No, the truck book market is dead in the water these days. Killed off by the internet and sites like this. Let’s face it you can get far more photos and info on here than you can ever get from a book.
Thank you to all of you who have supported transport authors and publishers down the years.
Thats a shame i enjoyed the AEC books you wrote
gingerfold:
No, the truck book market is dead in the water these days. Killed off by the internet and sites like this. Let’s face it you can get far more photos and info on here than you can ever get from a book.Thank you to all of you who have supported transport authors and publishers down the years.
The difference is, an author works harder than a forum contributor. He digs up information that is not in the public domain, by interviewing people who would not normally bother to pass on their knowledge, for example company employees- the fact that their time will, eventually, help the publication of a “proper” book gives them the incentive to help. Imagine what would happen if a “normal” person were to try to interview an ex-industry man, or get him to trawl through records- that person would be viewed as a nuisance. Long may well-researched books continue. Hopefully, the internet will help enthusiastic authors, not drive them underground!
I can foresee a future in which books are researched by teams of web-connected people, using the carrot of future publication to get them into the confidence of those in the know. The cover of the finished article will credit the multiple authors. They must agree not to put their work on the internet, in order not to spoil the sales of the book. This may be idealism, but it only takes a few enthusiasts to get together, to make it work.
gingerfold:
Don’t feed the Troll!!
There is plenty of merit in what you say. In my own case I did enjoy the research side of writing and preparing a book. I met plenty of interesting and helpful people who had been involved at the ‘sharp end’ of the industry for their working lifetime in most instances. It is their knowledge that I hope that I passed on through my writing. These men who worked at Leyland and AEC, for example, were absolutely brilliant in what they imparted to me. The hours I spent trawling through spec sheets, records, and photos at the British Commercial Vehicles Museum Archives were fascinating, along with other archives such as Warwick University and even Shell. ( I count getting access to the latter archives as a real achievement).
However, it costs money to design, print and publish a book. In the end for me it became no longer viable financially to publish because sales volumes had dwindled, and I was losing money by doing it. Also the other specialised publishers who were much larger than me, have also felt the pinch in recent years. Another consideration is the ageing customer base which is interested in nostalgia. Their numbers reduce every year and are not replaced by youngsters who don’t seem to have any interest in old lorries at all.
newmercman:
I think he drags information out of people with his nonsense, a lot of the stuff posted is done in an attempt to prove him wrong
Like this you mean.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=98062&start=450#p1459174
Who’s calling who a troll.
The fact is anyone who dares to disagree with zb and in his believers that the Ergo and the Marathon were so called state of the art products to take the Leyland Group through the the 1960’s/70’s,that were let down by a workforce at shop floor level who didn’t know what they were doing and wanted to be paid for doing nothing,gets branded a troll.
So it’s nonsense to say that the Marathon wasn’t a better product than much of it’s domestic and foeign competition because they were let down by insufficient development budgets and Leyland Group generally being starved of cash yeah right. 
gingerfold:
There is plenty of merit in what you say. In my own case I did enjoy the research side of writing and preparing a book. I met plenty of interesting and helpful people who had been involved at the ‘sharp end’ of the industry for their working lifetime in most instances. It is their knowledge that I hope that I passed on through my writing. These men who worked at Leyland and AEC, for example, were absolutely brilliant in what they imparted to me. The hours I spent trawling through spec sheets, records, and photos at the British Commercial Vehicles Museum Archives were fascinating, along with other archives such as Warwick University and even Shell. ( I count getting access to the latter archives as a real achievement).However, it costs money to design, print and publish a book. In the end for me it became no longer viable financially to publish because sales volumes had dwindled, and I was losing money by doing it. Also the other specialised publishers who were much larger than me, have also felt the pinch in recent years. Another consideration is the ageing customer base which is interested in nostalgia. Their numbers reduce every year and are not replaced by youngsters who don’t seem to have any interest in old lorries at all.
It is the privileged access to records which makes an author’s work superior to an internet forum. Although this and other forums are an amazing source of information, the real gold is buried deeper. It takes real work to research it. Regarding publication costs and the authors’ wages for their work, it appears that the market has been queered by the internet. How about this for a “business model”: A group of enthusiasts get together and sign a non-disclosure contract. They split the research and arrange the trips to the museums, companies and individuals. The writing and collating is done along the way and the finished work is published as an expensive, glossy hardback or a less-expensive e-book, or both.
[zb]
anorak:
It is the privileged access to records which makes an author’s work superior to an internet forum. Although this and other forums are an amazing source of information, the real gold is buried deeper. It takes real work to research it. Regarding publication costs and the authors’ wages for their work, it appears that the market has been queered by the internet. How about this for a “business model”: A group of enthusiasts get together and sign a non-disclosure contract. They split the research and arrange the trips to the museums, companies and individuals. The writing and collating is done along the way and the finished work is published as an expensive, glossy hardback or a less-expensive e-book, or both.
An interesting idea and something similar was done for a two-volume book(s) I have entitled “The Industrial Railways of The Lancashire Coalfield” (Runpast Publishing). This was compiled by a group of four men who spent several years researching their subject, finding maps, photos etc. and it really is a definitive study of the subject. Each co-author tackled his own specialist topic. I believe that several railway titles have been written by ‘committee’.
gingerfold:
An interesting idea and something similar was done for a two-volume book(s) I have entitled “The Industrial Railways of The Lancashire Coalfield” (Runpast Publishing). This was compiled by a group of four men who spent several years researching their subject, finding maps, photos etc. and it really is a definitive study of the subject. Each co-author tackled his own specialist topic. I believe that several railway titles have been written by ‘committee’.
To use the Ergomatic cab as an example, there are numerous bits of information which could make a book, if the relevant people could be inveigled into providing it. Just off the top of my head:
Start date of the design project.
Decision to make it a distribution-friendly cab, in favour of a long-haul job.
Initial styling/layout sketches/drawings.
Design process behind the half-cocked tilt arrangement.
Pre-production photographs.
The impact of the various factions in the compromises in build quality, EG engineers unfamiliar with modern design techniques, sloppy suppliers, union interference etc.
Reasons for the alteration of the door/door aperture for the Marathon version.
Etc.
Are the people still around, to provide such detail? If they were, their knowledge would give much more content, in addition to that list.
For me personally its much more enjoyable reading a book of facts rather than an internet forum i bought the full serirs of AEC books you wrote (i think) but lent them to my dad never to be seen again
ramone:
For me personally its much more enjoyable reading a book of facts rather than an internet forum i bought the full serirs of AEC books you wrote (i think) but lent them to my dad never to be seen again
I have a few remaining of each title in my “publishers’ retained stock” for copyright reasons. If you want to have a ride over the hill one weekend I can replace them for you.
There are still one or two people around who were involved but how amenable they will be is hard to say.
gingerfold:
[quote="[zb]
anorakTo use the Ergomatic cab as an example, there are numerous bits of information which could make a book, if the relevant people could be inveigled into providing it. Just off the top of my head:
Start date of the design project.
Decision to make it a distribution-friendly cab, in favour of a long-haul job.
Initial styling/layout sketches/drawings.
Design process behind the half-cocked tilt arrangement.
Pre-production photographs.
The impact of the various factions in the compromises in build quality, EG engineers unfamiliar with modern design techniques, sloppy suppliers, union interference etc.
Reasons for the alteration of the door/door aperture for the Marathon version.
Etc.Are the people still around, to provide such detail? If they were, their knowledge would give much more content, in addition to that list.
There are still one or two people around who were involved but how amenable they will be is hard to say.
[/quote]
Not very if they’ve got any sense,having seen on here the way that zb and his followers throw their toys out of the pram every time that someone tells them how it was rather than how their raving political views make them think it was.Knowing the amount of co operation between all concerned,that it takes to run any credible manufacturing operation,I’d doubt that they’d want to get involved for fear of upsetting someone when they confirm that the workers were all on the same side as the management,except maybe on those occasions when the falling value of the wages weren’t making the effort worthwhile.
In which case it’s obvious that you can expect some ( justified ) industrial action to take place,just like in any other commercial organisation where price rises are required to keep pace with falling curreny values and inflation of the type which has often characterised the uk economy.However unlike zb’s bs comments it was always all forgotten about and everyone went back to getting on with the job afterwards as soon as the outstanding issues had been settled.
In the case of the Leyland Group,just like in most other aspects of British industry,it’s obvious that those in control of the funds weren’t always as interested in paying up and settling such disputes as they should have been just as in the case of not investing in development and production of better products.
easy to say after when know al facts ,but it,s more intresting to get knoweless of what influended the wrong dessions then that you tell the things we all know,i,m shoore nobody did not want to kill the british lorry industry purpously so the desissions where made whit out internet and youtube and mobilphones in a world where people talk to each other and you did not know so much else then the customer and the manufactor7customer/transportcompany,they had needes and they where solved ,whit was avalebule in that specific time,so al afterwords wisedome we all manage to do ,but the interest in this and simular threads is for my to see it in THE TIME it HAPPENED,sorry for bad englich but hope the point of my thinking get,s thrue,cheers benkku
In 1968 Leyland Motors had a 4% profit margin on sales of 50 million GBP, this low margin was mostly attributed to warranty claims on the Ergomatic cab. It should have underlined that the Truck Division could no longer be used for cash flow within the group as the lack of development work on the cab, due to low funding, was taking its toll, but as we all know, that never happened, the drain on group resources hit the truck division hardest as the squeakiest wheels (Austin and Morris) were getting the most oil. Austin Morris were to continue draining the group’s finances until the money ran out and the Government stepped in. By this time the Truck Division had fallen too far behind to catch up. The T45 range was too little too late and the rest is history.
One other important consideration, which relates to the poor development due to lack of funding, is the fact that the British part of the company name didn’t endear the products to some of the markets that had once been strong for Leyland Group Trucks. Buyers had taken exception to Britain’s involment in the Suez crisis. There was also the widely reported industrial action turmoil in the right wing press and the British Army’s intervention in Northern Ireland led some to believe that Britain was a nation of Colonial Oppressors. As Leyland had focused on these traditionally strong markets instead of its neighbours on the European Mainland, it was another nail in the coffin of BL and the knock on effects from disappearing markets for the Car Divisions hurt the previously profitable parts of the group, namely the Truck Division.
As I said in an earlier post, the Ergo cab was way past its sell by date (for the above reasons) it had a shaky start, as the warranty claims prove, but its basic design was streets ahead of the competition at the time it was introduced. Like a lot of products from the that era, the theory was very good, but in practice it was poorly developed and badly built. The Government, the Unions, the cavalier attitude of the management and workforce all contributed to this.
But in the mid 60s when it was introduced and the choice of lorry was between an Ergo cabbed, Albion, AEC or Leyland or the 1940s efforts from Atkinson, ERF, Foden or Scammell, I bet that most drivers would have gone for the Ergo. So that would make it a good cab from a driver’s point of view. It encompassed the complete range of heavy trucks from three manufacturers extensive vehicle ranges, so it made good business sense for both manufacturer and customer in terms of reduced costs of manufacture, replacement parts and the availibilty of them, so all in all, it was a good cab 
gingerfold:
ramone:
For me personally its much more enjoyable reading a book of facts rather than an internet forum i bought the full serirs of AEC books you wrote (i think) but lent them to my dad never to be seen againI have a few remaining of each title in my “publishers’ retained stock” for copyright reasons. If you want to have a ride over the hill one weekend I can replace them for you.
I will take you up on that offer Graham i`m starting a new job with the company i work for next week so im going to be busy for a few weekends but i will get in touch,thanks.
newmercman:
In 1968 Leyland Motors had a 4% profit margin on sales of 50 million GBP, this low margin was mostly attributed to warranty claims on the Ergomatic cab. It should have underlined that the Truck Division could no longer be used for cash flow within the group as the lack of development work on the cab, due to low funding, was taking its toll, but as we all know, that never happened, the drain on group resources hit the truck division hardest as the squeakiest wheels (Austin and Morris) were getting the most oil. Austin Morris were to continue draining the group’s finances until the money ran out and the Government stepped in. By this time the Truck Division had fallen too far behind to catch up. The T45 range was too little too late and the rest is history.One other important consideration, which relates to the poor development due to lack of funding, is the fact that the British part of the company name didn’t endear the products to some of the markets that had once been strong for Leyland Group Trucks. Buyers had taken exception to Britain’s involment in the Suez crisis. There was also the widely reported industrial action turmoil in the right wing press and the British Army’s intervention in Northern Ireland led some to believe that Britain was a nation of Colonial Oppressors. As Leyland had focused on these traditionally strong markets instead of its neighbours on the European Mainland, it was another nail in the coffin of BL and the knock on effects from disappearing markets for the Car Divisions hurt the previously profitable parts of the group, namely the Truck Division.
As I said in an earlier post, the Ergo cab was way past its sell by date (for the above reasons) it had a shaky start, as the warranty claims prove, but its basic design was streets ahead of the competition at the time it was introduced. Like a lot of products from the that era, the theory was very good, but in practice it was poorly developed and badly built. The Government, the Unions, the cavalier attitude of the management and workforce all contributed to this.
But in the mid 60s when it was introduced and the choice of lorry was between an Ergo cabbed, Albion, AEC or Leyland or the 1940s efforts from Atkinson, ERF, Foden or Scammell, I bet that most drivers would have gone for the Ergo. So that would make it a good cab from a driver’s point of view. It encompassed the complete range of heavy trucks from three manufacturers extensive vehicle ranges, so it made good business sense for both manufacturer and customer in terms of reduced costs of manufacture, replacement parts and the availibilty of them, so all in all, it was a good cab
So not a million miles away from what I’ve been saying. 
Which just leaves a slight disagreement concerning my view in that any worker employed somewhere like AEC,jut as in any other sector of the engineering industry,would have been selected at the recruitment stage on the basis of being able to work from all drawings provided and to all the tolerances listed on those drawings in return for the wage stated at the time.
Hopefully that might explain the erroneous generalisation and propaganda used by the bean counters to cover for their failings in trying to put the blame on those who were putting the things together.IE what was produced would have been what was in the drawings nothing less nothing more because regardless of so called union power no union could defend any employee sacked on grounds of incompetence and trust me not being able to work from drawings within tolerance would have been a sackable offence.While if you’re in an environment where those same bean counters are trying to cover up for underfunding it’s not surprising that trying to squeeze more work out of an employee for less money in real terms would be one of the methods at the top of the list.The results of that shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone with a basic idea of mathematics. 
As for working to drawings I’d stand by the idea that the Scammell Crusader certainly wasn’t a 1940’s design and was put together by one of the best truck manufacturing workforces to be found anywhere. 
newmercman:
In 1968 Leyland Motors had a 4% profit margin on sales of 50 million GBP, this low margin was mostly attributed to warranty claims on the Ergomatic cab. …
Is this true? I thought the warranty costs were attributed to failures across the board, including mechanical. Not much to go wrong with a cab, I would have thought, although I imagine the few instances of unintentional tilting required a bit of hush money!
[zb]
anorak:newmercman:
In 1968 Leyland Motors had a 4% profit margin on sales of 50 million GBP, this low margin was mostly attributed to warranty claims on the Ergomatic cab. …Is this true? I thought the warranty costs were attributed to failures across the board, including mechanical. Not much to go wrong with a cab, I would have thought, although I imagine the few instances of unintentional tilting required a bit of hush money!
Mostly attributed is what it says, however it doesn’t give a breakdown, but the costs must have been significant for it to get a mention at all 
Like you I’m not sure how the cab could account for a lot of warranty claims, it was too new to have rusted away, maybe there were some fundamental flaws in the design which, rather than being engineered out (or dealt with before production) were left to be fixed under warranty as the cash starved Truck Division had no other choice 
I was referring to Scammell’s other designs rather than the Crusader, so excuse my omission, but in fairness it was designed to be used by BRS and not for the open market. However I remember hearing somewhere, I think it may have been in a speech by Garel Rhys, that if you put the Crusader chassis and a Rolls engined Marathon chassis side by side, for every inch of pipework or wiring on the Scammell, there were two on the Leyland, a lot of the components on the Leyland products were from the parts bin so were shoehorned into place, whereas the Scammell was a proper design job
newmercman:
[zb]
anorak:newmercman:
In 1968 Leyland Motors had a 4% profit margin on sales of 50 million GBP, this low margin was mostly attributed to warranty claims on the Ergomatic cab. …Is this true? I thought the warranty costs were attributed to failures across the board, including mechanical. Not much to go wrong with a cab, I would have thought, although I imagine the few instances of unintentional tilting required a bit of hush money!
Mostly attributed is what it says, however it doesn’t give a breakdown, but the costs must have been significant for it to get a mention at all
Like you I’m not sure how the cab could account for a lot of warranty claims, it was too new to have rusted away, maybe there were some fundamental flaws in the design which, rather than being engineered out (or dealt with before production) were left to be fixed under warranty as the cash starved Truck Division had no other choice
I was referring to Scammell’s other designs rather than the Crusader, so excuse my omission, but in fairness it was designed to be used by BRS and not for the open market. However I remember hearing somewhere, I think it may have been in a speech by Garel Rhys, that if you put the Crusader chassis and a Rolls engined Marathon chassis side by side, for every inch of pipework or wiring on the Scammell, there were two on the Leyland, a lot of the components on the Leyland products were from the parts bin so were shoehorned into place, whereas the Scammell was a proper design job
Just a thought on this ,but if you look the ergo was basically the same cab with little improvement over the years (AEC none at all ) so if there were warranty claims on the early ergos surely this would have continued throughout production unless there were subtle changes which were un noticable.I would imagine it would be more of a mechanical nature with the V8 being 1 of the costly mistakes but not on its own