If you look in the UK end the '60’s and '70’s Swedes and other tried the market and with success.
But if you look at ERF and other from mid '70’s and '80, '90’s. They Always looked beter and beter and mechanically with the US products not easy to beat. Of course not much services outside the UK. But for the hauliers only staying in the UK.There were service points,own brand. So why disappeared they■■? Too expensive not customer friendly■■?
Or were they too small to survive■■? And one point I find very interesting, is you buy the marque you love, but can say that marque of box and that for driveaxle, which was a pitty at Scania you didn’t had a choice.
Hej Eric , In the UK there were not as many service depots for ERF as say Leyland group , and the ERF head man Peter Foden said around 1980 that sales had been dropping for ten years and would be zero in another ten and that the biggest seller in the UK by far was AB Volvo, and Volvo had no choice of engines or transmissions ,you got all Volvo matched to the Engine , so he said we will have a standard ERF with ■■■■■■■■ and a standard drive train , and if a customer wants Gardner or Rolls-Royce ect they will have to pay more , they even put on a black grille with a bar badge to make an F10/12 lookalike , but the sales still dropped , i was one day around 1985 waiting to book in at Boughy /north west farmers at Nantwich Cheshire with a load of Danish meat , so i saw the truck defect book and sneaked a look , i was shocked at all the defects with the large ERF fleet , even Engine trouble with ■■■■■■■■ ! it was no surprise they switched to Volvo , we had much less defects with ten year old Volvos
Mostly like all the other sectors of the UK manufacturing industry it was the result of the UK government’s foreign,trade and economic policies resulting in a wrecked economy and lack of cash for investment together with opening up our markets to a barrage of foreign competition.
The rot started with us getting involved with WW1.Instead of us staying neutral and telling the French to stay out of the argument between Austria and Serbia and it’s Russian ally if not we’ll enter the war on the side of Germany not France.The result being a forward moving economy turned into an economic wreck which it never really recovered from right up to the start of the next war with Germany which was a direct result of the first.The financial results of that were just the inevitable final nail.Together with a deliberate policy,agreed with the Americans after WW2,to give the Germans the economic initiative in Europe at the expense of our own economic interests based on the mistaken idea that they needed to be kept ‘onside’ and to keep the peace in Europe.The rest is history.
the trouble with firms like foden was that up until the paccar takeover everything was produced in house . fodens had their own foundry , machine shops etc . they were still producing the worm drive diffs which were out of date by the 70s . the cost of retooling for new designs would have been prohibitive . another problem was he constant battle to keep tare weights down to maximise payloads , which stifled a lot of possible innovation , british gaffers wouldn’t accept any loss of payload . basically the manufacturers and the hauliers maintained the old status quo until it was too late while the foreigners upped their game and won the battle . dave
Carryfast:
…a deliberate policy,agreed with the Americans after WW2,to give the Germans the economic initiative in Europe at the expense of our own economic interests based on the mistaken idea that they needed to be kept ‘onside’ and to keep the peace in Europe.The rest is history.
You were doing alright until this dose of ill-informed conjecture.
Carryfast:
…a deliberate policy,agreed with the Americans after WW2,to give the Germans the economic initiative in Europe at the expense of our own economic interests based on the mistaken idea that they needed to be kept ‘onside’ and to keep the peace in Europe.The rest is history.
You were doing alright until this dose of ill-informed conjecture.
The facts,concerning the fortunes of Germany’s manufacturing industry,during the post war years and the ‘circumstances’ concerning our entry into the EU resulting in a trade surplus with Europe being turned into a trade deficit and paying a fortune for the privilege,suggest it’s a bit more than just ‘conjecture’.
While Sweden’s neutrality,in regards to the major European wars,is probably the main factor as to how it happened to have the cash for investment and resulting development in it’s manufacturing industries and specifically it’s automotive one.Unlike us.
The heroic thing is that we managed to make arguably better products with less cash than the Swedes and the Germans if only we had the domestic customer loyalty to match and/or our government had paid it’s society back for the sacrifices made by fighting two world wars by closing the door to Swedish and German imports.
Carryfast:
Mostly like all the other sectors of the UK manufacturing industry it was the result of the UK government’s foreign,trade and economic policies resulting in a wrecked economy and lack of cash for investment together with opening up our markets to a barrage of foreign competition.
The rot started with us getting involved with WW1.Instead of us staying neutral and telling the French to stay out of the argument between Austria and Serbia and it’s Russian ally if not we’ll enter the war on the side of Germany not France.The result being a forward moving economy turned into an economic wreck which it never really recovered from right up to the start of the next war with Germany which was a direct result of the first.The financial results of that were just the inevitable final nail.Together with a deliberate policy,agreed with the Americans after WW2,to give the Germans the economic initiative in Europe at the expense of our own economic interests based on the mistaken idea that they needed to be kept ‘onside’ and to keep the peace in Europe.The rest is history.
Very good sir , at the start of WW1 the queen of England said we have backed the wrong horse she thought England should have been on Germanys side with Englands old allies Austria , then war would be over very rapid and NO WW 2 ! , the first Mercedes -Benz lorries made were exported to England and only stopped in the war , but English truck makers did think mostly that thier own products were fine , and it was OK to not have spare parts available , also most british trucks were very difficult to work on compared to Swedish products , the Atkinson never got a tilt cab until the Seddon-Atkinson mid 70s same as ERF , it was hard to ask drivers and mechanics to want the domestic stuff after Swedes , many was the comment on Swedish trucks such as its like a sunday drive out in the car` the Swedes made a lot of money in WW2 exporting to Germany and the UK but it was a very low wage economy with bad conditions that made it possible back in 1927 for Volvo to ever start up ! todays wages and demands and holidays ect forget it, it would not have been viable , it was built up on hard work and dedication and unlike Scania did not go bust and had to be bailed out by Wallenberg ect.
Carryfast:
Mostly like all the other sectors of the UK manufacturing industry it was the result of the UK government’s foreign,trade and economic policies resulting in a wrecked economy and lack of cash for investment together with opening up our markets to a barrage of foreign competition.
The rot started with us getting involved with WW1.Instead of us staying neutral and telling the French to stay out of the argument between Austria and Serbia and it’s Russian ally if not we’ll enter the war on the side of Germany not France.The result being a forward moving economy turned into an economic wreck which it never really recovered from right up to the start of the next war with Germany which was a direct result of the first.The financial results of that were just the inevitable final nail.Together with a deliberate policy,agreed with the Americans after WW2,to give the Germans the economic initiative in Europe at the expense of our own economic interests based on the mistaken idea that they needed to be kept ‘onside’ and to keep the peace in Europe.The rest is history.
Very good sir , at the start of WW1 the queen of England said we have backed the wrong horse she thought England should have been on Germanys side with Englands old allies Austria , then war would be over very rapid and NO WW 2 ! , the first Mercedes -Benz lorries made were exported to England and only stopped in the war , but English truck makers did think mostly that thier own products were fine , and it was OK to not have spare parts available , also most british trucks were very difficult to work on compared to Swedish products , the Atkinson never got a tilt cab until the Seddon-Atkinson mid 70s same as ERF , it was hard to ask drivers and mechanics to want the domestic stuff after Swedes , many was the comment on Swedish trucks such as its like a sunday drive out in the car` the Swedes made a lot of money in WW2 exporting to Germany and the UK but it was a very low wage economy with bad conditions that made it possible back in 1927 for Volvo to ever start up ! todays wages and demands and holidays ect forget it, it would not have been viable , it was built up on hard work and dedication and unlike Scania did not go bust and had to be bailed out by Wallenberg ect.
It was the King of England at the start of WW1 not the Queen although she’d probably have been turning in her grave to think that Churchill etc were stupid enough to lead us into a war in support of the Serbs and Russians against Austria and Germany.
However the timeline of the make or break point for the UK automotive manufacturing industry was the pre and post WW2 years.That task being an impossible mountain to climb owing to the destruction of our economy and debts caused by our involvement in WW1 and WW2 and the resulting effects on development budgets and purchasing power of customers.
As I’ve said added to that was the fact that the UK domestic customer loyalty was non existent together with opening our market up to Swedish and German products.Both of which countries were obviously in far better shape economically during those important post WW2 years than we were.In the case of Sweden for obvious reasons. While in the case of Germany the ‘reasons’ had more to do with the US and UKs’ governments ‘re organisation’ of Europe against ( what it perceived as ) the Russian threat and/or the possibility of the Germans kicking off again if they didn’t get their way resulting in an economic and trading playing field which was biased in Germany’s favour.On that basis UK conditions and wages weren’t exactly a workers paradise in 1927 nor the post WW2 years for that matter while from the British workers point of view at least hard work and dedication were never lacking amongst the UK workforce.Our problem was simply that the UK’s government has never been up to the standards of the UK’s working class.IE the workshop of the world based on zb wages and an out of touch leadership.Which to add insult to injury then took us into WW1 then resulting in WW2 and from which,unsurprisingly,we never recovered,despite the heroic efforts of the British workforce when it wasn’t busy fighting the Germans on the battlefield.
Having said that and as for the British wagons v their Euro competition it’s obvious that things still might just have miraculously turned out differently ‘if’ we’d have had a government that knew what it was doing and ‘if’ we’d have stayed out of the EU and ‘if’ we’d have had a more loyal knowledgeable domestic customer base.
Yes England had a King then , but he had a Queen (wife) who made the comments about joining the wrong side and her husband declaring war on his own cousin Willy , but i agree with you Carryfast very dark forces were behind mister Chirchill , then after WW2 that he wanted he said looks like we slaugter the wrong pig! , on customer loyalty all over Europe it is said that Scania drivers kept and keep silent over breakdowns and problems , legend… yep , for instance ERF C series was more comfortable than a scania on ride .
Lilladan:
Yes England had a King then , but he had a Queen (wife) who made the comments about joining the wrong side and her husband declaring war on his own cousin Willy , but i agree with you Carryfast very dark forces were behind mister Chirchill , then after WW2 that he wanted he said looks like we slaugter the wrong pig! , on customer loyalty all over Europe it is said that Scania drivers kept and keep silent over breakdowns and problems , legend… yep , for instance ERF C series was more comfortable than a scania on ride .
In most respects not surprisingly the British education system and propaganda machine has always tried to blur and spin the facts of the lead up to WW1 to make Churchill and his supporters look good.While ignoring the massive pressures which were facing the German Kaiser in terms of the threat posed by the Russian forces grouping and mobilising against Germany.IE Russia was the main aggressor not Germany in that dispute.Not surprisingly as part of that I’ve never been aware of those comments made by the King’s wife which you’ve referred to,until now.
My suspicions and views concerning that war,some of which were based on what I’d been told by the older generations here,were confirmed by the recent explosive documentary/drama film series 37 days which told the story just based on the facts and with all the pro Churchill/government propaganda removed.The smoking gun for me was the reference to the Kaiser halting and reversing the original start of the German advance on France when he ( justifiably ) ‘thought’ that the British government had provided a guarantee that both us and France would stay out of the dispute between Austria/Germany and Serbia/Russia.None of which had ever been made clear in the British education system at least in my case.The actions of what followed in Churchill etc then supporting France when the French government refused to co operate with that guarantee in favour of supporting Russia,thereby starting WW1,were shocking.
While the actions of the King later,in not allowing the Russian Tsar,sanctuary here to save him and his family from the results of the war that he’d kicked off and the casualties and damage to the UK’s economy caused by it,say everything about the King’s obvious,eventual,agreement with his wife which I also agree with totally.Although at that point even he wouldn’t have known the full implications of the inevitable chain of events that resulted in WW2 and the further damage which it caused to the UK’s economy resulting in it’s industrial decline during those make or break years.
It’s all very well for people to jump up and down quoting from history, but the thing that has to be remembered about history is that it is always written by the winning side. Add to that the fact that’s always loaded with political spin, and it would be almost impossible to decipher the facts from what "They would want us to believe ".
History is, and always has been, flawed. Look at what’s going on in the world today and try to find the actual facts. The pollies make a statement to the media. Do you really believe that is actually what’s going on?
Organisations like WikiLeaks come along and try to find the facts, and the big boys don’t like it at all.
We are mushroom men, we always have been, we always will be. We will never really know the facts.
The fact is that there are a handful of very rich and powerful families in the world that control most of the power and wealth. In fact, the figures show that about 98% of the world’s wealth is controlled by 1% of the world’s population ( I say 98%, as it’s actually 97 point something %, so 98 % is about right, and the figures can be checked in numerous publications. )
Rest assured, you can bet that none of the people that control the money and wealth would, are,or will, send any of their offspring to war to defend their interests. That’s for poor people.
At the worst, they might get a bit of a financial slapping from time to time, but with the kind of wealth those famalies control, it’s never going to affect them much.
People like us only count as consummers.
Lilladan:
Yes England had a King then , but he had a Queen (wife) who made the comments about joining the wrong side and her husband declaring war on his own cousin Willy , but i agree with you Carryfast very dark forces were behind mister Chirchill , then after WW2 that he wanted he said looks like we slaugter the wrong pig! , on customer loyalty all over Europe it is said that Scania drivers kept and keep silent over breakdowns and problems , legend… yep , for instance ERF C series was more comfortable than a scania on ride .
Hey Lilladan, The Scania cabs stay as much as everything else tipped, But in the '60’s they didn’t have stolen the king name,they were one of the best but not the best. And of course a Scania Fanatic and other will not annonce their breakdown hier too. It like cardrivers who by a car with a star in the grill.
Lilladan:
Yes England had a King then , but he had a Queen (wife) who made the comments about joining the wrong side and her husband declaring war on his own cousin Willy , but i agree with you Carryfast very dark forces were behind mister Chirchill , then after WW2 that he wanted he said looks like we slaugter the wrong pig! , on customer loyalty all over Europe it is said that Scania drivers kept and keep silent over breakdowns and problems , legend… yep , for instance ERF C series was more comfortable than a scania on ride .
In most respects not surprisingly the British education system and propaganda machine has always tried to blur and spin the facts of the lead up to WW1 to make Churchill and his supporters look good.While ignoring the massive pressures which were facing the German Kaiser in terms of the threat posed by the Russian forces grouping and mobilising against Germany.IE Russia was the main aggressor not Germany in that dispute.Not surprisingly as part of that I’ve never been aware of those comments made by the King’s wife which you’ve referred to,until now.
My suspicions and views concerning that war,some of which were based on what I’d been told by the older generations here,were confirmed by the recent explosive documentary/drama film series 37 days which told the story just based on the facts and with all the pro Churchill/government propaganda removed.The smoking gun for me was the reference to the Kaiser halting and reversing the original start of the German advance on France when he ( justifiably ) ‘thought’ that the British government had provided a guarantee that both us and France would stay out of the dispute between Austria/Germany and Serbia/Russia.None of which had ever been made clear in the British education system at least in my case.The actions of what followed in Churchill etc then supporting France when the French government refused to co operate with that guarantee in favour of supporting Russia,thereby starting WW1,were shocking.
While the actions of the King later,in not allowing the Russian Tsar,sanctuary here to save him and his family from the results of the war that he’d kicked off and the casualties and damage to the UK’s economy caused by it,say everything about the King’s obvious,eventual,agreement with his wife which I also agree with totally.Although at that point even he wouldn’t have known the full implications of the inevitable chain of events that resulted in WW2 and the further damage which it caused to the UK’s economy resulting in it’s industrial decline during those make or break years.
Carryfast , Jeff and Eric , spot on ! , anyone think Germany got democracy ? no, people get prison for speaking the truth , judges saying OK you did not say it ,…but i think you were thinking it ! the Left can also be fascist , in England the BBC pro left , pro drugs , they break the law
Lilladan:
Hej Eric , In the UK there were not as many service depots for ERF as say Leyland group , and the ERF head man Peter Foden said around 1980 that sales had been dropping for ten years and would be zero in another ten and that the biggest seller in the UK by far was AB Volvo, and Volvo had no choice of engines or transmissions ,you got all Volvo matched to the Engine , so he said we will have a standard ERF with ■■■■■■■■ and a standard drive train , and if a customer wants Gardner or Rolls-Royce ect they will have to pay more , they even put on a black grille with a bar badge to make an F10/12 lookalike , but the sales still dropped , i was one day around 1985 waiting to book in at Boughy /north west farmers at Nantwich Cheshire with a load of Danish meat , so i saw the truck defect book and sneaked a look , i was shocked at all the defects with the large ERF fleet , even Engine trouble with ■■■■■■■■ ! it was no surprise they switched to Volvo , we had much less defects with ten year old Volvos
bougheys had no trouble with ■■■■■■■■ engines in 1985 they had an all gardner fleet till 92 though they did get a lot of downtime whith the e16 320 gardner
The major cause of the first world war was German militarism. Alliances had been made to counter this and other threats and we were a guarantor of Belgian sovereignty. When that was breached we had no option but to become involved.
However can we keep this thread to a discussion of the relative merits of British and Continental trucks and not continually make wild assertions which have no basis?
Jazzandy:
Click on this thread for a dollop of cod history.
The major cause of the first world war was German militarism. Alliances had been made to counter this and other threats and we were a guarantor of Belgian sovereignty. When that was breached we had no option but to become involved.
However can we keep this thread to a discussion of the relative merits of British and Continental trucks and not continually make wild assertions which have no basis?
We already have threads on this subject, with various levels of political pollution in them. Keeping that aspect here is good thing, IMO. Besides, I know next to nowt about history, so a bit of education will do me no harm!
Lilladan:
but i agree with you Carryfast very dark forces were behind mister Chirchill , then after WW2 that he wanted he said looks like we slaugter the wrong pig!
Jazzandy:
Click on this thread for a dollop of cod history.
The major cause of the first world war was German militarism. Alliances had been made to counter this and other threats and we were a guarantor of Belgian sovereignty. When that was breached we had no option but to become involved.
However can we keep this thread to a discussion of the relative merits of British and Continental trucks and not continually make wild assertions which have no basis?
Firstly the question was why did the British truck manufacturing industry lose out against the euro and scandinavian competition.There’s no way that you can answer that question in detail without factoring in the long term damage caused to the UK economy by our involvement in WW1 and WW2 which directly resulted from the aftermath.
As for the cause of WW1 it was Russian militarism and the Russian government which kicked off the circumstances which led to a small localised issue in the Balkans between Austria and Serbia turning into WW1. With more than a bit of help from the two militaristic powers of France and Britain.I’m guessing that you didn’t see the facts presented in 37 days related to the Kaiser’s stop and reversal of the original German advance into Lux/Belgium when he ‘thought’ that he had a guarantee that both us and France would stay out of the argument between Austria and Serbia.Which Russian belligerence turned into aggression against Germany which France supported.Under those circumstances there was no way that Britain could/should have made a credible case to join the war on the side of France which Churchill and the government actually did.Whereas neutrality of both France and Britain or Britain joining the war on the side of Germany would,by implication,obviously have guaranteed Belgium’s neutrality.Being that in either case there would have been no need for a German attack on France to defend itself from attack from the West by France in support of Russia.Which was the ( justifiable ) reason for the German advance through Belgium.In addition to stopping WW1 before it had begun on the Eastern front between Russia and Germany being that more/most of Germany’s forces wouldn’t have been needed on the Western front.
The so called defence of Belgium’s neutrality was just a pre text for the UK government’s support of France and Russia having been blackmailed by the Tsar’s threat of Russian action against British interests in Asia if we didn’t join Russia’s aggression against Germany.
Unfortunately and inconveniently the facts don’t fit your typically British education system spun version of history.Which the King and his wife at the time obviously seemed to have realised when it was all too late.
