Old Bus Photos

Hunter’s – Leyland Tiger TS7 – JR 6600 – 21

Hunter’s - Leyland Tiger TS7 - JR 6600
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

H W Hunter and Sons
Leyland Tiger TS7
Burlingham B35F

Another from H W Hunter and Sons. New to them in 1937, JR 6600 was a B35F Burlingham bodied Leyland TS7.

Hunter’s - Leyland Tiger TS7 - JR 6600
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

In 1954 it was rebodied by Roe as a B39C, so it was around at the same time that they had the two Titans previously featured on this site. I’m 90 per cent sure they had another Leyland single decker but I’ve been unable to trace it. They had a well deserved reputation that you could virtually set your watch by Hunter’s bus and in addition to the service vehicles they had several coaches, all either AEC or Leylands, although they later switched to Volvo’s. They escaped becoming part of NBC and the formation Tyne and Wear PTE didn’t seem to affect them much because their depot and most of their single route were outside the area controlled by the PTE, so they were more or less allowed to continue much as before. However, I think the PTE may have had some influence over the decision to extended the route from North Shields beyond Seaton Delaval to Cramlington. The huge operational area covered by the pre NBC United Automobile Services empire was split up into bite size pieces prior to deregulation, and the area between the Tyne and the Scottish border was taken by the newly formed Northumbria Motor Services, which was in effect a management buyout. I don’t know the circumstances and I wouldn’t want to speculate, but Hunter’s became part of the Group. I think the name lived on for a while, but Northumbria Motor Services were swallowed up by Arriva, and like many other independents the name of W H Hunter is now, just a memory.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

02/01/13 – 07:50

That is a huge seating capacity for a pre-war halfcab chassis. Was it extended when it was rebodied?

Eric Bawden

02/01/13 – 09:06

I wondered the same thing, Eric, and whether it was a road-based prototype for the "economy class" of airline seating!

Pete Davies

02/01/13 – 16:53

A most interesting question and 39 does seem a lot of seats in a vehicle of , presumably, 27’6" length. One would also have thought that a centre doorway, as opposed to the previous front door, might well reduce the available seat space. However, as the two pictures are taken from roughly very nearly the same perspective the vehicle appears to be the same length in both. It was unusual, but not unknown, for normal length prewar buses to have more seats than ideal space wise, but even the lightweight Lions and Cheetahs taken over by Samuel Ledgard in 1943 from the widow of G.F.Tate of Leeds originally seated 39 in their delightfully "old fashioned" Barnaby bodies.

Chris Youhill

02/01/13 – 17:35JR 6600_cu

I’ve given all the information I could dig up and I don’t know if the chassis was extended, but two things look a bit odd to me. On the Burlingham body, if you look at the seat above the letter ‘H’ it gives the impression that the seats over the rear axle appear to be facing each other, also the wheels are fairly flush to the side of the vehicle, whereas on the Roe they look to be slightly inboard, as if the vehicle has been widened but the axle length is still the same, or is it me?

Ronnie Hoye

03/01/13 – 06:42

7ft 6in chassis and original body, but 8ft new body, perhaps? If so, this wouldn’t be the only one, and they do look a bit strange!

Pete Davies

03/01/13 – 06:43

Ronnie, I would agree with you that the Roe body looks to be 8ft on a 7ft 6in chassis. The Roe body also has an extra window bay to the Burlingham.
It may be purely body style but the body overhang behind the rear axle looks to be longer on the Roe than the Burlingham, certainly, there are almost two full window bays behind the wheelarch on the Roe as against one and a half on the Burlingham. Also if you look at the exhaust tailpipe it appears to be in the same position in relation to the back axle in both photos yet the Roe overhang, again seems to be longer.
Don’t know if it has anything to do with this discussion but the front wheels, despite the absence of nutguard rings on the Roe are different to those fitted in the Burlingham picture.
As this body looks to be almost identical to the centre entrance Guys placed in service with Darlington in 1952/3 I wonder if Hunter’s body was tagged on to the end of the Darlington order, a not uncommon occurrence at Crossgates Works, even into the ’70s. I believe Darlington’s Guys were B41C.
Has anyone a nearside view of this bus with its Roe Body?

Eric Bawden

03/01/13 – 06:44

My word Ronnie, I think you’ve hit on two very pertinent features there for sure. As regards the "inset" appearance of the wheels on the newer Roe body I would say that the replacement coachwork is eight feet wide on the unaltered 7’6" TS7 chassis – a practice not unknown in the 1950s especially on single deckers. Your enlargement of the area above the "H" of Hunters reveals an interesting feature. The "A" shaped seat back appears to be a joint support for two seats, one on the left facing backwards and sharing the floor space with a forward facing seat to its rear, and one forward facing one on the right. The four passengers (plus four on the nearside) in the facing seats no doubt had to put their feet on the slightly intruding wheel arches. What a wonderful vehicle in both its forms !!

Chris Youhill

03/01/13 – 06:44

To my eye the newer body looks longer, though not much – the typical Roe high domed roof tends to mask this. 39 seats would mean 10 rows on the offside, 9 on the nearside (both including the rear 5-some). That sounds awfully tight in a length of 27’6" – minus the length of the cab and thickness of the front bulkhead.

Stephen Ford

04/01/13 – 06:45

Eric, I typed JR 6600 into my search engine, and up came the Park Royal vehicles site with what I take to be a pre delivery photo taken outside the Roe works. It differs slightly from the Darlington Guy’s, as when the doors are closed they form part of the side of the bus, whereas the platform steps are exposed on the Darlington vehicles.

Ronnie Hoye

04/01/13 – 17:43

Thanks Ronnie. After initial difficulty I eventually found the photo on the PRV site.

Eric Bawden

08/01/13 – 07:43

Noting some of the concerns about fitting 39 seats into a body on a 27’6" chassis so earlier today I took a tape measure to a 1952 Roe body with 39 seats although in an overall 30′ chassis and with a front entrance.
Putting 5 seats across the rear leaves a further 34 seats to be fitted by means of 9 sets of double seats on the offside and a further 8 sets with a door on the nearside. The length of the 30 footer from the bulkhead to the rear of the final pair of seats at the back was 22’2" with a gap of 29.5/30" between the same points on adjoining seats.
Turning to the shorter 27’6" bus under review and allowing the same distance from the front of the bus to the front bulkhead and similar requirements for the rear seats leaves circa 19’6" for the 9 sets of seats on the offside and would allow a gap of just 25" between the same point each set of adjoining seats. To me that looked a rather tight fit so I measured the seat gaps on some others from that era and all of them were in the range of 28-30"
To reduce the gap between seats by 5" in the 1950’s would, in my opinion, require smaller seat bases or otherwise it would be impossible to fit your legs in.

Andrew Beever

08/01/13 – 10:42

Andrew: Although I agree that the extra seats would be tight, your maths isn’t quite right. With a 39 seater there are 10 rows of seats on the offside, including the back bench seat. On the basis of your 29.5" pitch, the overall length of the 10 rows is 295". Reduce this by 30" and the ten seats now have to fit 265", so the pitch is 26.5". You lose 3" per seat, rather than your 5". I am over 6 ft, with long legs, and can just make a 27" pitch with a thin seat back with my legs straight, so the average person just about fits OK. Birkenhead used to cram 66 seats onto a PD2 without a 3 seater at the back or a television seat. Those seats were definitely tight for me, and probably similar in pitch to 39 on a 27ft 6in half-cab.

Alan Murray-Rust

08/01/13 – 13:43

Alan, I had specifically excluded the rear seat in my calculations since this seat is effectively fitted into the rounded rear corners with very limited foot room under it.

Andrew Beever

15/01/13 – 16:38

Hunter 21 (JR 6600) had Roe body GO3827 when rebodied 3/54.
Hunter 20 (JR 4901) was the other Leyland TS7 10076 rebodied by Roe in 4/53 (GO3680) also squeezing in 39 seats in its centre entrance body.
Hunter did, of course, have another new Roe body. Fleet number 30 was WTY 843J, a Leyland PDR1A/1R, with H43/29D bodywork


16/01/13 – 10:48

Thanks for that, Mike, I’ve been racking my brains, or rather what little is left of them. I knew they had a second Tiger but I’ve been unable to find any records of it, did that also start life with a Burlingham body?

Ronnie Hoye

27/01/13 – 10:30

I’m sure the two single deckers were VTY 360. & TJR 573 this I have to say is from memory many years ago.

Bob Mandale

28/01/13 – 08:40

Bob, MikeB came up with the answer I was looking for. The two single deck buses you refer to were the replacements for JR 4901 and 6600. They were AEC 2MU3RV’s with Plaxton Highwayman B45F bodies. TJR 573 was delivered in 1961 followed by VTY 360 in 1962 (VTY 360 is coming as a separate posting soon). By that time the chassis on 6600 was nigh on 25 years old and from the registration I would estimate 4901 to be a couple of years older. Apart from WTY 843J mentioned by MikeB, I believe the two AEC’s were the last new service buses bought by Hunter’s as all subsequent vehicles were either coaches or D/P’s

Ronnie Hoye

03/04/15 – 05:31

Further to the discussion on the length of JR4901 and JR6600, can I mention that these two vehicles had a rear-facing seat for five across the front bulkhead, and an inward facing single seat on the nearside just ahead of the centre entrance. I also think that the entrance may have been slightly wider than usual for a single decker of that era. I don’t recall the seat spacing as being especially tight, so I would think that the bodies must have been slightly longer than the original ones. Incidentally, the original body above is described as B34F, but it looks to me to be a coach body.

John Gibson

01/06/15 – 07:20

There was a heck of a lot of rebodying of half cab single deckers from 1950 as 38 or 39 seaters once the 27′ 6" maximum length had been increased to 30 feet.
However, all is not what it seems. Buses for Trent, North Western and Potteries and the Hunter’s Tiger were lengthened without any alteration to the wheelbase of 17′ 6" because the C&U Regs until 1961 allowed the rear overhang to be up to 50% of the wheelbase. With a front overhang of about 2′ 3" on, say, Gardner 5LW or AEC 7.7 engined chassis – and a rear overhang of 8′ 9" it was legal from 1950 to go to a maximum length of 28′ 6" without altering the wheelbase. This was sufficient for another row of seats to be fitted without any alteration of the chassis.
Indeed, I think it was only Yorkshire Woollen District which actually lengthened the wheelbase of its Willowbrook bodied PS2s to 18′ 9" when they lengthened them to 30 feet.
Many of the Leyland PS’s taken over by Potteries in the early fifties were already 28′ 6" long and may have inspired PMT to rebuild its Weymann single deck 17′ 6" wheelbase OPD2s by substituting a 2′ 7" long bay for a possible rear door with a 3′ 7" long standard window bay, increasing the seating capacity in the process.

Alan Johnson


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



Hunter’s – Leyland Titan – ETY 912 – 18

Hunter’s - Leyland Titan - ETY 912 - 18
Copyright John Kaye

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

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

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

ETY 912_2_lr
ETY 912 – Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

02/12/12 – 11:10

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

Phil Blinkhorn

02/12/12 – 11:11

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

Pete Davies

02/12/12 – 11:15

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

Phil Blinkhorn

02/12/12 – 12:01

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

Chris Youhill

02/12/12 – 14:16

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

Pete Davies

02/12/12 – 16:20

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

Ronnie Hoye

02/12/12 – 17:05

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

Pete Davies

03/12/12 – 08:04

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

Diesel Dave

03/12/12 – 08:06

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

Michael Elliott

03/12/12 – 08:08

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

Philip Halstead

03/12/12 – 10:41

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

Chris Youhill

03/12/12 – 13:59

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

Phil Blinkhorn

03/12/12 – 14:00

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

Ronnie Hoye

04/12/12 – 07:12

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

Roger Cox

04/12/12 – 07:13

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

David Oldfield

04/12/12 – 08:14

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

Chris Hebbron

04/12/12 – 09:14

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

David Oldfield

04/12/12 – 11:35

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

Chris Hebbron

04/12/12 – 11:37

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

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

Phil Blinkhorn

04/12/12 – 15:41

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


05/12/12 – 07:20

Good point, Andrew!

Chris Hebbron

05/12/12 – 08:05

OWB 859_lr

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

David Beilby

05/12/12 – 09:14

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

Pete Davies

05/12/12 – 09:16

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

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 11:04

Pity WL was not a Sheffield mark eh Pete?

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 11:58

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


05/12/12 – 12:00

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

Phil Blinkhorn

05/12/12 – 13:54

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

David Oldfield

05/12/12 – 17:35

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

Ronnie Hoye

06/12/12 – 07:04

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

Philip Carlton

07/12/12 – 06:50

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

John Thompson

10/12/12 – 08:00

Hunters Lancia

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

Ronnie Hoye

09/01/13 – 10:35

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

Paul Robson

07/07/13 – 13:57

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

Percy Trimmer

20/05/14 – 10:37

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

Alan Coulson

20/05/14 – 16:29

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

David Call

21/05/14 – 08:11

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

Alan Coulson

ETY 912 Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

13/11/21 – 06:19

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

David Call


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 Sunday 25th February 2024