A 'drivers' take on british lorries!

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
21

kr79’s mention of Lord Stokes prompted me to read his obituary: telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar … tokes.html

I read it in amazement. In case it leaves you in any doubt where the root of the failure lay, below is brief extract from it:
"…He joined the Territorial Army in 1938 and ended a lieutenant-colonel and assistant director of mechanical engineering (technical), Central Mediterranean Forces.

Stokes returned to Leyland Motors with a visionary’s zeal for the sort of markets where the company should be selling its products. He argued that European countries would be developing their own truck and bus plants and that Leyland should go for the Middle East and South America. He was given the job of running the new export department in 1946 and began putting his philosophy into effect. But Leyland was a parochial and parsimonious concern. Even when Stokes first went there, he was often sent out on jobs because he owned a motorcycle, so the trip only cost the company the price of the petrol.

At first the decision to go for the easier Empire markets paid off where Leyland had branches and English was spoken. The failure to recruit anyone who could speak Portuguese, however, meant that the Brazilian market was neglected…"

Summary: Possibly the strongest lorrymaker in the world, based in the country which had just won its second World War within a lifetime, put a coward in charge of its sales. The ■■■■■■■ actually planned to run away before the battle for European sales had begun.

Apologies for the deviation from the original post, but we seem to be safe from Two Stroke here.

22

AEC and Scammell were the 2 companies i thought may have survived , as for Stokes i read somewhere it could have been the AEC Gazette or 1 of Gingerfolds excellent books that he tried to close AEC as early as 68 so there could be something in the earlier comment about him being refused a job at AEC.AEC had a share of the market in Portugal where they were sold as ACLOs and are still highly regarded there.I think we are all aware of there markets in Austrailia and New Zealand and of course Africa plus many more countries across the world but if they could have survived independently instead of being swallowed up in the merger` who knows what they could have acheived.There were lots of designs in the pipeline which never saw the light of day once the takeover was complete

23

A very interesting Obit and speaks volumes of what was wrong with the behemoth, it was political tinkering that spoiled the products, not that the products were bad, until the panic measures of Maxi and Marina that is.

24

I understand what youre sayin but im thinking before the car influence and before the takeovers when they were making their own decisions

25

ramone:
I understand what youre sayin but im thinking before the car influence and before the takeovers when they were making their own decisions

The wrong ones, many of them seemingly by our friend Mr. Stokes, although his managers (before he became a director) must have been a bit thick to swallow the self-aggrandising rubbish he spouted. More from his Telegraph obituary:

"His public pronouncements were those of the salesman, and celebrated for being practical and down-to-earth. He once told a motor trade leaders’ dinner in 1968 that the four basic ways of life in Britain were ■■■, booze, motor cars and sport, followed — a poor fifth — by hard work. Another was: ‘What distresses me is the number of boys with academic training who are completely useless.’ "

Having convinced his superiors to steer clear of the difficult Continental customers, he then effectively told educated engineers that they were unwelcome at Leyland Motors. It must have made him look such a big man on the shopfloor, but look where that led. Maybe the unions could better spot a fraud than the board of directors.

26

[zb]
anorak:

ramone:
I understand what youre sayin but im thinking before the car influence and before the takeovers when they were making their own decisions

The wrong ones, many of them seemingly by our friend Mr. Stokes, although his managers (before he became a director) must have been a bit thick to swallow the self-aggrandising rubbish he spouted. More from his Telegraph obituary:

"His public pronouncements were those of the salesman, and celebrated for being practical and down-to-earth. He once told a motor trade leaders’ dinner in 1968 that the four basic ways of life in Britain were ■■■, booze, motor cars and sport, followed — a poor fifth — by hard work. Another was: ‘What distresses me is the number of boys with academic training who are completely useless.’ "

Having convinced his superiors to steer clear of the difficult Continental customers, he then effectively told educated engineers that they were unwelcome at Leyland Motors. It must have made him look such a big man on the shopfloor, but look where that led. Maybe the unions could better spot a fraud than the board of directors.

You seem to be able to make a good argument against those that aren’t here to defend themselves but you don’t seem so keen when someone who’s still around decides to make an argument of the issues.

So exactly what was the demand by operators here for something with the levels of comfort provided by those 1950’s Mercs even in the 1960’s let alone 1950’s :question: and just like the stupid British government at the time you seem to think that it was exports that mattered when the fact is Stokes was probably bright enough to understand that it was the demands of the domestic market that mattered most to the domestic manufacturers and exports were (should have been) just a side line to that just as most,if not all,of the foreign competitors realised.While it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the continental european customers were never going to desert their domestic manufacturers like Mercedes for any of the British competition.

However unfortunately for Stokes and all the British manufacturers they were caught between a stupid government that wanted to keep the British economy on a pre WW2 base level and which thought exports were the priority and the stupid domestic customers who were around 10-20 years behind the thinking of their continental european and american counterparts.

If Stokes is guilty of anything it’s that he didn’t realise that the government were asking for the impossible in trying to run a late 20th century export operation from a country with an economy and an industrial infrastructure and domestic customer base that was still stuck in the early-mid 20th century.Unlike the zb Germans.In which case if I’d have been Stokes I’d have told the government to shove the job and then walk away pqq. :imp: :unamused:

As for the idea of remaining independent of the Leyland group,possibly having made the slightest difference to fate of firms like AEC or Scammel,the fate of firms like ERF and Foden shows that idea is total bs.

27

FFS.

28

Wasnt the export or die thing because the country was skint? Having supposedly just won a world war we had the Americans to pay back and half of Europe to rebuild?

Nice new infrastructure for them,same old worn out crap for us. hence why we were years behing and got overtaken.

And why we now have nothing much. :frowning:

29

I`m sure when i asked the question i mentioned anyone called Carryfast need not reply just level headed people of sane standing

30

ramone:
I`m sure when i asked the question i mentioned anyone called Carryfast need not reply just level headed people of sane standing

I wasn’t replying to your questions I was replying to zb anorak’s answers considering that he seems to think it’s ok to have a go at those who were at least trying to do the impossible of doing something about selling products that met the outdated demands of the domestic market customer base and the total zb made by the government of Britain’s post WW2 economy and modernisation of it’s industry.

31

vwvanman0:
Wasnt the export or die thing because the country was skint? Having supposedly just won a world war we had the Americans to pay back and half of Europe to rebuild?

Nice new infrastructure for them,same old worn out crap for us. hence why we were years behing and got overtaken.

And why we now have nothing much. :frowning:

The export or die thing was just typical British government cluelessness.There’s no way that a successful export operation can be sustained without having a strong domestic market and economy and ■■■■■■■■■■ of that market,first.As Germany proved.Even if Britain did get the new tooling and equipment the idea of exports taking priority over domestic growth would still have resulted in the Germans being ahead.It was the combination of going for quick massive,domestic growth first,together with new industrial infrastructure,that gave Germany it’s advantage.Together with it’s more advanced thinking customers at least in it’s truck manufacturing industry.

32

Why do you need a “strong domestic market” before you can export stuff? Surely a sale is a sale, a profit is a profit and foreign currency coming in is more beneficial than simply stirring the pot of domestic wealth?

33

[zb]
anorak:
Why do you need a “strong domestic market” before you can export stuff? Surely a sale is a sale, a profit is a profit and foreign currency coming in is more beneficial than simply stirring the pot of domestic wealth?

Just ask the Germans and the Americans.It’s no good exporting stuff if imports exceed exports.The idea is to dominate the domestic market and then export the surplus. I think that’s always been the difference between German and US manufacturers like Mercedes and GM v Leyland and it’s why the German economy has beaten the British one since WW2. :bulb:

Unless you know better and you can show that British industry has always been ahead and we’ve actually always been a lot better off economically than Germany. :unamused:

34

“It’s no good exporting stuff if imports exceed exports.” What is the answer- export (a)more or (b)less?

Definitely a wind-up. Another dead thread.

35

[zb]
anorak:
“It’s no good exporting stuff if imports exceed exports.” What is the answer- export (a)more or (b)less?

Definitely a wind-up. Another dead thread.

So you’re saying that in your world the potential for sales of British built trucks in the european markets was more than the potential for British built trucks in the British market :question: . :unamused:

Like AEC or Scammell ever had more potential for sales in Germany than zb Mercedes had.Or for that matter any of the main European countries than any of their own domestic manufacturers compared to levels of domestic sales here :question: . :unamused:

You’re already on a loser in that comparison before you even get started on the investment in the type of products that you would have needed such as something to compete with the type of Mercedes competition as shown which existed during the 1950’s in addition to the type of backward wagons which the domestic customer base demanded at that time. :unamused: :unamused:

So you’re asking for massive investment in a more advanced product that’s only likely to sell in small numbers in competition with the local established competition that already exists in that market while your main domestic market is still calling for backward products that are around at least 10 years out of date which is where most of your existing market is.

In your world how the zb can you export more to a market that is already saturated by it’s own domestic products.Exports are always going to be at a disadvantage in a market where domestic products are already established.

In the sane world if imports exceed exports what is the answer according to the Germans it’s not (a) or (b) it’s (c) dominate the domestic market by selling more goods/trucks at home than your foreign competitors and,if you’re very lucky,the demands of your domestic market customer base will match those of your export markets too which also allows you to take over their markets.

The problem for the British economy and the British truck manufacturing industry was that they were lumbered with the perfect storm of a weak,backward thinking,domestic market which was around 10-20 years out of date in it’s thinking,in addition to a government policy based on export or die.

Which was the total opposite to the conditions which German and most other European and the American post WW2 truck manufacturing industries were working under.In addition to which those European,Scandinavian and American manufacturers then got lucky,in the British and old British clonial markets when the demands of the customers eventually caught up with the demands of the customer base in the European and American markets.In the case of Australia and New Zealand the demands of it’s customer base caught up with,and went for,American products far sooner than the demands of British customer base caught up with the demands of the European customer base and then went for European and Scandinavian products.

In all cases the British industry was caught in an unavoidable catch 22,of not being able to invest in development of better products,to meet the relatively low levels of demand which it would have faced in the European markets.Because the returns would have been too low on the investment considering the levels of competition and the customer loyalty which existed in Europe,towards their own domestically manufactured products.While there would have been no chance of selling those better products on the domestic market here either at the time.

That was the correct type of thinking that you’re blaming managers like Stokes for using at the time.Anyone with any experience of what it takes to keep a manufacturing operation solvent and running would say that it’s you that’s having a laugh not me. :unamused:

What was needed was a British government with the same type of policies,for growth in the domestic economy,here after WW2,as the German government had for growth in it’s domestic economy there.It also needed a customer base with the same long term loyalty to British products and with the same advanced levels of thinking as all the European,Scandinavian and American operators of the time had towards their own domestically produced products.

Without any of that Stokes never stood a chance and should have walked away without accepting the job just as I would have done.

36

I think if the advances in technology AEC were making in the late 50s and early 60s could have been sustained i genuinely believe AEC with the financial backing they so badly needed could have still been a major player in the world markets just like they were before Stokes and co got their sticky fingers on them.Carryfast can u please keep your sneck out of this has i`m not interested in your views

37

To reply to the last filibuster by the self-contradictor:

In the immediate post-war period, British lorry builders’ market share of the home market was near to 100%. There was more potential for growth in export sales. The Government was right to promote exports. Any investment would have had its return. It would not have cost an excessive amount to develop cabs to suit the more sophisticated tastes of the Continental customers. Leyland Motors had the money to do so, but spent it on home and colonial markets, on the advice of Mr. Easy Option, Donald Stokes. Read his obituary again.

Brevity.

38

ramone:
I think if the advances in technology AEC were making in the late 50s and early 60s could have been sustained i genuinely believe AEC with the financial backing they so badly needed could have still been a major player in the world markets just like they were before Stokes and co got their sticky fingers on them.Carryfast can u please keep your sneck out of this has i`m not interested in your views

I’m not really interested in yours either but maybe the OP is more open minded and thinks it’s fair to hear both sides of the story, considering it’s someone who’s dead who’s getting a lot of the blame without having the chance to put anything in his defence. :imp: :unamused:

39

The original poster is not dead, is he?

40

[zb]
anorak:
To reply to the last filibuster by the self-contradictor:

In the immediate post-war period, British lorry builders’ market share of the home market was near to 100%. There was more potential for growth in export sales. The Government was right to promote exports. Any investment would have had its return. It would not have cost an excessive amount to develop cabs to suit the more sophisticated tastes of the Continental customers. Leyland Motors had the money to do so, but spent it on home and colonial markets, on the advice of Mr. Easy Option, Donald Stokes. Read his obituary again.

Brevity.

AEC v Mercedes etc in the German and European export markets and unlike Stokes you think that a blank cheque/whatever it takes approach would have been considered worth the risk because there would have been guaranteed returns. :open_mouth:

Somehow I think the banks would have preferred to have put their money on Stokes.