Were The Continental Lorry's Much Better?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
621

ramone:
Lord Stokes tried to close AEC as early as 1968.The same company which had markets in Australia,South Africa and New Zealand to name a few.A company that worked hand in hand with London Transport and were in advanced stages of development of a rear engined Routemaster.AEC had an excellent relationship with their customers before the merger and the ill fated absorbtion into the Leyland group.Gingerfold wrote on here that the V8 problems were solved by 73 but it was never relaunched.The Mercury was the best 16 tonner on the market but never improved due to lack of funds going into an ailing car market with workers on strike every week ,theres the gas turbine experiment that never worked and the headless wonder which probably did as much damage to Leylands image as anything.Who would you say made these great decisions?

Take a look a few pages back at what the competition was in the Ozzie and NZ markets from Kenworth with the combined might of all the US engine options available at that time and in which the AEC V8,or even the TL12,would’nt have stood a chance even if AEC had a decent cab available to put them in.

Comparing the requirements of the uk bus market,at the time, with the demands of the old colonial countries heavy truck market,is like comparing apples and oranges.In addition to which,like all the uk truck manufacturers,it was retarded home market demands and therefore development limits which were the important issue.

There would’nt have been sufficient demand in those colonial markets alone to keep the British manufacturers afloat and there’s no way that enough British truck buyers at the time would have ordered the TL12 in a wagon let alone a decent turbocharged V8 in the home market to have made further development possible and AEC’s continuing survival viable.Which eventually proved to be the case which proved the idea to wind down production at Southall sooner rather than later,before yet more money was wasted, correct.Stokes was in a no win catch 22 situation. :frowning:

In addition to all that the decision to go for a rear engined routemaster probably was’nt the best idea either as proved by the Routemaster’s continuing service and preference by it’s users over the later type designs and even now the thing is missed as being the best solution to the requirements for a decent London bus. :bulb: :unamused: :wink:

622

Ah! got you “carryfast” your a conductor on the last Routemaster in service in London!!! fighting to keep your job!! Oh boy would I love to roll onto your bus with the gang off here,at chucking out time !!! We’d give you hell my son!! No violence ,of course,but just a right “royal ribbing” ding ding,anymore fares please!! Bewick

623

Bewick:
Ah! got you “carryfast” your a conductor on the last Routemaster in service in London!!! fighting to keep your job!! Oh boy would I love to roll onto your bus with the gang off here,at chucking out time !!! We’d give you hell my son!! No violence ,of course,but just a right “royal ribbing” ding ding,anymore fares please!! Bewick

I’d actually have been the driver so you could’nt have got at me :laughing: like on those new type buses where the junkies and ooligans can mug the poor driver for the fares he’s taken. :open_mouth:

You can bet that it would have been the only Routemaster with an 8V71 in it :open_mouth: So it would have been a case of ding ding hold on tight you bunch of drunken ooligans we would’nt want to lose any of you off the back on the platform. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

624

Carryfast:

Bewick:
Ah! got you “carryfast” your a conductor on the last Routemaster in service in London!!! fighting to keep your job!! Oh boy would I love to roll onto your bus with the gang off here,at chucking out time !!! We’d give you hell my son!! No violence ,of course,but just a right “royal ribbing” ding ding,anymore fares please!! Bewick

I’d actually have been the driver so you could’nt have got at me :laughing: like on those new type buses where the junkies and ooligans can mug the poor driver for the fares he’s taken. :open_mouth:

You can bet that it would have been the only Routemaster with an 8V71 in it :open_mouth: So it would have been a case of ding ding hold on tight you bunch of drunken ooligans we would’nt want to lose any of you off the back on the platform. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

No I’m not ‘avin that “carryfast” you couldn’t drive a flock of sheep wiv’ a good dog my son ! so you sure as hell couldn’t drive an old Routemaster!!! Cheers Bewick.

625

Evening all, little known fact, the man who drove Fiat/ IVECO, to over 3.5% share, of the 28tonne plus tractor market, in the UK, could drive a Routemaster smoother, faster, and better than anyone of us on this thread, because he did so, in a previous life!!! As regarding Leyland, BMC, (longbridge), its very telling that the accounts from the relevant period have obviously been “cleaned up” They do not read logically, neither do Parliaments Hansard entries for the same period. It is a subject I have a great interest in, the deeper you dig, well the more holes you find! We all have reason to be bitter and sad. If anyone really wishes to torture themselves, well ,I have seen, and read, copies of internal documents( Leyland France), that stopped a succesful company, providing an acceptable product, to a receptive market, dead in its tracks, purely to save cash (for transfer to the car side) in the UK. Did we just have a death wish, politics eh!! Just a final point, France, Benelux, Germany, Italy, average HP, 1970/1974, tractor/ porter, 35/40tonne,180hp, 70% 200/220hp 20% 220/250hp 8% above250hp 2% (source MDM France), Vehicoli Indurtriali SPA Italy, TUV Gerstadd, Germany,So CF, it would appear that statistically the UK power demands were not out of step with our European friends Oh, and I did check the US stats, 180 t0 220 was the norm for the equivelent period Cheerio now, Im off for a large glass of Bollinger, Bon Nuit…

626

Saviem:
Evening all, little known fact, the man who drove Fiat/ IVECO, to over 3.5% share, of the 28tonne plus tractor market, in the UK, could drive a Routemaster smoother, faster, and better than anyone of us on this thread, because he did so, in a previous life!!! As regarding Leyland, BMC, (longbridge), its very telling that the accounts from the relevant period have obviously been “cleaned up” They do not read logically, neither do Parliaments Hansard entries for the same period. It is a subject I have a great interest in, the deeper you dig, well the more holes you find! We all have reason to be bitter and sad. If anyone really wishes to torture themselves, well ,I have seen, and read, copies of internal documents( Leyland France), that stopped a succesful company, providing an acceptable product, to a receptive market, dead in its tracks, purely to save cash (for transfer to the car side) in the UK. Did we just have a death wish, politics eh!! Just a final point, France, Benelux, Germany, Italy, average HP, 1970/1974, tractor/ porter, 35/40tonne,180hp, 70% 200/220hp 20% 220/250hp 8% above250hp 2% (source MDM France), Vehicoli Indurtriali SPA Italy, TUV Gerstadd, Germany,So CF, it would appear that statistically the UK power demands were not out of step with our European friends Oh, and I did check the US stats, 180 t0 220 was the norm for the equivelent period Cheerio now, Im off for a large glass of Bollinger, Bon Nuit…

And we all know what they say about statistics.Ironically it’s the timeline of the development of ■■■■■■■ engines and the reasoning behind their development and production of 300- 450 hp + engines that proves my case more than those few statistics proves yours.That’s in addition to the development of the turbocharged Detroit 71 and 92 series.Assuming that those companies were’nt in the business of wasting money on the development of power units that the industry did’nt want why bother with such levels of development if there was’nt a ready market waiting for them :question: .The same applies in relation to development of trucks like the F88 to the V8 Scania etc.

However the fact that at that time it was common to find 200-300 hp engines fitted in American buses seems to make the case of your ideas on the US heavy truck power demands at the time even less credible.

www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histori … story.html

627

I once spent a very interesting evening with a fellow who knew a thing or two about the old lorries, his name is Garyl Rhys (spelling?) the topic of conversation was the demise of the British Lorry, Carryfast you’d do well to look him up on google or wiki, he’s written a few papers on the subject :bulb:

He summed up the demise of the Leyland Group in two words…Lord and Stokes :wink:

628

Some very valid points from all the recent contributors, including Carryfast. Forget Lord Stokes for a minute and if the best business brains in the country had been given control of British Leyland then it would have been an impossible job for the simple reason BL was a political creation and since when have politicians ever known anything about business.

Lord Stokes (Donald Stokes) made his reputation as a bus salesman at Leyland Motors as was. His father had been General Manager of Plymouth Corporation buses. Young Donald applied to AEC for an engineering apprenticeship but was rejected. applying to Leyland as his second choice he was accepted and so the story goes from then onwards he had a deep hatred for AEC and all its products. Donald Stokes’ most famous sales deal was the sale of new buses to Cuba in the early 1960s. Incidentally the first batch never reached Cuba because they were loaded as deck cargo and got washed overboard in a storm. Subsequent deliveries reached Cuba but the Cuban government never paid the balance of money outstanding. After this wonderful deal Donald Stokes was knighted and his rapid ascent up the ladder at Leyland began.

After the ill fated Leyland / AEC “merger” (it was a takeover by Leyland) the well-documented in-fighting between AEC and Leyland commenced. AEC was an engineer led concern, Leyland was sales dominated. AEC always had had excellent after sales service and good relationships with its customers large and small. Leyland’s attitude was this is your lorry or bus, take it or leave it. Incidentally, someone mentioned the excellent DAF aid scheme, it was set up by ex-AEC men.

629

As a reader of the classic commercial magazines there is quite a few articles about British trucks down under and it’s seems aec were held in high regard until the mid60s when the ergomatic cabbed range was introduced when they started to give lots of trouble.
We have seen on here how aec had a prototype modern American style cab in the late 60s and how leyland stopped the revised v8 going in to production who knows if aec and scammell had been left indipendant we may have still had a truck industry in this country

630

newmercman:
I once spent a very interesting evening with a fellow who knew a thing or two about the old lorries, his name is Garyl Rhys (spelling?) the topic of conversation was the demise of the British Lorry, Carryfast you’d do well to look him up on google or wiki, he’s written a few papers on the subject :bulb:

He summed up the demise of the Leyland Group in two words…Lord and Stokes :wink:

It’s all very (too) easy to make a case against workers and managers in the British truck manufacturing industry,especially the issues concerning the Leyland Group, who are’nt here to defend themselves.But the evidence (truth),which clears them of blame,is out there if you want to look for it and believe it when you’ve found it.

I can sum it up in six words.It was the home market customers and the home market customers who dun it no one else.Although having said that giving away loads a money out of the British economy to re build Germany’s and the rest of Europe’s industry after the war did’nt help either :imp: . :wink:

631

gingerfold:
Some very valid points from all the recent contributors, including Carryfast. Forget Lord Stokes for a minute and if the best business brains in the country had been given control of British Leyland then it would have been an impossible job for the simple reason BL was a political creation and since when have politicians ever known anything about business.

Lord Stokes (Donald Stokes) made his reputation as a bus salesman at Leyland Motors as was. His father had been General Manager of Plymouth Corporation buses. Young Donald applied to AEC for an engineering apprenticeship but was rejected. applying to Leyland as his second choice he was accepted and so the story goes from then onwards he had a deep hatred for AEC and all its products. Donald Stokes’ most famous sales deal was the sale of new buses to Cuba in the early 1960s. Incidentally the first batch never reached Cuba because they were loaded as deck cargo and got washed overboard in a storm. Subsequent deliveries reached Cuba but the Cuban government never paid the balance of money outstanding. After this wonderful deal Donald Stokes was knighted and his rapid ascent up the ladder at Leyland began.

After the ill fated Leyland / AEC “merger” (it was a takeover by Leyland) the well-documented in-fighting between AEC and Leyland commenced. AEC was an engineer led concern, Leyland was sales dominated. AEC always had had excellent after sales service and good relationships with its customers large and small. Leyland’s attitude was this is your lorry or bus, take it or leave it. Incidentally, someone mentioned the excellent DAF aid scheme, it was set up by ex-AEC men.

Although ironically it was the Leyland 680 based motor that DAF used to make their name and reputation with the 2800/3300/3600 range not the TL12 which went into the T45. :bulb: Compared to the 2800 the T45 was a case of too little too late not enough power for the job and just not good enough in it’s design.Compare that with the 2800 (let alone what Kenworth could offer in the old colonial export markets) and the development and production timelines and you’ll get some idea of just how far behind the competition that the whole Leyland Group were and that includes AEC.

We’ve got evidence that ■■■■■■■ could offer turbocharged engines in 1952 and 300 hp + from 1962 and that they could offer 450 hp engines from 1975.Kenworth could offer a decent sleeper cab in 1965.How were Leyland,or AEC as an independent manufacturer,ever going to catch up with that considering the demand requirements for power outputs and cab comfort levels in the home market as they were at that time :question: .

632

kr79:
As a reader of the classic commercial magazines there is quite a few articles about British trucks down under and it’s seems aec were held in high regard until the mid60s when the ergomatic cabbed range was introduced when they started to give lots of trouble.
We have seen on here how aec had a prototype modern American style cab in the late 60s and how leyland stopped the revised v8 going in to production who knows if aec and scammell had been left indipendant we may have still had a truck industry in this country

Which part of not a snowball’s chance in hell don’t you understand. :unamused: :laughing:

633

Hiya …customers “A”…Albert Dale (ERF through and through) after owning several erf’'s was up for a new truck
(albert was a contractor for Berresfords in Stoke) for his regular swiss run. so to ERF he did go.
Yes sir …i would like to buy a ERF 3 axel unit please…double drive …no i would like a 450 ■■■■■■■
13 speed fuller a factory “B” series sleeper and a rear steer with a mid lift. sorry we only build
a 4x2 in a 10 litre model…Albert said sorry for wasteing your time…
WOW whos that at Berresfords with the new 362 MAN with the rear steer and 13 speed gear box■■?
thats Albert Dale… ERF did’nt want to know about building a truck that was a one off
.You may have never see Albert only a blurr as he used to turn round quite swiftly as many will know
John

634

Carryfast:

kr79:
As a reader of the classic commercial magazines there is quite a few articles about British trucks down under and it’s seems aec were held in high regard until the mid60s when the ergomatic cabbed range was introduced when they started to give lots of trouble.
We have seen on here how aec had a prototype modern American style cab in the late 60s and how leyland stopped the revised v8 going in to production who knows if aec and scammell had been left indipendant we may have still had a truck industry in this country

Which part of not a snowball’s chance in hell don’t you understand. :unamused: :laughing:

What two innovative engineering led company’s with strong home and export markets that got caught up in a in fighting government created monster

635

3300John:
Hiya …customers “A”…Albert Dale (ERF through and through) after owning several erf’'s was up for a new truck
(albert was a contractor for Berresfords in Stoke) for his regular swiss run. so to ERF he did go.
Yes sir …i would like to buy a ERF 3 axel unit please…double drive …no i would like a 450 ■■■■■■■
13 speed fuller a factory “B” series sleeper and a rear steer with a mid lift. sorry we only build
a 4x2 in a 10 litre model…Albert said sorry for wasteing your time…
WOW whos that at Berresfords with the new 362 MAN with the rear steer and 13 speed gear box■■?
thats Albert Dale… ERF did’nt want to know about building a truck that was a one off
.You may have never see Albert only a blurr as he used to turn round quite swiftly as many will know
John

You did’nt say exactly which year this was.But assuming that it was the 1970’s :open_mouth: you’re right it would have been a ‘one off’ and it probably took the sales dept a week to get over the shock of what they’d been asked to supply considering the factory was probably geared up just to meet the demands of the average home market buyer. :bulb: :laughing: If he’d have said make it a 6x4 with a 180 or 240 Gardner he might have got a different reception. :bulb: :laughing: But it snows a lot in Swiss in the winter so I’d have preferred a 6x4 Kenworth instead with that ■■■■■■■ or an 8V92 in it thanks.

636

Carryfast again makes a valid point. At the time of the 1962 Leyland / AEC merger, AEC was struggling financially and was basically undercapitalised. This had been a constant theme in is finances since it was floated as a separate company from London Transport in 1933. Whilst it was the major supplier of buses to LT it is questionable how profitable that business was down the years. In 1962 AEC had engine developments in place (updated versions of existing designs) plus the all new V8. Leyland had nothing new in the pipeline on the engine front (until the 500 series development started in about 1967). Leyland brought the Ergomatic cab to the party in 1964, praised at the time as a big advance in driver comfort, but with many shortcomings in practice. Some pointer where AEC might have gone if it had remained an independent company might be gleaned from its European collaberations with Willeme and Bollekens, whose cabs looked spacious and attractive. Could AEC have survived as an independent company? No, I don’t think so.
Could Leyland have survived bearing in mind it already had Albion and Scammell in the fold? No I don’t think so. Could the Leyland Group with AEC, Guy, Scammell, Albion etc but without the car division have been a viable operation. Yes, I think it could if it had been managed differently and amalgamated the best from all its disparate divisions.

Just one point on organisation in the factories and productivity. Both AEC and Leyland built on a production line system but to chassis order timelines. In other words a double decker bus chassis could follow an eight-wheeler down the line which could follow an artic unit, then a coach chassis etc. etc. AEC received an urgent order for 65 Mk.V eight-wheeler chassis, which they built in a day and and a half with the production line assembly staff coming in for a weekend to complete the order. Normally 65 chassis was 5-days work. You would have thought that lessons on productivity and costs would have been learnt from that.

637

kr79:

Carryfast:

kr79:
As a reader of the classic commercial magazines there is quite a few articles about British trucks down under and it’s seems aec were held in high regard until the mid60s when the ergomatic cabbed range was introduced when they started to give lots of trouble.
We have seen on here how aec had a prototype modern American style cab in the late 60s and how leyland stopped the revised v8 going in to production who knows if aec and scammell had been left indipendant we may have still had a truck industry in this country

Which part of not a snowball’s chance in hell don’t you understand. :unamused: :laughing:

What two innovative engineering led company’s with strong home and export markets that got caught up in a in fighting government created monster

If you take out the Ozzies etc,who’ve by this time,rightly,gone over to home built Kenworths in a big way,exactly which ‘export’ markets are we talking about :question: .The home market,as we’ve seen,is,at this time,at best, just looking for something with a day cab and a naturally aspirated boat anchor in it or a small 7 Litre screamer at worse.So where does a gutless thirsty V8 or TL12 powered wagon with a day cab copy of a cab over Pete cab,or the T45 as it turned out in the end too late,fit into a home market still dominated by something like an old Atki with a 180 Gardner in it or an export market dominated by something like a Kenworth with a 300-400 + horsepower ■■■■■■■ or Detroit in it,or the DAF 2800 which is already on the drawing board and soon ready for production heading this way just as soon as the Brit customers get their act together and make the jump to something with around 300 hp and a decent cab :question: .Not forgetting that the thing will need to generate sufficient sales to fund all future development needed to compete with the new,even better,DAF’s,Volvos,Scanias,etc etc which are right now on the drawing board,than are already in production and being sold in their respective home markets. :unamused:

638

Should have mentioned that the 65 chassis order was from Harold Wood, who along with BRS could call off chassis from AEC on demand.

639

gingerfold:
Carryfast again makes a valid point. At the time of the 1962 Leyland / AEC merger, AEC was struggling financially and was basically undercapitalised. This had been a constant theme in is finances since it was floated as a separate company from London Transport in 1933. Whilst it was the major supplier of buses to LT it is questionable how profitable that business was down the years. In 1962 AEC had engine developments in place (updated versions of existing designs) plus the all new V8. Leyland had nothing new in the pipeline on the engine front (until the 500 series development started in about 1967). Leyland brought the Ergomatic cab to the party in 1964, praised at the time as a big advance in driver comfort, but with many shortcomings in practice. Some pointer where AEC might have gone if it had remained an independent company might be gleaned from its European collaberations with Willeme and Bollekens, whose cabs looked spacious and attractive. Could AEC have survived as an independent company? No, I don’t think so.
Could Leyland have survived bearing in mind it already had Albion and Scammell in the fold? No I don’t think so. Could the Leyland Group with AEC, Guy, Scammell, Albion etc but without the car division have been a viable operation. Yes, I think it could if it had been managed differently and amalgamated the best from all its disparate divisions.

Or there’s the alternative ending (if only).An ex fire engine manufacturer employee went over to the States and asked Kenworth if it would be possible to set up a uk manufacturing division in just the same way that the Australians did.The rest (might just) have been history. :bulb: :wink:

640

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
Carryfast again makes a valid point. At the time of the 1962 Leyland / AEC merger, AEC was struggling financially and was basically undercapitalised. This had been a constant theme in is finances since it was floated as a separate company from London Transport in 1933. Whilst it was the major supplier of buses to LT it is questionable how profitable that business was down the years. In 1962 AEC had engine developments in place (updated versions of existing designs) plus the all new V8. Leyland had nothing new in the pipeline on the engine front (until the 500 series development started in about 1967). Leyland brought the Ergomatic cab to the party in 1964, praised at the time as a big advance in driver comfort, but with many shortcomings in practice. Some pointer where AEC might have gone if it had remained an independent company might be gleaned from its European collaberations with Willeme and Bollekens, whose cabs looked spacious and attractive. Could AEC have survived as an independent company? No, I don’t think so.
Could Leyland have survived bearing in mind it already had Albion and Scammell in the fold? No I don’t think so. Could the Leyland Group with AEC, Guy, Scammell, Albion etc but without the car division have been a viable operation. Yes, I think it could if it had been managed differently and amalgamated the best from all its disparate divisions.

Or there’s the alternative ending (if only).An ex fire engine manufacturer employee went over to the States and asked Kenworth if it would be possible to set up a uk manufacturing division in just the same way that the Australians did.The rest
(might just) have been history. :bulb: :wink:

What if that’s the story of your life according to what you post here.

The fact is British manufacturers were to slow to react to change in the European and commonwealth markets