taken in August 1949 what must have been an unwieldy vehicle had at least managed to remain standing for a few years.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill


15/08/11 – 07:45

Wonderful: I can hear it screaming off in first gear and spending the next quarter mile engaging second. Presumably desperate times brought desperate remedies and you don’t get much more desperate than this. Why centre entrance- because of the chassis? I can only imagine that Leon carried large numbers between Doncaster & the RAF stations at Finningley & possibly Lindholme. But why….?

Joe


15/08/11 – 07:49

I’m so pleased you posted this Chris because it truly is a fascinating vehicle. Like the saying goes, desperate situations require desperate remedies and they don’t come more desperate than this! I have a copy of the Prestige volume which contains a similar photo but this one was clearly taken on a different occasion. The view in the book shows it having a large headlamp on the offside and the very small one on the nearside but in this shot, it has lost the offside lamp and the hole has been patched over. In both, however, it has the same hardboard or cardboard repair to the upper deck front window so it would seem that it ran with that feature for some time! Would the centre entrance have been dictated by the fact that it was a single deck and therefore straight frame chassis? although this didn’t pose a problem for later large scale re-bodying of single deck chassis. Was it also the only double deck utility to have doors? These interest me because they appear to hinge inwards yet there is no sign of a handle on the one which is closed, it would have been more logical to have a porch type entrance with doors which pushed outwards but perhaps this was simpler and required less bodywork, also they seem to be quite deep with no recess to clear a step so presumably it must have had just one step with a large stepwell area inside the doors. What a wonderful creation!

Chris Barker


15/08/11 – 13:00

LT5A’s seem to date from 1934, so it was far from new when re-bodied. Is it an austerity body – it seems to have signs, but were any centre-entrance/staircase austerity bodies built in the war?
I wince to see this poor chassis putting up with the burden imposed on it: it’s well-laden here. How it kept going until at least 1949 is a miracle. And no body sag; more than can be said for the chassis, as Chris Y points out!
Is the area it operated in hilly?
Incidentally, I notice that there is still a Leon Motor Services in Doncaster, presumably the same company.

Chris Hebbron


15/08/11 – 13:09

It may be just the camera angle but it looks to have quite a long wheelbase and shortish overhang beyond the back axle, thus not leaving much room for a rear platform and staircase. As the LT5A was usually bodied as a coach to, presumably 27ft a double deck body would be no more than 26ft at this period so this may have something to do with body being centre entrance. However, the door arrangement does seem to be rather unusual. It would certainly have been quite handy had the bus gone on to become a caravan/holiday home!

Eric


15/08/11 – 15:34

Yes Chris H, Leon are still running.

Roger Broughton


15/08/11 – 21:57

The topography is dead flat: if you saw the "preservation" Vulcan bomber on BBC tv on 14/8, that was Finningley (now Robin Hood) Airbase/port.

Joe


15/08/11 – 21:59

Sadly Leon were taken over by MASS in 2004 and the depot at Finningley was closed in 2007 when the bus routes were given to First. The company itself was dissolved on May 26th 2009

Nigel Turrner


15/08/11 – 21:59

My understanding is that Leon sold out to MASS of North Anston some years ago who operated the services for a couple of years and then sold them on to First Group. Has the Leon name been resurrected in some way? I haven’t seen any sign of it on recent visits to Doncaster.

Chris Barker


16/08/11 – 09:03

My mistake, they are still listed on some internet sites but one phone no is now a private house and the other has been cut off.

Roger Broughton


17/08/11 – 07:15

I notice that nobody has picked up on the rather unusual registration number JP 42 because nowadays it would be pounced upon by number plate dealers! In fact it is a correct plate issued by Wigan CC in May 1934 which is quite late for a "two letter" series to start reaching JP 8432 by 1950. What it does do is reveal the original date of the coach which later became saddled with this somewhat ambitious body!
I don’t suppose anybody has a picture of the original vehicle when owned by Smith’s of Wigan..it would be a most interesting comparison!

Richard Leaman


17/08/11 – 07:16

Chris, you ask who might have taken this picture? I thought it looked familiar, it’s featured in ‘Buses Illustrated’ issue no. 84 for March ’62 (orange cover, with a Salford Daimler saloon!) It was used to help illustrate an article entitled "Doncaster Re-Visited", and is credited to none other than the late John C. Gillham. In his wonderfully eloquent style of writing, another one of my schoolboy heroes, Tony Peart, describes it thus in the accompanying article ….. " More interesting still was a double deck Leyland Lion! This had a central entrance utility body by N.C.B., with a regrettable propensity towards catching fire and had run for a long time with a sheet of cardboard in one of the front windows."
Doubtless your instincts were right and you would have done well to steer clear of riding on it had the opportunity ever arisen, but presumably the flames never made it quite as far as the cardboard window!

Dave Careless


17/08/11 – 19:29

"Regrettable propensity towards catching fire" – what a gem of a phrase and with typical British understatement! In its early days, this would have made it a toss-up whether the vehicle succumbed to enemy action before a conflagration! At least the cardboard front window gave an emergency exit front AND back of the upper deck!
As for two-letter registrations, I was in the RAF in mid-1958, in Wigtownshire, Scotland, when they changed from OS9999 to AOS1. I would hardly think they got out of AOS before the whole shebang changed to suffixes in 1963! In London, where I lived then,I’d say they ran out in the 1930’s!

Incidentally, what is known of Santus, who built the original coach body for the vehicle? I’ve never heard of them.

Chris Hebbron


18/08/11 – 08:08

William Santus was a Wigan market trader who also had a coach-building business. This business was dead certainly by the end of WW 2. I seem to remember, from the Venture book, that one of the founders of East Lancs did an apprenticeship with Santus whose assets I believe ended up with one of the more famous Wigan pair (Massey and Northern Counties).

David Oldfield


18/08/11 – 10:04

Santus was fairly common amongst Lancashire Independents. They actually built some service bus bodies for Wigan Corporation on 3 or 4 batches of Leyland Tigers in the 1932-7 period, I think to Leyland design. Anybody know of any more?
I think the Leon Lion is one of the most iconic of all buses for the post war enthusiast, as I remember it well in various publications, notably "Buses Illustrated". Alan Townsin quotes it as the only double deck centre entrance utility body built, and NCB were, of course, designated "rebodying" contractors. There were single deck utility centre entrance bodies in the form of Brush/W4 wartime utility trolleybuses in Darlington and Mexborough.

John Whitaker


18/08/11 – 11:57

Santus were active long after the end of World War Two, surviving to provide bodywork for at least one Royal Tiger in circa 1951. In the late 1940s their half-cab coach design was fitted to most types and was widely seen throughout the Northwest and Midlands (and more rarely further afield).
The firm probably ceased trading because many of its post-war bodies were built with poorly seasoned or otherwise inferior quality timber. Few survived much beyond 1960 although there are a couple of examples which made it into preservation including the well-known Seddon Mk 4 DPR 518.

Neville Mercer


19/08/11 – 06:49

Thx, David/John/Neville (and Richard Leaman who popped up coincidentally with Sanctus information on the Vics Tours (Isles of Scilly) Bedford OB thread!.

Chris Hebbron


20/08/11 – 07:11

On the registration JP42, I believe that JP was the last pair of letters authorised for use based on the original 1904 scheme. By that date, Staffordshire had already started using the three-letter/three-number combinations with ARE/ARF in 1932. I wonder why JP wasn’t issued to them instead? Wigan had previously been allocated EK. Although the history of registration allocations may be different for N Ireland and what later became Eire, JP completed the England Wales and Scotland scheme until c.1960. At that point, the more controversial OO, BF and WC marks were authorised, and quickly used in both forward and reversed formats, with two plus four and three plus three letters / numbers. This was no more than a "quick fix" for Essex and Staffordshire, as between 1963 and 1965, all issuing authorities were required to start using the year suffix (later, prefix) system. Northern Ireland continues to this day to use it’s own interpretation, and the Irish Republic uses an altogether different system since having joined the EU. There was something special though, about looking down a line of, say, standard almost identical PD2’s with Leyland bodies, and identify their area or original owner just by looking at the key letters of the registration plate. Very satisfying.

Michael Hampton


20/08/11 – 14:00

Michael, I agree wholeheartedly about being able to recognise area of origin from the old letters. There is, however, method in the new post 2001 scheme.
AA is Anglia (as in East Anglia)
GA Garden of England (Kent and Sussex)
LA London
RA Reading
SA Scotland
YA Yorkshire
These are just examples. There is a similar (sometimes slightly warped) logic to all the other marks.

David Oldfield


21/08/11 – 16:19

……..or grandiloquent ones, David, like:
F for Forest & Fens (East Midlands)
G for Garden of England (Kent & Sussex)
or my own local one V for SeVern Valley (South West England)
Reminds me of the old ‘Director’ phone system (in big cities)which relied on you dialling the first three letters. In London, it started logically: ABBey (Westminster), WHItehall & CLErkenwell, but, after running out of meaningful ones, used, for example, ARNold (Wembley) and the very Scottish RAGlan for a very unScottish Leytonstone! I would love to have been on XYLophone, but there were no X,s Y’s or Z’s used! But I digress!

Chris Hebbron


24/08/11 – 08:23

Yes, David and Chris, there are some obvious designations for the current registration system, and some intriguing ones, too. My comment about identifying identical PD2s, could similarly be said about modern Volvos or Scanias, etc, as the large groups transfer them around the country.
In the old (1903) system, there were only a few letter sets that could be linked to the place of issue, although whether this was by accident or design I know not. Examples are DV (Devon), DT (Doncaster)and KH (Kingston-u-Hull). KV for Coventry must have brought a wry smile or two, and I once read that VT for Stoke on Trent was an oblique reference to Arnold Bennett’s "Five Towns" (using the Roman V for 5). Was that a purposeful allocation, or just accidental? Many L series went to London, and many M series went to Middlesex. But other big series like O for Birmingham bore no relationship at all. BG for Birkenhead was a near miss – should have been BK or BH or BD!
Also of interest is the use some municipal operators made of their local series. In the 1950’s, Portsmouth booked each batch to end in 999 (GTP, LRV, ORV, STP and TTP). In Salford, the new manager just post-war decided he would only book RJ series and not use the BA series at all. Birmingham used a large quantity (all?) of JOJ. Glasgow booked the whole of both FYS and SGD, using some for service vehicles but the bulk for PSVs. The SGD use was curtailed by the introduction of the year suffix system. In pre-war days, some Glasgow buses were registered with the most appropriate BUS series, but the Corporation did not book the whole 999, and I don’t think the registration numbers matched the fleet numbers. In London, the first Routemasters used the appropriate "LT" series for significant quantities (SLT, VLT, WLT and reversed CLT). It was rather sad that the link between fleet numbers and registrations was lost at the introduction of the present system, with it’s use of letters instead of numbers for the sequential element.

Michael Hampton


24/08/11 – 11:38

Apologies for going off at a tangent on this thread…..but on the subject of registrations, in the 1960s nearly all the fire engines in Nottingham had a registration where the numbers were 999

KC


24/08/11 – 12:00

One I always recall is BMMO (Midland Red) which had registrations with HA in them, originally Smethwick, later Dudley.

Chris Hebbron


24/08/11 – 16:07

Most Fire Brigades ran 999 on there appliances

Roger Broughton


27/08/11 – 07:41

Thanks, Chris Y, for this extraordinary photo, which raises so many questions. I too had assumed that the Lion was of lighter build than the Tiger—somewhere between the Tiger and the Cheetah—but the attached pictures suggest that, apart from engine and cab length, there was little difference between the two chassis, at least by Feb 1938. Perhaps the 1934 LT5A was a bit less sturdy.
I grew up imagining that the Ministry of Supply had an absolute stranglehold over body design, and this Lion double-decker is the best and quirkiest counter-example of all.
By the way, I’ve always had a soft spot for NCB bodies: everything—particularly the front dome and upper front pillar area—strikes me as just right.

Ian Thompson


Forgot to say that my praise of Northern Coachbuilders’ design refers to postwar bodywork, which is not to belittle the angular charm of the centre-entrance d-d Lion!

Ian


11/09/11 – 08:43

This maybe of interest.

Ian Thompson

leyland lion and tiger 002


16/10/11 – 17:24

Michael Hampton said,
"I believe that JP was the last pair of letters authorised for use based on the original 1904 scheme. By that date, Staffordshire had already started using the three-letter/three-number combinations with ARE/ARF in 1932. I wonder why JP wasn’t issued to them instead?"
Staffordshire started the three-letter marks in July ’32 with ARF 1, and my guess is that Wigan booked JP just before then.
Similarly, Dorset started issuing JT registrations in November ’33 – so they, too, could have booked that code just before the three-letter marks were introduced.
Chris Hebbron wrote,
"As for two-letter registrations, I was in the RAF in mid-1958, in Wigtownshire, Scotland, when they changed from OS 9999 to AOS 1. I would hardly think they got out of AOS before the whole shebang changed to suffixes in 1963!"
Well, Chris, Wigtownshire actually got as far as HOS before becoming one of the last areas to adopt the year suffix system, in September 1964.

Des Elmes


17/10/11 – 07:47

Thx, Des, for the interesting Wigtownshire information. In crude terms, 800 registrations in 6 years averages 133 new vehicles registered per year. Sounds very quaint in this day and age!
Just to add to this scenario, I took my test in Stranraer whilst up there. Such was the demand, that the driving instructor only brought his Morris Minor down from Ayr every Wednesday afternoon to teach the locals. There was no instructor in Stranraer itself!

Chris Hebbron


17/10/11 – 07:48

Des..Just a very slight clarification wearing my number plate anorak. The suffix system did not become compulsory until 1st September 1964 although introduced originally just 12 months earlier. So the "A" suffix ran only from 1/9/63 until 31/12/63 and "B" started on 1st January 1964 but most authorities continued the 123 ABC format until they ran out at YYY 999 for example.
Then, confusion occurs because vehicles that had old "collectable" numbers that were sold on, were allocated previously unissued "A"’s similar to ( here in Bristol) BHU123A. Again, this did not last long because then the DVLA started to use "SV/SU/FF" etc. in a three letter, three number style to give the age related numbers seen everywhere such as MSU 123. So..it’s not impossible to have a 1964 vehicle displaying an "age related" AAA 123A ‘plate and also..yes…built up Kit cars were often given "A"’s rather than "Q" plates and they can be of any age!
NO!!!…enough men! I’ll go away and shut up now!

Richard Leaman


24/10/11 – 07:50

Richard Leaman said, "The suffix system did not become compulsory until 1st September 1964 although introduced originally just 12 months earlier. So the "A" suffix ran only from 1/9/63 until 31/12/63"
I thought "A" suffixes began in February of 1963, when Middlesex issued AHX 1A?
And, for that matter, the new Kirkcaldy authority issued AXA 1A etc from April ’63 (XA having been previously allocated to London), and Staffordshire issued ARE 1A etc from July.
Also, the year suffix system became compulsory when "C" suffixes began on 1 January 1965 – though September ’64 is very likely to have been the time when this was decided upon, as all remaining areas still using the old schemes (notably Leeds, Hampshire and Bedfordshire) continued to do so for the final four months of that year.

Des Elmes


24/10/11 – 16:17

Hello Des! Thank you for the details re the 6/7 digit registration changes. I went from memory rather than looking anything up but had always understood that Middlesex was the first 7 digit series and had started in the September so I’m sorry to have got that incorrect. As regards the September 1964 date, it may well have been technically compulsory from 1/1/65 but I have never seen any registrations after Sept ’64 with less than 7 digits so have understood that to be the changeover date.
Thank you for the clarifications though!

Richard Leaman


03/05/12 – 14:01

Nine Scottish County Councils never reached 9999 with two letters, before starting the "year-letter" series in 1964 or 5. Bringing up the rear was Bute, which reached SJ 2860, an average of less than one vehicle a week!

Geoff Kerr


04/05/12 – 08:46

HD the mark for Dewsbury took from the start of its introduction until 1955 To change to AHD.

Philip Carlton


14/06/12 – 07:30

Further to Philip’s comment: Bootle is a bigger town than Dewsbury, and yet took longer to reach three-letter marks – AEM 1 not being issued until April 1960. Hmm…
And further to Geoff’s comment, the other eight Scottish counties that never reached 9999 with two letters were Clackmannanshire (SL), Kinross-shire (SV), Nairnshire (AS), Orkney (BS), Peeblesshire (DS), Selkirkshire (LS), Sutherland (NS) and Shetland (PS).
Caithness, meanwhile, reached SK 9999 in August 1963. By then, of course, Middlesex, Kirkcaldy and Staffordshire were all issuing suffixed registrations, with Lancashire soon to follow. I wonder if Caithness considered joining them then, instead of waiting another year and issuing ASK 1 etc in the meantime? Got to admit, it’s fun talking about registrations…

Des Elmes


15/11/12 – 06:27

This may be the Santus-bodied Royal Tiger to which Neville was making reference (18/08/11) www.sct61.org.uk/  On the same site can be found photos of Royal Tigers with bodywork by Thurgood, Churchill, Bankfield, and Auto-Cellulose – as well as by the more well-known builders, of course.

David Call


15/11/12 – 15:42

Santus bodied nine Royal Tigers in total:- MTJ 774, NTD 447 both Fairclough, Lostock; NTJ 707 Victoria, Horwich; JP 9379 Taylor Bros, Standish; JP 9634 Eaves, Ashton-in-Makerfield; OTB 400 Walls, Wigan; LWX 446 Anderton, Keighley; FBN 902 Miners Convalescent Home; MWT 476 Forder, Bingley.

Regarding the original owner of JP 42, PSV Circle British Journal gives the original owner as H Stringfellow, Wigan, noting that reference to Smiths is probably wrong.

David Williamson


15/11/12 – 17:00

A quick Google of all the above registration numbers has produced a pic of MT J774 with Fairclough’s – not surprisingly, the body looks just like that on LWX 446. There is also a photo of 504 WLG, implied to be a rebuild of JP 9379, extended to 36′ and rebodied by Plaxton. The registration did ring a bell, and bearing in mind its place of origin I would say that the rebuild was effected at the behest of the Les Gleave group.
This is getting a bit away from the original topic of JP 42 (heard that one before?), but I wonder if anyone could tell me anything about Bankfield coach bodies, as mentioned above. There have been occasions in the past when I have been accused of having had an encyclopaedic knowledge of buses & coaches, but I have to say that Bankfield is a new one on me.

David Call


15/11/12 – 17:43

Bankfield Engineering was based at Crossens, Southport. They bodied two Royal Tigers, NVM 832 new to North Road Engineering, Oldham in 1953, and OXJ 481 new to Mason, Manchester in 1954. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen photos of them. However, I have childhood memories of them, and I thought they both ran for Mason’s, who used a red and cream livery. I have a vague recollection that they produced at least one other body, but cannot remember any details.

David Williamson


16/11/12 – 07:34

Very welcome information, thanks. The Southport connection didn’t come as a surprise since I had already picked up mention on the net of an ex-Hanson Leyland TS6 later running for a couple of Southport-area operators and at some stage receiving a Bankfield body.
Issue 18 (Winter 2002) of the ‘Leyland Torque’ magazine refers to NVM 832 as ‘Mason’s Tours Royal Tiger’, so, yes, it would seem that both OXJ481 and NVM 832 operated for Mason’s. Perhaps they were trying to get the ‘set’.
There is a photo of OXJ 481 here www.sct61.org.uk  
There is mention on the net of Bankfield having rebuilt fourteen Bolton Corporation TD5/Massey, two St Helens (ex-Wigan) TD1/NCME, and one Crosville (ex-York-West-Yorkshire) LT2/Roe.
Further to the above, I wonder if you could tell me the source of information – was it a PSVC chassis list? I’m a little suspicious that NVM 832 should have had a Manchester, rather than an Oldham, registration. Could ‘North Road Engineering’ have been a ‘subsidiary’ of Mason’s?

David Call


16/11/12 – 11:18

I have an old copy of Leyland Journal (the original version) from the early 50’s which shows a new Bankfield-bodied Royal Tiger.

John Stringer


16/11/12 – 11:18

The PSVC records NVM 832 as new in May 1953 to North Road Engineers, Oldham, “carrying Mason Tours fleetname”. Make of that what you can! It was withdrawn in June 1960 and exported to Australia where it ran for Stewart & Sons, Bundaberg, Queensland, rebodied by Stewarts with their own B57D body. It remained in service until some time in the 1990s, when it was bought by one of Stewarts’ drivers and converted to a mobile caravan.

Michael Wadman


16/11/12 – 15:39

My info came from the PSVC Royal Tiger chassis list. On the SCT61 website, under a posting about Maudslay HNF 803, there is reference to ‘the Wolfenden group’, operators and coachbuilders (Junction). One of the group’s companies was Mason, whose address was North Road (Manchester, though, not Oldham).

David Williamson


10/11/13 – 17:21

Leon’s Lion Utility double decker was in a small club of unusual Leyland Utility double deck rebodies. In 1942 East Kent had two of its ten 1928-1930 TS1 Tigers fitted with lowbridge Park Royal bodies UL27/26R with an overall length of 27ft 4in. The chassis had originally been bodied as double deckers, Short O30/26RO to an overall length of 27ft 6in. The two buses concerned were FN 9094 and JG 652 and merit attention for having the only lowbridge Park Royal Utility bodies (that I know of), and for retaining their original TS1 frames and acquiring long bodies as a result. They were quite camera shy with their new bodies but from the pictures I have seen there is no doubt that they were indeed rebodied on the original TS1 frames rather than receiving some sort of "TD1" substitute. The Park Royal bodies conformed to the National Federation of Vehicle Trades lowbridge utility outline (except on length and seating capacity) especially with regard to the proportions of the upper deck where the panels below the upper deck windows were much deeper than Brush, Duple and Weymann lowbridge bodies, to name just a few, and the roof had a pronounced dome.

Mike Harvey


JP 42_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


12/10/20 – 06:27

Looks like I’ve come a bit late to this posting. I’ve lived in Doncaster all my life and remember Leon well. Interesting notes on vehicle registrations as well. I saw my first suffix registration on an Educational Supply Authority van at Bentley New Village School near Doncaster in 1963 and I always remember the number – ACX 626 A – I believe this was a Huddersfield mark as I’m sure the authority for schools in what was the West Riding of Yorkshire were based in Huddersfield.

Dave Ingram


13/10/20 – 06:13

The WRCC Education Dept was in Wakefield the County Town with HL registrations. Huddersfield was a County Borough and presumably ran its own schools. This bus though is a classic!

Joe


 

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

 


 

Sheffield Corporation – Leyland Leopard – 1882 WA – 3082

Sheffield Corporation - Leyland Leopard - 1882 WA - 3082
Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1961
Leyland Leopard L1
ECW C41F

This was one of the final batch of Leopards for the Sheffield C fleet with Eastern Coachworks body of the same style as contemporary Bristol MW vehicles being delivered to Tilling Companies.
Delivered as fleet number 1882, it was became 3082 in the 1967 renumbering scheme. The bus originally had a hinged coach door but had been modified with folding doors and hence suitable for one man operation by the time of this photograph. Note Burlingham bodied 1008 alongside still has its original coach door.
3082 was withdrawn when the Joint Omnibus Committee was wound up in 1970 and passed to Todmorden Joint Omnibus Committee as their fleet number 13. When the Todmorden undertaking was merged with that of Halifax in August 1971 the bus became Halifax fleet number 323.
This was in the future when the photograph was taken on a snowy 9th February 1969 on the parking area at Sheffield Central Bus Station prior to operating the 1620 service 44 to Bakewell via the roundabout route taking in Ladybower and Bamford.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

———

08/08/11 – 07:22

These were always handsome beasts, in their original form. I never remember them with their folding doors. It made them far easier to use as "OMO" buses and, although it did spoil their looks, it didn’t do as much damage as a similar exercise did to SUT’s ground breaking first Panorama bodied Reliances.

David Oldfield

———

26/08/11 – 07:16

Calderdale JOC inherited three of these from Todmorden JOC – 1880/1/2 WA, and numbered them 321-323. A short while after the merger/takeover, 323 was transferred to Halifax (Elmwood) Garage where it remained until withdrawal. Its most regular haunt seemed to be on ex-YWD OMO route 2 to Keighley, though it could turn up anywhere.
I was a crew driver only (i.e. not OMO) at the time so did not drive it regularly, but I recall having it a couple of times for afternoon school services when the Garage Foreman was struggling for buses for the PM output. It seemed to be higher geared than the indigenous Halifax Leopards and was hard work to get going on local, hilly stop-start work like this, but loped along in fine style once it got into its stride on the open road, for which it was more suited.
The Halifax Weymann Leopards had quite basic bodies and were extremely noisy inside, but these ECW ones were well finished and very much quieter and more refined.

John Stringer


 

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

 


 

Leeds City Transport – Leyland Titan PD2/1 – NNW 380 – 380

Leeds City Transport - Leyland Titan PD2/1 - NNW 380 - 380

Leeds City Transport
1950
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Leyland H30/26R

This Leeds City Transport bus is at the Rivelin Dams, Norfolk Arms terminus of Sheffield service 54 whilst on a tour of Sheffield routes on 19th June 1966 organised by The Leeds and District Transport News (still in production today as Metro Transport News). Sheffield 545 which appeared on this site some months ago accompanied the Leeds bus on the tour. The notes provided with the tour suggest that 380 was one of the last of its batch in service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild


24/07/11 – 10:53

A vehicle very dear to me – NNW 380 was to become number 13 in the Learner Fleet and was used to weigh up job applicants as it had, of course, a "live" gearbox and clutch. In October 1969 I applied for a job as a "direct driver" and reported to the Swinegate Headquarters at 5.00pm one weekday rush hour. The strict but kindly chap in charge of the Driving School, Senior Inspector Albert Bradley, directed me to 380 in the yard, settled himself in the front passenger seat behind the "missing" window, and off we went into the thick of it. The bus behaved impeccably, like a dream, as we went to Beeston, reversing into an awkward side street on the notoriously steep Beeston Hill (air brakes on the trams) and performing a hill start as well. Then into the long flat Old Lane – by now I was very comfortable indeed and enjoying the trip – where Mr. Bradley said "That’s OK, just go straight down Dewsbury Road back to the yard." I said that I was really enjoying the vehicle and so he said "Oh, well then, go up the Ring Road and through Middleton and Belle Isle and Hunslet." That shows what a genuine and respected gentleman he was, in allowing me to spend an extra few of the Department’s shillings in fuel on a pleasure jaunt !! I suppose in a way I was cheating a little, as I had quite a lot of experience in driving PD2s elsewhere, but I got the job and that involved being a "driver/conductor" for six months – although a chronic shortage of willing drivers and the need to accelerate the One Man Operated conversion programme meant that I did slightly less before qualifying for those.

Chris Youhill


24/07/11 – 17:48

The only Leyland bodies bought by Leeds 340-399 entered service in 1949-1950 Mainly allocated to Bramley these were stalwart performers on such routes as the 54 Halton Moor-Rodley and 23 Leeds -Intake for most of their lives. My dad was a conductor for LCT for almost thirty years and always maintained that these were the best buses he ever worked on.
Does any other Leeds bus fan remember the coin tester in the lower saloon ceiling and the huge circulation area at the top of the stairs.
Like a number of AEC Regents these buses retained the old style Leeds blind with via points to the end

Chris Hough


25/07/11 – 08:48

AEC man agrees that there is little to compare with an all-Leyland PD2 and I remember coin testers on Sheffield buses – but I had forgotten about them until you jogged my memory!

David Oldfield


25/07/11 – 09:03

From personal experience I don’t know much about LCT buses but Chris’s mention of the coin tester reminds me of a similar device that Huddersfield Corporation/JOC used. It was a metal bar about an inch and a half long with various sized slots cut into it for testing the authenticity of coins. It was usually located (on rear entrance buses) on the bulkhead underneath the staircase along with a wood and glass holder which contained (if I remember rightly) a booklet with the Corporation/JOC byelaws and regulations. Strangely, I can’t remember either the coin tester or booklet holder being fitted to front entrance half cab buses. However,this may be due to the fact that on rear entrance buses my favourite seat was the long inward facing seat over the rear near side wheel-arch, thus I was facing the staircase bulkhead and its fittings on most journeys, whereas on front entrance half cabs I would sit anywhere in the lower saloon so wouldn’t always be facing the staircase bulkhead to make the same observations. Has anybody else any memories of riding on "proper" buses.

Eric


25/07/11 – 09:04

Well Chris H you certainly have me there !! Having worked on many Leyland bodied PD1s/2s over the years I’ve no idea what a "coin tester" was in the lower saloon ceiling – please let us know. The Bramley vehicles also figured prominently on the 65 Bus Station to Pudsey route, including the days when that service terminated in Rockingham Street. I do, though, well remember the large circulating area upstairs – this was indeed excessive and some operators took advantage of this by putting an extra seat on the offside, thereby increasing the seating capacity to H32/26R. Samuel Ledgard treated most, if not all, of their large fleet of these bodies – new and second hand – in this manner. Even after this the step top area remained adequate for passenger flow. The retention of the original destination blinds caused a wonderful anomaly in later years – Torre Road Depot had a handful of the PD2s and often used them on a teatime peak journey on the 36 route which by then was a different service altogether and went from the Bus Station to Tinshill – still displaying "36 Harehills Oakwood" from the original itinerary in North East Leeds. By the way, although I was at Headingley as a driver and later a "bookman" I did quite frequently work at Bramley and I’m sure I remember your Dad very well indeed – Happy days !!

Chris Youhill


25/07/11 – 15:32

The "coin tester" was a small protuberance in the lower deck ceiling at the front of the bus shaped like half an orange split in two and around the size of a large grape I’ve only ever seen this on the Leeds Titans and was told it was a coin tester as a child Leeds were never lavish with bell provision on their buses until the advent of strip bells in the sixties I’ve seen a full bus started away from stops by a sharp rap from a coin on the driver’s bulkhead window on many occasions! One other LCT idiosyncrasy was the provision of a curtain blind on the passenger front bulkhead window for night time running was this unique to Leeds? The one on the drivers bulkhead window often had a small aperture in the top corner for the driver to see the inside of the lower deck.

Chris Hough


25/07/11 – 20:57

A blind on the passenger front bulkhead? I remember those in Nottingham in the early 1960s. Always annoyed me because I wanted to look out of the window and pretend to be a driver

A Non


25/07/11 – 20:58

Chris, Sheffield had coin testers and the blinds – inside the cab for the driver (with hole) and in the saloon on the nearside.

David Oldfield


25/07/11 – 20:59

As far as I’m aware Chris H, night curtains were legally obligatory on both front windows of the old style vehicles.

Chris Youhill


27/07/11 – 08:00

I am sure that London Transport RT / RM buses had nearside front window blinds – the ones on RMs didn’t go quite the full width of the window – see photo here //www.ltmcollection.org/images/webmax/xs/i00000xs.jpg
I can’t remember them being used in the 70s or later

Jon


27/07/11 – 12:07

This batch of LCT Titans always fascinated me as we drove through the Bramley area from Bradford on a frequent basis, and they always seemed to be concentrated in that area of Leeds.
As a Bradford lad, I was always fascinated by the differences compared to our own BCPT Titans.
The NNW series were almost to Farington style, with flush mounted fully radiused windows, and no rain shields, giving an ultra modern look which seemed enhanced by the 7ft.6ins. width. Most contemporary Titans at that time did not have this modernised "cleaned up" look, and I am wondering if LCT played some part in the development programme which led up to the Farington style which became more common with the advent of the post 1951 longer chassis.
Or did Leyland offer this style at this early date, and, if so, which other fleets received them on PD2/1 or PD2/3 chassis in 1949/50?
They were certainly very handsome vehicles, and, like all Leyland bodies, had a good life span.

John Whitaker


28/07/11 – 06:16

There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the so-called "Farington style" Leyland bodies. The latest thinking is that the name refers to this version rather than the later one. I do agree that it is visually enhanced by the 7’6" width when compared to, say Manchester’s "salmon tins", one of which is seen here //www.sct61.org.uk/mn3290.htm  Southport also had some, see //www.sct61.org.uk/sp106a.htm and Sheffield //www.sct61.org.uk/sh621.htm  and I’m sure there were others.

Peter Williamson


28/07/11 – 15:20

This style IS the Farington – experts now tell us that the final version is NOT. There does not, however seem to be a name for it. Sheffield had two batches of true Faringtons, like these Leeds examples, in 1949 – so they were not an exclusive, nor an experimental model.

David Oldfield


28/07/11 – 15:22

I’ve always understood that this version was known as the ‘Farington style’ Perhaps the reason that many people applied the same name (incorrectly) to the later and final version was simply because no one ever gave it a name of it’s own. I must say that the Southport example looks particularly fine!

Chris Barker


28/07/11 – 15:24

John W mentions he always saw lots of Leyland bodied Titans in the Bramley area. This was definitely home ground to these buses as most of them spent their entire working lives at Bramley depot which for most of its postwar existence was 100% Leyland. It got its first 30ft long vehicles (PD3A/2) in 1962/63
Bramley was a former tram depot which presented some operating problems the main being the fact that being built on a hill the ground sloped away from the original entrance on Henconneer Lane To ease access and manoeuvrability problems a second exit was made but this needed a ramp to ground level.
The original depot was closed and demolished in 1969 being replaced by a large purpose built one a few hundred yards away this is still in use by First.

Chris Hough


30/07/11 – 07:57

Sheffield had 64 ‘Farington’ style Leyland bodies in all, spread over all three fleets, 52 in the ‘A’, 10 sprinkled throughout the jointly owned ‘B’, and 2 in the ‘C’ fleet which was wholly owned by British Railways. Interestingly they were all painted in a variation of the standard Sheffield livery, which for many years came to be reserved for ‘Farington’ bodied Titans and anything with a body from Charles H. Roe!
Ironically, when LCT 380 came to town on its enthusiast’s excursion, it was one of the the first batch of Sheffield PD2’s, dating from 1947, that accompanied it around the city! Despite the body on STD 545 KWA545 being only two years older than the first ‘Farington’s,’ the contrast between it and the very elegant Leeds machine was stark, to say the least.

Dave Careless


08/08/11 – 10:20

MEMORIES !!
I was a "Bramley Lad" in the 60s and these bus’s were VERY close to my heart as my Dad drove for the Bramley Depot!
I have fond and vivid memories of the move to the new Towns End Depot, there was a very exciting open day where we got to ride the new one man bus’s through the Bus Wash !!! We lost Dad 3 years ago, I wish we had found this forum before he went he would have filled this sight with Facts and Figures.

Graham Morton


02/08/12 – 07:22

I’m surprised no one mentioned that some members of the 340-399 batch of Leylands were fixtures on the 38 Moortown-Whitkirk from many years between 1949 and at least 1956; I rode the route fairly frequently, waited for buses and trams at Moortown corner at least twice daily and remember seeing nothing else on that route, though I know other types did show up occasionally.

Andrew Young


02/08/12 – 11:25

There were in fact only a very small handful of the batch allocated to Torre Road Depot – a strange situation really, as you would have thought an "all at Bramley" allocation would have better suited their manual transmission specification. The 38 service, on a half hourly frequency and one hour a round trip, required only two vehicles and so its not really surprising that the "NNW"s gave the impression of being the universal type.

Chris Youhill


NNW 380_lr Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


15/11/15 – 16:14

I worked at Bramley depot and drove on the 54, 65 and 77 routes. It was these routes that helped me learn how to do "snatch" gear changes, especially on Kirkstall Hill. The only problem with these buses was brake fade, after two applications of the footbrake (no air brakes) the vacuum brakes were useless. I can recall having a brand new Mini brake suddenly in front of me, and I hit it from the rear making it a "short wheelbase" Mini. I will always remember the PD2/1s as being a sturdy vehicle.

David Thorpe


16/11/15 – 05:37

I agree with you wholeheartedly David regarding the vacuum brakes on the PD2s – and believe me the brakes on the 30 foot elegant PD3s were even worse. As local folks will know, The Leeds PD3s in their time bore the brunt of the extremely busy Moortown/Roundhay/Middleton/Belle Isle former tram routes and I’ve had some alarming near misses with them when fully laden, and I think I can honestly claim not have been a "nutter" putting timekeeping above all else like some ill advised chaps did. I’ve driven PD2s/PD3s for several operators and the same problem has arisen with them all, and I’m sure that this was n reflection on maintenance – it was simply a characteristic of the Leyland design. In fact a very good friend of mine, a conscientious driver, had his own method of ensuring that the PD3s would stop safely – on approaching every stop he would apply maximum revs and execute a faultless change down from top to third – I doubt if this reflected favourably on fuel consumption but I’m sure that LCT could stand that due to their well known "run ’em on fresh air" policy. Now very oddly, I’ve driven a heck of lot of PD1s – one of my very favourite models and very appealing too – but their brakes always seemed far more up to the job. This is most strange because in size, weight and passenger capacity they were virtually the same as the PD2 and no doubt had similar or identical braking systems. Despite the enormous and widespread success and popularity of the PD2s/PD3s this aspect will no doubt remain a mystery for ever.

Chris Youhill


16/11/15 – 15:22

I paid a visit to the excellent Dewsbury Bus Museum open day yesterday. The highlight for me was a trip on the superbly restored West Riding lowbridge all Leyland PD2/1. What a tribute to Leyland quality – and I’d forgotten that Leyland pre dated the lightweight Orion with no interior panels below the upper deck waist rail. David comments on the all Leylands being a sturdy vehicle, this is borne out by my experience of the Sheffield buses of this type, especially the 1947/8 builds with the polished interior wood finish. Chris Y comments on brake performance on PD2s and PD3s. My experience is that the air braked PD2 was ok, the air braked PD3 less so. Spare a thought for drivers with the sole vacuum braked PD3/3 with PMT (see elsewhere on this site for H811) whilst all its brethren were air braked.

Ian Wild


17/11/15 – 11:01

Most interesting views Ian, and to be honest I’ve never driven an air braked PD2, all mine have been vacuum – apart perhaps for the one "RTL" that I drove, that being one of the ten Leeds City Transport preselector models 301 – 310. I had booked overtime at a different garage to my own in order to enjoy such a drive when the class of ten was down to two of three. I was so delighted by the experience that I don’t recall any issue with the brakes on the three hour piece of rather "gentle" work, consisting of dead mileage and duplicates.

Chris Youhill


17/11/15 – 13:40

I recall a photo of an impeccable SL "RT" on the roof of a garage, some time ago, Chris Y. You’ve also driven an "RTL". What characteristics were different between the two? Or maybe you don’t remember, so relaxing was the experience with the RTL!

Could someone explain what the little white oblong box under the canopy, centre-front was all about?

Chris Hebbron


18/11/15 – 07:18

Chris H – well in simple terms Chris "everything was different" as with any AEC/Leyland comparison. The Leyland steering was far more positive and the AEC steady tickover produced a totally different effect from the flywheel/gearbox than did the delightful "hunting and gentle wobbling" of the Leyland. I don’t know if there was much difference in top speed but perhaps the Leyland might have just had the edge, and certainly had less tendency to alarming leaning when loaded. Both vehicles of course wonderful and highly successful in their different ways, such is the delight of variety. The rooftop garage that you mention would of course be Armley – the rooftop park was exactly the same size as the garage beneath and must have been capable of carrying an unbelievable weight. When Samuel Ledgard died in 1952 practically every withdrawn vehicle from Day One was up there – yes, including the original charabancs from 1912 – if only the preservation funds and movement had been as prolific then !!
Regarding the picture of NNW 380 in this topic, the little white box is the illuminated "Limited" sign – a moderately successful device for discouraging passengers from boarding on certain peak services where boarding and alighting stops were "limited" for the benefit of longer distance passengers. Quite a number of the blighters though were adept at taking a calculated risk by paying the minimum fare applicable but baling out in the heavy traffic which they knew was to be expected – they considered that the dearer fare was worth it for a quicker journey home. This was really anti social in perhaps the same way as people nowadays who operate pelican crossings and then cross against the red man causing traffic to halt for nothing later.

Chris Youhill


18/11/15 – 07:20

I asked this in another forum a couple of weeks ago Chris, and was informed it was to display ‘LIMITED STOP’.

Stephen Howarth


18/11/15 – 07:27

Even I can tell you that the little white oblong box could be illuminated to say "Limited", Chris.
My memories of LCT were certainly these and those bare metal engine covers, which seemed to appear about the time of the tram replacement scheme in the 1950’s. That’s why that similarly treated "classic" Crossley is a mystery: as well as a few cranked seats, did other 50’s Leeds buses have rearward facing front bulkhead seats?
Did you notice, too, that the 1952 Regent III in the Gallery is from Roe’s big window period, whilst the Daimler/Orion shows, by contrast, what a miserable looking design these were. Good Pics though.
What a smart livery, anywhere, any bus. Progress is not inevitable…pink and puce?

Joe


 

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