East Kent
1948
Leyland Tiger PS1/1
Park Royal C32R

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

02/07/14 – 11:02

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

Ian T

02/07/14 – 17:57

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

Chris Youhill

02/07/14 – 17:59

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

Chris Hebbron

13/06/17 – 07:31

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

Garth Wyver

13/06/17 – 09:14

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

Roger Cox

15/06/17 – 07:13

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

Pete Davies

09/08/19 – 08:52

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

Anon

10/08/19 – 07:40

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

Michael Hampton

10/08/19 – 07:42

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

David Beilby

Tyneside Omnibus Company
1954
Leyland Titan PD2/12
MCW H32/26R

GTY 169; 39, one that Chris Youhill will no doubt recognise, but not in this livery. It was one of nine H32/26R MCW Orion bodied Leyland PD2/12’s delivered to Tyneside in 1954, GTY 169/177 numbered 39/47. Shortly after they were delivered, the number plates were moved from the radiator to the front panel under the windscreen, so the photo must be 1954. They remained in service until 1966, and all of them had a second life.
39 – Samuel Ledgard
40 – Wells of Hatfield, Peverel
43/44 – Paton Brothers, Renfrew
41/2/5/6&7 remained with the NGT Group.

Four of them became Driver Training vehicles.

But 47 was turned over to the engineering department. It was cut down, and at first it became a mobile workshop/towing vehicle, it later became a ’tree lopper’ and was still around in 1980.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

23/06/14 – 11:17

Thx, Ronnie, for the interesting photos showing the story of their lives.
I’m intrigued about tree-lopping. This always seemed to be done by bus companies originally, witness the number of tree-loppers around in past times, but I don’t know who does it now, if anyone at all, by the looks of some deckers’ front domes! Was there originally any statutory requirement for bus companies to do this and what is the current situation?

Chris Hebbron

23/06/14 – 16:30

About twenty years ago Luton & District did it, under contract, for Buckinghamshire C C. I believe this is where tree lopping ended up but with cut backs (pun not intended) money dried up in local authorities and I suspect this is the reason for the dire condition of buses now – because no-one takes responsibility. I think it still lies with local authorities but an operator friend of mine said that anyone was entitled to cut back trees overhanging the public highway – even when they were growing on private property, often behind fence or boundary lines. He always carried a pair of strong cutters on his coach. [He operated new, expensive, coaches in a rural area.]

David Oldfield

24/06/14 – 07:42

David, I think you’re correct: where trees over-grow private or public land then the owner or any member of the public has the right to cut back over-hanging branches to the boundary . . . as long as they offer any severed wood back to land-owner on who’s land the tree stood.
According to James Freeman’s history of King Alfred Motor Services the company were, after a rather too enthusiastic/dramatic session, prohibited from lopping trees in Winchester by the local authority – after which the tree-lopping vehicle was lain up within the depot.
Within my locality of the old Aireborough UDC there is evidence of tree-lopping, but I’ve never seen anybody doing any . . . and I can’t believe First or Centrebus/Yorkshire Tiger would bother to keep the resources themselves.

Philip Rushworth

24/06/14 – 07:45

The current legislation concerning the obstruction of the public highway by trees may be found in the Highways Act 1980. The responsibilities lie with the Highway Authorities, but there may often be a delay in the carrying out of remedial action. Clearances should be 2.4m over a footpath and 5.3m over a roadway. Even trees covered by a preservation order are required to comply, but only the very minimum amount of pruning is acceptable in such cases. In the past, many, if not most of the larger operators kept their own tree cutting vehicles to minimise the expensive damage to roof domes, but, in the aggressively profit driven bus industry of modern times, this "avoidable cost" has long since been expunged from the P/L account. The big groups of today seem to have no pride in fleet presentation.

Roger Cox

24/06/14 – 13:49

And, Roger, there’s the ever-present "Safety Elf", who says it isn’t safe for company staff to do the work, even without the operator’s legal advisers who worry about being prosecuted by the trees’ owners!

Pete Davies

26/06/14 – 14:10

Most modern double deckers now have tree guards on the nearside (or on both sides) to protect the front windows and bodywork from damage by trees.
There are now vastly more trees near roads (and railways) and little attempt seems to be made to keep them cut back.

Geoff Kerr

27/06/14 – 07:05

Geoff. This was the problem which Network Rail had with the big storms last Winter. Trees on embankments were falling like mad and trains were having to move slowly to avoid accidents causing chaos. In steam days, trees were cleared to avoid sparks setting light to them.
And grass verges seem to be getting overgrown now. The other day, on a bypass, foliage was brushing the side of my car and I was 12" away from the kerb!

Chris Hebbron

27/06/14 – 13:32

There is another aspect of overhanging trees and bushes not being cut back by anyone (owners, local authorities, highway agency of bus companies). That is the fact that at road junctions, road signs and / or traffic lights are being hidden from view until the motorist is nearly on them. If driving on an unfamiliar road, and looking for directions, this can be particularly hazardous. Sometimes I wish I had access to a certain company’s Guy Arab tree-loppers, and take a crew along some of our main roads. (I refer to Southdown 460/461 – the only way this modern day comment can count as being relevant to this site!).

Michael Hampton

28/06/14 – 14:22

Yes, Michael, the Guy Arab tree loppers. I also recall they had a Queen Mary one and a Bristol VR the latter in yellow with blue trimmings (genuine Freudian slip, this!). Sad that Portsmouth Corporation never had need of one. Wonder what they would have converted if they had? I’d have wanted one of their TSM’s!

Chris Hebbron

28/06/14 – 14:59

Chris – Your dreams have come true. Portsmouth Corporation did have a TSM tree lopper. 80 RV 1143. The vehicle was stolen from Eastney depot, and driven through the Fareham Railway arch. I have vague recollections of it attending to the trees in Stubbington Avenue around 1950.

Pat Jennings

29/06/14 – 07:15

Now THAT really is news to me, Pat – wishful thinking come true! I wonder if any photos exist of it in that state. My post of one of CPPTD’s TSM’s, in the second photo, shows 80 in original condition.

Chris Hebbron

17/12/15 – 07:41

Reading the various comments about tree lopping brings to mind an incident I became involved in on the A591 alongside Thirlmere lake about 1975 a section of road very much in the news at present where 9 landslides occurred as a result of the very heavy rain. I was a haulage contractor at the time operating a Foden S80 cabbed 8 wheel bulk animal feed blower which had a high box body with catwalk down the middle. Early one morning travelling through the Lakes to a farm in the Ulverston area I was flagged down by a Ribble driver and an inspector parked hard against the tree covered mountainside. They asked if they could climb on top of my lorry and try and cut off a broken low hanging branch that had been striking double deckers on the 555 service. They had thought they could stand on the roof of the Marshall bodied Leopard they had and cut the branch off but found they could not scramble onto the smooth curved roof from the high roadside embankment. Elf n Safety at its best !! However I took the bushman saw they had and knowing where to tread on top of my load was soon able to reach the branch and quickly cut it off. Just another episode of driving lorries and buses through the lakes.

Gerald Walker

Edinburgh Corporation
1966
Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1
Alexander H43/31F

This photo shows Edinburgh Corporation 801 ESF 801C taken in 1967, 801 was the corporation’s first Atlantean with Alexander H74F bodywork delivered in February 1966,it was I think the first double deck body with panoramic windows and may have been exhibited at the 1965 Scottish motor show at Kelvin Hall which could explain it’s 1966 delivery. The next batch 802-825 EWS 802-825D with identical Alexander bodies were delivered in October 1966 had the then normal short window bays and these were delivered shortly after 826-850 EWS 826-850 which were Leyland PD3A/2’s with Alexander H70F bodies, canny Scots hedging their bets perhaps.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

19/06/14 – 09:33

Beauty is in the eye, as they say. The big window version of the Alexander ‘Y’ type, was arguably the best looking single deck Bus or D/P of its generation. However, as with the Southdown Queen Mary, for me the big window version of these just didn’t work. The NGT Group had a number of the small window versions, Newcastle Corporation had both large and smaller window types, they also had some rather strange large window types with the stairs on the ’ wrong’ side, and a centre exit. After a series of accidents, the union refused to use the centre exit, and as the vehicles were due for overhaul, the doors were removed and extra seats fitted.

Ronnie Hoye

21/06/14 – 06:29

Centre exits seem to have been a passing fad of the late 1960s. What was the real issue with them, as they seem to be the norm in other countries? I’m aware from reading some of these postings that there were structural problems with some single deck dual door bodies. Or was the main thing that the unions didn’t like them, as Ronnie mentions?

Keith

21/06/14 – 08:55

There were structural problems on double deckers as well. SELNEC had problems in later life with Mancunians. There were problems with accidents and the unions, in the interest of their members, took against them. Meant to reduce time at stops by having all passengers disembark at the centre door, all too often they didn’t and many tried to board there leaving the driver trying to collect fares, deal with any form of pre paid passes and monitor the centre door as well as keeping an eye on the seats remaining, in a difficult position.
Multi doors work well elsewhere where either the bulk of fares are prepaid or there is a second crew member and where some form of load counting actually works – the technology of the time didn’t.

Phil Blinkhorn

21/06/14 – 15:21

Silly question, perhaps, but is it really a LEYLAND Atlantean? I ask because some for Scottish operators had ALBION badges, including Glasgow’s KUS607E which now resides at the St Helens museum.

Pete Davies

22/06/14 – 06:38

Yes this was definitely a Leyland Atlantean Pete as you can see the figure of Atlas on the badge whereas the Glasgow Albion badged Atlantean’s had the St Andrews cross in it’s place as can be seen on the attached photo of KUS 593E taken a couple of years later in central Glasgow.

Diesel Dave

22/06/14 – 09:05

I seem to remember that the Albion badge on the Atlantean was a Glasgow only spec.

Phil Blinkhorn

22/06/14 – 13:04

Thank you, Dave and Phil!

Pete Davies

23/06/14 – 06:33

It could be that it was more efficient to send several chassis in kit form to be assembled at the Albion works in Glasgow, and then onto Alexander to have the body fitted, rather than one at a time in completed form, after all, the Alexander works was at Falkirk, which is not that far from Glasgow. At the end of the day, any differences would probably be down to badge engineering.

Ronnie Hoye

16/08/14 – 05:49

The "Albion" Atlanteans supplied to Glasgow followed a batch of "Albion" PD3s. Leyland got the blame for deleting half the Albion range in the early 1950s after the Albion takeover, when in actual fact Albion were already in the process of doing just that when financial troubles caught up with them. The Albion badges were applied as a gesture to the Glaswegian population in an attempt to settle the ill-feeling.

Paul

17/08/14 – 07:35

Edinburgh and Lothian stuck with dual doors into the low floor era. The Leeds dual door buses gave 15 plus years of service. In later years they found themselves in such esoteric locations as Ilkley and Skipton following the absorption of WYRCC by Yorkshire Rider.

Chris Hough