Just seen the Leyland Beaver on the BRS thread & got me wondering 
which was the best ergomatic cabbed model 
I know alot of tanker fleets ran both AEC’s & Beavers as BRS did - those of you that drove/operated them which did you prefer - oh & all ergos included - Buffalo’s etc
All the AECs were decent motors especially for the fuel tanker work.Mandator-Mercury-Mamouth Major ran all these makes at Townson Tankers and they give excellent service for many years.They also ran Buffalos, again they give good service but I think the drivers prefered the AEC models.
boris:
Just seen the Leyland Beaver on the BRS thread & got me wondering
Evening all, seems that we all like to “kick” the old Leyland empire, for all its public faults, but the Ergomatic cab was really quite a good piece of design…if only it had been developed!!
Perhaps…
if it had been a one piece cab, floor included, then it would have had more integral strength. And have been a less dusty/noisy enviroment.
Perhaps some attempt at rustproofing would have been nice.
Certainly no person connected with design/engineering could ever have driven one on a wet day…has there ever been a more horrible wet weather rear view set up?
Perhaps the wipers would have been more effective had they been mounted at the windscreen base.
Did any engineer ever consider the relative cooling needs,and the limits imposed by the low cab, for all the engine variants that the cab would have to sit over?
But…
Has there ever been a simpler drivers window mechanism?
In its day, was there ever a more “relaxed” driving position?
I personally really liked them sitting over the real powerhouse, the AV760 AEC Mandator…but the AV505 Marshall, and its big brother the Marshall Major was perhaps the best UK 6wheelers. But I experienced the potential pleasures of Semi Auto Beavers, (must have been nice…before they became worn out)!! And of course Britains best ever 4wheeler the AEC Mercury.
Then of course it grew up, and became the cab for the Marathon, and several of my French clients really were so pleased with them, then went on to buy the Rolls Roadtrain, (untill our Dutch cousins killed it).
Yes I did like AECs, but being objective the Leyland offerings were good…untill the advent of the fixed head 500…yes, I know that in the end it became more reliable, but at what cost to so many operators, let alone the cost to Leyland itself.
But that cab really encapsulates what the inherent problems with Leyland Group were, good basic designs, but not really developed, only to cover operational shortfalls. Sad, oh so sad,
I shall away to my Bollinger, and remember just what a nice driving enviroment those cabs gave…untill it rained…but at least the heaters seemed to work!!
Cheerio for now.
.
Saviem:
boris:
Just seen the Leyland Beaver on the BRS thread & got me wonderingEvening all, seems that we all like to “kick” the old Leyland empire, for all its public faults, but the Ergomatic cab was really quite a good piece of design…if only it had been developed!!
Perhaps…
if it had been a one piece cab, floor included, then it would have had more integral strength. And have been a less dusty/noisy enviroment.
Perhaps some attempt at rustproofing would have been nice.
Certainly no person connected with design/engineering could ever have driven one on a wet day…has there ever been a more horrible wet weather rear view set up?
Perhaps the wipers would have been more effective had they been mounted at the windscreen base.
Did any engineer ever consider the relative cooling needs,and the limits imposed by the low cab, for all the engine variants that the cab would have to sit over?
But…
Has there ever been a simpler drivers window mechanism?
In its day, was there ever a more “relaxed” driving position?
I personally really liked them sitting over the real powerhouse, the AV760 AEC Mandator…but the AV505 Marshall, and its big brother the Marshall Major was perhaps the best UK 6wheelers. But I experienced the potential pleasures of Semi Auto Beavers, (must have been nice…before they became worn out)!! And of course Britains best ever 4wheeler the AEC Mercury.
Then of course it grew up, and became the cab for the Marathon, and several of my French clients really were so pleased with them, then went on to buy the Rolls Roadtrain, (untill our Dutch cousins killed it).
Yes I did like AECs, but being objective the Leyland offerings were good…untill the advent of the fixed head 500…yes, I know that in the end it became more reliable, but at what cost to so many operators, let alone the cost to Leyland itself.
But that cab really encapsulates what the inherent problems with Leyland Group were, good basic designs, but not really developed, only to cover operational shortfalls. Sad, oh so sad,
I shall away to my Bollinger, and remember just what a nice driving enviroment those cabs gave…untill it rained…but at least the heaters seemed to work!!
Cheerio for now.
.
A thought-provoking post in an equally interesting thread, Monsieur Saviem. Why indeed was it deemed necessary to keep the driver’s seat fixed to the chassis, when it would have been easier to do away with the vexatious sealing problems and mount it inside the box? Fodens made the same mistake, with their 1962 cab, but Sisu did not with theirs, in the same year. It must have been some British peculiarity, which forced such an abomination on the designers. Does anyone know the reason for it?
My own theory for the absurdly low mounting of the cab has its roots in the arch-coward Stokes’ aversion to competing with the Continentals and their namby-pamby obsessions with comfort, safety and progress. He wanted a product which would be easy for him to sell to the equally-conservative British market, so it had to look no bigger than the competition of the time. Maybe, if the designers had not been working under the aegis of such a half-witted salesman, they would have created something to rival the F88.
Regarding AEC versus Leyland, I was once subjected to the opinions of an R&D man from London. His general thrust was that the work of Park Royal was fine engineering, compared to the rough, cheap and nasty product of Lancashire. In the early days of the Ergo (1963-’68), would this have been true?
It was like Scania vrs Volvo , AEC en Scania cost more ,better resale yes but you have dead money laid out , Leyland en Volvo cost less, still good resale and better on fuel every fill up ! SOME not quite as long lasting engine s as Scania en AEC but more money made overall and trucks are run for profit , Leyland thought they HAD made the most comfortable cab in 1965 how many books say so ,very many , so sad , did they never visit Sweden ? Volvo had small tip- top out in 1962 (as same as F86 KABINE) in Germany Mercedes had Kubish kabine out 1963 ! LP /LPS 1620 /1920 , Daf already 2600 , the Ergo` was most comfort out of English trucks thats all inte mera ! 
I remember how different it was to get in a tilt cab AEC after a MK3 and MK5. Thought they were great,better vision,a heater,two wipers - all ours were converted to electric as the air wipers were rubbish. Mirrors moved further forward so they didn’t get so clagged up and A E Evans eventually fitted header tanks back of the cab to cure the overheating,I think kits were available for the conversion but Evans pre-empted them.The AV760 had bags of power,I just wish I could have had one with a Fuller Box as that improved performance no end .I never drove a tilt cab Leyland Beaver,only the LAD Octopus and Badger,but that 0.680 Power Plus did sound a great engine. 
And after all that my favourite AEC of all time has to be the MK5,get one of the later models with AV691 and you were on top of the job. The AV691 was originally fitted in the early tilt cabs.
I wonder why Leyland kept ‘updating’ the cab for there own range & improved the interior etc , but for AEC the cab remained virtually the same till their demise 
boris:
I wonder why Leyland kept ‘updating’ the cab for there own range & improved the interior etc , but for AEC the cab remained virtually the same till their demise
I don’t think they ever improved it, they just found ways of making it in cheaper plastic !
Bradys ran a selection of Ergo’s,their first one was a Badger that was driven by Joe “The Woodman” Saunders,others I recall were a two pedal Beaver driven by Tommy Benson from Kendal and a Mandator driven by Nobby Clark also an Ergo Super Comet,there were some others but I can’t just remember Doh! I believe that the un-reliability of the Mandator brought an abrupt end to Brady’s purchasing anymore Ergos,they switched to Atkinsons and then Scania 110’s.Cheers Bewick.
I just LOVED the Ergo AECs. They were so smooth, fast & comparatively powerful. When you fitted your own radio you could actually hear it, too! Once you mounted a radiator header tank on a steel angle frame at the back of the cab, there were no worries about overheating, either. And speaking of heating, there WAS some. Not all that good maybe, but fantastic compared to the Gardner-engine beasts we had been lumbered with previously.
When they had been bounced around the countryside for a few years it was considered necessary to employ lumps of foam rubber to stuff in the gaps where you could see the outside world, but, let’s face it, they were a ■■■■ sight better than some things we were expected to drive.
The Ergo cab was a massive step forward from the cramped LAD cab.I drove a Doge Kew with the LAD cab and found it had no leg room and there was nowhere much to put your gear,but when I drove a Leyland Comet with the Ergo cab it was a luxury in comparison.It was better than the K series Dodge which I had as a regular lorry.I thought the Ergo cabs were good at the time.
Cheers Dave.
Having said that, Dave, the LAD cabs were a massive improvement on the ones we had before, like the 1961 Octopus that I started on BRS with. 42 mph, no heater at all and every bit of metal inside the cab vibrating fit to bust!
Retired Old ■■■■:
Having said that, Dave, the LAD cabs were a massive improvement on the ones we had before, like the 1961 Octopus that I started on BRS with. 42 mph, no heater at all and every bit of metal inside the cab vibrating fit to bust!
I’ll take your word on that Casey.I just found the LAD cab cramped.OK for the short blokes and I wasn’t the tallest at 6’0,so somone over that height must have had their knees up under the steering wheel.
Cheers Dave.
I found that, like the Big J, the LAD cabs were just right for me, being short in the body but with long legs. As long as I put the seat all the way up and all the way back I wasc quite happy. And the Dodge versions even had TWO heaters! Oh, the luxury!!!
Retired Old ■■■■:
I found that, like the Big J, the LAD cabs were just right for me, being short in the body but with long legs. As long as I put the seat all the way up and all the way back I wasc quite happy. And the Dodge versions even had TWO heaters! Oh, the luxury!!!
I drove a Seddon 13/4 which had the same cab as the Guy Big J,although there was plenty of room in it.I thought the Ergo cab was much better.
Cheers Dave.
My old fella had a 13/4 for a couple of years. It kept falling apart, so the firm never bought another. He was glad when the boss “promoted” his grandson to it and Dad could go back to a TK.
Retired Old ■■■■:
My old fella had a 13/4 for a couple of years. It kept falling apart, so the firm never bought another. He was glad when the boss “promoted” his grandson to it and Dad could go back to a TK.
They were horrible things with the offset steering wheel and the Perkins 6354 engine.Thankfully I only drove one on Philpotts now and again.They wouldn’t pull your granny off the ■■■■■■■■■■ regular lorry there was a Bedford KM which would outpull anything else on their fleet.
Cheers Dave.
There have been a few occasions on a pleasant summer’s day, with an easy job on, when I’ve thought to myself - wouldn’t it make a nice change to hook a Mandator on the front of this little lot instead!
Good jokes old ■■■■ , hear the radio in a Mandator only with engine stopped ride in one now and horse trying to speak after 20 miles 
, Leyland Octipus 22/01 miles per hour was 28 to 32 , was the 24/04 really doing 42 ? high geared ? , Ergo was low for easy entry , as in the Wendys home , it was cheap to not bother with flexy connections and leave drivers floor fixed , some were killed when kabine tilt under stress , always at Leyland keep cost down , the Economy with speed of the Buffalo was worry to Volvo ,but not really as it was made too cheap and fell apart , Leyland engineers were some of the best,but let down by money men