Bewick:
“CF” the only man in the regiment marching in time !!
If I remember it right your argument was that Bedford couldn’t put a decent heavy truck together at all 
.Not just what engine to put in it. 
Carryfast:
Bewick:
“CF” the only man in the regiment marching in time !!If I remember it right your argument was that Bedford couldn’t put a decent heavy truck together at all
For once I totally agree with you “CF” 
they should have stuck to the lightweight ranges up to 16ton gvw,maybe up to 6 wheelers but no further IMHO.Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
“CF” the only man in the regiment marching in time !!If I remember it right your argument was that Bedford couldn’t put a decent heavy truck together at all
For once I totally agree with you “CF”
Aha… a man with actual knowledge of the operation of lorries has entered the fray.
From reading the various magazine roadtests of the TM, it seems a well-engineered machine, receiving plaudits for its driving quality at almost every turn. Was the thirsty engine its downfall, or something else?
[zb]
anorak:Bewick:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
“CF” the only man in the regiment marching in time !!If I remember it right your argument was that Bedford couldn’t put a decent heavy truck together at all
For once I totally agree with you “CF”
Aha… a man with actual knowledge of the operation of lorries has entered the fray.
From reading the various magazine roadtests of the TM, it seems a well-engineered machine, receiving plaudits for its driving quality at almost every turn. Was the thirsty engine its downfall, or something else?
The TM wasn’t a “hauliers” motor,although I recall Smith of Maddiston running a odd one or two but then again they did have the spares delivery contract for Vauxhall/Bedford for Scotland so they were probably “given” them as part of the contract.Cheers Bewick.
The foreigners had their foot in the door by the time the TM arrived on the scene, customers (including our own Bewick) were deserting home based assemblers and manufactures in their droves. Union activity was at its most militant and Bedford decided to launch the TM in the middle of all this.
Lots of British hauliers had started out with the TK and built up a business from those humble beginnings, just as Bewick did with his D1000 and then they moved up to premium marques when able to do so. Looking out the office window and seeing a fleet of Atkinson, or latterly Volvo or Scania would make you feel pretty good about things, but a fleet of Bedford, hmmm not so much…
This is why the truck and car markets were eventually overwhelmed by imports, perceived quality and image.
newmercman:
The foreigners had their foot in the door by the time the TM arrived on the scene, customers (including our own Bewick) were deserting home based assemblers and manufactures in their droves. Union activity was at its most militant and Bedford decided to launch the TM in the middle of all this.Lots of British hauliers had started out with the TK and built up a business from those humble beginnings, just as Bewick did with his D1000 and then they moved up to premium marques when able to do so. Looking out the office window and seeing a fleet of Atkinson, or latterly Volvo or Scania would make you feel pretty good about things, but a fleet of Bedford, hmmm not so much…
This is why the truck and car markets were eventually overwhelmed by imports, perceived quality and image.
Here speak’eth the unpalatable truth 
Bewick.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
“CF” the only man in the regiment marching in time !!If I remember it right your argument was that Bedford couldn’t put a decent heavy truck together at all
For once I totally agree with you “CF”
Blimey I wasn’t agreeing with you I was just pointing out the irony.
Bewick:
[zb]
anorak:
From reading the various magazine roadtests of the TM, it seems a well-engineered machine, receiving plaudits for its driving quality at almost every turn. Was the thirsty engine its downfall, or something else?The TM wasn’t a “hauliers” motor,although I recall Smith of Maddiston running a odd one or two but then again they did have the spares delivery contract for Vauxhall/Bedford for Scotland so they were probably “given” them as part of the contract.Cheers Bewick.
As I’ve said a combination of bad management regards engine fit and blind prejudice amongst the domestic customer base. 
.
Bewick:
The TM wasn’t a “hauliers” motor,although I recall Smith of Maddiston running a odd one or two but then again they did have the spares delivery contract for Vauxhall/Bedford for Scotland so they were probably “given” them as part of the contract.Cheers Bewick.
Oddly enough, in spite of the perception of the hauliers, the TM was probably as close as the GB industry got to building a competitor for the Continentals, with all its major bits designed and built in-house and a big steel cab. One could make an argument for the original TL12 Roadtrain, but that was six years later than the TM.
Do you reckon a ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ option from day one would have made the TM more acceptable?
[zb]
anorak:
Oddly enough, in spite of the perception of the hauliers, the TM was probably as close as the GB industry got to building a competitor for the Continentals, with all its major bits designed and built in-house and a big steel cab.Do you reckon a ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ option from day one would have made the TM more acceptable?
That contains the contradiction between in house v outsourcing/assembly.From GM’s point of view that made no more sense than Volvo,Scania or Mercedes doing the same.At least in terms of GM knowing that it had at least as good an engine line up in the form of the 92T as any of those competitors.
While by the same logic you could at least make the case that all of those competitors would/should have been fitted with Fuller gearboxes in addition to Gardner/■■■■■■■ engine options.
The fact is ‘if’ the same logic was applied to Volvo and Merc etc as was applied to GM in that regard it would have had exactly the same effect in them closing the doors on their operation.Whereas as we’ve seen it was a case of one standard being applied in the case of the foreign competition and another in the case of Bedford.
The difference in large part being a customer base that was basing its buying decisions on either patriotism or badge snobbery and a single tier of management in their case.
Unlike in the case of GM’s plans being wrecked by Bedford’s poor management decisions,regarding engine choice,getting in the way and uk buyers who preferred a Volvo etc badge on the front than Bedford.
No I don’t think the TM would’ve been any more successful with other engine options.
The decline of the British manufacturer had already started, sure there were a few more years before the likes of ERF, Foden and Seddon Atkinson eventually disappeared, but they had an existing customer base in the >28t market.
Bedford as a new entrant only had loyalty from existing Bedford fleets and most of those that did run heavyweights were already running established fleets from the competition.
Maybe Bedford could’ve taken a bit of business from fleets that used ERF, Foden or Seddon Atkinson, but the numbers would’ve been so small as to make little difference.
Well for what its worth The Bedford S Type with the Leyland Comet Engine in classed as a 7 tonner, Was the best Bedford ever made IMO, you could slap 10 ton on its back & it preformed to a treat with its two speed back end and first class brakes, Not the best to kip in mind, But the blokes that drove them were as hard as nails anyway, The good old long gone days, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well for what its worth The Bedford S Type with the Leyland Comet Engine in classed as a 7 tonner, Was the best Bedford ever made IMO, you could slap 10 ton on its back & it preformed to a treat with its two speed back end and first class brakes, Not the best to kip in mind, But the blokes that drove them were as hard as nails anyway, The good old long gone days, Regards Larry.
Just for you Larry a Bedford S Type,Leyland engine (350/375 not sure) Eaton axle parked in Kendal about 1961 loaded ex McKelvies with two 5ton plates for Walkers Steel at Bolton.I was 14 when I would take this shot plus I went for the trip on the Monday morning! Now don’t start dripping tears into your dram eh! Good old days eh! Cheers Dennis.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
[zb]
anorak:
From reading the various magazine roadtests of the TM, it seems a well-engineered machine, receiving plaudits for its driving quality at almost every turn. Was the thirsty engine its downfall, or something else?The TM wasn’t a “hauliers” motor,although I recall Smith of Maddiston running a odd one or two but then again they did have the spares delivery contract for Vauxhall/Bedford for Scotland so they were probably “given” them as part of the contract.Cheers Bewick.
As I’ve said a combination of bad management regards engine fit and blind prejudice amongst the domestic customer base.
I just hope you are not suggesting I needed a Guide dog “CF”,there’s only one Geezer on this site that is inflicted with blind prejudice and it is the ■■■■ who lives in Leatherhead who’s name just escapes me at the moment but no doubt someone will post it shortly,have you any ideas who it might be ? 
Bewick.
Bewick:
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well for what its worth The Bedford S Type with the Leyland Comet Engine in classed as a 7 tonner, Was the best Bedford ever made IMO, you could slap 10 ton on its back & it preformed to a treat with its two speed back end and first class brakes, Not the best to kip in mind, But the blokes that drove them were as hard as nails anyway, The good old long gone days, Regards Larry.
Just for you Larry a Bedford S Type,Leyland engine (350/375 not sure) Eaton axle parked in Kendal about 1961 loaded ex McKelvies with two 5ton plates for Walkers Steel at Bolton.I was 14 when I would take this shot plus I went for the trip on the Monday morning! Now don’t start dripping tears into your dram eh! Good old days eh! Cheers Dennis.
Thanks Dennis, Its a great photo of a Watford Motor, My late great Uncle Isaac rang a fleet of Bedfords & swore by them in every sence of the word, I wish I could locate an old one to buy and restore if need be & take to the shows Painted up and in my late great uncles livery, Regards Larry.
This S Type had a Bedford engine in, Its all that was avaible when it was new, It performed ok but the two speed axle was a must otherwise it would have been a knacker job If you know what I mean, Regards Larry.
Bewick:
I just hope you are not suggesting I needed a Guide dog “CF”,there’s only one Geezer on this site that is inflicted with blind prejudice and it is the [zb] who lives in Leatherhead who’s name just escapes me at the moment but no doubt someone will post it shortly,have you any ideas who it might be ?
No I’m basing my view on an unbiased,totally objective comparison,just based on engineering merit.In which I know for certain that a ( proper engined ) TM was good enough to compete head on with the Volvo F10/12 or for that matter anything which Mercedes could put up against it in the day.While I’m equally certain that there wouldn’t have been any difference in that comparison in the case of the road haulage application.
Having said that it is possible that even if the TM had been specced right soon enough and had even been a major success it probably wouldn’t have made much difference to the closure decision.Being that GM’s intention was obviously to leave the heavy truck sector obviously with dealings going on in that regard with Volvo anyway.In which case it is obvious that Volvo wouldn’t have wanted any loose ends left in the form of a 60 series powered TM to compete with in the Euro market.
Which suggests as usual the country’s truck manufacturing industry was stuffed regardless because the government was to stupid to apply trade barriers to protect it against foreign competition and commercial politics.Which in this case should have translated as giving Volvo an offer it couldn’t refuse in the form of either taking on or at least sharing the liabilities of Bedford and keeping the TM going with 60 series power and/or stopping all further Volvo imports amongst others.
Evening all,
I may be getting old, I may be getting irritable, but one thing in my mind is clear…facts relating to past days!
I have tried to explain the constraints that the UK management of Bedford were under when they tried to attack the volume tractor/drawbar market in Europe.
To re cap…the US Management in the World Truck Program, realised that the only “out” for the DD Allison product was either the Third World, or Europe, as the product, or combination of products did not meet US , (Californian), or proposed environmental targets . Therefore Europe was the “dumping ground”.
So “we” got what we got.
My great friend, (Pat Kennett), and I, at the end of a very long day were discussing the relative merits of “various” products, and Pat remarked that the TM was 30 years out of date when it was launched…(remember how GM tried to obstroufucate “Truck” evaluating a TM against a MAN in 1975)!!!..but they did not…a lesson all manufacturers learned that day!!!
Truly, if one evaluates the statistics, the TM, (and it has to be said the Leyland T45), sales only gained significant market share, across Europe, when the ■■■■■■■ option, (and also in the case of the T45 the Rolls Royce option), became available, of course coupled to M r Fuller.
I can back this statement up with reams of statistics, but I thought it may be a sleep inducer! But am happy so to do for France, GB, Italy, The Benelux, if some one suffers from insomnia!!!
It would be great if someone who worked for Bedford, (Peter Davies), was able to join this thread with actual background information,
But I worked for one of Bedfords competitors at the same time, I conducted Press tests in competition, I evaluated their market in France, and Italy, my Salesmen sold against them, …and I drove the B …things on many occasions…
The problem for Bedford came from the centre…not the UK Management…
And Bedfords problems were NOT, the product…
Im driven to my nightly Bollinger,
Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Evening all,I may be getting old, I may be getting irritable, but one thing in my mind is clear…facts relating to past days!
I have tried to explain the constraints that the UK management of Bedford were under when they tried to attack the volume tractor/drawbar market in Europe.
To re cap…the US Management in the World Truck Program, realised that the only “out” for the DD Allison product was either the Third World, or Europe, as the product, or combination of products did not meet US , (Californian), or proposed environmental targets . Therefore Europe was the “dumping ground”.
So “we” got what we got.
My great friend, (Pat Kennett), and I, at the end of a very long day were discussing the relative merits of “various” products, and Pat remarked that the TM was 30 years out of date when it was launched…(remember how GM tried to obstroufucate “Truck” evaluating a TM against a MAN in 1975)!!!..but they did not…a lesson all manufacturers learned that day!!!
Truly, if one evaluates the statistics, the TM, (and it has to be said the Leyland T45), sales only gained significant market share, across Europe, when the ■■■■■■■ option, (and also in the case of the T45 the Rolls Royce option), became available, of course coupled to M r Fuller.
I can back this statement up with reams of statistics, but I thought it may be a sleep inducer! But am happy so to do for France, GB, Italy, The Benelux, if some one suffers from insomnia!!!
It would be great if someone who worked for Bedford, (Peter Davies), was able to join this thread with actual background information,
But I worked for one of Bedfords competitors at the same time, I conducted Press tests in competition, I evaluated their market in France, and Italy, my Salesmen sold against them, …and I drove the B …things on many occasions…
The problem for Bedford came from the centre…not the UK Management…
And Bedfords problems were NOT, the product…
Im driven to my nightly Bollinger,
Cheerio for now.
Exactly which US Eco laws didn’t the Detroit 92T series meet up to the point when the 60 series was introduced very shortly after the closure of Bedford and/or what evidence is there that Bedford’s domestic production line up didn’t have access to same for standardisation,throughout its availability,as of at least 1977 maybe even before. 
At which point GM also baled out of its North American heavy vehicle operations too followed by the Penske tie up in the loose engine market.None of which has any relevance to an issue of the TM,getting a reputation as a torqueless screamer,based on a comparison between 71N and 14 litre ■■■■■■■■
While assuming turbo 92 power in exactly what way was the thing possibly ‘30 years’ ? ‘out of date’.Compared to its competitors by the standards of the day.