Carryfast:
None of which would have made much difference to a truck division crippled by the TL12 or nothing and the premature end of the Routemaster bus equally crippling the AEC’s bus production.In addition to not taking the obvious option of moving Scammell and RR Eagle diesel production into Southall.
By rights this should be on the Buses Thread but I am absolutely positive that no contributors to that thread want to see it polluted by your ramblings, so if this is a diversion from the thread title I apologise to others, however this is your own fault and it is your thread after all.
Yet again you are repeating this theory that the end of Routemaster production ‘crippled’ AEC. Single deck Reliance and Swift production continued until 1979. London alone taking a total of 1500 Swift chassis all of which were delivered after the end of Routemaster production. Gingerfold probably has figures for the numbers of Reliance chassis built after 1968.
To appreciate the background to why RM production ceased and why the front entrance RM never even reached the planned four pre production chassis you need to understand the UK bus industry, its structure and history and how bus services operated both nationally and regionally, which means returning to the early 1930s and following through the relevant Acts of Parliament which governed the industry. This is far more complicated than the nataionalisation of the road haulage industry and the subsequent licensing arrangements. It involves the rights of Borough Councils and the Railway Companies to run or object to bus services. Moreover ‘London Transport’ is a generic name only, a body with just that title never existed even though it is popularly referred to as LT.
So the following should keep you busy for a while:
The Road Traffic Act 1930
The London Passenger Transport Act 1933
The London Passenger Transport Area
The London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB)
The London General Omnibus Company
Green Line Coaches Ltd
The Underground Group
The Thomas Tilling Group
Bristol Commercial Vehicles
Eastern Coachworks
The British Automobile Traction Company
The Transport Act 1947
The London Transport Executive (LTE)
The British Transport Commission
The British Electric Traction Group
The Chambers Report 1950
The Transport Act 1962
The London Transport Board
The Phelps Brown Report
The Bus Reshaping Plan
The Transport Holding Company
The Transport Act 1968
The Bus Grant 1968
The Transport (London) Act 1969
The National Bus Company
London Country Bus Services Ltd.
The London Transport Executive (GLC)
Edit: Add Green Line Coaches Ltd. Before 1933 it gets incedibly complicated with numerous bus and coach companies running services into and London and the immediately surrounding area. Autocar & the East Surrey Traction Company being the largest and most important. Before the 1924 London Traffic Act there had been virtual chaos with numerous small operators vying for business; the period 1923/4 saw the number jump from 75 to 180 companies.
Carryfast:
None of which would have made much difference to a truck division crippled by the TL12 or nothing and the premature end of the Routemaster bus equally crippling the AEC’s bus production.In addition to not taking the obvious option of moving Scammell and RR Eagle diesel production into Southall.
By rights this should be on the Buses Thread but I am absolutely positive that no contributors to that thread want to see it polluted by your ramblings, so if this is a diversion from the thread title I apologise to others, however this is your own fault and it is your thread after all.
Yet again you are repeating this theory that the end of Routemaster production ‘crippled’ AEC. Single deck Reliance and Swift production continued until 1979. London alone taking a total of 1500 Swift chassis all of which were delivered after the end of Routemaster production. Gingerfold probably has figures for the numbers of Reliance chassis built after 1968.
To appreciate the background to why RM production ceased and why the front entrance RM never even reached the planned four pre production chassis you need to understand the UK bus industry, its structure and history and how bus services operated both nationally and regionally, which means returning to the early 1930s and following through the relevant Acts of Parliament which governed the industry. This is far more complicated than the nataionalisation of the road haulage industry and the subsequent licensing arrangements. It involves the rights of Borough Councils and the Railway Companies to run or object to bus services. Moreover ‘London Transport’ is a generic name only, a body with just that title never existed even though it is popularly referred to as LT.
So the following should keep you busy for a while:
The London Passenger Transport Act 1933
The London Passenger Transport Area
The London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB)
The London General Omnibus Company
The Underground Group
The Thomas Tilling Group
Bristol Commercial Vehicles
Eastern Coachworks
The British Automobile Traction Company
The Transport Act 1947
The London Transport Executive (LTE)
The British Transport Commission
The British Electric Traction Group
The Chambers Report 1950
The Transport Act 1962
The London Transport Board
The Phelps Brown Report
The Bus Reshaping Plan
The Transport Holding Company
The Transport Act 1968
The Bus Grant 1968
The Transport (London) Act 1969
The National Bus Company
London Country Bus Services Ltd.
The London Transport Executive (GLC)
Cav
I am in the never ending process of moving home and have come across some old magazines , i think they are called London Bus , and date from the 70s , again im guessing , the mrs has threatened to bin them if they are any use to you they are yours if not the bin man gets them send me a pm if you want them
cav551:
The Japanese didn’t have these issues with labour relations. Generate a team and there is no us and them.
The Japanese work ethic isn’t going to make life in a factory any better for anyone.
Earning enough and employing enough for workers to say I’m done need some time out along the lines of a 3 day 24 hour week and/or the flexibility to take an afternoon off and do an extra morning would do it.
But no it was so much better to have strict fixed shifts and week working, millions unemployed and wages falling behind prices meaning forced overtime to pay the bills and more time locked up in the prison like environment.
The same applied to miners.Too few workers too long at the coal face meaning not just the crushing wish for some time out but also their lungs getting clogged.
Carryfast:
All the biased pro mini bs was clearly a loss making politically motivated agenda to push the poverty people’s car idea to save the employer classes paying decent wages to meet higher expectations.Now added to by the Green bollox…
Everyone’s a loser in Realityworld: the businesses make a loss, their customers have rubbish products and the workers earn half a wage. It’s all a conspiracy, but by whom? The Royal Family and a few wealthy farmers?
Yep.Here’s your Mini/Beetle/Trabant etc to go with your high rise apartment that’s all I can afford to pay you what are you moaning about you’ve never had it so good.
Carryfast:
…The Rover badged and made Westminster going onto be the Rover P5 replacement.No need for the SD1.
Although the Marina 1.8 wasn’t a half bad car especially with twin carbs…
Hahahahahaaaaa!!! The Westminster was made from 1954 until 1968. The SD1 was made from 1976 onwards. Great idea, that: re-launch 22 year old designs, after they have been out of production for 8 years. No one will notice.
I’ve got it- you judge cars by their success in banger racing!
You do know that the Westminster wasn’t the same car in 1954 that it was in 1968 or would have been in 1973 to replace the P5.But certainly would have fitted Stokes plan that Rover do the Plutocrats barges better than the SD1 and would have had IRS and a boot for the luggage.
With the win win that Triumph do the 2.3-4.0 litre 5 series killer and could have given Rover a proper Estate but with a proper split tail gate for the green wellies lot.
As for banger racing check out the prices of surviving Farina Westminsters.Hopefully many regretful oiks of their stupidity now.
newmercman:
Carryfast you’re too blinkered mate, as Windrush often says, he hasn’t driven or worked on a particular vehicle so cannot form an opinion, you’re in the same boat, but you don’t realise it. You get too specific in your attacks, you hate the TL12 because of it’s engine architecture, regardless of any evidence to the contrary you’ve made your mind up and that’s it.
I provided the evidence in the figures.Do you really think that the TL12 could have gone onto match the specific output of the Eagle without compromising its head sealing and end bearing life.
The fact that they chose to ditch it within 10 years of its introduction while the Eagle went on to be a 400 hp power house is good enough evidence.
Did you read what you posted there?
Ten years out of the final version of the basic engine design, a version that was built on a shoestring by a company starved of funds.
Are you actually trying to make yourself look silly?
Carryfast:
…The Rover badged and made Westminster going onto be the Rover P5 replacement.No need for the SD1.
Although the Marina 1.8 wasn’t a half bad car especially with twin carbs…
Hahahahahaaaaa!!! The Westminster was made from 1954 until 1968. The SD1 was made from 1976 onwards. Great idea, that: re-launch 22 year old designs, after they have been out of production for 8 years. No one will notice.
I’ve got it- you judge cars by their success in banger racing!
You do know that the Westminster wasn’t the same car in 1954 that it was in 1968 or would have been in 1973 …
The 3 litre Landcrab replaced it in 1968. Just take a step back, and imagine who, in his right mind, would want one of those instead of an SD1.
“Would have been” is your own imagination working overtime again, to pay for that penthouse suite in the clouds.
Carryfast:
…The Rover badged and made Westminster going onto be the Rover P5 replacement.No need for the SD1.
Although the Marina 1.8 wasn’t a half bad car especially with twin carbs…
Hahahahahaaaaa!!! The Westminster was made from 1954 until 1968. The SD1 was made from 1976 onwards. Great idea, that: re-launch 22 year old designs, after they have been out of production for 8 years. No one will notice.
I’ve got it- you judge cars by their success in banger racing!
You do know that the Westminster wasn’t the same car in 1954 that it was in 1968 or would have been in 1973 to replace the P5.But certainly would have fitted Stokes plan that Rover do the Plutocrats barges better than the SD1 and would have had IRS and a boot for the luggage.
With the win win that Triumph do the 2.3-4.0 litre 5 series killer and could have given Rover a proper Estate but with a proper split tail gate for the green wellies lot.
As for banger racing check out the prices of surviving Farina Westminsters.Hopefully many regretful oiks of their stupidity now.
The only problem with that is the new 2.3/2.6 didn’t fit the 2.0/2.5 body shell (too long apparently) that’s why Triumph were going to replace it with the Puma. All this was planned before 1971 when Stokes chose the SD1 hatchback in preference to the Triumph design.
Carryfast:
…The Rover badged and made Westminster going onto be the Rover P5 replacement.No need for the SD1.
Although the Marina 1.8 wasn’t a half bad car especially with twin carbs…
Hahahahahaaaaa!!! The Westminster was made from 1954 until 1968. The SD1 was made from 1976 onwards. Great idea, that: re-launch 22 year old designs, after they have been out of production for 8 years. No one will notice.
I’ve got it- you judge cars by their success in banger racing!
You do know that the Westminster wasn’t the same car in 1954 that it was in 1968 or would have been in 1973 …
The 3 litre Landcrab replaced it in 1968. Just take a step back, and imagine who, in his right mind, would want one of those instead of an SD1.
“Would have been” is your own imagination working overtime again, to pay for that penthouse suite in the clouds.
The Austin A110 and the Wolseley derivative where not that special and the 3l that replaced them was just a mismatch of what the trouble group had to work with. At the time of the merger it would have been good to axe the large BMC altogether. I note CF that you regard Triumph stye IRS as important yet quote the like of the Cortina. Was IRS that important as a seller for bread and butter cars?
BMC was quite bold and inovative with some products but we’re hampered by a mixture of taking the design to full fruition before testing on the public, poor quality control and some plain ugly styling. In concept some BMC products were 10 to 15 years ahead of the competition. Ford by comparison had tried and tested ancient underpinnings but had more visual design flair and I think their gearboxes were generally much more slick.
dazcapri:
Actually they were a hot hatch there main rivals were the likes of the Astra GTE and Ford ■■■■■■ XR2/3 etc.
We mostly sold Family cars, we had 3 generations (i.e. Grandparents, Parents and children from the same family) coming to buy cars from us but performance cars weren’t our thing. Then the insurance companies went silly with their prices which didn’t help.
It was actually a 13 grand 5 door fwd torque steering and weaving zb box that no one with any sense would have wanted to drive at the ton let alone 125 mph max.
When for another 5 grand you could have a 131 mph rwd BMW 325 estate.With more space and better residual value.
What goods 131mph in a country with a 70mph speed limit
Maybe he couldn’t afford to pay 40 odd % more for a car that was only 1-1.5 seconds quicker to 60mph.
Or maybe he didn’t like BMW’s not everyone doe
Or maybe like your Zafira it just happened to be the right car at the right time.
Carryfast:
You do know that the Westminster wasn’t the same car in 1954 that it was in 1968 or would have been in 1973 …
The 3 litre Landcrab replaced it in 1968. Just take a step back, and imagine who, in his right mind, would want one of those instead of an SD1.
Which makes the case for not updating the Farina with Triumph IRS instead with the 7 bearing C series and Rover V8 option to replace the P5 and letting Rover have the Triumph estate with the same 2.3,2.6 and V8 options as SD1 how.I thought the firm was broke.So why not use what’s already there to greater effect.
So what loyal P5 or Triumph 2.5 saloon or estate customer was going to want an SD1.As opposed to ran off to the nearest BMW or Merc or Ford dealers for a proper 3 box saloon or an estate.
Carryfast:
I provided the evidence in the figures.Do you really think that the TL12 could have gone onto match the specific output of the Eagle without compromising its head sealing and end bearing life.
The fact that they chose to ditch it within 10 years of its introduction while the Eagle went on to be a 400 hp power house is good enough evidence.
Did you read what you posted there?
Ten years out of the final version of the basic engine design, a version that was built on a shoestring by a company starved of funds.
Are you actually trying to make yourself look silly?
Let’s get this right the Eagle Mk111 and TL12 both introduced in 1973.
10 years later the Eagle is putting out 300 hp + nearer to 350 actually.10 years after that it’s still there putting out 400 hp.
Remind me again what happened to the TL12 in 1983.How much was it putting out.
So what did Edwardes and the government do.
dazcapri:
The only problem with that is the new 2.3/2.6 didn’t fit the 2.0/2.5 body shell (too long apparently) that’s why Triumph were going to replace it with the Puma. All this was planned before 1971 when Stokes chose the SD1 hatchback in preference to the Triumph design.
Really who told you that.The new 2.3 and 2.6 engines were both tested in the 2.5 saloon before the SD1 went into production.I’d post the photos of the Triumph 2.5 saloon development car in question fitted with it but it would bust copy write unfortunately.
Sounds like more bs to add to the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit either.
essexpete:
The Austin A110 and the Wolseley derivative where not that special and the 3l that replaced them was just a mismatch of what the trouble group had to work with. At the time of the merger it would have been good to axe the large BMC altogether. I note CF that you regard Triumph stye IRS as important yet quote the like of the Cortina. Was IRS that important as a seller for bread and butter cars?
BMC was quite bold and inovative with some products but we’re hampered by a mixture of taking the design to full fruition before testing on the public, poor quality control and some plain ugly styling. In concept some BMC products were 10 to 15 years ahead of the competition. Ford by comparison had tried and tested ancient underpinnings but had more visual design flair and I think their gearboxes were generally much more slick.
I don’t get the idea of the A110 not being special.
The law don’t generally use no hopers as traffic patrol/squad cars.It was as quick and comfortable as early 1960’s motoring got with the exception of Jags and certainly better than the the pig ugly Rover P4.
Using Triumph’s IRS with the C series 7 bearing engine development and the Rover V8 could only have improved it after the Leyland/BMH merger.
We’re obviously not talking about poverty spec cars in the case of Westminster/Rover P5/P6/Triumph 2000/2.5 sector.
The components were all there and paid for why not use them to add more customer choice and bring the product up to date.
Instead of which the firm was crippled by the bs ‘internal competition’ red herring just at the time when BMW was lurking with its E3 development.
The 7 bearing C series being a cheaper and easier to maintain match for the BMW M30 and plenty of life left in the good looking three box Farina saloon design.
So bring all that into Rover and knock the rest of BMC on the head.
The Rover P7 Westminster certainly made more sense than the SD1 Rover Vitesse going by the so called Rover exec and Triumph performance plan.
Instead of which Leyland chose commercial suicide for both divisions in the form of the Acclaim, SD1 and 800.
Just like putting the TL12 in the T45 instead of bringing RR on board at the right time.
essexpete:
The Austin A110 and the Wolseley derivative where not that special and the 3l that replaced them was just a mismatch of what the trouble group had to work with. At the time of the merger it would have been good to axe the large BMC altogether. I note CF that you regard Triumph stye IRS as important yet quote the like of the Cortina. Was IRS that important as a seller for bread and butter cars?
BMC was quite bold and inovative with some products but we’re hampered by a mixture of taking the design to full fruition before testing on the public, poor quality control and some plain ugly styling. In concept some BMC products were 10 to 15 years ahead of the competition. Ford by comparison had tried and tested ancient underpinnings but had more visual design flair and I think their gearboxes were generally much more slick.
I don’t get the idea of the A110 not being special.
The law don’t generally use no hopers as traffic patrol/squad cars.
So using your own standard that must make the SD1 a good car the law used loads of them. The met police stockpiled them when they found out they were phasing them out
Carryfast:
I provided the evidence in the figures.Do you really think that the TL12 could have gone onto match the specific output of the Eagle without compromising its head sealing and end bearing life.
The fact that they chose to ditch it within 10 years of its introduction while the Eagle went on to be a 400 hp power house is good enough evidence.
Did you read what you posted there?
Ten years out of the final version of the basic engine design, a version that was built on a shoestring by a company starved of funds.
Are you actually trying to make yourself look silly?
Let’s get this right the Eagle Mk111 and TL12 both introduced in 1973.
10 years later the Eagle is putting out 300 hp + nearer to 350 actually.10 years after that it’s still there putting out 400 hp.
Remind me again what happened to the TL12 in 1983.How much was it putting out.
So what did Edwardes and the government do.
Here we go again , the TL12 was an excellent engine that was very reliable in service unlike the early RR . Leyland had no money read the book. The engine was developed and built at Southall , , no money to develop it further but from 1973 up until it was phased out it pushed out 273bhp virtually identical to the E290 . Again no money to develop it . TL12 engine production moved to Leyland where they improved it slightly with more torque but that was it. The tooling needed replacing Leyland didn’t have the money to replace it , they were skint . According to Gingerfold Leyland produced a 320 bhp version but for reasons already mentioned they decided to end production purely for fnancial reasons , unfortunately we wont get anymore information on this due to your total disrespect for Grahams years of research and his decision to ditch this thread , well done CF
On the taking RR into the fold idea you had , where was the money going to come from to develop their engines when Leyland were skint ?
