Old Bus Photos

Portsmouth Corporation – Leyland Titan – ORV 989 – 112

ORV 989

Portsmouth Corporation
Leyland Titan PD2/40
MCCW H30/26R

ORV 989 is another in the long line of Portsmouth buses with the registration numbers in the ‘high 900’ series. It dates from 1958 and is a Leyland Titan PD2/40 with Metropolitan Cammell H56R body. It is seen in the St Catherine’s park and ride car park during the King Alfred running day on 1 January 2009.

ORV 989_2

This second view shows the Municipal Crest.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

25/12/16 – 10:22

What a nice Christmas Day sight! This bus is a superb example of restoration as not only does it look smart but it looks "real", in other words like a Portsmouth bus would have done at the time. I think the adverts play no small part in this and of course they are not appropriate for every restoration.

David Beilby

26/12/16 – 06:54

Thank you, David. I must say, having seen other versions of Portsmouth’s livery, the others were nowhere near in the "elegance" department.

Pete Davies

26/12/16 – 06:55

Drop windows on an Orion, was this a design feature unique to Portsmouth?

Ronnie Hoye

28/12/16 – 06:39.

All our PD2s with Orion bodies had half drops.

Dave French

28/12/16 – 16:29

More details are given on www.cpptd.co.uk/ourvehicles.htm

Andy Hemming


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



Leeds City Transport – Leeds Titan – UUA 207 – 207

Leeds City Transport - Leeds Titan - UUA 207 - 207

Leeds City Transport
Leeds Titan PD2/11
Roe H33/25R

This looks like a typical view from Yorkshire but these Leeds City Transport buses are interloping in Lancashire. Taken around 1970 the two Leyland Titans are seen in Rochdale climbing up from Sudden on Manchester Road heading for the town centre. The occasion was the Trans Pennine Rally from Manchester to Harrogate. Leading is 207 (UUA 207) a PD2/11 from a batch which were reputed to be the first Titans with Pneumo-cyclic transmission. Following up is 260 (5260 NW) a later PD3/5 30-footer. Both have Roe bodies.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Philip Halstead

28/10/16 – 07:41

Philip, I can’t make out the registration of the PD3, but I’d have thought it would be 5280 NW, ex Leeds 280, which is preserved (currently by Ensign, I believe, but probably with the Mile Cross Transport Collection at the time of your photo), rather than 5260 NW, which I don’t think survived.

Trevor Leach

28/10/16 – 16:55

They may have been the first batch of Pneumocyclic Titans but the very first is Leyland bodied demonstrator NTF 9 still owned by Edward Docherty who bought it from the manufacturer for A1 service work around 1955.

Stephen Allcroft

29/10/16 – 06:16

Is the date on the photo correct? The parts of the cars that we can see look to be more 1990 than 1970.

David Hick

31/10/16 – 08:18

This post is from a print and I regret I kept no notes of when it was taken. On reflection the date is more likely late 1980’s. After enlarging the scan the PD3/5 does look the be 5260. Apologies for any confusion but relying on memory with age is a tricky business.

Philip Halstead

31/10/16 – 15:11

I wondered about the date as I remember UUA 207 being stored on Pocklington Airfield in the 1980s alongside another ex-Leeds Leyland which was being used as a mobile control room/mess room by the gliding club.

David Hick


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



Birmingham City – Leyland Titan – HOV 685 – 1685

Birmingham City - Leyland Titan - HOV 685 - 1685

Birmingham City Transport
Leyland Titan PD2/1
Brush H30/24R

HOV 685 is a Leyland Titan PD2/1 with Brush H54R body, to Birmingham’s then standard design. She dates from 1948 and we see her in the Weymouth rally on 1 July 1979. She began her service at Yardley Wood depot and, Malcolm Keeley reports in his book in the Glory Days series, most of the batch so allocated from new remained there throughout their working lives. The others were at Perry Bar. The saga of the Brush bodies is not so happy, however. There had been some earlier disagreements between the builder and the operator, the former managing to convince itself that the product was entirely the opposite of what the operator wanted. This batch appears to have been the last of the Brush bodies for Birmingham.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/06/16 – 09:22

Brush had a similar "conversations" with Manchester regarding fifty bodies it was building to the Manchester post war Standard design on Daimler chassis at the same time. Manchester was unhappy with Brush’s interpretation and had to keep a watching brief on the progress to ensure what was produced was identical to the drawings. As it turned out the bodies were well finished and lasted well.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/06/16 – 11:43

Can anybody please explain what the dispute between BCT and Brush was about.
Presumably the operator issued a comprehensive specification of their requirements for the builder to follow

Pat Jennings

07/06/16 – 18:48

Pat, according to his ‘Glory Days’ book on Birmingham City Transport, Malcolm Keeley reports that the rot seems to have set in – in more ways than one – when the timber frame bodies on the surviving 1929-31 AEC Regents had to have new Austerity bodies by Brush in 1943/4. There was supposed to be a decrease in price as a result of salvaging parts from the old bodies, but they had been from four different builders and the cost was actually increased.
The next chapter takes place in respect of the Crossleys ordered in 1945. They should have had Brush bodies, but delays in delivering chassis caused Brush to ask to be ‘released’. Not an unreasonable request, perhaps, but Keeley says, "After the wartime disputes over the Regent and CWA bodies, small wonder BCT ceased to employ Brush."

Pete Davies

09/06/16 – 06:45

Pete, that’s all true but the Leylands are 1948 deliveries whereas your comment finishes in 1945. If I were a betting man I’d put good money on Bush having the same approach as it took with Manchester.

Phil Blinkhorn

09/06/16 – 19:08

Phil B, I’ve spent most of the day looking in the Keeley book for his comments about this dispute, so far without success. I’m sure I didn’t dream it. I’ll post further on this in due course!

Pete Davies

10/06/16 – 05:33

Pete, you are quite right in your summary of Malcolm Keeley’s account of the Brush utility bodies for Birmingham, and the consequent decision by BCT not to use Brush any more. The account of the war-time re-bodying of the pre-war AEC Regents (p.26) describes the problems Brush had salvaging material from the old bodies by four makers, and trying to incorporate these into the fifty new bodies. Delivery was delayed because of the interruption to the production system, and additional detail design work was also needed. A major dispute broke out over the cost. (One is illustrated on p.30, and a trainer conversion on p.41). As you say in your original posting, Brush asked to be released from bodying the 10 Crossleys ordered in 1945, because of pressure of other work in their drawing office. They were already committed to 100 bodies on Leyland PD2s. Keeley, on p.48, indicates that BCT ceased to employ Brush, as you quote above.

Michael Hampton

10/06/16 – 10:21

Thank you, Michael . . .

Pete Davies

10/06/16 – 10:21

Thanks Pete and Michael. Perhaps the clue to the similarities to the dispute with Manchester lies in the drawing office.

Phil Blinkhorn


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 20th September 2017