kr79:
That’s fair enough in the 50s and 60s but by the mid 70s it was obvious the sleeper cab was the way forward and the Brits were still trying to sell day cabs as standard fit erf and seddon Atkinson released new cabs in the mid70s with a day cab as standard.
There was obviously a demand for sleepers as there seems to be lots of evidence of various contraptions nailed on the back of cabs.
I think what was seen in the 1970’s uk domestic market was the first signs of the changes which actually took place around 10 years later.Those changes were firstly driven by the demands of the smaller long distance often international running operators and/or owner drivers.Whereas the biggger uk running fleets were still stuck mostly in the 1950’s/60’s mindset and it was those bigger customers that the uk manufacturers products had to reflect.
The biggest driver,of the large scale switch to sleeper cabs,even with operators using them for non tramping back to base trunking operations like my old employers,was re sale value of sleepers v day cabs when the time came for them to be moved on in many cases to new start owner drivers and at least having the flexibility of a truck which wasn’t a liability in the case of a driver being stranded away from base out of hours for whatever reason.
I first went over the water around 67 and then several times a year to 75 and I always used guest houses and hotels which were pretty easy to come across at this time. When I went on tankers I always cabbed it then first in a day cab crusader then sleeper cabs.
In the first years I was going over most British drivers were going over in day cabs and it was the 70s when things started to swing towards more sleeper cabs and most of the Scanias in the early 70s were day cabs whereas Volvo,Mercedes,Maggie and DAF were mostly sleeper cabs.
The continental wagons were not much better than ours as I was on heavy haulage and even then I can’t recall to many wagons flying past me it was only probably late 70s before this happened as when I first went over with a crusader tanker most local wagons were getting under my feet ( only running 32 gross whereas they were 38 tons ) so I would say that it was mid to late 70s before they started to forge ahead of us.
I would also guess that the Scammell crusader was one of the first British manufacturers to offer a factory sleeper cab and then the Marathon but I could be wrong.
cheers Johnnie
sammyopisite:
I first went over the water around 67 and then several times a year to 75 and I always used guest houses and hotels which were pretty easy to come across at this time. When I went on tankers I always cabbed it then first in a day cab crusader then sleeper cabs.
In the first years I was going over most British drivers were going over in day cabs and it was the 70s when things started to swing towards more sleeper cabs and most of the Scanias in the early 70s were day cabs whereas Volvo,Mercedes,Maggie and DAF were mostly sleeper cabs.
The continental wagons were not much better than ours as I was on heavy haulage and even then I can’t recall to many wagons flying past me it was only probably late 70s before this happened as when I first went over with a crusader tanker most local wagons were getting under my feet ( only running 32 gross whereas they were 38 tons ) so I would say that it was mid to late 70s before they started to forge ahead of us.
I would also guess that the Scammell crusader was one of the first British manufacturers to offer a factory sleeper cab and then the Marathon but I could be wrong.
cheers Johnnie
Factory sleepers were available on Mercs from 1955 (although these were still coachbuilt). By 1960, all Continental makes had factory sleepers (someone may shoot me down with an exception or two!). In 1967, I would guess that many of the vehicles on the road in Europe would have been designed or built in the '50s. During that decade, their power outputs were comparable with GB lorries. It was only around 1965, when more than 200-odd bhp was offered.
Hi anorack, that seems to be how I recall things first mercs were 1418s which I believe was 180 bph then 1924s first MANs were about 74 “M” plate and were 232 bhp Saviem around the same Volvo was 240 so a 280 rolls in a crusader was better and R.Crisp had some Guy big Js with a 335 ■■■■■■■ in so we would still be in front of them until mid 70s at least power wise if not comfort wise.
cheers Johnnie
P S don’t go technical on me as I was only a thick driver
sammyopisite:
Hi anorack, that seems to be how I recall things first mercs were 1418s which I believe was 180 bph then 1924s first MANs were about 74 “M” plate and were 232 bhp Saviem around the same Volvo was 240 so a 280 rolls in a crusader was better and R.Crisp had some Guy big Js with a 335 ■■■■■■■ in so we would still be in front of them until mid 70s at least power wise if not comfort wise.
cheers Johnnie
P S don’t go technical on me as I was only a thick driver
Me? Technical? Only when provoked! From what I can gather, British lorry engines were ahead for BMEP (torque per litre) and SFC (efficiency), at least until the early '60s. Durability/reliability- does anyone have any knowledge of this?
I wonder if, disregarding the sleeper cabs for a minute, the 1950s Contintental wagons were actually more comfortable than the Brits- noise, vibration, ride, heating/ventilation, weatherproofing(!) etc? Did anyone have the pleasure of trying both?
[zb]
anorak:
By 1960, all Continental makes had factory sleepers (someone may shoot me down with an exception or two!). In 1967, I would guess that many of the vehicles on the road in Europe would have been designed or built in the '50s. During that decade, their power outputs were comparable with GB lorries. It was only around 1965, when more than 200-odd bhp was offered.
Not according to those figures for the Krupp Titan.
[zb]
anorak:
By 1960, all Continental makes had factory sleepers (someone may shoot me down with an exception or two!). In 1967, I would guess that many of the vehicles on the road in Europe would have been designed or built in the '50s. During that decade, their power outputs were comparable with GB lorries. It was only around 1965, when more than 200-odd bhp was offered.
Not according to those figures for the Krupp Titan.
It said in the blurb on one of the Krupp sites that the Titan was regarded as the Bugatti Type 35 of classic commercial vehicles- in other words, rare as RHS. The vast majority of popular makes’ power outputs supported my argument above. The Titan’s engine was indeed exceptional- two siamesed two-cylinder engines, with superchargers (I think). It was so exceptional as to be irrelevant to the general theme.
[zb]
anorak:
By 1960, all Continental makes had factory sleepers (someone may shoot me down with an exception or two!). In 1967, I would guess that many of the vehicles on the road in Europe would have been designed or built in the '50s. During that decade, their power outputs were comparable with GB lorries. It was only around 1965, when more than 200-odd bhp was offered.
Not according to those figures for the Krupp Titan.
It said in the blurb on one of the Krupp sites that the Titan was regarded as the Bugatti Type 35 of classic commercial vehicles- in other words, rare as RHS. The vast majority of popular makes’ power outputs supported my argument above. The Titan’s engine was indeed exceptional- two siamesed two-cylinder engines, with superchargers (I think). It was so exceptional as to be irrelevant to the general theme.
Maybe but the fact is we needed to get ahead of them before they had the chance to get ahead of us and the way in which that’s done is to look at the best they can produce and then make something better than that before they do which practically meant using available American technology not bother with wasting time and money on developing our own.
kr79:
Mercedes use the Titan name for specialist heavy haulage trucks did this Titan become part of the mb empire ?
Ironically and probably in an attempt to wind up the Brits,considering what happened not long before,the Tiger followed the Titan by all accounts with a more reliable 185 hp motor so still way ahead of Gardner at the time.I don’t think there’s any connection between Mercs using the Krupp names as obviously the Tiger name would also have been even more likely to have been kept going for obvious reasons.
kr79:
Mercedes use the Titan name for specialist heavy haulage trucks did this Titan become part of the mb empire ?
Ironically and probably in an attempt to wind up the Brits,considering what happened not long before,the Tiger followed the Titan by all accounts with a more reliable 185 hp motor so still way ahead of Gardner at the time.I don’t think there’s any connection between Mercs using the Krupp names as obviously the Tiger name would also have been even more likely to have been kept going for obvious reasons.
As for the Titan being as rare as RHS they did build 1,000 of the things and probably a lot more Tigers.
Not as rare as I thought, then. Do you have a link for this information? Not a typical design though, was it? Krupp themselves soldiered on with more conventional engines, later, I think.
kr79:
Mercedes use the Titan name for specialist heavy haulage trucks did this Titan become part of the mb empire ?
Ironically and probably in an attempt to wind up the Brits,considering what happened not long before,the Tiger followed the Titan by all accounts with a more reliable 185 hp motor so still way ahead of Gardner at the time.I don’t think there’s any connection between Mercs using the Krupp names as obviously the Tiger name would also have been even more likely to have been kept going for obvious reasons.
As for the Titan being as rare as RHS they did build 1,000 of the things and probably a lot more Tigers.
Not as rare as I thought, then. Do you have a link for this information? Not a typical design though, was it? Krupp themselves soldiered on with more conventional engines, later, I think.
By all accounts it was a way of circumventing the conditions imposed on Germany after the war which limited engine designs to 150 hp max.So they seem to have had the idea of bolting two seperate 3 cylinder motors together at the crankshaft using the seperate fuelling for each and then hoped no one would notice and that it would run right.Which seems to have been the flaw in the idea.
How does it compare to the Leylands, AECs and Fodens of the day? How do you think its engine would last, compared to an O680 or an LX, for instance? Does the cab look as comfortable as a British one?
the engine was good 165 turbo only 195 driveline (propshaft and driveaxle)problems nearly killed scania at least in finland,the rest was exelent,the only britt,s we had here that time was bedford ,traders and a few fargo/desoto branded chrysler,no match for scania ,but the weight 12t gross did bedford to marketleader to the 70,s,overhere,cheers benkku
bma.finland:
the engine was good 165 turbo only 195 driveline (propshaft and driveaxle)problems nearly killed scania at least in finland,the rest was exelent,the only britt,s we had here that time was bedford ,traders and a few fargo/desoto branded chrysler,no match for scania ,but the weight 12t gross did bedford to marketleader to the 70,s,overhere,cheers benkku
Hej hej! The 165bhp D10 seems like a natural competitor to the Leyland 680 which, I believe, was fitted in Sisu and Vanaja inthe 1950s/'60s. What are your thoughts on the reliability etc. of the Leyland and Scania engines of that time?
bma.finland:
the engine was good 165 turbo only 195 driveline (propshaft and driveaxle)problems nearly killed scania at least in finland,the rest was exelent,the only britt,s we had here that time was bedford ,traders and a few fargo/desoto branded chrysler,no match for scania ,but the weight 12t gross did bedford to marketleader to the 70,s,overhere,cheers benkku
Hej hej! The 165bhp D10 seems like a natural competitor to the Leyland 680 which, I believe, was fitted in Sisu and Vanaja inthe 1950s/'60s. What are your thoughts on the reliability etc. of the Leyland and Scania engines of that time?
have no much own experiense but the owners of sisu,s(leyland)and vanaja,s(AEC) could never admit any problems on their motor,s.discussion came very close the GARDNER(see no end) but think the same issues we read about at aec and leyland thread,s are the same toubles here to.
think of what my young and big ear,s hav snapped out,let,s say .SCANIA agreat engine and status,even,cab week frame and driveline.sisu and vanaja agreat frame and strong fuller ,timken driveline,and cooking engines,(never heard about a sisu or vanaja whit any fault,s before sauna and A LOT OF BEER) afterword they are best again cheers benkku(leyland/smoke get,s in your eye,s)
Hallo to all,who likes how comparison was between Brits and Continentals only in Belgium.Of course you saw British over whole Europa, even behind the iron curtain and Scandinavia. Only Germans were gushy believers of their own makes.And of course the closed market’s as Italy, Spain and so on with very high import taxes or only getting a big transport licence if you bought own market products.
We started like others with surplus ex WWII wagons who kept them strong during the fifty’s and as off road and 6x6 tippers till the beginnings of the '70’s. Mostly with built in diesel engines from all makes, but mostly ■■■■■■■ and Henschel which they had to do by the American forces just behind WWII. Of course we had English engines like Gardner,lots AEC’s,Leylands even the swedish Scania Vabis and Perkins and Ford for the lighter ones.
From the '50’s on all brands came on the market,but AEC and Henschel were the big players,the Germans were the most fast’s with their second hands and new ones. Yes we had a metric system who made it for some preferable to work with.Others had copied BSW/UTS like Daf and the Swedish.For the smaller ones we had Bedford, Morris, Austin (BMC),Ford,Albion etc…The AEC’s were assembled here and could for some time withstand others they used Belgium cabs even the chassis were built at cockerill’s and were
Fuller(ed) or ZF.Mercedes good but torqueless engines and drinkers (and so on to the mid '80’s but some couldn’t resist the star), MAN ok,Büssing superb,Maggie lots of cilinderhead failtures,Krupp a complete disaster nearly all were rebuilt with ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ and AEC’s.Lots became Fullers.So the Britsh kept on selling low priced and overall good trucks in the '50 and beginning '60’s. But never updated as other did and lost grond. And with the Scandinavian power coming and daf in the big class they lost and lost till the end.
(continued if wanted !!)
Greetings Eric
tiptop495:
Hallo to all,who likes how comparison was between Brits and Continentals only in Belgium.Of course you saw British over whole Europa, even behind the iron curtain and Scandinavia. Only Germans were gushy believers of their own makes.And of course the closed market’s as Italy, Spain and so on with very high import taxes or only getting a big transport licence if you bought own market products.
We started like others with surplus ex WWII wagons who kept them strong during the fifty’s and as off road and 6x6 tippers till the beginnings of the '70’s. Mostly with built in diesel engines from all makes, but mostly ■■■■■■■ and Henschel which they had to do by the American forces just behind WWII. Of course we had English engines like Gardner,lots AEC’s,Leylands even the swedish Scania Vabis and Perkins and Ford for the lighter ones.
From the '50’s on all brands came on the market,but AEC and Henschel were the big players,the Germans were the most fast’s with their second hands and new ones. Yes we had a metric system who made it for some preferable to work with.Others had copied BSW/UTS like Daf and the Swedish.For the smaller ones we had Bedford, Morris, Austin (BMC),Ford,Albion etc…The AEC’s were assembled here and could for some time withstand others they used Belgium cabs even the chassis were built at cockerill’s and were
Fuller(ed) or ZF.Mercedes good but torqueless engines and drinkers (and so on to the mid '80’s but some couldn’t resist the star), MAN ok,Büssing superb,Maggie lots of cilinderhead failtures,Krupp a complete disaster nearly all were rebuilt with ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ and AEC’s.Lots became Fullers.So the Britsh kept on selling low priced and overall good trucks in the '50 and beginning '60’s. But never updated as other did and lost grond. And with the Scandinavian power coming and daf in the big class they lost and lost till the end.
(continued if wanted !!)
Greetings Eric
I’ve just spotted this superb post. It appears that our beloved British makes were as well-liked as anything else in the 1950s.
I wonder how Leyland became so successful in Spain, given the difficulties you describe? They appear to have been as popular as the Spanish makes there, yet no other European manufacturer enjoyed such success: camionesclasicos.com/FORO/viewforum.php?f=56
AEC seemed to be the only GB maker who recognised the importance of mainland Europe as the market of the future. They were the only one who took it seriously, it appears. I did not know the chassis were assembled locally, but it shows that AEC knew what they were doing- the only other company from the “periphery” of Europe to embrace local manufacture of heavy lorries in Central Europe was Scania-Vabis, with their Dutch factories.
Yes, please continue, Tiptop This is fascinating stuff. I reckon if I spend another 20 or so years researching these little details, I might have enough for a small book!
hallo Anorak, I think Leyland was licence build in Spain as did Fiat with their cars called SEAT.But I’m not sure how long it lasted the licence building with Leyland, because I only have seen the old bonneted and small one’s, of course and the later Roadtrains who was a retry in Europe after some years absence but had noting to do with licence build anymore.Between '75 and oround 1980 Leyland sold over the Scania network Scania sold lots of Maraton’s but poor quality wiped out it soon (a exemple 5 tot 7 orders were cancelled soon after the first deliveries).Spain was a very closed market and allowed only other brands if they licence built.So did Barreiros with Simca cars and Chrysler’s.Mercedes did as well, but big companies could affored the big taxes on imported trucks and bought every brand.The spanish built a lot licence a bit like the eastern block countries Bosch and so on.
so was Fiat in Italy but they allowed no any other brand otherwise you couldn’t get a transport licence.
So was the Benelux Sweeds (so outside the EU) must assemble over here Scania in the Nederlands, Volvo in Belgium and Luxembourg allowed it so.Of course Scania built a factory and belgium was only assembling them.and the factory came later.AEC chassis were built at Esperance Langdoz ( Cockerill)in the city of Liège,
later Chertal on the Meuse(Maas canal). But we had other licence building companies as well so did International trucks some small britisch and Germain but all in low quantities. And the car licence and not the big one’s as Opel, Ford Renault,Volvo,VW,British Leyland, but in small quantities as Mercedes Citroën Thriumph ans so on.
I did not realise that Volvo assembled vehicles in Belgium and Luxembourg. You learn something new every day, on this site!
I wonder whether AEC’s decision to use Bollekens cabs on its Belgium-built vehicles was to satisfy local content rulings, or because the Belgian cabs were better than the Mk3/Mk5 cabs (space/noise/draughts etc)? Reading the Astran book, it appears that the Mk5 cab was considerably inferior to the LB76 cabs on the Scania-Vabis’ that that company subsequently used. That was in the 1960s but, looking through the L75 article above, there is the suggestion that the Continental manufacturers had already, by 1958, strode ahead of the GB makes, in respect of driver accommodation.
