ramone:
Never realised how difficult it was then ,we had the Volvo rep in last year and he got his laptop out and worked out the best engine , gearbox and axle ratio we should order it simulated the weights we carry the type of trailer and what mpg we would get when the speed limiter was set at different speeds ,we ended up with 5 scania 400s with the G cab.The newer they get the worse they perform.I`d still like to try a Marathon with the TL12 in see how long it would last
Hiya "ramone"interesting that senario youve just put forward! But the last thing I would have wanted was a “wally in a suit” sat in my office with a lap top trying to covince me that “simulation” could give me a fair indication as to how a vehicle would behave under “actual running conditions”.What you have to bear in mind is Atkinson and ERF were “vehicle assemblers” not “manufacturers” like Scania,Volvo,Mercedes,MAN ect.Atki and ERF “bought in” all their major components(OK they built their own cabs!)Whereas the Europeans and Leyland!!! were what was known as “Vertically intergated” manufacturers who made nearly all their own components that went into their products.I did eventually accept that this was the way to go and started buying Volvo and Scania and in later years Mercedes and Renault. I don’t think there are any “assemblers” left in Europe to-day? There still are assemblers in the U.S. though,Peterbuilt,Kenworth ect.But I came around to believe that a vehicle that was manufactured with “in house” components was a better machine than that which was built with what could be mis-matched compoments!!! Bewick.
240 Gardner:
…And if it’s any consolation for Mr LB76, Bill Bowker’s recollection of his first encounter with an LB76 (Bowker had some E-reg ones) was that he saw one belonging to British Ropes, then came back to Blackburn and said, "Gentlemen, I have just seen the finest lorry that money can buy…
The Scania Vabis LB76 as a tractor unit was a good truck of its day. The rigids eventually got there. We built a batch of tipper bodies and fitted them to Scania Vabis 6 wheel chassis in 1965, and every one came back in after just a few months with rear suspension component failure. They were all for a fleet that were replacing five year old AEC Mammoth Major MkV 6 wheelers, and the new trucks failure was a huge embarrassment to Scania.
They sent a senior engineering manager over from Sweden for a meeting in our yard with the owner of the new fleet whilst four of his failed vehicles were awaiting repair. The Swedish chap was a true professional, spoke better English than we did and inspected the trucks in his nice suit with no overalls!. He could not understand why these vehicles were failing here in England with no similar problems reported in Europe. We went through weight distribution and individual axle loadings and came to the conclusion that the welded aluminium tipper bodies we had pioneered here were substantially lighter than the steel or wooden bodies these chassis were used to in Europe, meaning the body could be physically longer. We had a front recess for the tipper ram bringing the headboard right up to the back of the cab and we positioned the rear tipper hinge bar a little way back from the rear spring hanger brackets as was common practice here, but in Europe they seemed to be more comfortable mounting the hinge over the top of the hanger brackets. Our installation imposed a greater load on the rear bogie whilst tipping with a full load, and it was this load that was causing the failures.
The man from Scania scratched his head and could not come up with a solution other than shortening the body and moving the hinge bar forwards to where it was more acceptable to the chassis design. On hearing this the operator went berserk — saying that he could not operate these trucks commercially with a shorter body, and that he wished he had bought new AEC’s as these had never given a problem at this wheelbase and rear hinge position. The Scania man was genuinely most upset, and asked him if it would be possible to make a rear bogie and chassis section from one of his old AEC’s available for testing at Scania. This was done, and the rear end of an old Mammoth Major 6 was shipped by road to Sweden at Scania’s expense. Within one week, a team of Swedish engineers were back in the yard with a kit of parts to modify all the Scania chassis. These chassis and all those that followed from Scania didn’t physically look much like AEC’s design, but they never gave the same problem again. I must say a similar chassis problem occurred on the new Ergomatic Leyland Octopus, and it took Leyland months and months and months to even listen, let alone modify the design.
Maybe someone should have suggested the mighty Leyland people could speak to the AEC designers…perish the though!!!
jinks@62:
they were crap mate.i had quite a few in my early days and they were rubbish for the driver. bosses loved em tho especially with the gardener engine.my first one was a 150 D reg and it had a splitter gearbox and did 46mph flat out.reliable and economical though. ERF was a much better wagon in my view.in 1973 i had a brand new Borderer with the 180 gardener and the david brown 6 speed gearbox.the windsreen had moved before it was painted.it leaked like hell when it rained and my boss[Richard Raymond of Vale transport southwales]wasnt bothered.they kept on going forever without breakdown and the employers loved them.his brother john had lots of them.i thought they were crap as i said.the seddon atki was better but still not as good as other motors at the time.i changed firms and went back from L reg to E reg but it was a Volvo F86 and was far superior to the new atki in pulling power,comfort and ride.some one actually told me when i was collecting a new unit from their factory at walton-le-dale that they were built around the driver.what a [zb],he obviously hadnt driven one for any lenght of time.Adrian.
ramone:
Never realised how difficult it was then ,we had the Volvo rep in last year and he got his laptop out and worked out the best engine , gearbox and axle ratio we should order it simulated the weights we carry the type of trailer and what mpg we would get when the speed limiter was set at different speeds ,we ended up with 5 scania 400s with the G cab.The newer they get the worse they perform.I`d still like to try a Marathon with the TL12 in see how long it would last
Hiya "ramone"interesting that senario youve just put forward! But the last thing I would have wanted was a “wally in a suit” sat in my office with a lap top trying to covince me that “simulation” could give me a fair indication as to how a vehicle would behave under “actual running conditions”.What you have to bear in mind is Atkinson and ERF were “vehicle assemblers” not “manufacturers” like Scania,Volvo,Mercedes,MAN ect.Atki and ERF “bought in” all their major components(OK they built their own cabs!)Whereas the Europeans and Leyland!!! were what was known as “Vertically intergated” manufacturers who made nearly all their own components that went into their products.I did eventually accept that this was the way to go and started buying Volvo and Scania and in later years Mercedes and Renault. I don’t think there are any “assemblers” left in Europe to-day? There still are assemblers in the U.S. though,Peterbuilt,Kenworth ect.But I came around to believe that a vehicle that was manufactured with “in house” components was a better machine than that which was built with what could be mis-matched compoments!!! Bewick.
My point Dennis is that all this technology in my opinion is a load of bull,ad blue,warning lights for this that and tother, laptops to repair vehicles laptops to spec vehicles,i think you are right with the in house bit at least they have control over what they are fitting,this move towards auto boxes is a big mistake i hate em but the best auto box i`ve come across is the Volvo but you have more control with a manual.Funnily enough we got 4 Volvos a couple of weeks before xmas and they came with a 450 instead of the 410 we ordered at no extra cost because there was some mix up
ramone:
Funnily enough we got 4 Volvos a couple of weeks before xmas and they came with a 450 instead of the 410 we ordered at no extra cost because there was some mix up
The funny thing about that comment is that the only difference between the two is a softwear setting in the ecu, so in my mind there shouldn’t be any difference in price to start off with!!
ramone:
Funnily enough we got 4 Volvos a couple of weeks before xmas and they came with a 450 instead of the 410 we ordered at no extra cost because there was some mix up
The funny thing about that comment is that the only difference between the two is a softwear setting in the ecu, so in my mind there shouldn’t be any difference in price to start off with!!
Ross.
True but without checking i would imagine there would be,in our case we dont need it as we very rarely gross above 23 tons and we tax em at 28tons
heres one for sale, says its the last mk2 of the line. donedeal.ie/for-sale/trucks/1803105
thought i would stick it on here and it may give those boring old
■■■■■ something else to question and argue over
so is it the last or not ?
glenman:
heres one for sale, says its the last mk2 of the line. donedeal.ie/for-sale/trucks/1803105
thought i would stick it on here and it may give those boring old
■■■■■ something else to question and argue over
so is it the last or not ?
hiya,
"Boring old ■■■■■, i’ll have you know i “represent” that remark.
thanks harry long retired.
glenman:
heres one for sale, says its the last mk2 of the line. donedeal.ie/for-sale/trucks/1803105
thought i would stick it on here and it may give those boring old
■■■■■ something else to question and argue over
so is it the last or not ?
No - it isn’t the last MkII off the production line.
I’m not sure what documentation the seller has to prove the statement, but the last MkII was an 8x4 chassis - I have pictures of it taken as it went down the line, followed by 400 chassis. these were in some negatives which came from Atkinson. The vehicle was (not sure whether it still is) in a yard in Staffordshire. The owners (I think it was McCready Bros) tried selling it a few years ago in the heritage comics & I passed the details to William Hunter, but I don’t whether he followed it up.
Chris (240 Gardner) has the chassis details of the last MkII (the number was chalked onto the front bumper) so he’ll be able to provide much more information that I have.
I’ve managed to find the pictures I was on about earlier, and here’s the wagon in question - with the 400s following it down the line. The chassis number 29941 can be seen chalked on the bumper.
marky:
I’ve managed to find the pictures I was on about earlier, and here’s the wagon in question - with the 400s following it down the line. The chassis number 29941 can be seen chalked on the bumper.
And here it is again, while in service:
That’s a great photo of the last Atkinson looks so good not like the dull looking 400 series behind it,
but a very sad sight to for me.
We had a P reg Atkinson with a 240 Gardner at Waugh’s it must have been one of the last to come down the line
as i dont think it would have been old stock not with the 8lxb fitted.
marky:
I’ve managed to find the pictures I was on about earlier, and here’s the wagon in question - with the 400s following it down the line. The chassis number 29941 can be seen chalked on the bumper.
And here it is again, while in service:
That’s a great photo of the last Atkinson looks so good not like the dull looking 400 series behind it,
but a very sad sight to for me.
We had a P reg Atkinson with a 240 Gardner at Waugh’s it must have been one of the last to come down the line
as i dont think it would have been old stock not with the 8lxb fitted.
do we no the date that the last atki was made? mine is about 1000 trucks differernt to this one and mine was made in 1975, and put on to the road in late 1975.
les freathy:
I caught this in a layby at Snodland in kent a good few years ago the low loader had brought a machine to work in the waster land behind the layby
