I always thought the Atkinson looked better with the double bumper fitted
Cheers Gary
240 Gardner:
It had been in a minor skirmish before this photo was taken, I think!
Yes Chris front n/side.
Tom says the picture was taken in 1983 and it was taken off the road not long after and was broken up.
Question---- How did Tom rate the DB 8 speed box compared to the Fuller 9509, I personally wouldn’t touch the DB 8 speed as I’d had enough of the DB 6:600 behind the ■■■■■■■ 220 although the DB 6:600 was fine behind the LXB 180 and the 150 LX never had a moments trouble. Cheers Dennis.
Our first Sed Ak 400 (P reg) had the DB eight speed box and it never gave any problems apart from an airchange issue on the rangechange. I phoned the factory and spoke to the Technical Officer asking what the problem could be; his answer was “No idea, when you find out let us know” which helped a lot! 
The truck actually came new with a DB six speed but the eight speed was soon fitted presumably under warranty, why I know not unless the six speed gave poor performance at 30 tonne behind a 6LXB? The change wasn’t as good as the rest of the fleet with Fuller boxes though, you had to be absolutely spot on with your changes whereas you could ‘feel’ the Fuller in.
Pete.
windrush:
Our first Sed Ak 400 (P reg) had the DB eight speed box and it never gave any problems apart from an airchange issue on the rangechange. I phoned the factory and spoke to the Technical Officer asking what the problem could be; his answer was “No idea, when you find out let us know” which helped a lot!Pete.
You know my opinion of it Pete, always thought it was the worst box I ever used. But forgot the syncromesh box in a Merc 7 1\2 tonner ,if that was a good example they can keep em.
Bewick:
Question---- How did Tom rate the DB 8 speed box compared to the Fuller 9509, I personally wouldn’t touch the DB 8 speed as I’d had enough of the DB 6:600 behind the ■■■■■■■ 220 although the DB 6:600 was fine behind the LXB 180 and the 150 LX never had a moments trouble. Cheers Dennis.
Here’s an in-depth reply Dennis courtesy of Tom Riding…
"Hi Dennis,
Your question is easy to answer but I think the answer demands some explanation.
The 9509 was in the long run a much better gearbox than the Brown 8 speed and subsequently the 11609 with its different gear profile was even better.
The 9509 would eventually get worn after big mileages and would need repair but we never had any trouble with the 11 series.
However in early 1973 when our first 8cyl Gardner was delivered i had the choice of the 8 speed Brown or the Fuller 9509 gearbox.
Because of my support for British industry I chose the Brown, it was simpler and lighter, but we were soon in trouble.
The spool valve was controlled from the gear stick by a single wire which soon broke and the air valve used to come loose and stop working.
We changed all this and fitted Fuller switches and this problem was over.
The selector forks were a complete reversal of normal Brown practice and these failed regularly with a part that could fall off and create disaster. The combined shaft and pinion had very small teeth on the gearbox side and this could cause drive failure. I seem to remember (this was a long time ago) that the syncromesh cone in the range change unit at the back of the gearbox could also fail.
I developed a good understanding with the man in charge of gearbox design at Browns and he assured me that they would sort out the problems and he supplied me with a spare gearbox.
When one failed we just put it in the ■■■■■■ van and took it to Huddersfield where it was repaired free of charge.
This went on for a while until because of lack of sales they decided to stop making them.
I then of course bought new tractors with the Fuller box.
We eventually replaced the Browns with Fuller boxes as they failed but used the usable parts out of the old units as spares.
In my humble opinion ,with the will and desire, the box could have been sorted from the start but this episode was typical of the British disease at the time.
The whole country was going to hell in a handcart at this time and has continued this way ever since not least in this Brexit ■■■■ up.
Regarding the 6 speed Brown box, this wasn’t bad, but did fail on the overdrive gear and bush after considerable miles.
However, it didn’t fail on the road and once removed it was normally reasonably quick and easy to repair.
I was never really a fan of overdrive gearboxes and would rather have a 3.7 :1 rear axle with a direct top gearbox but this arrangement wasn’t available until much later.
I trust I have answered your question but I do waffle on a bit because there are many factors that affect decision making and they need an explanation".
Regards Tom.
Thank you Tom for the comprehensive and informative explanation you are still “The man” ! Kindest regards Dennis.
moomooland:
Bewick:
Question---- How did Tom rate the DB 8 speed box compared to the Fuller 9509, I personally wouldn’t touch the DB 8 speed as I’d had enough of the DB 6:600 behind the ■■■■■■■ 220 although the DB 6:600 was fine behind the LXB 180 and the 150 LX never had a moments trouble. Cheers Dennis.Here’s an in-depth reply Dennis courtesy of Tom Riding…
"Hi Dennis,
Your question is easy to answer but I think the answer demands some explanation.
The 9509 was in the long run a much better gearbox than the Brown 8 speed and subsequently the 11609 with its different gear profile was even better.
The 9509 would eventually get worn after big mileages and would need repair but we never had any trouble with the 11 series.
However in early 1973 when our first 8cyl Gardner was delivered i had the choice of the 8 speed Brown or the Fuller 9509 gearbox.
Because of my support for British industry I chose the Brown, it was simpler and lighter, but we were soon in trouble.
The spool valve was controlled from the gear stick by a single wire which soon broke and the air valve used to come loose and stop working.
We changed all this and fitted Fuller switches and this problem was over.
The selector forks were a complete reversal of normal Brown practice and these failed regularly with a part that could fall off and create disaster. The combined shaft and pinion had very small teeth on the gearbox side and this could cause drive failure. I seem to remember (this was a long time ago) that the syncromesh cone in the range change unit at the back of the gearbox could also fail.
I developed a good understanding with the man in charge of gearbox design at Browns and he assured me that they would sort out the problems and he supplied me with a spare gearbox.
When one failed we just put it in the ■■■■■■ van and took it to Huddersfield where it was repaired free of charge.
This went on for a while until because of lack of sales they decided to stop making them.
I then of course bought new tractors with the Fuller box.
We eventually replaced the Browns with Fuller boxes as they failed but used the usable parts out of the old units as spares.
In my humble opinion ,with the will and desire, the box could have been sorted from the start but this episode was typical of the British disease at the time.
The whole country was going to hell in a handcart at this time and has continued this way ever since not least in this Brexit ■■■■ up.
Regarding the 6 speed Brown box, this wasn’t bad, but did fail on the overdrive gear and bush after considerable miles.
However, it didn’t fail on the road and once removed it was normally reasonably quick and easy to repair.
I was never really a fan of overdrive gearboxes and would rather have a 3.7 :1 rear axle with a direct top gearbox but this arrangement wasn’t available until much later.
I trust I have answered your question but I do waffle on a bit because there are many factors that affect decision making and they need an explanation".Regards Tom.
I wonder if Tom Riding ever considered fitting along with the 5 speed David Brown box an Eaton 2 speed axle , or was it that Eaton did not produce an axle which could take the torque loading with the higher powered engines ?.
shugg:
I wonder if Tom Riding ever considered fitting along with the 5 speed David Brown box an Eaton 2 speed axle , or was it that Eaton did not produce an axle which could take the torque loading with the higher powered engines ?.
Here’s Toms reply…
Hi Shugg,
Short answer is that I did not consider fitting an Eaton 2 speed axle behind the Gardner 150 or 180
engine.
I don’t recall if the option was available at this time however, in 1966 when we were buying the Atkinson
Mark 1 with the 150 engine an alternative to the Brown 6/500 gearbox became available.
From memory this was a David Brown 10 speed splitter gearbox TR5/500 ( I think this is the correct name).
It wasn’t without its faults but it did help the performance of the 6LX engine at the time.
I think we operated perhaps half a dozen of these but with the arrival of the 6LXB engine in early 1967 I didn’t think it was necessary any more.
We did however operate about 20 Comets and Super Comets with both the 16 and 18 series two speed axles with great success.
regards.
Tom Riding…
Leyland Comet four wheeler Reg No 6350 TF Fleet No 30.
Registered new in 1963 this 12C model was powered by a Leyland 370 engine, had an Eaton two speed axle along with a full air brake system.
May I ask Mr Riding a question
I’m a big Gardner fan I served my time as a apprentice on them also when I started working the fleet was still approximately 80% Gardner powered
All gave sterling service except the odd bad egg
We ran a a mixture of 6LXB/C 6 and 8LXCTs 6LXDTs and a handful of 6LYTs
Does Mr Riding have any recollections of any major failings with the above engines
We had 2 6 LYTs which were terrible but the other 3 were very reliable
Thanks Gary
moomooland:
Bewick:
Question---- How did Tom rate the DB 8 speed box compared to the Fuller 9509, I personally wouldn’t touch the DB 8 speed as I’d had enough of the DB 6:600 behind the ■■■■■■■ 220 although the DB 6:600 was fine behind the LXB 180 and the 150 LX never had a moments trouble. Cheers Dennis.Here’s an in-depth reply Dennis courtesy of Tom Riding…
"Hi Dennis,
Your question is easy to answer but I think the answer demands some explanation.
The 9509 was in the long run a much better gearbox than the Brown 8 speed and subsequently the 11609 with its different gear profile was even better.
The 9509 would eventually get worn after big mileages and would need repair but we never had any trouble with the 11 series.
However in early 1973 when our first 8cyl Gardner was delivered i had the choice of the 8 speed Brown or the Fuller 9509 gearbox.
Because of my support for British industry I chose the Brown, it was simpler and lighter, but we were soon in trouble.
The spool valve was controlled from the gear stick by a single wire which soon broke and the air valve used to come loose and stop working.
We changed all this and fitted Fuller switches and this problem was over.
The selector forks were a complete reversal of normal Brown practice and these failed regularly with a part that could fall off and create disaster. The combined shaft and pinion had very small teeth on the gearbox side and this could cause drive failure. I seem to remember (this was a long time ago) that the syncromesh cone in the range change unit at the back of the gearbox could also fail.
I developed a good understanding with the man in charge of gearbox design at Browns and he assured me that they would sort out the problems and he supplied me with a spare gearbox.
When one failed we just put it in the ■■■■■■ van and took it to Huddersfield where it was repaired free of charge.
This went on for a while until because of lack of sales they decided to stop making them.
I then of course bought new tractors with the Fuller box.
We eventually replaced the Browns with Fuller boxes as they failed but used the usable parts out of the old units as spares.
In my humble opinion ,with the will and desire, the box could have been sorted from the start but this episode was typical of the British disease at the time.
The whole country was going to hell in a handcart at this time and has continued this way ever since not least in this Brexit ■■■■ up.
Regarding the 6 speed Brown box, this wasn’t bad, but did fail on the overdrive gear and bush after considerable miles.
However, it didn’t fail on the road and once removed it was normally reasonably quick and easy to repair.
I was never really a fan of overdrive gearboxes and would rather have a 3.7 :1 rear axle with a direct top gearbox but this arrangement wasn’t available until much later.
I trust I have answered your question but I do waffle on a bit because there are many factors that affect decision making and they need an explanation".Regards Tom.
An extremely knowledgeable n comprehensive answer! I just thought they were a sod. Cheers Coomsey 
Bewick:
The mention of Municipal Trailers jogged my memory so does the name James Walmsley ( a.k.a. “Pugwash”) ring any bells with Tom. Jim Walmsley was in earlier years, I understand, Sales Director at BTC who mainly built 4 in lines. I’m not just sure when Municipal started off at Bamber Bridge but Jim used to call on us in Milnthorpe but I never fancied their product though. IIRC he left Municipal and started flogging , and fitting , supplementary oil filters supposedly to extend oil changes by improving filtration which was alien to my idea of oil changes but I did try a couple on two ■■■■■■■ 220’s but took them off after a while as I had no confidence in the idea ! Cheers Dennis.
Hi Dennis, sorry this reply is late but here goes.
I knew Jim Walsley well but didn’t like the BTC four in line trailers that he sold, especially the angle iron frame.
However I did buy two new 26’ Boden trailers with BTC running gear and Rubery Owen pressed steel frame.
These two were the 3rd and 4th trailers we added to the fleet in the early days of articulation.
I never liked the four in line idea but needs must when the devil drives and we bought about 20 Crane trailers with this layout soon after.
These were used on the inter factory job to carry a pay load of 16 tons between ICI Ltd Wilton works and ICI Ltd Carrickfergus Northern Ireland a movement that carried on for many years, first through Preston Dock and latterly through Stranraer.
No tandem axle trailer was light enough.
Pictured below are two occasions on which our Crane Fruehauf four in line trailers came to grief in Northern Ireland
while being pulled by Northern Ireland Road Transport Board Leyland Beaver tractor units which were on contract to ICI Ltd.
Regarding Jim Walsley’s next venture I reluctantly added one of his filtration systems to a new unit HCK 800N ( Supreme) fitted with an 8 cyl Gardner 240 engine number 193595.
A few months in service I received an urgent call from Patricroft as to the where abouts of this unit.
It was travelling home from Scotland loaded with steel plates at the time “Get it back here A S A P” was the request.
It transpired that a manufacturing tolerance had not been met on the bore of the oil pump drive gear where it should have been an interference fit on the camshaft.
This caused the oil pressure to occasionally fall. (Surprise and disbelief is ok after all we are talking about a Gardner engine.)
No harm was done and Jim’s filtration system was in no way to blame but nevertheless we immediately took it off.
Such is life.
Kind regards
Tom Riding.
Excellent recall there Tom ! Fortunately 4 in lines had died a death before I entered the industry although there were still many in service in the late 60’s and my former employer Brady’s ran a good few behind the LAD Leylands which as you alluded to were as a result of the C & U rules at the time. The Four in line combination were, I believe, the most cost effective and lightest means of operating at the then 24ton GVW with the only means of a higher GVW being an 8 wheeler and trailer at 32 tons GVW. I note that all the main trailer manufactures of the era produced the ubiquitous 4 in line such as Cranes, Boden, York, Scammell and, of course not forgetting BTC who purported to be the “market leaders” in the 4 in line market ( might have been a bit of BS from Jim Walmsley who, correct me if I am wrong, was Sales Director at BTC) So Tom was the Crane 4 in line considered by W & J R to have been the best available of a bad lot ? Regards Dennis.
gazsa401:
May I ask Mr Riding a question
I’m a big Gardner fan I served my time as a apprentice on them also when I started working the fleet was still approximately 80% Gardner powered
All gave sterling service except the odd bad egg
We ran a a mixture of 6LXB/C 6 and 8LXCTs 6LXDTs and a handful of 6LYTs
Does Mr Riding have any recollections of any major failings with the above engines
We had 2 6 LYTs which were terrible but the other 3 were very reliable
Thanks Gary
Butting in here Gary, with apologies. At Tilcon we had a fleet of 6LXB and 6LXC powered Fodens and Sed Ak 400’s. The LXB’s were not too bad, they did seize pistons and drop valves though and I think I rebuilt all of them. The LXC’s suffered with overheating from new, Gardner supplied modified water pump impellers, a larger water rail for the cylinder heads which helped but we still had piston seizures with them. They also drank oil from new, Gardner supplied us with new LXB cylinder heads complete with valves, rockers etc to fit in their place and that cured the problem. Very little actually existed of the original LXC unit! 
We never had any LYT’s though, we changed to a virtually fully Rolls engined fleet and they gave very few problems.
Pete.
Bewick:
So Tom was the Crane 4 in line considered by W & J R to have been the best available of a bad lot ? Regards Dennis.
Hi Dennis
Short answer is yes Dennis.
For a start the Crane used standard wheel rims and we had them fitted with Michelin D20 metallic tyres because we hoped the stiff sidewalls would help to reduce rock and roll.
The foundation brakes were quite wide and the air chambers were attached directly to the brake operating arms, no linkage to wear!
The wheel bearings were a good size and gave no trouble.
The road spring was short and firm and was slipper ended and this also again helped to reduce roll.
Apart from adjusting the brakes maintenance was almost nil.
You may also notice from the two accident photos one trailer has a Rubery Owen pressed steel frame but by the time the other one had entered service Crane had sold out to Freuhauf and they subsequently introduced the welded I beam frame which was soon to become the industry standard.
All said and done they performed admirably for many years and our drivers on this side of the Irish sea always managed to keep them the right way up.
Regards,
Tom.
Hi Tom and MML,
Many thanks for the answer to my question on 4 in lines. Your comment about the ability to use a standard wheel was interesting as in 1969 when I acquired my second “A” licenced motor, a 26ton Mastiff and tandem 4 32 ft Primrose trailer, I didn’t want those centre knave wheels in use on the likes of the Pitt T/Four so I got Primrose to build the trailer using wide track axles so I was able to utilise the normal 1100 x 22:5 wheels shod with Mich X tyres. Incidentally the hub assemblies used were the same as those on the front axle of the Mastiff ! Regards to you both Dennis.
gazsa401:
May I ask Mr Riding a question
I’m a big Gardner fan I served my time as a apprentice on them also when I started working the fleet was still approximately 80% Gardner powered
All gave sterling service except the odd bad egg
We ran a a mixture of 6LXB/C 6 and 8LXCTs 6LXDTs and a handful of 6LYTs
Does Mr Riding have any recollections of any major failings with the above engines
We had 2 6 LYTs which were terrible but the other 3 were very reliable
Thanks Gary
Hi Gary,
What a box you have opened nevertheless I will try to give you an indication of our experiences with them.
Our third Atkinson tractor unit Reg No ETC 920B pictured above had ‘Engine No 142760’ which ran faultlessly for 394,000 miles on one of the hardest jobs we had.
It burnt a tip off an injector one night and was smoking like a train.
We took the engine out and rebuilt as a 180 and put it back to work and don’t recall any problems at all with the other 6LXs. 6LXB i loved these engines economical, durable and did exactly what it said on the tin.
We had trouble with two of them and in both cases it was our own fault.
Reg No BTE 180E ‘Engine No 155507’, pictured above, was the first 180 out of the Atkinson factory.
After 12 months or so we were advised by Patricroft to bring it in for suspect exhaust valves.
We ignored them thinking a Gardner couldn’t fail but it did and dropped a piece of a valve when on nights in Ilkley it was of course the fault of the screw driver slot on the face of the valve which had been removed from later engines.
A lesson was learnt and all the faulty heads were removed from our suspect engines and sent to Patricroft for new valves. The only other failure I remember was with Reg No MTC 690G ‘Engine No 162901’, picture here, which jumped the timing chain at Carlisle simply because we had not paid enough attention to the chain tension which is essential on these engines.
All our maintenance people were more switched on to Leyland engines which of course didn’t have a timing chain at all.
A salutary lesson was learned and it never happened again. The only 6LXCT was in this Seddon Atkinson 400 Series tractor unit Reg No WFR 370V.
This engine was one of a batch of five pre production ones which we were asked to trial in a Seddon Atkinson tractor unit.
We ran it 24 hours a day at 32 GVW and reported tonnage carried and fuel used to Gardner’s on a weekly basis.
For some reason it picked up on a piston at Carlisle on its way home one night.
Gardner’s were on strike at the time so our men repaired it in our workshops surrounded by Gardner people.
It had done around 250,000 miles at the time.
The engine was removed at 500,000 miles at Gardner’s request so that they could measure everything for wear and tear
and gave us a new one in its place.
This particular tractor unit eventually became a yard shunter and spent 17 years in use.
Gardner 240 and 300 LXCT.
We operated quite a lot of these engines and from memory they were no problems at all, in fact to me, they were a joy to see and hear.
I’m getting in front of myself because I do recollect the bagpipes on the 240 exhaust could be pain.
However the fact that after 8 or more years work you could still sell the engines for £2500 plus says it all.
6LYT 320HP 1030lb/ft torque and 15.4 liters capacity.
Early engines with the flat drive belts were a pain until the brackets were made at the angles.
From memory the big problem was the tappet blocks and followers on some engines that tended to have high rates of wear.
Replacement parts at this time were hard to get and the job of replacement was quite a big job needing the block separating from the crankcase.
We did have one bad scare on a 6LYT when it was very new but I can’t remember which one it was other than it was a Teesside motor.
It failed on the Dumfries run making big noises from the engine.
It was brought home to Longridge and I took into Patricroft the next day on the low-loader.
Mr Paul Gardner no less was awaiting my arrival to establish the problem.
Luckily for all concerned it was just a broken rocker lever and we all breathed a sigh of relief.
Both these two units used gallons of oil from day one but very soon they went back to Patricroft and were rebuilt and sorted. they went on to give 9 years trouble free service on general haulage.
6LXDT. 12,4 litre 290 bhp and 915 lb/ft torque.
We operated quite a lot of these engines and some were no trouble at all throughout their lives and in fact were very good.
However, some were an absolute problem.
Water pumps wore out in weeks and the pump drive shaft square end used to just quickly wear away resulting in over heating.
On some early engines the timing chain tensioner used to fail causing huge problems.
Spares were also difficult to obtain at this time and i think the standard of engine build quality had by this time gone to the dogs.
We had the last two Gardner engine vehicles to be produced at the Oldham factory in 1988 both were 6LXDT engine units.
I kid you not, but Reg F340 SHG which was one of these two failed with engine piston pick up 4 times before it got into service.
On one of these occasions a Gardner works fitter was with it at the time.
Eventually it was sorted and it ran successfully on the Shap -Ravenscraig lime movement 24/7 for many years.
Alas the Gardner engine story came to a sad and in glorious end along with a great deal of other great British industries.
These are a few of my experiences with the famous make and I hope you enjoy the story.
Regards
Tom Riding.
Couple of points I would like to raise Mr. Tom ----- BTE 180E !!! You must have “pulled some weight” with the then LCC Local Licencing Dept. in Preston ! “180E” 
and also on a more operational question, I know you Lancs Operators were probably tighter than Yorkshiremen with your Brass ( and thats saying summat !) but the fly sheet on the trailer coupled to BTE 180E is, to say the least, a bit on the “lean side” it must be barley 8ft 6" wide so that tells me you only ordered it 3 panels wide giving an 8ft 6" finish width. Who did you purchase your sheets from Tom if I can ask ? We used Leeches of Liverpool for many years but we also used Mitco Peck in later years then, of course, Boalloys became dominant and we built up a good stock of first class Mains and Flys which kept our Flats fully supplied so our Sheet purchases dropped off dramatically !I Not a serious technical questions I know but never the less all part of the Job and not an inexpensive one either ! Regards Dennis.
Thank you Mr Riding for your in-depth reply to my question
It was such a shame in my own opinion that the Gardner name and reputation was tarnished in their latter years of production like yourself the company I worked for ran many Gardner powered lorries well into double figures of service without any failures or reliability problems
Once again thank you very much for your reply
Kind regards Gary
Regarding the Gardner 6LXCT which Tom Riding had on trial in a Seddon Atkinson tractor unit running 24 hours a day i was fortunate enough to drive one from new back in 1981 when Lowfield Distribution purchased 33 ERF ‘C’ Series tractor units for their Sainsbury contract.
All had consecutive number plates from CNV 99X to CNV 132X
I drove CNV 129X for nine years and in all that time it never missed a beat clocking up over 600,000 miles in fact we never had any problems with any of the 6LXCT engines in all that time although i must say the were well looked after and serviced on a regular basis.
For the first six months some of us were asked to call into Gardners at Particroft from time to time so they could do some checks on the turbo’s but everything was always fine.