Smiles for Miles bought 3 Dodge Tractor units B regs, They all had BTC 4 in line trailers, IIRC The brakes were poor on them But having said that Smilers allways liked them loaded to the gunnels as the old saying goes, I did pull a York 4 in line for Baxters on the Quayside in 1966 with a Dodge unit with a tilt cab, I found the brakes were OK, on this one, but when I drove for Shorties they had a selection of old 4 in lines & the brakes were poor them,
After much rummaging I have found the Traders Road Transport Association (TRTA) 1965 Yearbook. This contains an advertisement from BTC for their ‘Four-In-Line’ trailers claiming 10% extra MPG and extended tyre life “resulting from the lowest tractive resistance (28lbs per ton)”.
This would be due to the each wheel being able to rotate at its own speed rather than scrubbing itself against the road while being dragged by its twin.
Somewhere on here is a very small picture of a Percy Henley Mercury unit pulling a 4 in line trailer loaded with hops.
Another feature of the BTC 4-in-line was the autolube (probably optional) but the small cylindrical tank was located just under the platform in front of the axle,as I was only a young “wipper snapper” when these trailers were operated I never took a lot of notice but I’ve often wondered since how they worked,ie,how were they driven.The ones at Bradys always looked neglected,with the bits of pipe hanging off broken etc. as regular planned maintainence was never one of Bradys strong points ! Cheers Bewick.
Apprentice mechanic in 1965 but still having nightmares about 4 in line trailers,Dyson “knockouts” and was it Boden with a nasty rubber bushed non-reactive set up?
splitshift:
Apprentice mechanic in 1965 but still having nightmares about 4 in line trailers,Dyson “knockouts” and was it Boden with a nasty rubber bushed non-reactive set up?
Drifting away a bit, We used to use a Tasker Knockout, It had to be on level surface otherwise it was a pain in the arse, Of course one put up with this sort of problem in the good old days, Now its all push button stuff, Regards LARRY.
Just to get the thread back on track
and just to take us back in time to the days when everything was in black and white
This was restored over a lengthy period by the former owner of Alan Hindle Transport Ltd. Ex Shell-Mex & B.P. Sold about 3 years ago and not been seen since. The second picture was taken on the Trans-Pennine Run.
gingerfold:
0
Would have looked good with a 4in line behind it .
Spud1960:
Just to get the thread back on track1
and just to take us back in time to the days when everything was in black and white
0
OK, who’s going to tell us the original owner?
Retired Old ■■■■:
Spud1960:
Just to get the thread back on track1
and just to take us back in time to the days when everything was in black and white
0
OK, who’s going to tell us the original owner?
Not Me I just photographed it in 2012 at the Lincoln Steam Rally
Retired Old ■■■■:
Spud1960:
Just to get the thread back on track1
and just to take us back in time to the days when everything was in black and white
0
OK, who’s going to tell us the original owner?
I’m fairly sure it was BRS Gloucester or Ross. I will confirm next week when I get home. Peter
Well YDD, Is a Gloucester Reg if that’s anything to go off, Regards Larry.
AEC Mercury 4x2 tractor unit Reg No 470 OTB Fleet No 54 was a brand new addition to the W & J Riding fleet in 1960.
Nicknamed ‘Our Tom’s Baby’ it was bought in preference to a Super-Comet and was in fact the only AEC ever to enter service with W & J Riding.
Tom Riding recalls… "Fitted with a 5 speed gearbox and 2 speed axle it had excellent brakes and was very nice to drive.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the AEC engine could not take the same pain as the Leyland or Gardner engines and engine life was always it’s problem which resulted in us only ever having this single AEC in our fleet".
Nicknamed ‘Our Tom’s Baby’ it was bought in preference to a Super-Comet and was in fact the only AEC ever to enter service with W & J Riding.
Tom Riding recalls… "Fitted with a 5 speed gearbox and 2 speed axle it had excellent brakes and was very nice to drive.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the AEC engine could not take the same pain as the Leyland or Gardner engines and engine life was always it’s problem which resulted in us only ever having this single AEC in our fleet".
The original AV470 engine did have a reputation for being prone to cylinder head gasket failure leading to AEC using various types of head gasket material to find a solution. Eventually a re-design of the cylinder head studs to unified threads solved the problem with the AVU version of the 470 engine becoming available in 1961. Final versions of this engine were rated at 140 bhp @ 2,200 rpm which resulted in a lively engine performance and good reliability. Strangely enough as AEC had solved its head gasket problems then Leyland started experiencing head gasket problems with its power-plus O.370/O.400 and O.600/O.680 engines introduced in 1960/61.
The 60’s in Aus. was a time of re-powers.
Petrol and under powered diesel trucks were re-engined and apart from 3 or 471 GM’s, many smaller operators fitted Leyland 400 or sometimes a 5-cylinder Gardner.
Commers scored the 6V53 GM and soon this engine was optioned in International, Dodge and even Bedford which still offered it’s own engine as well as the Leyland 400.
Never ever saw an AEC engine in a re-power though, the 470 did not have a good rep. down under.
It took a long time for the 505 to gain acceptance, even with Leyland practically giving AEC trucks away.
I payed $10804 for my Monarch in 71, 2-stroke Commer was around $13K.
AEC did indeed have problems with the AV and AH 470 engines overheating and blowing head gaskets, often leading to more serious consequences. Having tried an increase in torque loading, a higher grade of steel for the studs, a different thread form in the block and changes of gasket material they never really overcame the problem entirely satisfactorily. In the end it was probably down to there simply not being enough securing studs in the right places to suit their wet liner engine; there being only one stud to clamp down the head between each cylinder. The Av 470 relied on 13 studs per head whereas their later AV 590, which was still a wet liner engine, had 20 studs. By comparison the Leyland 600 had 23, the Gardner 6LW had 22 and the Gardner 6LX 24 per 3 pot head.
I have heard it said that Leyland engineers considered the AEC engine as a very expensive means of boiling water.
It would seem a common engineering problem.
Our 680 and 690’s would pull head studs, silly fine BSF thread into the cast iron block and way too short on depth.
We would drill/tap to larger diameter Whitworth with much more depth into the block. Machine up stepped studs and from then on no head gasket or stud problems.
I can understand how most operators would just walk away.
Very disheartening when a brand new 690 pulls studs by its first service.
The 470 had a “soft” crank rep in Aus, whereas the Leyland stuff with nitrided crank was bullet proof.
I think the 505 went to a nitrided crank??
I reckon you are correct, the AV 505, 691 and 760 dry liner engines all had a nitrided crankshaft like the Leyland. I recently had a Leyland 600 which had pulled one of the 3/8 head studs which needed a special stepped stud to be made in order to repair the block. The ‘big’ Leyland head is also noticeably heavier to lift off than the equivalent ‘big’ AEC one. I am about to tackle the problem of an AV590 which has sheared three studs in the block, two of which are already stepped. The bit about depth in the block reminds me that the 470 studs were buried quite some way down in the block, which also contributed to the overheating issue due to extension of the stud when warm.
