[zb]
anorak:
Here’s an idea cf- why don’t you email the University to tell them what was missed out of the thesis? Then post their reply on here.
I’m sure that if everyone on here is open minded enough to find and read their observations then they are probably also able to do that in regards to everything which has been said here.
I nominate you as our representative. It is your duty to inform the owners of that thesis about the crucial information missing from it.
Hmmm… no response. This could mean one of two things:
A long, carefully-twisted monologue is being spun, or
He actually has no good answer.
Or it could mean a third in which I’ve just ignored and defied your ‘instruction’ because an adequate response has already been provided.
No it hasn’t. Why will you not forward your analysis of the thesis to the University?
[zb]
anorak:
No it hasn’t. Why will you not forward your analysis of the thesis to the University?
He won’t do that. Because if anyone knows the process of gaining a PhD then CF would have to self-study the subject for 3yrs. That would entail…at least…reading all the referenced literature, and interviewing each person indexed in Maurice J Haltons thesis: L Gardner & Sons Limited. Then offering his written thesis to his external examiner…who will normally be well versed in the subject… for review. He would then attend a “Viva voce” to explain his thesis and answering searching questions on it…and unless it has changed format… normally for about 2hrs duration mimimum. If there is then any serious doubt as to it’s authenticity…crash…no award of a PhD or Doctorate.
Judging by the way he presents his arguments on here it’s doubtfull CF would take up the challenge under those preconditions.
Oh by the way. Any student whether it be a Masters or PhD candidate who when asked if they could be wrong in any of their conclusions answers NO…it’s looked upon with disdain and usually curtains.
[zb]
anorak:
No it hasn’t. Why will you not forward your analysis of the thesis to the University?
He won’t do that. Because if anyone knows the process of gaining a PhD then CF would have to self-study the subject for 3yrs. That would entail…at least…reading all the referenced literature, and interviewing each person indexed in Maurice J Haltons thesis: L Gardner & Sons Limited. Then offering his written thesis to his external examiner…who will normally be well versed in the subject… for review. He would then attend a “Viva voce” to explain his thesis and answering searching questions on it…and unless it has changed format… normally for about 2hrs duration mimimum. If there is then any serious doubt as to it’s authenticity…crash…no award of a PhD or Doctorate.
Judging by the way he presents his arguments on here it’s doubtfull CF would take up the challenge under those preconditions.
Oh by the way. Any student whether it be a Masters or PhD candidate who when asked if they could be wrong in any of their conclusions answers NO…it’s looked upon with disdain and usually curtains.
If only we could get the chief designer at Scania to justify the reasons for the investment in time,money and production effort in the 620 and 730 V8 and Volvo’s in regard to those same reasons in regard to it’s big power competitor.
After that maybe they could explain,why it was,that they never chose the opposite approach,of reducing outright and specific torque outputs on the basis that the outright and specific outputs of the Gardner 240/265,and the power to gross weight ratio provided by same,is thought by many to have been good enough and arguably a better bet,in terms of productivety and profitability,than either of those two modern day examples.
Some say that a few years spent on the shop floor is worth twice as many spent in a university library and classroom.
Carryfast:
Some say that a few years spent on the shop floor is worth twice as many spent in a university library and classroom.
So you are amply qualified to present your hypotheses to the author of the document, Mr. Halton. You don’t need to go to any great lengths. Simply email him with a brief precis of your conclusions, and see what he says. If you are polite and reasonable, he will probably give you the time of day. Here’s his email address: mauricehalton@hotmail.com
Stop making excuses. Just do it. You know it makes sense.
730 bhp. When does it stop? when lorries have the same bhp per ton as Formula one cars? There will still be those who reckon that an extra 100 bhp will make all the difference to their productivity, arguing that the extra thousandth of a second gained on a 200 mile journey justifies their ego.
cav551:
730 bhp. When does it stop? when lorries have the same bhp per ton as Formula one cars? There will still be those who reckon that an extra 100 bhp will make all the difference to their productivity, arguing that the extra thousandth of a second gained on a 200 mile journey justifies their ego.
And the same thing was said about the operators of DAF 2800/3300’s,F10/12’s and 6 cylinder and V8 Scanias back in the day by those loyal customers who stayed with their old 6 and 8 cylinder Gardners.No surprise that they jumped ship like all those before them though when they eventually realised that they were mistaken.
As for 730 (or 620) hp I think you’ll find that it’s all about the domestic market’s demands and the foresight concerning possible future Euro weight increases and therefore running efficiently throughout Europe at 60 t gross.Although,as I’ve said,running the thing with 20t less on it won’t do the fuel consumption figures any harm.So not much difference to how the Scandinavians and Europeans etc etc wiped out those Gardner powered trucks back in the day.
As for F1 cars no they’re all about making loads of power by multiplying zb all torque by loads of engine speed.Whereas trucks are all about vice versa and 10-12 hp per tonne gross weight made on that basis is a reasonable target.As the history of truck engine development to date proves.
Carryfast:
Some say that a few years spent on the shop floor is worth twice as many spent in a university library and classroom.
So you are amply qualified to present your hypotheses to the author of the document, Mr. Halton. You don’t need to go to any great lengths. Simply email him with a brief precis of your conclusions, and see what he says. If you are polite and reasonable, he will probably give you the time of day. Here’s his email address: mauricehalton@hotmail.com
Stop making excuses. Just do it. You know it makes sense.
You’ve obviously got the e mail contact and it’s you who’s obviously got the problem and who’s taken offence at my personal view of the situation.So why all the drama.Just send a link to this topic to that address with an explanation concerning why you’ve taken offence at my posts with a request for another opinion on the topic. Which contrary to yourself I wouldn’t take any offence at whatsoever regardless of wether that opinion agrees with my own or wether it (very) strongly disagrees.
That’s the difference between my view of what free and open discussion is all about compared to yours.
This thread is a place to discuss and celebrate the successes and challenges of the Great British Gardner company.
You are trolling, aren’t you? Marky from Southport was right.
No just calling a spade a spade which is something I’ve always done.If it offends you for some reason that’s not my fault and isn’t my intention.
I didn’t see anything at the start of the topic which said only positive comments concerning the things would be tolerated or welcomed.If I’m mistaken about that then all that was needed was a post by the OP saying that and I would have deleted all the offending posts and I wouldn’t have posted any further comments whatsoever.
I sincerely hope that there will be no chance whatsoever of running at 60 tons in this country. We have heard it all before several times about how we need to be able to carry extra tonnage and the result will be the greater productivity we ‘so desperately need’ and fewer lorries on the roads as a consequence. 30 to 32, 32 to 38, 38 to 40, 40 to 44. Now we are in the process of being ‘convinced’ that we will need fewer lorries ‘if only’ we can make the trailers a ‘little bit’ longer, because the poor little loves can’t get full weight on because the trailer is too short. And has there been a reduction in the number of lorries on the road? like **** there has.
Carryfast:
Some say that a few years spent on the shop floor is worth twice as many spent in a university library and classroom.
So you are amply qualified to present your hypotheses to the author of the document, Mr. Halton. You don’t need to go to any great lengths. Simply email him with a brief precis of your conclusions, and see what he says. If you are polite and reasonable, he will probably give you the time of day. Here’s his email address: mauricehalton@hotmail.com
Stop making excuses. Just do it. You know it makes sense.
You’ve obviously got the e mail contact and it’s you who’s obviously got the problem and who’s taken offence at my personal view of the situation.So why all the drama.Just send a link to this topic to that address with an explanation concerning why you’ve taken offence at my posts with a request for another opinion on the topic. Which contrary to yourself I wouldn’t take any offence at whatsoever regardless of wether that opinion agrees with my own or wether it (very) strongly disagrees.
That’s the difference between my view of what free and open discussion is all about compared to yours.
They’ re your opinions, not mine. Are you afraid to subject them to professional scrutiny?
Carryfast:
Some say that a few years spent on the shop floor is worth twice as many spent in a university library and classroom.
So you are amply qualified to present your hypotheses to the author of the document, Mr. Halton. You don’t need to go to any great lengths. Simply email him with a brief precis of your conclusions, and see what he says. If you are polite and reasonable, he will probably give you the time of day. Here’s his email address: mauricehalton@hotmail.com
Stop making excuses. Just do it. You know it makes sense.
You’ve obviously got the e mail contact and it’s you who’s obviously got the problem and who’s taken offence at my personal view of the situation.So why all the drama.Just send a link to this topic to that address with an explanation concerning why you’ve taken offence at my posts with a request for another opinion on the topic. Which contrary to yourself I wouldn’t take any offence at whatsoever regardless of wether that opinion agrees with my own or wether it (very) strongly disagrees.
That’s the difference between my view of what free and open discussion is all about compared to yours.
They’ re your opinions, not mine. Are you afraid to subject them to professional scrutiny?
Which part of,send a link to this topic to the address and request an opinion which will be welcomed by all concerned including myself regardless of wether it (very) strongly disagrees with my own view or wether it agrees,didn’t you understand.
cav551:
I sincerely hope that there will be no chance whatsoever of running at 60 tons in this country. We have heard it all before several times about how we need to be able to carry extra tonnage and the result will be the greater productivity we ‘so desperately need’ and fewer lorries on the roads as a consequence. 30 to 32, 32 to 38, 38 to 40, 40 to 44. Now we are in the process of being ‘convinced’ that we will need fewer lorries ‘if only’ we can make the trailers a ‘little bit’ longer, because the poor little loves can’t get full weight on because the trailer is too short. And has there been a reduction in the number of lorries on the road? like **** there has.
Or the other view in which the idea of using LHV’s is all about removing trucks from the road is just for public consumption in what has always been a road transport hostile country.Whereas the actual idea,which anyone with any involvement in the industry,and therefore believes that it needs to compete with rail freight not cooperate with it,is all about being able to shift more freight for less outlay and overheads in fuel etc.Which therefore makes the industry more efficient and therefore more attractive to it’s customers which therefore,hopefully,means more trucks on the road not less and therefore growth in the industry and more jobs.
Notice the difference between that foreign view compared to the rail freight orientated British view.Is it really any wonder that the Brit manufacturers were at a disdvantage before they even started and nothing has changed in that regard.
Carryfast:
Some say that a few years spent on the shop floor is worth twice as many spent in a university library and classroom.
So you are amply qualified to present your hypotheses to the author of the document, Mr. Halton. You don’t need to go to any great lengths. Simply email him with a brief precis of your conclusions, and see what he says. If you are polite and reasonable, he will probably give you the time of day. Here’s his email address: mauricehalton@hotmail.com
Stop making excuses. Just do it. You know it makes sense.
That’s the difference between my view of what free and open discussion is all about compared to yours.
They’ re your opinions, not mine. Are you afraid to subject them to professional scrutiny?
Which part of,send a link to this topic to the address and request an opinion which will be welcomed by all concerned including myself regardless of wether it (very) strongly disagrees with my own view or wether it agrees,didn’t you understand.
Freight by rail, freight by road. The only people in this country that advocate moving freight by the railways are those who have no concept of how modern logistics work. Rail has been losing out to road since the 1920s and the 1933 Road Transport Act that introduced the A, B, and C haulage licensing system was specifically designed to protect rail freight by giving the railway companies the right to object to hauliers applications’ for Hire and Reward A and B licences. 80 years on and rail still loses out to road. Imagine such as Tesco and Sainsburys being able to run their supply chains as they do now if they had to use the railways? The supermarkets would be empty.
Increasing gross vehicle weights. Every time there has been an increase in gross vehicle weights and / or vehicle lengths history tells us that the hauliers’ profit margins have been squeezed further. There is no proportionate increase in rates paid by the customer for a larger vehicle that is more costly to buy and operate. Customers (tipper users excepted) generally pay for the full load they want moving, not by its weight or number of pallets (groupage and pallet network stuff excepted). The last thing those of us running or managing businesses in the hire and reward general haulage sector (in its widest meaning) want is longer and / or heavier vehicles, because we cannot afford the investment it would require and there would not be any additional return on our capital invested in such equipment. The only way to reduce the number of lorries on the road is to run our fleets more efficiently by more double shifting etc if we can and those are the opportunities we are always trying to identify.
Returning to the topic of Gardner engines and particularly its heyday period in the middle years of the last century. As I have mentioned before Gardner had a large automotive market share in the UK, shared between the lorry and passenger vehicle markets. It was also active in the industrial engines, rail traction, and marine main propulsion and marine auxiliary engine markets. These latter markets were supplied with engines such as the L2 and L3 ranges, much larger than the LW and LX automotive engines, but Gardner automotive engines were also adapted for industrial and marine uses. (As in fact such as Volvo and Scania do today, and that is why we see high horsepower automotive offerings from Volvo and Scania, their development is for uses other than automotive, but if someone is daft enough to want a 700 hp engine in a truck then Volvo and Scania will gladly relieve that person of his money).
If the moderators will indulge me for a paragraph on the UK passenger vehicle market in mid-twentieth century. Virtually every town and city in the UK operated its own municipal bus fleet, and this was a very prestigious market for both chassis builders and engine makers. Leyland and AEC dominated that market, with smaller players such as Guy, Daimler, Bristol, and Dennis also selling significant numbers. So not only did engine makers such as Leyland and AEC have to satisfy the lorry buyers they had to satisfy the bus operators. Gardner engines were the preferred choice for Guy, Daimler, Bristol, and Dennis, and some corporations such as Rochdale even specified Gardner engines in AEC chassis. Taking Salford City Transport as an example. In the early 1950s Charles Baroth was appointed General Manager, and like many of his ilk in that transport discipline his autocratic management style made Hugh Gardner look plainly democratic and benign. Baroth inherited a motley fleet at Salford, including Leylands and AECs (Regent 111s with 9.6 litre engines, "too powerful and too thirsty, 125bhp, but he kept them for 15 years). Baroth’s replacement programme began with an order for 195 Daimler CVG6 chassis, Gardner 6LW engines at 112 bhp, and by the mid-60s virtually all of Salford’s 320 buses were Gardner powered. Salford City Transport became regarded as one of the most efficient bus operators in the country, and its fleet was without fear of contradiction the smartest and most immaculately kept. Baroth’s remit was to provide the citizens of Salford with a reliable and efficient bus service with value for money from the council tax payers hard earned cash (it was called rates in those days). On the subject of power Salford, along with Bolton ran the number 8 Manchester to Bolton service, one of the most tightly timed urban routes in the country (frequent stops, heavy traffic, 11 route miles in 38 minutes) and the Daimlers coped with it. Baroth will no doubt be regarded as a Dinasour by CF, but he managed as he had to, and was one of the top bus men in the country.
Continuing the aside briefly to illuminate Salford’s Charles Baroth.
When the new General manager visited Victoria bus station he spied an elderly Dennis bus converted to tow broken down vehicles on a chain and bearing the word “Service”.
The following instructions were immediately issued: " No bus which bears my name, let alone the City of Salford, and which requires a device like that to move it, shall henceforth ever be allowed to leave the garage".
Buses were not allowed to be seen to fail in public. If one did then the crew were to " push it if necessary" into a side street if possible, park it neatly with the destination set to ‘Private’, from where it would be recovered after dark by the City’s newly acquired spotless AEC Matador.
Quote from Ayre and Heaps: Manchester and Salford, a century of municipal transport.
kr79:
I’ve seen plenty here and in France 5 axles full size trailer so I’m guessing 40 ton.
Hi kr 79,the legal gtw in Holland for 5 or more axles is 50tons for internal haulage with a length limit of 18.75 and as a general rule 44ton international.The Netherlands have been trialing a pilot with 60tons with a minimum of 7 axles and 25.25 metres in lenghth (various combinations truck and trailers).I don’t know the conclusions yet,but I think it come out the same as Sweden & finland. I can’t see any Gardner engine being able to do that job efficiently.
Just one other point,Lots of bulk freight eg. sand,coal,gas,grain etc. is carried by barge in Holland, Germany and Belgium.The rail freight system in Holland and Germany is far more efficient than the U.K.From the early 70’s to the present day the British transport industry has been playing catch up.
kr79:
I’ve seen plenty here and in France 5 axles full size trailer so I’m guessing 40 ton.
Hi kr 79,the legal gtw in Holland for 5 or more axles is 50tons for internal haulage with a length limit of 18.75 and as a general rule 44ton international.The Netherlands have been trialing a pilot with 60tons with a minimum of 7 axles and 25.25 metres in lenghth (various combinations truck and trailers).I don’t know the conclusions yet,but I think it come out the same as Sweden & finland. I can’t see any Gardner engine being able to do that job efficiently.
I knew the Dutch had some weird and wonderful ideas such as the five axle rigid tipper. All jokes aside about holland been flat I’ve always been surprised at the modest powered trucks they use.
I think we all agree that turning up in a Gardner power truck today is like turning up to a gunfight with a knife but there’s no denying in there day they were as good as anything else on offer.
