Pebbles 74:
As othes have said, this is turning out to be a really interesting thread!
A queation for Dennis, or indeed anybody else who drove or operated these motors: How much time & effort had to be given over to repairs / maintenance of the cabs? The reason for my question is that my Uncle now has two Mark-1 four-wheelers & both will require fairly extensive rebuilding in that department. Now clearly much of this has come about beacuse these lorries were stood outside for long periods, but did any of these problems arise when the vehicles were on the road?
I have heard it said that one reason the ‘export’ customers of these vehicles tended to adopted locally built (steel) cabs was that their domestice insects & termites could turn the ash frames into someting resembling net-curtains in a very short space of time!
All the best, Andrew
Obviously I can only speak from operating these motors when they were active workhorses and not restoration projects.One thing I can say is that in the case of minor accident damaged to,say,front corners and wheel arches,you always wanted all the various broken pieces returning,Then they could be pieced back together on the cab and hey presto you couldn’t see the joins!! Another fault,which could be avoided,was when the cabs were getting a bit older the bottom edge of the screens could sometimes “pop” out of their rubber surrounds.But in the main the Atki cab gave good service,and IMO was a better prospect than the ERF cabs of the same era.Cheers Dennis.
Didn’t always stop everything getting through to the fibre glass!! I think I’ve said this eleswhere on another thread but recorded statisics proved that the survival rates in accidents were far better in a fibre glass cab than a steel one,believe it or not!! When you hit something in an Atki,big style,the cab just disintergrated around you and your chances of being trapped were dramatically reduced. I never experienced it though!! Cheers Dennis.
Pebbles 74:
As othes have said, this is turning out to be a really interesting thread!
A queation for Dennis, or indeed anybody else who drove or operated these motors: How much time & effort had to be given over to repairs / maintenance of the cabs? The reason for my question is that my Uncle now has two Mark-1 four-wheelers & both will require fairly extensive rebuilding in that department. Now clearly much of this has come about beacuse these lorries were stood outside for long periods, but did any of these problems arise when the vehicles were on the road?
I have heard it said that one reason the ‘export’ customers of these vehicles tended to adopted locally built (steel) cabs was that their domestice insects & termites could turn the ash frames into someting resembling net-curtains in a very short space of time!
All the best, Andrew
Obviously I can only speak from operating these motors when they were active workhorses and not restoration projects.One thing I can say is that in the case of minor accident damaged to,say,front corners and wheel arches,you always wanted all the various broken pieces returning,Then they could be pieced back together on the cab and hey presto you couldn’t see the joins!! Another fault,which could be avoided,was when the cabs were getting a bit older the bottom edge of the screens could sometimes “pop” out of their rubber surrounds.But in the main the Atki cab gave good service,and IMO was a better prospect than the ERF cabs of the same era.Cheers Dennis.
Thanks for that Dennis.
I guess once you get people with the right skills & experience wood & fiberglass is just as easy as anything else. I’d heard that the fiberglass around the windscreen rubbers can get ‘crazed’ & weakend, leading to the windscreens falling out in really bad cases! Fortunatley the fiberglass is complete & in pretty good nick on both of these lorries. The Ash is a different story however…
Another little bundle from north o’ the border. Usual sources plus a couple from Frank Richardsons cracking “Pollock The Early Years” Apologies if my early attempts at this new (for me) method of putting on pics is a bit erratic.
gingerfold:
Ah yes, Atkinsons. Always a lorry many small hauliers aspired to own in the '50s and '60s, but by the '70s they were becoming dated and epitomised some of the best and worst features of British lorry manufacturing. Atkinsons were built, according to a haulier friend of mine, by wizzened old men smoking woodbines and wielding a four pound lump hammer backed up with a blunt hacksaw. Probably a bit of a harsh summary methinks, but I know what he meant.
Despite the criticism of Seddon and its takeover of Atkinson in 1970, the Oldham firm did recognise Atkinson customers’ loyalty to the marque and kept the Borderer in production for another 5 years. The late Frank Whalley did tell me that Seddon and Atkinson could not always build to a customer’s requested specification because of component supply shortages and problems in the early '70s, so to keep the production line going they fitted what was available.
By the way, before Seddon completed the takeover of Atkinson negotiations were well advanced between ERF and Atkinson for a merger, but Seddon was able to complete a deal because Leyland had 30% of the Atkinson shareholding and preferred to sell its shares to Seddon rather than ERF. Yet another example of Leyland helping to destroy thje British lorry manufacturing industry.
As you say, Graham, the industry as a whole was plagued with component supply issues in that period, although Frank did tell me years later that there was a definite directive from Oldham to impose the Seddon axle even where customers had not specified it. Where there was a waiting list for vehicles, customers were unlikely to decline the chassis they had waited for. This was a stunt they were less likely to pull on a large customer.
You are right to say that it was Leyland’s decision to accept the Seddon offer which spelled the end for Atkinson. However, I’d thought that they had a 20% shareholding, rather than 30%.
You could well be correct about the shareholding of Leyland, I wrote 30% from memory. At present I’m between residences and in rented accomodation, so all my ‘facts and figures’ are in storage and not accessible. (It’s like living in a Spiers of Melksham sleeper-cabbed Mandator!!)
Bewick:
Another fault,which could be avoided,was when the cabs were getting a bit older the bottom edge of the screens could sometimes “pop” out of their rubber surrounds.But in the main the Atki cab gave good service,and IMO was a better prospect than the ERF cabs of the same era…
Well…I’m shocked.
That is honestly the very first time I have heard that said Dennis.
I could ring many operators right now that would argue the exact opposite!. Many of the Mk2 Atki’s I knew of in quite big fleets were retired because the screens would be constantly falling out, when the rest of the vehicle was still giving them stirling service. I always remember one operator I visited in about 1981 had a line of four Borderers standing in the yard with either a left or right screen missing or held in with rope!. That was never a problem on the ERF LV (A Series) cab until many years later when the vehicles were all well past their useful life.
The Atki cab was more complex and fiddly to structurally repair than the ERF, cab parts were more expensive and quite often difficult to obtain quickly, so most operators actually preferred the ERF cab, even if they didn’t like the ERF chassis, but I admire your independent stance on this one Dennis!.
ERF:
Well…I’m shocked.
That is honestly the very first time I have heard that said Dennis.
I could ring many operators right now that would argue the exact opposite!. Many of the Mk2 Atki’s I knew of in quite big fleets were retired because the screens would be constantly falling out, when the rest of the vehicle was still giving them stirling service. I always remember one operator I visited in about 1981 had a line of four Borderers standing in the yard with either a left or right screen missing or held in with rope!. That was never a problem on the ERF LV (A Series) cab until many years later when the vehicles were all well past their useful life.
The Atki cab was more complex and fiddly to structurally repair than the ERF, cab parts were more expensive and quite often difficult to obtain quickly, so most operators actually preferred the ERF cab, even if they didn’t like the ERF chassis, but I admire your independent stance on this one Dennis!.
I’ve not had a lot to do with the structure of the LV cab, but the coachbuilder who restored Bowker 34 (and a number of other Mk.2 Atkis) was of the opinion that it was much more time-consuming to repair, as it was difficult to access the timber elements within the glassfibre. By comparison, it was an easy matter to take out an Atkinson screen (provided it was still there ) unscrew the wing panel and thus find everything fully exposed and accessible. I do recall learning some new words when he was trying to repair the A post on an A-Series cab.
240 Gardner:
I’ve not had a lot to do with the structure of the LV cab, but the coachbuilder who restored Bowker 34 (and a number of other Mk.2 Atkis) was of the opinion that it was much more time-consuming to repair, as it was difficult to access the timber elements within the glassfibre. By comparison, it was an easy matter to take out an Atkinson screen (provided it was still there ) unscrew the wing panel and thus find everything fully exposed and accessible. I do recall learning some new words when he was trying to repair the A post on an A-Series cab.
Quite so, but you are speaking from the point of view of restoration.
Rotten A post timbers were not a problem in the 70’s and early 80’s, and are an absolute sod to do correctly on the LV structure. I was more referring to the repair of vibration fatigue and accident damage at the time the vehicles were still earning money, not as we all know - costing us later restorers lots of it!.
When repairing an LV structure, it was best practice to remove as much damaged GRP as possible, because the repair sections supplied by ERF / Jennings were always very generous, and big portions always ended up in the skip.
There was never a so called mk1 Akinson.The early cabs were coachbuilt withflat steel front panel.The radiator and headlamps were mounted in front of the cab The throttle was in the middle. Latter came the bow fronted cab, it was made deeper covering most of the radiator and the headlamps were integral.About 1956 came the fiberglass cab. About 62/63 came the weightmaster range. It had a lighter front axle, fluted steel springs, and round holes cut out of the x/members. It had twin tailanps with a silver knight plate under the n/s lamps About 1965 they fitted twin headlamps. The so called mk2 cab came about 1967 It was modifide a few times.The chassis and axles were changed after the buy out.What was a gold knight and a black knight ?
kennyjohnson:
There was never a so called mk1 Akinson.The early cabs were coachbuilt withflat steel front panel.The radiator and headlamps were mounted in front of the cab The throttle was in the middle. Latter came the bow fronted cab, it was made deeper covering most of the radiator and the headlamps were integral.About 1956 came the fiberglass cab. About 62/63 came the weightmaster range. It had a lighter front axle, fluted steel springs, and round holes cut out of the x/members. It had twin tailanps with a silver knight plate under the n/s lamps About 1965 they fitted twin headlamps. The so called mk2 cab came about 1967 It was modifide a few times.The chassis and axles were changed after the buy out.What was a gold knight and a black knight ?
Marky & 240G will answer this, but I say the Mk2 was launched in late 1969, not 67, but of course I stand to be corrected.
Meanwhile, a Weightmaster…
kennyjohnson:
There was never a so called mk1 Akinson.The early cabs were coachbuilt withflat steel front panel.The radiator and headlamps were mounted in front of the cab The throttle was in the middle. Latter came the bow fronted cab, it was made deeper covering most of the radiator and the headlamps were integral.About 1956 came the fiberglass cab. About 62/63 came the weightmaster range. It had a lighter front axle, fluted steel springs, and round holes cut out of the x/members. It had twin tailanps with a silver knight plate under the n/s lamps About 1965 they fitted twin headlamps. The so called mk2 cab came about 1967 It was modifide a few times.The chassis and axles were changed after the buy out.What was a gold knight and a black knight ?
Marky & 240G will answer this, but I say the Mk2 was launched in late 1969, not 67, but of course I stand to be corrected.
Meanwhile, a Weightmaster…
Akinsons did no use thi style of front panel mutch, people liked the big rad.but at least the heater got a little bit warm with the small one.but all vehicals had the lighter springs etc. That 1967 might have been a slip of the pen
gingerfold:
Ah yes, Atkinsons. Always a lorry many small hauliers aspired to own in the '50s and '60s, but by the '70s they were becoming dated and epitomised some of the best and worst features of British lorry manufacturing. Atkinsons were built, according to a haulier friend of mine, by wizzened old men smoking woodbines and wielding a four pound lump hammer backed up with a blunt hacksaw. Probably a bit of a harsh summary methinks, but I know what he meant.
Despite the criticism of Seddon and its takeover of Atkinson in 1970, the Oldham firm did recognise Atkinson customers’ loyalty to the marque and kept the Borderer in production for another 5 years. The late Frank Whalley did tell me that Seddon and Atkinson could not always build to a customer’s requested specification because of component supply shortages and problems in the early '70s, so to keep the production line going they fitted what was available.
By the way, before Seddon completed the takeover of Atkinson negotiations were well advanced between ERF and Atkinson for a merger, but Seddon was able to complete a deal because Leyland had 30% of the Atkinson shareholding and preferred to sell its shares to Seddon rather than ERF. Yet another example of Leyland helping to destroy thje British lorry manufacturing industry.
As you say, Graham, the industry as a whole was plagued with component supply issues in that period, although Frank did tell me years later that there was a definite directive from Oldham to impose the Seddon axle even where customers had not specified it. Where there was a waiting list for vehicles, customers were unlikely to decline the chassis they had waited for. This was a stunt they were less likely to pull on a large customer.
You are right to say that it was Leyland’s decision to accept the Seddon offer which spelled the end for Atkinson. However, I’d thought that they had a 20% shareholding, rather than 30%.
You could well be correct about the shareholding of Leyland, I wrote 30% from memory. At present I’m between residences and in rented accomodation, so all my ‘facts and figures’ are in storage and not accessible. (It’s like living in a Spiers of Melksham sleeper-cabbed Mandator!!)
On the Spiers mandators subject what happened to them ,were they all scrapped apart from the 1 you bought and didn`t you fancy a sleeper version?
Bewick:
I know its maybe not the thread for this shot but this was one of a number of Merc 300E’s that I ran and they were as smooth as silk just like the Atki’s and this particular '88 one was nearly the same fleet colour as the motors!
Bewick:
I know its maybe not the thread for this shot but this was one of a number of Merc 300E’s that I ran and they were as smooth as silk just like the Atki’s and this particular '88 one was nearly the same fleet colour as the motors!
That’s the first decent motor on this thread!
You are obviously a “philistine” “Limey”----- nothing more nothing less!!! Cheers Bewick.
) unscrew the wing panel and thus find everything fully exposed and accessible. I do recall learning some new words when he was trying to repair the A post on an A-Series cab.
