Copyright Ian Wild

Potteries Motor Traction
1968
Leyland Leopard PSU4A/4R
Marshall B43F

A pleasant Sunday afternoon scene in May 1970 outside the church at the Bagnall terminus of service 44 from Hanley shows one of Milton Depots pair of short Leopards. This batch of 20 buses was a welcome relief after the 48 Daimler Roadliner buses delivered in the previous three years. These short length Leopards were ultra reliable machines and ideal for the rural services operated by Cheadle, Longton, Newcastle and Milton Depots where they replaced early AEC Reliances.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

---

24/08/12 - 08:19

Nice shot!
"This batch of 20 buses was a welcome relief after the 48 Daimler Roadliners . . ." All I have read about the Roadliners indicates that the term ‘unmitigated disaster’ is too mild. How could Daimler have got it so wrong?

Pete Davies

---

24/08/12 - 08:20

Said in three simple words - ultra reliable machines. Never was convinced that Volvo were that much batter than AEC but Leyland suffered from association with British Leyland (Motor Corporation). I have great respect and affection for the Leopard, AN68 and Tiger. They may not have been as flash or quick as the Volvos but they plodded on - you trusted them to keep going.

David Oldfield

---

24/08/12 - 12:19

A pair of these are preserved namely 1127 - TVT 127G and 1128 - TVT 128G

Chris Hough

---

24/08/12 - 12:20

Pete. Everyone got it wrong apart from Bristol with rear engined buses - Daimler got more wrong than anyone else, especially choice of engine. As a "coach" man, my top three are ZF Reliance, RE and Leopard. I preferred the Leyland engined RE and, significantly, PMT turned to the RE - albeit late in the RE’s lifespan.

David Oldfield

---

25/08/12 - 07:40

David,
Ta! I had an idea that most of the problem was the choice of engine.

Pete Davies

---

25/08/12 - 07:42

David, you can add Seddon to the list of rear engined design failures. No doubt because of his debt of gratitude to Robert Seddon in the early years of his engineering career, Geoff Hilditch, in his writings, is quite kind about the shortcomings of the Pennine RU, but it was undoubtedly a severe disappointment to those who tried hard to encourage competition with British Leyland. The only really satisfactory Seddon psv design was the Pennine VII, which proved to be a sound and reliable performer.

Roger Cox

---

25/08/12 - 07:42

Re Chris Hough’s posting of 24/08/12 12:19 about the two preserved PMT Leopards 1127 & 1128, here is a photo I took of them both at the Wirksworth Bus Rally at the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway on 1st July this year.

Eric Bawden

---

25/08/12 - 08:53

As always, seeing sisters side by side highlights the detail differences. In this case, the indicator displays, the "company" logo versus the NBC one on the front, the little ventilator under the windscreen . . . And this is just from a look at the bus front!

Pete Davies

---

25/08/12 - 10:54

Pete. There was another problem that everyone except Bristol had, as well. Heavy engines overhanging the rear axle causing bodies, and chassis, to flex (and sometimes break). Ingenious use of the Lodekka drop axle enabled Bristol to shorten the overhang on the RE and thus reduce the stresses on both chassis and body. The Seddon RU mentioned by Roger was, as much as anything, meant to be an RE clone to help RE operators out who were suffering delivery delays (a "British Leyland" problem with all their brands at the time). Crosville bought hordes of the things and were stung. The Ward Dalesman GRX was a further unsuccessful attempt. The Seddon Pennine VII, on the other hand was a "Leopard with Gardner engine" that "British Leyland" refused to supply to the Scottish Bus Group.

David Oldfield

---

25/08/12 - 12:27

And we all know what happened to British Leyland over their perceptions of what the customer wanted and what they were prepared to supply: among other things, we got foreign trucks and buses, and cars with traditional boot lids (even on cars with the hatchback shape) when other car makers were introducing hatchbacks, etc!

Pete Davies

---

27/08/12 - 07:53

A common consensus is the generally uselessness of early rear engined saloons Interestingly some operators managed to make the beast work. Preston made the Panther work as did Hull equally Leeds 150 Swifts had a normal lifespan. While others quickly sold them off as to fault prone or too costly to maintain.
I suppose that fashion also played a part whereby if undertaking A was getting rid of the things undertaking B down the road would do as well.
To my mind this meant that Leyland could pour money into the National and not further develop the other chassis particularly the Bristol RE which was streets ahead of anything similar from the Leyland empire.

Chris Hough

---

28/08/12 - 14:35

These Leopards were awful (my opinion) it was all down to the cab layout the windscreen was about 6 feet away so you had to stand up to wipe the screen also had a low driving position. The only good thing was they were warm in the winter. we operated them on the Newcastle - Market Drayton service (64) and the other problem was they did not have a AEC Badge on the front.

Michael Crofts

---

28/08/12 - 17:55

Well, Michael, I will agree with you wholeheartedly on the matter of AEC, but have to say that Devon General’s similar AH505 Reliances - ie with Marshall bodies - had similarly huge cabs with the screen miles away. So you can blame Leyland for the low driving position, which they rectified on Leopards after 1969, but Marshall are to blame for your trek to clean the screen!
[I assume you were after an AEC chassis and engine behind the badge? I knew a coach operator in High Wycombe (Bucks) who ran a Reliance with a Bedford engine…..!]

David Oldfield

---

28/08/12 - 17:56

All Leylands had that problem, Michael!

Eric Bawden

---

29/08/12 - 07:23

Just noticed another difference, on the two preserved examples (1127/8). 1127 has sliding vents behind driver’s signalling window, 1128 doesn’t.

David Oldfield

---

29/08/12 - 12:20

We had three similar Leopard PSU4/Marshalls to this at Halifax. 358-360 (NHE 8-10F) came to Calderdale J.O.C. from Yorkshire Traction as part of the Todmorden takeover arrangements. Nice enough looking buses, they too suffered from the faraway windscreens and very low driving position. They had the original style of large Pneumocyclic gearchange pedestal which got completely in the way, and to get in and out of the cab seat required the skills of a contortionist. With the seat wound up high enough to see forward and reach the pedals one’s knees were rubbing against the underside of the steering wheel, and one’s left leg had a struggle to fit around the gearchange pedestal. They were extremely uncomfortable and inconvenient buses to drive.
Despite the relative indestructability of the earlier Leopard chassis, I am told that the build quality of the Marshall bodies left a lot to be desired. Despite the apparent similarity of the BET-style bodies built by various bodybuilders, it would seem that some were a lot better than others, and that the Met.Cam/Weymann version was generally the most durable.
Despite this, 360 was badly damaged in a collision and sold to a Barnsley breaker, but later it turned up in Malta rebuilt and magnificently presented by one of the island’s most enthusiastic bus owners.

John Stringer

---

19/01/13 - 06:12

Having owned a Marshall bodied short Ribble Leopard for almost 15 years I find it hard to believe that they were such poor service vehicles. I must admit there is a certain amount of dexterity required to become seated in the drivers seat, but once seated I have not yet found any problem with the driving position. Surely windscreens on most half cabs and other 1960’s vehicles are a similar distance away? Whilst I have not driven this particular bus fully laden, the steering could be entertaining, I find it a pleasure to drive.

John Davis

---

20/04/13 - 07:17

Re- remarks on variations with 127/128, yes there’s lots more inside and out, we have a boot but no doors, 127 has a disabled chair lift! 127 has 2 roof vents, 128 has 1, coach seating in 127, service seats in 128. The luggage racks differ, as do cabs, as 128 was altered along with destination box layout by previous owner. I cannot explain, or took the time to find out why all this happened, as owner/secretary of ‘TVT 128G group’ what I can say is that 128 has served us well over the 13 years we have owned her, no major repairs other than a radiator leak/broken jubilee clip/1 leaf spring but she’s a good runner.

Keith Broomhall

---

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

---

20/07/15 - 06:49

Enjoyed a couple of laps around Oulton Park yesterday aboard TVT 128G, one sighting lap and one ‘fast’ lap! Wouldn’t have been half as much fun on a modern bus.

Wayne Hope

Copyright Ian Wild

Potteries Motor Traction
1964
Daimler Roadliner SRC6
Marshall B50F

This is one of the prototype Daimler Roadliners which originally had the Clayton COMPAS heating and ventilation system fitted. There were two radiators, one each side of the bus just in front of the rear wheels which had the twin function of engine cooling and saloon heating. Sounds good in concept but like a lot of things at that time didn’t work reliably in practice. In January 1969 it reappeared with a front mounted radiator and conventional heating, the only PMT Roadliner so fitted. The radiator is hidden behind the front grille, which may look familiar to some as it was the grill fitted to the contemporary Ford Transit van. I cannot remember now why PMT fitted a front radiator to SN1000 and not a rear mounted one in the engine bay like the rest of the fleet. Incidentally the last 6 of the Marshall bodied Roadliners fleet numbers S1086-S1091 also had the COMPAS system - and they were no more reliable than SN1000!!
This was the only PMT Roadliner with air suspension, all the others had Metalastik toggle link suspension. The photo was taken on a test run near Clayton Schools on 20th January 1969.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

———

I have driven these buses and they were a total disaster, PMT only kept them for about 7 years.

Michael Crofts

———

I remember the PMT Roadliners. Some of them had home made looking slits in the panels behind the back wheels to improve engine cooling. They were very noisy.

JT

———

Yes very noisy but sounding totally unlike a bus. It was a sort of deep "Ewwww" muffled roar. When North Western Fleetline 189 was fitted with the same Cummins V6 you could hear it descending Rassbottom St in Stalybridge (On the joint route 90 to Marple) long before it turned into the bus station.
I now regret that I never did take a ride on a Roadliner when I had the chance. A Potteries mate says they were just as deafening from the inside, and that the later Perkins engined ones whilst marginally more reliable, used to waggle their tails dramatically when driven at high revs.
Darlington and Chesterfield Corporations got long service lives out of theirs, whether that suggests they overcame many of the problems, or that the local councillors refused to give up on them for the costs and red faces involved in replacing them early?

Keith Jackson

———

When I was a boy the PMT Roadliners operated on route 13 to Bentilee. Apart from the noise the bodywork rattled fit to disintegrate! There was an emergency exit window half way along the off side the locking mechanism for which used to jiggle about when the bus was stationary. A big disappointment after the AEC Reliance 590s.

John Tinsley

———

Our problem at PMT was that we just had too many of the things!! The largest fleet of Roadliners anywhere in the world. The Plaxton bodied ones (timber framed bodies)could possibly have gone on to nearer normal service lives if re engined with Perkins V8s - but at what cost? The Marshall bodied ones (steel framed bodies)were disastrous and although we rebuilt a few at enormous cost in man hours they weren’t a right lot better. By 1972 failures of the Metalastik toggle link suspension units were becoming prevalent. These were expensive to buy and a nightmare to replace. Panhard rod bushes were a recurrent failure - again taking much longer to replace than a leaf spring on a conventional vehicle. We used saloon seats from withdrawn Marshall vehicles to replace the worn out high backed seats in some of Reliances SN801-810 making them more suitable for urban work and less susceptible to vandalism. Happy days!!

Ian Wild

———

Just a bit of clarification about the ‘home made looking slits’ (ref JT). They were fibreglass corner panels made in house in the fibreglass shop at Stoke and as JT says, the idea was to provide additional engine bay cooling. To the best of my recollection, they were fitted to the 47 Cummins engined Plaxton and Marshall bodied buses. I don’t think they were fitted to the later batch of 10 Plaxtons with Perkins V8 engines.

Ian Wild

Ribble Motor Services
1964
Leyland Panther PSUR1/2RT
Marshall DP49F

Odd man out in the Ribble fleet for over ten years was the first production Leyland Panther, which I photographed outside the September 1964 Earls Court Commercial Motor Show.
It is possible that it entered Ribble service for a spell before the show, and early on in its career it ran on the Blackpool to London service, presumably on hire to Standerwick. It operated from Preston garage for most of its life. Withdrawn from service in 9/75, no further owners are known to me.
Photographs of it actually in service are few and far between, the few I have seen are usually on private hire work.
Any recollections or in service photos would be of great interest!
It seems that Panther coaches were not too common.
From ‘Bus Lists On The Web’ and Doug Jack’s ‘Leyland’ book, I see that there were some other PSUR1/2 coaches for the home market, as follows:

15 for East Yorkshire in 1966, with Marshall bus bodies! B49F (why use a coach chassis you may ask!)
2 for East Yorkshire with Metro Cammell C44F bodies in 6/67
4 for East Yorkshire in 1/68 with Marshall DP49F bodies
5 for East Yorkshire in 1968 with Plaxton C44F bodies
1 for Soudley Valley Coaches, Glos in 11/66 with Plaxton C51F body
10 for Seamarks of Westoning, Beds with O.680 engines and Plaxton C51F bodies in 1968 (full air change ?)
6 for Seamarks with Plaxton C51F bodies in 1969
4 for Skills of Nottingham, two in 1969 and two PSUR1B/2R in
1971 all with Plaxton C51F bodies

Photos of any of these would be of interest.
Many more were exported, which was also the case with the bus version, which did well in Australia.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Peter G Greaves

---

This unique Panther was the reason that Ribble continued to buy large numbers of Leopards (bus, DP and coach versions) and ultimately why they became a major RE user. It was a disaster. Unreliable, it probably slept in the corner of Frenchwood for much of its life and was condemned to private hire to avoid the (bad) publicity of breakdown on high profile long distance express services. The sad fact was that the Leopard was reliable, the Panther not.
Some, including Preston Corporation and the Aussies, persisted with the Panther and seemed to make it work but most British operators - including Manchester - had similar experience. It put back the case for low(er) floor vehicles for some years - and certainly until the RE was made available on the open market later in the decade.
[I think that you will also find that Maidstone and District had similar numbers and types of Panther as East Yorkshire.]
This must also have been a fairly early Marshall body for both Ribble and BET - who became a major, and repeat, customer of this well built body. [Even stars have Achilles heels though and I gather in grand old age - ie in preservation - some Marshalls need quite a bit of tlc, otherwise their front platform can fall off!]
The East Yorkshire Met-Camms were full coaches of the Topaz design - although I seem to remember that that was the "Bedford" designation and that Leylands had a different name. After closure of Weymann at Addlestone, Metro-Cammell took on the mantle of coaches from the line of the Fanfare and Castillians. They were true coaches but they never realised a balanced design that pleased either generally or, indeed, as a coach.

David Oldfield

---

All the early rear-engined single deckers - Roadliner, Panther, Panther Cub and Swift/Merlin - were pretty disastrous, apart from the Bristol RE, which possibly benefited from having the radiator at the front and the engine mounted slightly further forward than the others.
As you say, some operators persevered, and Sunderland reckoned that by the time they got it right the Panther was a really good vehicle. Their experience included a comparison of bodies between MCW’s, which was attached to the chassis throughout, and a much more successful effort by Strachan which featured a separate cantilevered subframe supporting the rear end of the body, allowing the chassis to go its own way.
According to Stewart J Brown’s "Luxury Travel" book, the East Yorkshire MCW coaches were designated Topaz II.

Peter Williamson

---

03/09/11 - 05:41

This machine was used in the late 60s and early 70s at various times in addition to Private Hire on Stage Carriage and on two or three times to my knowledge on the X30 Preston to Glasgow, X11 Preston Edinburgh and the X20 Preston to Glasgow Night Service Express. As these services operated as a duplicate to the peak season service from Manchester and Liverpool any coach or DP could be used from Preston.

Brian Cowdall

---

04/09/11 - 07:54

I always disliked this type of incongruous sharp cornered radiator grille on otherwise handsome bodies. They gave the impression of having been assembled "in house" from spare material after possible accident repairs and never looked right to me.

Chris Youhill

---

12/01/14 - 09:15

I travelled on a Ribble bus tour in 1963 from London to Nairne and back to London. I still have the original ticket and bus itinerary. I also have a photo of the bus and the driver. I was 18 years old and as I was the youngest on the tour I was nominated to get married at Gretna Green to the bus driver. (who was married with children). They are happy memories.

Pam

---

12/01/14 - 11:10

Coach tours can be friendly like that, Pam, even today!
I re-read these posts, David O, and you made mention of the closure of Weymanns at Addlestone, just down the road from you. I wondered if there was the slightest trace left of their factory, or even the name applied to a business park, a plaque in the pavement, or……anything?

Chris Hebbron

---

12/01/14 - 17:11

Pam
Would there be any chance of having a copy of the picture you have of the Driver and Coach for my website.
This is at http://www.psvbadges.org.uk
I have a page for Driver and Conductor pictures.
Thanks very much

Stephen Howarth

---

13/01/14 - 08:33

Chris. Sadly the answer is no, no, no and no. It is "covered" by speculative offices and the name Aviation Park - reflecting its use BEFORE Weymanns.

David Oldfield

---

14/01/14 - 08:13

I’ve just noticed the advertisement for the Ford Corsair - if people hadn’t taken photographs of buses how much of this incidental history would have been lost? Anyway, this has reminded me of something that bothered me a few years ago: the Corsair was presumably around at the same time as the Cortina MkI, but the Cortina lived on and the Corsair didn’t - can anybody slightly longer in the tooth than myself tell me whether the Corsair was positioned above or below the Cortina.
Anyway, back to the bus. Were all the problems with the chassis? or might some have been down to the bodybuilders failing to account for the stresses caused by the flexing of all that weight at the rear - Strachans’ bodies were cantilevered I think, allowing the rear-end to flex, and didn’t suffer the problems that led, I believe, to a batch of Willowbrook(?)-bodied single-deck Fleetlines in the Northern fleet almost cracking open. As the RE’s engine was situated further forward than on other types then that would have reduced the stresses on the bodywork.

Philip Rushworth

---

14/01/14 - 09:44

Re the Corsair, the first thing to understand is the Ford line up in the UK in the mid 1960s. The bottom of the range was the Anglia, next came the Cortina, then the Corsair, after which the Zephyr and Zodiac topped off the range. Each type had a range of factory options so each model was in effect a range within a range.
The Ford Consul had been produced until 1962 as the bottom tier of the Consul/Zephyr/Zodiac range. Ford then used the Consul name in a different way producing the Consul Classic 4 door and the Consul Capri two door until the end of 1963. The types were not to the public’s taste and disappeared at the end of 1963. The bottom tier of the Consul range became the Consul Cortina, generally known as the Cortina Mk1.
The Corsair first appeared at the 1963 Motor Show as the Consul Corsair as a replacement for the Consul Classic and went on sale in 1964. It was positioned above the Cortina and was offered in various versions. Originally powered by 1500cc Kent series in line engines, in 1965 the engine was replaced by a V-4 1600cc unit which contributed to the cars deteriorating sales from then on as it was noisy, rough and not as responsive as the 1600E Cortina Mk 2 which took many Corsair customers. Ford had introduced a 2000cc engine for the Corsair but its price point only worked in favour of the 1600E. The company also produced a Corsair 2000E aimed at competing, with of all things, the current Rover range but the cache off the Rover name meant more than price to most customers at that level.
When I worked for United Biscuits in 1967 we reps had Cortina 1300s and the area managers had 1600cc powered Corsairs.
In 1970 Ford re-jigged its range. The Escort, which had appeared in 1968, replaced the Anglia and also appealed to 1300cc basic Cortina Mk2 buyers so the Mk3 Cortina was a bigger car than the Mk2 and replaced the more expensive Mk2s and the Corsair. By 1972 the Zodiac/Zephyr had gone and were replaced by the Granada. With 310,000 Corsairs sold and a demand for a larger than Cortina but cheaper than Granada model appearing, Ford reintroduced the Consul name using the Granada body with a V-4 1996c engine and a V-6 giving 2495 cc. I had one of the former which was as horrible as the V-4 Corsair but I later had 2000cc Pinto engined Consul produced from 1974 and that was some car.

Phil Blinkhorn

---

14/01/14 - 10:09

Phil, there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence about bodywork on the first generation rear engined single deckers of the 1960’s, but I’ve never seen any formal article produced about the subject. I’m sure many of us can trace articles or even books which cover the faults and failings (and good points?) of Leyland Panthers, AEC Swifts, Daimler Roadliners, and Seddon Pennine RUs. (I’m omitting the very first of all - the Bristol RE - both Bristol and ECW got that right!). But I have yet to discover anything formal about the merits of the bodybuilders, such as Marshall, MCCW, Strachans, Park Royal, Alexander, etc. The most that appears are hints such as those related on this site, or similar letters in magazines such as Classic Bus. It would be great if "someone out there" with the knowledge and/or the contacts to research this topic could thoroughly explore the topic and produce a definitive paper on it. Chassis manufacturers have had a fair share of material written about both their successes and failures - so why not the body builders?

Michael Hampton

---

15/01/14 - 05:51

The Plaxton Derwent bodied Roadliners at PMT survived quite well whereas the Marshall bodied ones simply broke their backs. The Derwent was timber framed where the Marshall was steel framed. I’m not sure it’s necessarily quite as simple as that. The Seddon RUs with Pennine dual doorway bodies at Huddersfield were a disaster, probably even worse than the Marshall Roadliners. Only they were given a major rebuild by Pennine including removal of the centre doorway did they become acceptable. My total experience of Swifts was the two Huddersfield Roe bodied ones which I remember more for AH505 engine problems than ones associated with the bodies. Perhaps the nadir was reached with the pair of Halifax Pennine bodied Fleetline SDs - now there was a pile of junk!

Ian Wild

---

15/01/14 - 05:56

Phil, thanks for all that - it answered my question, and then some. What are you like on Rootes-group offerings of the same period?
Michael, I suppose with coachwork the interest is in the aesthetic of the product, rather than what lies underneath. Two of the least-robust bodies of all time seem to have been semi-coaches produced for NBC towards the end of its existence . . . ECW’s B51(?) - its re-working of its early 1970s design; and Willowbrook’s offering of a couple of years earlier. Although I understand that some of these steel-framed BET standards suffered later in life, which seemingly accounted for the eagerness with which some BET companies snapped-up ECWs aluminium-framed offerings once they became available on the open-market.

Philip Rushworth

---

15/01/14 - 08:29

Ask away Philip.

Phil Blinkhorn

---

15/01/14 - 08:55

It depends on the extent of design cooperation and integrity. The B51 failed because the original was designed AROUND the RELH. When put on a mid-engined Leopard, the boot fell off into the road - for SELNEC/GMT, even before the B51 version. Strachans built the most successful Swifts with a floating rear, that is NOT tied to the chassis and therefore not prone to breaking the back of the chassis. The Willowbrooks were simply cheaply flung together with even less rust protection than the dreadful contemporary Duples. [Down to a price for NBC.] Most bodies were good but rear underfloor engined buses were new and most people had not even imagined the potential problem which became a major disaster. I read recently that the Weymann BETs were the best - and they were not by any means the most numerous. Likewise, apart from the nadir of the dreadful early ’60s (metal framed) bodies, Roe and Park Royal were among the very best.

David Oldfield

---

31/08/14 - 06:10

I was an inspector at Bolton depot 1969.
Reading all these comments brings back happy memories.

Vincent Fitzpatrick

---

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

---

20/10/15 - 06:59

Although an engineer, I never fully understood body construction! However, a few comments from my own career experiences:
I am interested to see comments that Strachans bodied Panthers survived better than Willowbrook bodied versions in the north. This was not my experience at Maidstone where the Strachans bodies moved amidships sufficient to cause aluminium dust to appear between all internal trim panels. Indeed Vin Owen, CE, got Willowbrook in (about 1971) to decide how to strengthen up the Strachans bodies, because the Willowbrook Panthers were sound! From what I recall, one feature of the strengthening was external curved steel angles fitted at the roof panel joints. I cannot recall the Panthers being much trouble otherwise although they were then at the back end of their lives. They were prone to engine fires, but that was a period when AEC 590 Reliances were also in similar trouble. I suspect that the single deck Fleetlines were introduced in Medway towns to replace Panthers. My only other memory is that the driving position seemed remarkably low and not very OMO friendly.
With regard to the ECW B51 body, I recall when at UCOC complaining to the seat manufacturer that the seat frame was cracking in the seat near the emergency door. I had the dubious pleasure of telling him a few days after he had visited to see, that I had discovered the reason for the cracking - the seat frame was holding the back of the body together! A huge modification programme was swiftly instituted by ECW.

Geoff Pullin