Old Bus Photos

East Yorkshire – Leyland Tiger Cub – 6692/3 KH – 692/3

East Yorkshire - Leyland Tiger Cub - 6692/3 KH - 692/3

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1960
Leyland Tiger Cub PSUC1/2
Harrington C35F

This is the pretty village of Thornton le Dale in North Yorkshire on 11th June 1968. A pair of East Yorkshire Tiger Cubs are parked up amongst the cars awaiting the return of their tour passengers. Elegant, attractive coaches enhanced by the livery and the classy gothic script fleetname.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild


27/12/15 – 09:02

Thanks for posting, Ian. These vehicles appear to have carried names. The EFE model of 692 has her named as Pocklington Star.

Pete Davies


28/12/15 – 06:32

Pocklington Star still exists, it was bought last year by Richard Macallister of Sowerby Bridge

Don McKeown


28/12/15 – 06:34

So far as I know, nine of these East Yorkshire Leyland PSU1/2 Tiger Cub coaches were given names;
675 WAT 675 Humber Star
676 WAT 676 Dales Star
677 WAT 677 Wold Star
678 WAT 678 Buckrose Star
679 WAT 679 Hunsley Star
692 6692 KH Pocklington Star
693 6693 KH Holderness Star
694 6694 KH Driffield Star
695 6695 KH Middleton Star

Ron Mesure


29/12/15 – 09:34

East Yorkshire still name some of their coaches with these names.

Chris Hough


30/12/15 – 06:33

The Tiger Cub was PSUC not PSU. The EYMS ones were late examples of the PSUC1/2, the O:400 powered PSUC1/12 was introduced soon after.

Stephen Allcroft


30/12/15 – 06:33

Just one point of divergence. I would not myself describe the use of a difficult-to-read name style like this as classy! It was someone’s idea of classy perhaps, but firstly it is not Gothic in the strict sense- Old English may be better- and it commits the great sin of departing from a company house style. The great examples of a good-looking easy to read style- apart from the timeless LT Gill Sans- were Transport or Rail Alphabet used- and mostly still used- for road signs and railways. These did drag some of the bus industry into the 20th Century, but some were still using transfers from the year dot until NBC brought decent typography but awful colours to our buses. I am not a graphic designer but I know what I like!

Joe


30/12/15 – 13:58

The truth comes out! "Joe" is really a pseudonym for Ray Stenning! Happy New Year to one and all.

Neville Mercer


31/12/15 – 07:18

Joe, LT and TfL do not use Gill Sans type face. Since the formation of the L.P.T.B. in 1933, transport in London has used Johnston type face which had been used from 1916 by the predecessor companies.
Eric Gill, who was a student of Johnston, introduced the Gill Sans type face in 1928 and this has subtle differences from the Johnston one.

John Kaye


31/12/15 – 07:19

Oh! Joe. Cue ‘Eastenders’ drum effects! Happy New Year Neville and Joe – and of course wishing a Happy New Year to everyone else as well.

Brendan Smith


31/12/15 – 10:47

No, Neville, you have unmasked the wrong man. It was the butler. Or Colonel Mustard-and-Purple. I do not subscribe to the idea that liveries went wacko only recently- look at "streamlining" or those spats and swoops- but in the main the conservatism of the old big groups kept things very staid. I am really talking only of fleetnames, house styles and logos. The last Sheffield transport logo was very neat but for true minimalism, you need Doncaster Corporation: not only did the blinds tell you little else but the terminus it was coming from or going to- no route numbers- there was only a coat of arms with the motto "Comfort and Joy" (in Latin because it was Donny) which did not really fit the vibrating Utility AEC still doing valiant service.

Joe


01/01/16 – 07:01

I must take issue with Joe’s comment that the East Yorkshire fleetname on these vehicles "…commits the great sin of departing from a company house style."
The point here is that the company had a separate house style (or corporate identity) for the coaching part of its operations. This was not at all unusual – many of the "company" or area agreement operators used a different livery for their coaching activities. Sometimes it was just a different arrangement of the bus fleet colours (typically, a "reversed" livery), others used different colours (e.g. West Yorkshire, Eastern Counties, Crosville or Rhondda), while others also used a different style of fleetname, as East Yorkshire did – e.g. United, Western Welsh or Bristol Greyhound). Some went even further, and used a different name as well as livery for their coaching divisions, e.g. Devon General with Grey Cars or Western and Southern National with Royal Blue. The same could, of course, be said about the NBC itself. So the concept of a separate identity for the coaching business is certainly not unusual, and I certainly would not call it a "great sin". I have no doubt that the companies concerned did so for good business reasons.
As far as the font used, I would not dispute that clarity and ease of reading are important for things like destination blinds and other notices and signs. Fleetnames, however, are in a slightly different category, in that they often serve as the company logo as well, so that ease of reading is not necessarily the first priority. The NBC fleetnames were certainly bold, in some cases more so than their predecessors, but rather uninteresting as well – but I do agree that the colours were dire.

Nigel Frampton


01/01/16 – 07:01

WAT 677

EY

Can not agree about a difficult to read fleet name as I think my pic of 677 on 24 August 1968 in the Coach Station demonstrates.

Malcolm Wells


03/01/16 – 16:19

In the early 1960’s, I worked as a Conductor at Colchester ENOC depot, during vacation from College. East Yorkshire’s Harrington Tiger Cub "Pocklington Star" was a regular visitor to the depot as one of their tours overnighted at The George in Colchester. The vehicle looked quite splendid among all the Green and Cream Bristols.

Russell Howard


04/01/16 – 06:25

"NBC brought in decent typography"??? The fleet name lettering on NBC buses was unimaginative, ugly and crude, well in keeping with NBC’s centralised, blunderbus approach to many aspects of the industry. The font used was a modified bold version of Futura Bk, tidied up a bit to make the letters look more evenly spaced to the eye. NBC’s Henry Ford attitude to bus liveries – any colour you like as long as it’s red or green – negated any identification benefit that the heavy fleetname might have afforded. Like the Malvina Reynolds "Little Boxes" song, they all looked just the same, but worse – even the colour distinctions were denied. Freddie Wood’s NBC trumpeted that it was "The Biggest Bus Company In The World", and bland uniformity was the name of the game. In the days preceding NBC corporatism, fleetname styles and company colours represented the identities of individual operators, just as the logos of Kelloggs or Ford or Boots, for example, have stood the identification test of decades. You don’t require to read the lettering on a Mars Bar at sixty paces to know what you are buying, any more than bus passengers of the past needed to peer myopically at the fleetname of the local double decker before boarding the thing. The decipherability of destination blinds is a different issue altogether. It is invariably advisable to ensure that one’s travel objective is shared by the driver of the bus one is travelling on.

Roger Cox


15/04/16 – 07:12

East Yorkshire Stars: Went on a tour of the Yorkshire Dales when the whole fleet of Cavaliers were present. I seem to remember that there was a 36ft version called Bridlington Star. A one-off. Do I remember rightly?

Mike


25/10/16 – 07:00

Following up Don McKeown’s note dated 28/12/15 re Pocklington Star…..does anyone know if Richard Macallister still has it and if so how I might contact him?
I drove 692 for Eddie Brown when I was nobut a lad…am now a retired nostalgic old !!!..but I would love to see 692 again.

Dave Hollings


25/10/16 – 14:05

Regarding Roger C.’s comment about destinations. I recently got on the Stagecoach service 124 from Creigiau to Cardiff. At the Radyr roundabout the driver took a left, rather than straight on to Cardiff, at which point all the passengers pointed out the mistake. The driver’s response? " Don’t worry, I normally drive the 122, so sit back and enjoy the ride. All the buses end up in Cardiff anyway." I bet that got the computerised route monitoring system thinking!

David field


25/10/16 – 16:07

Yes, David F, but if the Traffic Commissioner’s ‘monitors’ were in the area of the 124 when it followed the 122 instead, they’d record it as a failure to run. In my experience, it is not recommended for the management or staff to upset the TC!

Pete Davies


 

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

 


 

East Yorkshire – Leyland A13 – BT 8777 – 54

East Yorkshire - Leyland A13 - BT 8777 - 64

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.

warrant cardHandS

 

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


BT 8777_cu

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 – 09:26BT 8777_cu_2

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

ford t

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.

BUS - M Hulot

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

B004-53-THO

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

BT 9809_lr

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

6''%20%20King%20Dick%20spanner

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


BT 8777_lr 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!


 

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

 


 

East Yorkshire – Leyland Lion – WF 1170 – 97

East Yorkshire - Leyland Lion - WF 1170 - 97

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1928
Leyland Lion PLSC3
Leyland B32R

Photograph shows an all-Leyland Lion PLSC3 which was new to East Yorkshire Motor Services as its fleet number 97 in 1928. It is seen here in a later life as a Mobile Canteen for Sheffield Transport Department crews. The Sheffield coat of arms can be seen on the side panel and the tea-making equipment can be seen inside.
Sheffield has a long history of giving withdrawn buses an extended life as gritters, tow-trucks, overhead works towers, mobile libraries, etc but it is unusual to have taken a vehicle from another operator for these purposes. My Sheffield records are very extensive and I can find no record of this having been used as a service bus and conclude that it was bought from EYMS for the job it can be seen doing so well.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

———

17/07/12 – 17:49

"Sheffield", Philip Battersby (Super Prestige) has a picture of Regent III/Roberts 122 on page 66. In the same picture, behind it, is "the Department’s mobile staff canteen which was in use from 1943 to 1958. VO7445 had been converted from the all Leyland Lion LT3 acquired from the War Department. (Never checked but there seem to be echoes of Underwood’s or East Midland in that number.) Whatever, it shows a track record of buying from outside for this sort of vehicle. [Come on, out there, someone knows the provenance of VO 7445.]

David Oldfield

———

17/07/12 – 17:49

This certainly seems to be an oddity, Les, as my records show WF to have been a Sheffield mark. East Yorkshire, being based in Hull (sorry, Kingston Upon Hull to give the correct title) would normally be expected to use marks from the local issuing Authority, not ones from elsewhere – even other areas within Yorkshire.

Pete Davies

———

17/07/12 – 18:28

Pete. WF was only a Sheffield mark after the 1974 re-allocations, when many local offices were closed. In 1928 Sheffield marks would have been W, WA, WB, WE, WJ, and would be until 1974.

David Oldfield

———

17/07/12 – 18:29

WF was only a Sheffield registration after 1974, before that it was East Yorkshire. An odd co-incidence really. WG also made the same move, this time from Stirlingshire.

David Beilby

———

17/07/12 – 20:56

I stand corrected! Thanks for the update.

Pete Davies

———

17/07/12 – 20:58

WF 1170 wasn’t a loner in the EYMS fleet but part of a batch starting, I think, somewhere about WF 1152 (fleet no 79 to WF 1171 (98). There were many other, unrelated WFs as well as these Lions.
VO was, as Dave Oldfield suggests a Mansfield, or Nottinghamshire reg, so maybe it was with one of the smaller operators in the East Midland area?

Les Dickinson

———

18/07/12 – 08:04

I’ve just realised one of the reasons the registration on the Lion feels odd is that it was an East Riding mark, whereas all the fleet I knew had Hull registrations.

David Beilby

———

18/07/12 – 10:01

According to the PSV/OS fleet history no. 97 (WF 1170) was withdrawn in 1939 and sold to the War Department in August 1940 and had passed to Sheffield by July 1945.
27 buses delivered in 1928 to EYMS had WF registrations, the first to have Hull registrations being sixteen Tilling -Stevens nos 104 to 119 (KH 6971 to 6986) also in 1928. Thereafter all new buses seemed to have Hull registration marks. 97 was one of several buses on hire to the South Staffordshire Regiment, Welton in June/July 1940 before being requisitioned by the War Department. It was last licensed by Sheffield in July 1955.

Malcolm Wells

———

18/07/12 – 10:02

Sorry to throw a spanner into the works over the registration letters WF, but, as David B points out, this was an East Riding mark, not Kingston Upon Hull. EYMS always used Hull registrations – AT, KH and RH. Some of their vehicles did have WF registrations, (along with BT, the other East Riding letters), but these came from acquired businesses such as Everinghanm Bros. Therefore, if this vehicle was indeed delivered new to East Yorkshire, its acquisition of WF letters, as well as the other vehicles Les mentions, would be a stark anomaly. It still just doesn’t sound right.
Changing the subject – I’m no expert on Lions or Leyland bodies, but doesn’t the driver’s door seem a bit far back for the steering wheel? Or is it just the angle of the photo?

Roy Burke

———

18/07/12 – 10:08

Keith Eastons excellent fleet list for East Yorkshire Motor Services Part 1 – 1926/1941 can be viewed at this link.

Peter

———

19/07/12 – 07:40

There is no anomaly. EYMS’s first buses that were ordered (other than acquired from former companies) in 1927 were 59-64, also Leyland PLSC3, which were registered WF 810/29/30/45/46. Also in 1927 nos 26-30 also PLSC3 had WF registrations but had been ordered by Lee and Beulah so it may be that whoever was in charge simply followed on using WF
Clearly EYMS did not always use Hull registrations – only with the arrival of 104 to 119 were Hull’s marks first used and of course continued to be used.
Remember that EYMS was newly formed in 1926 and had inherited several companies and premises and it is possible that it took time to sort out its approach to registrations. Several premises until 1929 were outside the city including the works and offices at Anlaby Common until Offices were opened in Hull in 1927.
See also pages 10 and 11 in the excellent John Banks book, page 16 in the Ian C Gibbs book and page 12 in the Keith Jenkinson book.

Malcolm Wells

———

19/07/12 – 07:41

East Yorkshire used East Riding registration marks (WF) during 1926/7 from then onwards Kingston upon Hull marks were normally used (RH, KH, AT)

Keith Easton

———

19/07/12 – 17:13

Thanks, Peter, Malcolm and Keith for putting me straight. I stand well and truly corrected – not for the first time, but, as my old Dad used to tell me, if you’re always frightened you might be wrong, you’ll never open your mouth.

Roy Burke

———

20/07/12 – 15:58

With respect to the above photograph of the former Sheffield mobile canteen bus, WF 1170, I wondered if the attached copy of the vehicle’s registration card might be of interest. It even records the unladen weight of 5-2-2, including benches, tea urns, and water tank etc!! Click this link to view 

Remember Ctrl+ to zoom in Ctrl0 (zero) to get back.

Dave Careless

———

21/07/12 – 07:40

That is a great posting, Dave Careless. Thanks for sharing it.

Les Dickinson

———

21/07/12 – 12:14

Superb piece of history, Dave C.
Love the Tons/Cwts/Qtrs/Lbs. What a nuisance metric calculations are, compared with simple Imperial!

Chris Hebbron

———

23/07/12 – 18:34

Glad you enjoyed it; I like your comment about Imperial vs Metric, Chris, quite funny. Hard to imagine that by the time this vehicle was finally withdrawn, tea was probably still only available in loose form; I wonder how many cwts of tea leaves it got through every week ?!!

Dave Careless


 

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 does not set or use Cookies but Google Analytics will set four see this

Old Bus Photos from Saturday 25th April 2009 to Wednesday 22nd November 2017