The Anson Engine Museum is well worth a visit on a running day (see website for dates) and the growing archives department will keep you occupied for hours and even days.
gingerfold:
The Anson Engine Museum is well worth a visit on a running day (see website for dates) and the growing archives department will keep you occupied for hours and even days.
I was there on Sunday, Geoff gave me some history on a Crossley pump that I recently purchased. Interesting to see the wooden patterns that Gardner made to construct the moulds for the engine parts and to watch a few of the older engines operating especially the two strokes. Incidently a Foden FD4 stroker arrived on a trailer while we were there, it has been reconditioned ready for display. The museum will re-open at Easter.
Pete.
Evening all, well a long day, carrying out one of the most satisfying jobs as a farmer, hedgecutting on an Autumn day. You can see what you have achieved, and enjoy the nett result, (even if I should have been seeding, …but the ground is too wet to work on). A day in the company of Finches, Jays, Buzzards, and a Ferral cat, gave me time to think. Now what I`m about to write, (boring though it may be), should be prefaced by a little historic “scene setting”.
When I started this thread, I was hoping to get a cross section of experiences, driving, owning, repairing, operating, comparing, and just “enjoying”, what was truly an iconic range of engineering excellence in world terms!
Well we`ve had all of these, (however controversial), but my last posts, highlighting how we, (in the UK), adapted the standard product to suit “our” needs, is I think the key to the failure of the British Commercial vehicle industry.
Why so??
Before we criticise any, and I mean any manufacturer, let us consider the enviroment that they strove to work within. From the late 40s to the early 90s, the manufacturers customer, the “Transport Industry”, has suffered from “stop/go” economies, why? Policies lurching from left to right, and right to left, dictated by fashionable political dogma.
The Industry was changed from quantity licencing, to quality licencing.
Nationalisation, then denationalisation,…integration, then deregulation!
Nationally, our weights and dimensions always were behind those of our European neighbours, (friends)■■? And harmonisation, for whatever reason was a political NO/NO.
Manufacturers struggled with interest rates of 3/15% on their borrowings, coupled with Government Policies that switched, (dependant upon the colour in power), from overt subsidies, to punative taxation!
Vehicle makers operated within a market that had "liberal"import policies, yet strove to generate revenue in export sales, where the “continentals” operated covert, or overt restrictions to discourage imports, and protect "home producers!! Would you like me to be eternally boring, and list the restrictions placed by, France, Belgium,Sweden, Holland, Italy, Germany, let alone the US, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, (driven by Scanias Governmental influence), and France, and Spains former African Colonies! That anyone exported anything in the 50s and 60s was a major achievement.
And all this, while our own manufacturers watched our domestic market being opened up to all and sundry, without restriction!! So can anyone criticise, with justification, why our manufacturers stayed immersed in our own "domestic " market and its “peculiar” needs, of minimum ULW, and maximum payload wihin a low GVW, coupled to a very low legal road speed for vehicles above 3tons ULW??
The major manufacturers operated a system of high quality engineering apprenticeships, that have not been equalled to this day. Some members of this site have been through such training schemes, and exhibit the free thinking, nothing is impossible attitude that they encouraged. This was, and is the foundation of our industry. Today discouraged, and destroyed by the dead bureacratic hand of “one size fits all”, European, “state” legislation. So readily grasped and enjoyed by those luddites in power today!!
So, back to my theme…and firstly an apology! I had, (in my rapidly ageing little, …oh so little, grey cells),confused Bulwark Transports Chief Engineer, Reg Rogers, with the effervescent Brian Veale, who headed Shell Mex`s Motor Department , having joined from the County Borough of Bolton, where he was Technical Assistant, being responsible for everything from Bus Shelters, to Crossley, and Leyland double deckers. Having joined them from the “real” Leyland motors! He was responsible for the inception of such diverse vehicles as the “straight eight” petrol KV ERF 8x4 tankers, (for quiet deliveries), to the ground breaking Charles Roberts “Lowmax”, articulated step frame19.5in tandem wheeled tankers.
Reg Roberts was managing John and Arthur Watts, Red and White Motor Services coach operation in the Forest of Dean. When this was nationalised, the Watts Brothers moved him to Bulwark, who as a specialist carrier were not nationalised!
Watts had in 1929 designed their own diesel engine, the design, and manufacturing rights they sold to Leyland/Albion.
Now I go back to memory!! The CAV Turbo, was bolted to the right rear of the LX.The original exhaust was removed,all the exhaust pressure was piped from the exhaust manifold to the turbo, no silencer was used. Further pipework connected the blower side to the induction manifold.Fuel injection was recalibrated,the timing altered,and injection pressure raised. And this 4x2 tractor only weighed 5.23tons at 32tons gtw! These Seddons were totally reliable in operation, and gave significant fuel savings as mentioned above, I believe 7 were converted in total before the major row between Gardner and CAV erupted.
The nett result, 190hp, 10 more than the “new” 180LXB, total reliability, and the most hideous row between Gardner and CAV, who shortly after ceased to market Turbochargers!!
Bulwark also pioneered the first Simms alternators. For many years one of their SCG auto box equipped Atkinson 8x4s, ran with an experimental alternator, complete with 2ft square air to air rectifier, mounted on the chassis behind the cab. Eventually this was refined to the reliable piece of equipment we know and love today!!
Bulwark pioneered the use of Self Changing Gears fluid flywheel gearboxes in Atkinson, Seddon, and Leyland chassis. Because of the wide gaps in ratio between the five gears, Reg Rogers experimented with Eaton two speed axles to double the range. Not succesful, and they experienced excessive brake band wear in the boxes. Contrary to the companys experience with 8x4 Atkisons, 150LXs rigid tankers at 24tons.
The “lightweight” Leyland Steer, exhibited at the 1966 Earles Court Show, was a pure Bulwark design, not Leylands!! Lightened Ergomatic cab, Albion front two axles, 7.50x20tyre equipment,10ft WB, (thus the fifth wheel was in the same position as on a 4x2), giving total flexibility of the superior stability and braking of a three axle, and compatability with the two axle, 2+3, 3+3, 2+2", 3+2". The unit has a SCG 5sp, plus 2sp axle, and had a wet weight of 5.74tons at 32tons! Problems persisted with the SCG/2speed set up, and even though Bulwark wished to try the “heavier spes” 8speed, (a la Contractor, Atkinson Omega), Leylands ,(aptly named), Head of Engineering Policy, Dr Albert Fogg, killed it off as non viable!!
Now I know I`ve strayed from the strictly Gardner theme, but just how innovative were these "free thinking " engineers, (and reflect upon the margins that the company must have been making, to indulge on such projects…happy days indeed!!
Amazing how the memories flood back, when you spend a day in a tractor cab!! And I have not written of the (reputed) 240plus hp Gardner powered Bernard of Transports Jura. Still Ive a need for a little chilled Bollinger, Im away, Bon nuit mes braves, Cheerio for now.
Brilliant summary Saviem, can I come and spend a day driving your tractor please? It apparently provides clarity of thought and the ability to analyse succintly.
Yes, there was plenty of innovative engineering in our heritage that has been air-brushed out of history. Not all of it worked or was successful but we had engineers capable of “thinking outside of the box”, to use that irritating piece of jargon.
If you had a yard full of gardner engined trucks starting up on a frosty morning it was like a mustard gas attack – and oh boy did my Gardner 180 engined Atki struggle getting over Shap !
V Max Nomad:
If you had a yard full of gardner engined trucks starting up on a frosty morning it was like a mustard gas attack – and oh boy did my Gardner 180 engined Atki struggle getting over Shap !
Why were Gardners smoky when cold? Was there something in the piston ring design (or injection pump or whatever) which caused this? The reports I have seen on the internet and in books show Gardners to have had very good smoke emissions for their time, in normal running conditions. What was it about them, that caused them to gain this reputation for cold-start smoke?
The smoke at start up was due to incomplete combustion of the fuel. This in turn was mainly because of low temperature in the cylinders. Many engines suffered from - this Rolls, Volvo etc, but Gardner were particularly effected because of their low compression ratio. As we know, roughly 400 yards up the road the smoke had disappeared as some heat got into the engine. It always seemed that the LWs suffered less, but this is probably because of their smaller displacement.
We have not come as far as we thought in progress, because today’s Adblue injected engines emit an appreciable amount of vapour for the first 1/2 mile from cold.
I’m sure many will recall the noise from Volvo’s exhaust backpressure regulator which imposed an artificial load on the engine to aid warm-up and reduce exhaust smoke.
My first job on leaving school was as a trainee mechanic a Bristol Omnibus’ Gloucester depot. In the winter it was the custom for the “early” fitter to fire up the bus engines just to warm them up for the drivers. You have never experienced smoke until you have breathed the emissions of forty or so Gardner LWs starting from cold in an enclosed garage.
cav551:
The smoke at start up was due to incomplete combustion of the fuel. This in turn was mainly because of low temperature in the cylinders. Many engines suffered from - this Rolls, Volvo etc, but Gardner were particularly effected because of their low compression ratio. As we know, roughly 400 yards up the road the smoke had disappeared as some heat got into the engine. It always seemed that the LWs suffered less, but this is probably because of their smaller displacement.We have not come as far as we thought in progress, because today’s Adblue injected engines emit an appreciable amount of vapour for the first 1/2 mile from cold.
I’m sure many will recall the noise from Volvo’s exhaust backpressure regulator which imposed an artificial load on the engine to aid warm-up and reduce exhaust smoke.
It is fascinating that Gardner engines had such a lead in efficiency, right up until their end. A lower-than-normal running temperature and compression ratio would suggest the exact opposite, by any conventional thinking. Can anyone explain this? Gingerfold referred to engineers who “think outside the box”. Gardner did lots of things at odds with the norm, including these two simple fundamentals, yet enjoyed a clear lead over the rest. That summarises my enthusiasm for their work.
Regarding that “box”, the lid is well and truly closed now, and held shut by the weight of the emissions regulations upon it. Look what happened to the last company to try to do something different- Caterpillar’s attempt to innovate their way around the emissions obstacle resulted in this: thedieselstop.com/forums/f33/acert-72825/
I think the emissions regulations are intended, primarily, to reduce the freedom of designers. The owners of the manufacturers would rather have a more secure investment, than one subject to the risk of one company taking a technological lead. Better to keep all of the engineers dancing to the same tune.
@[zb] anorak.
I agree. You could well be right in what you say. Saviem’s/gingerfolds posts seem to back up what you say by alluding to “Government policies” which are more often than not dictated by industry et al… and not always our own. Government Ministers are invariably unqualified to run any particular department so how can they possibly understand something like engineering design, for example. They can’t and do not.
Manufactures tell them what they want and how their wishes are to be implemented to their own best advantage. This is the biggest drawback to any innovative engineering design proposals of both manufactures and design engineers and is probably the main reason Brit engineers were stifled in the past. Much to Brit disadvantage and… IMHO… their eventual downfall.
BTW all. Some cracking posts on this subject of late.
Another Gardner turbo experiment I remember was by Critchlows of Stoke, they fitted a turbo to a 180 in Guy big j. It ran Albion axles to Scotstoun from W-ton, I remember asking the driver what it went like, his reply made me laugh he said it went just like any other 180 Gardner but had a whistle with it ! 
I cant remember if the 6LW at Richard Reads pullled any better but no one wanted to drive it because of the heat in the cab.The paint on the bonnett blistered next to the drivers leg.Probably been o/k in winter and would save having to put blankets around your legs 
leylandlover:
I cant remember if the 6LW at Richard Reads pullled any better but no one wanted to drive it because of the heat in the cab.The paint on the bonnett blistered next to the drivers leg.Probably been o/k in winter and would save having to put blankets around your legs
That was a problem with the basic LXB fitted in a Foden S36/39 cab, the fibreglass engine cover used to set alight when going uphill in Summer and bits would drop onto the 12 speed air pipes and melt them! Asbestos lagging round the exhaust downpipe sorted that. 
Pete.
Aha1 The old asbestos lagging trick! I wish someone had told me about that before I got heatstroke up my left leg!
Plod stopped me on the way back from London one hot afternoon when in desperation I had taken the doors off the old Atki & tied them on top of the load. He made me put them back on, but couldn’t tell me exactly what law I’d broken.
Retired Old ■■■■:
Aha1 The old asbestos lagging trick! I wish someone had told me about that before I got heatstroke up my left leg!
Plod stopped me on the way back from London one hot afternoon when in desperation I had taken the doors off the old Atki & tied them on top of the load. He made me put them back on, but couldn’t tell me exactly what law I’d broken.
The same law that said driving a van with the sliding doors open was illegal, I was warned twice and my mate was actually fined. Something to do with the possibility of falling out, no seatbelt law then. We kept them closed after that. 
Foden’s actually came new with asbestos lagging on the downpipe but it used to vibrate away to dust and needed replacing regularly.
Pete.
Scania’s answer to underbonnet heat from the turbo on the LB76 was heavy insulation on the engine cover underside but it still got hot in there in the summer. Guy’s fitted with Rolls or ■■■■■■■ engines had the turbo outside on the back of the engine, however if the heatshield came adrift you soon knew about it and stopped abruptly with the red air line catching the exhaust housing !!
We didn’t know about cancer in those days!
My Dad used to work for a Butcher in his younger pre lorry driving days and they had a Bedford Dormobile Van with sliding doors, my Dad was in a Mini Van racing his mate in the Bedford around the Elephant & Castle and his mate fell out of the open door of the van during some spirited cornering Luckily in those days traffic was not busy, so a catastrophe was avoided and the Bedford came to a stop before it did any real damage, apart from Eddie, its driver, getting a bit of road rash
[zb] the CAT technology to meet emission regulations (ACERT) does seem a bit Heath Robinson, but having considerable experience of it, I have to say it is far more reliable than the efforts of ■■■■■■■■ Detroit (& Mercedes) and Volvo who went down the traditional EGR route. That all changed when the regulations tightened up and the DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) was necessary, the CAT version was an unmitigated disaster and led to CATs withdrawal from the loose engine market 
My own C15 has 1.2million miles on it and prior to its rebuild at just over a million miles (due to a head gasket failure) it was in very good shape. Since the rebuild it has had some issues, all caused by the VVT crap 
On the other hand I know of people with EGR engines that have had numerous EGR valves, coolers and other junk replaced every couple of months, the ■■■■■■■ also has a lot of problems with the Variable Geometry Turbos, in short all of these engines are a disaster just waiting to happen. They’re supposed to clean up the planet’s air, but when they malfunction (which they routinely do) they belch out plumes of black smoke and do 4mpg if you’re lucky, not exactly living up to expectations are they
Maybe L. Gardner and Sons had an insight into the future after all, as I’m positive you wouldn’t have any turbo or VVT problems with an LW/LX
newmercman:
[zb] the CAT technology to meet emission regulations (ACERT) does seem a bit Heath Robinson, but having considerable experience of it, I have to say it is far more reliable than the efforts of ■■■■■■■■ Detroit (& Mercedes) and Volvo who went down the traditional EGR route. That all changed when the regulations tightened up and the DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) was necessary, the CAT version was an unmitigated disaster and led to CATs withdrawal from the loose engine market
Further to my previous post, this highlights another rotten facet of the emissions nonsense- firms are discouraged from investing in clever, long-term solutions because of the threat of their not meeting future legislation. For example, if a simple, ingenious method of reducing particulate emissions were devised, which works without EGR (or urea, or any of the other rubbish), the inventing company will be fearful of the next (or subsequent) round of regulations being especially stringent with regard to HC or NOx. Of course, all of that firm’s competitors will welcome any changes in the rules which destroy the inventor’s advantage. In any case, the extra hardware added to the vehicle means more stuff to make and sell, as long as the rules are there to make sure that everyone has to add it. If a row of illuminated Michelin Men along the roof of the lorry became compulsory, would the manufacturers object? Of course not. Returning to the theme of operators engineering their own modifications, I would encourage anyone with a bit of ingenuity to flout these wasteful laws. Switchable urea injection, with hacked engine management software, for example.
There are a few companies that are specialising in the bypassing of these ridiculous technologies
They both have devices that plug into the standard ECM and take out all the emissions setings, both also do a complete EGR/ACERT delete which involves new heads/manifolds/turbos etc