[zb]
anorak:
0
I’ve seen a number of similar signs around the Leatherhead district IIRC.Bewick.
Carryfast:
That 9 litre Scania looks to be well-specified for 40 tonne operation, wouldn’t you say?
It looks a bit overloaded to me, too.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
0That 9 litre Scania looks to be well-specified for 40 tonne operation, wouldn’t you say?
It’s obviously written up in the correct livery to match the spec too. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THEREFirstly you’re comparing apples and oranges in the form of turbocharged engines v naturally aspirated ones and the reason why the 8LXB was such a boat anchor was because of that reason which actually made it’s specific torque output hopeless by comparison.However it’s no good going to all the trouble of making an engine run reliably with forced induction,together with the resulting high specific torque output,and then throw the advantage away by using a small engine capacity which defeats the object in regards to both reliability and making the most of the advantage created by forced induction.When the idea is to optimise that advantage by using it together with a reasonable bore and stroke measurement and therefore a reasonably large overall capacity.
Which explains where we are now ever since the first generations of the idea,in the form of examples like the Volvo F10/12/16,DAF 2800/3600/95/XF,6 and 8 cylinder Scanias and numerous 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ variants etc etc over the years have showed that it’s the relatively large capacity,turbocharged,engine idea,as opposed to small higher speed diesels in the form of examples like the Volvo F7 and DAF 2300/2500,which was,and still is,the way to go to get the best combination of productivety,efficiency and reliability,at least for 24-30 t + operations and the Leyland 500 idea was no exception to that.
While the issue seems to confirm,at least in my view,that Dr Fogg’s idea,concerning the documented fixed head AEC 700 ( as opposed to the smaller Leyland 500 ),was all about trying to get ahead in that high specific torque output race by combining the idea of high boost levels with a reasonably sized engine,having used the fixed head idea as a way of circumventing the obvious foreseeable possibility of resulting block to head joint problems.
So CF if you had run a haulage company in the mid `70s and won a large contract, but part of that contract was an insistence that you had vehicles that could carry 22 tons payload what vehicles would you operate ■■?
Firstly I think there seems to be a lot of exaggeration concerning the so called weight ‘advantages’ of using a smaller engine v the efficiency,productivety,durabilty advantages of using a larger one.It seems obvious that in the case of engine weights it’s all about steer axle weight and in the real world it’s unlikely that the weight distribution of a load will be that critical in regards to steer axle weight and/or be possible to place to make use of,what is a relatively small engine weight advantage anyway,at least in terms of long haul uk/international general haulage work which was supposedly one of the main market design aims of the 500.
As for me,if it was a case of choosing the best Leyland product,I’d have followed BRS example and gone for the Crusader with the most powerful Rolls option possible which seems to have been the 305 and let the weight issue ‘look after itself’.Although it would have been interesting to have seen just what Dr Fogg’s fixed head AEC 700 could have done running at turbocharger boost levels up to the limits of it’s components without the block to head joint issue to worry about.
I think you
ll find that magical 22 ton payload was very much in demand in the70s and thats probably why the Leyland products and the F86 were so popular at that time .Theres no way you could have used the 2800 or the 110/111 or the F88/F10 and achieved 22 tons payload and id be very suprised if the Crusader would have got there either.The mandator my dad drove could carry 22.5 tons payload and the F86 was very similarIt’s ironic that we’re probably having the exact same discussion here now as that which probably took place back then between Dr Fogg working for AEC v Leyland’s management regarding the best option between using a relatively larger engine v a relatively smaller one.
It’s even more ironic that many of those who seem to have blamed Leyland for not allowing AEC to just get on with the job in the AEC ( and the Scammell ) way,then seem to support what actually happened in that AEC got lumbered by being involved with to a large extent, and then inevitably suffered,by association,the long term results of,the Leyland Truck Group using retrograde Leyland cab and engine designs.
Even more ironically the reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Leyland’s management wanting to wipe out AEC but actually being all about the fact that the money just wasn’t there to do anything better.
The fact is,both in the case of long haul cab design and heavy truck engine specifications,the reality of truck development history,over the years to date,seems to be,more or less,on Dr Fogg’s ( and my ) side of the argument in that both for cab design and engine design,bigger is generally better.Just as is the case in every other definition of what it takes to make an efficient heavy truck.
So what you
re really saying isill ignore the question and go round the houses to deflect from answering what you were asked.And for your imformation AEC never ever used Leyland designed or built engines and the AV/AH760 was a 12.47 litre so it wasnt actually small .The question was which units would you have used in the mid `70s if you needed to achieve a 22 ton payload ,which was vital for some operations when the weight limit was only 32 tonsI didn’t ignore the question at all what I said was that I’d have just done what BRS obviously did in that the Crusader was obviously good enough to run a haulage operation regardless of the ( arguable ) weight ‘issues’ and regardless of what my competitors chose to do in that case being that my personal view would have been that it’s not worth compromising on basic truck spec in order to cater for an arguable weight penalty.
The problem for AEC was that it’s fortunes were tied in with the Leyland Truck Group as a whole and the fact is that Group ‘as a whole’ was led down the blind alley of concentrating on exactly your type of view which led to products like the 500 powered ERGO cabbed Leyland products which didn’t do anything to help the Group’s fortunes.
As for the 760 the question is would the fixed head 700 idea have proved to be the better option from the point of view of specific outputs,being that the TL12 was,more or less,as good as AEC’s engine designs got.Which as history shows wasn’t up to competing with Rolls or ■■■■■■■ products in the T45.Wether that would have been the case if the money wasted on designing,producing and fixing the 500 ( and the L60 ) had been invested in developing the TL12 instead is open to question but unfortunately can’t ever be answered.
So in the highly unlikely event of you ever being a haulier in the 70s not only would you ignore what as been said on here by people who actually did just that (ran haulage companies) you would ignore your customers requests of needing 22 tons payload (crusader with 22 tons payload ■■?) The relevance of all this is that the vehicles you so quickly dismiss as dustcarts or the such were actually needed for certain operations.The Marathon was introduced to compete with higher powered vehicles where payload wasnt critical in their operation.The reason the TL12 was eventually dropped was nothing to do with its performance but more to do with the costs of producing it ,in a market where mixed fleet operators wanted to standardise on 1 engine.
ramone:
The problem for AEC was that it’s fortunes were tied in with the Leyland Truck Group as a whole and the fact is that Group ‘as a whole’ was led down the blind alley of concentrating on exactly your type of view which led to products like the 500 powered ERGO cabbed Leyland products which didn’t do anything to help the Group’s fortunes.As for the 760 the question is would the fixed head 700 idea have proved to be the better option from the point of view of specific outputs,being that the TL12 was,more or less,as good as AEC’s engine designs got.Which as history shows wasn’t up to competing with Rolls or ■■■■■■■ products in the T45.Wether that would have been the case if the money wasted on designing,producing and fixing the 500 ( and the L60 ) had been invested in developing the TL12 instead is open to question but unfortunately can’t ever be answered.
So in the highly unlikely event of you ever being a haulier in the 70s not only would you ignore what as been said on here by people who actually did just that (ran haulage companies) you would ignore your customers requests of needing 22 tons payload (crusader with 22 tons payload ■■?) The relevance of all this is that the vehicles you so quickly dismiss as dustcarts or the such were actually needed for certain operations.The Marathon was introduced to compete with higher powered vehicles where payload wasnt critical in their operation.The reason the TL12 was eventually dropped was nothing to do with its performance but more to do with the costs of producing it ,in a market where mixed fleet operators wanted to standardise on 1 engine.
[/quote]
I think BRS fits the description of a haulage operation and it’s buying policy seemed to reflect Scammell’s design aims in the Crusader obviously both of which weren’t exactly a million miles away from my views,as opposed to yours.
As for the TL12 I think the reasons for it being dropped in favour of Rolls or ■■■■■■■ options had more to do with customers realising that it couldn’t provide anything like close to the ideal 10 hp per tonne at 32t gross let alone 38t gross operations than anything to do with wanting to ‘standardise on 1 engine’ cosidering that the options of Rolls or ■■■■■■■ are actually more than just 1.But the relevant bit is that those customers were ‘actually’ ( rightly ) calling for a bigger cab not a smaller one and decent sized Rolls or ■■■■■■■ engines with 320 hp +,not the 500 ERGO idea of small cab and small engine to allow a ‘bit more payload’.Which probably would have ‘looked after itself’ anyway.Although no surprise,as usual,the Brit customers were a bit slower in understanding the idea of speccing right power outputs and truck for the job than their foreign counterparts which,as usual,was all about typical British customer austerity thinking in regards to cost,not weight. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
The problem for AEC was that it’s fortunes were tied in with the Leyland Truck Group as a whole and the fact is that Group ‘as a whole’ was led down the blind alley of concentrating on exactly your type of view which led to products like the 500 powered ERGO cabbed Leyland products which didn’t do anything to help the Group’s fortunes.As for the 760 the question is would the fixed head 700 idea have proved to be the better option from the point of view of specific outputs,being that the TL12 was,more or less,as good as AEC’s engine designs got.Which as history shows wasn’t up to competing with Rolls or ■■■■■■■ products in the T45.Wether that would have been the case if the money wasted on designing,producing and fixing the 500 ( and the L60 ) had been invested in developing the TL12 instead is open to question but unfortunately can’t ever be answered.
So in the highly unlikely event of you ever being a haulier in the
70s not only would you ignore what as been said on here by people who actually did just that (ran haulage companies) you would ignore your customers requests of needing 22 tons payload (crusader with 22 tons payload ■■?) The relevance of all this is that the vehicles you so quickly dismiss as dustcarts or the such were actually needed for certain operations.The Marathon was introduced to compete with higher powered vehicles where payload wasnt critical in their operation.The reason the TL12 was eventually dropped was nothing to do with its performance but more to do with the costs of producing it ,in a market where mixed fleet operators wanted to standardise on 1 engine.
I think BRS fits the description of a haulage operation and it’s buying policy seemed to reflect Scammell’s design aims in the Crusader obviously both of which weren’t exactly a million miles away from my views,as opposed to yours.
As for the TL12 I think the reasons for it being dropped in favour of Rolls or ■■■■■■■ options had more to do with customers realising that it couldn’t provide anything like close to the ideal 10 hp per tonne at 32t gross let alone 38t gross operations than anything to do with wanting to ‘standardise on 1 engine’ cosidering that the options of Rolls or ■■■■■■■ are actually more than just 1.But the relevant bit is that those customers were ‘actually’ ( rightly ) calling for a bigger cab not a smaller one and decent sized Rolls or ■■■■■■■ engines with 320 hp +,not the 500 ERGO idea of small cab and small engine to allow a ‘bit more payload’.Which probably would have ‘looked after itself’ anyway.Although no surprise,as usual,the Brit customers were a bit slower in understanding the idea of speccing right power outputs and truck for the job than their foreign counterparts which,as usual,was all about typical British customer austerity thinking in regards to cost,not weight.
farm3.staticflickr.com/2608/4133 … f0a3_b.jpg
commercialmotor.com/big-lorr … -the-front
[/quote]
So where does the 500 come into all this ,you are talking down the TL12 which at around 280 bhp was correctly not going to compete with the 320 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ royce in 38 ton category but the 500 was early 70s ,the crusader was 1 of quite a few marques used by BRS they never standardised on crusaders only, they probably used mandators/big js and the like for the heavier payload requirements.The payload factor was very important to some hauliers like the petrol companies ,tipper men and quite a few others.Did you ever realise that many of those tankers you saw on the motorways with shiney alloy wheels were for weight saving reasons and not to make them look like something from over the pond
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
0That 9 litre Scania looks to be well-specified for 40 tonne operation, wouldn’t you say?
It looks a bit overloaded to me, too.
Shouldnt it be double drive
kr79:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
0That 9 litre Scania looks to be well-specified for 40 tonne operation, wouldn’t you say?
It looks a bit overloaded to me, too.
Shouldnt it be double drive
He’s not daft. He gets someone else to specify the vehicles, load them and drive them.
ramone:
I think BRS fits the description of a haulage operation and it’s buying policy seemed to reflect Scammell’s design aims in the Crusader obviously both of which weren’t exactly a million miles away from my views,as opposed to yours.As for the TL12 I think the reasons for it being dropped in favour of Rolls or ■■■■■■■ options had more to do with customers realising that it couldn’t provide anything like close to the ideal 10 hp per tonne at 32t gross let alone 38t gross operations than anything to do with wanting to ‘standardise on 1 engine’ cosidering that the options of Rolls or ■■■■■■■ are actually more than just 1.But the relevant bit is that those customers were ‘actually’ ( rightly ) calling for a bigger cab not a smaller one and decent sized Rolls or ■■■■■■■ engines with 320 hp +,not the 500 ERGO idea of small cab and small engine to allow a ‘bit more payload’.Which probably would have ‘looked after itself’ anyway.Although no surprise,as usual,the Brit customers were a bit slower in understanding the idea of speccing right power outputs and truck for the job than their foreign counterparts which,as usual,was all about typical British customer austerity thinking in regards to cost,not weight.
So where does the 500 come into all this ,you are talking down the TL12 which at around 280 bhp was correctly not going to compete with the 320 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ royce in 38 ton category but the 500 was early 70s ,the crusader was 1 of quite a few marques used by BRS they never standardised on crusaders only, they probably used mandators/big js and the like for the heavier payload requirements.The payload factor was very important to some hauliers like the petrol companies ,tipper men and quite a few others.Did you ever realise that many of those tankers you saw on the motorways with shiney alloy wheels were for weight saving reasons and not to make them look like something from over the pond
[/quote]
The 500 ( and the ERGO/Marathon ) fits into all this because they were both major contributors in putting the Leyland Truck Group out of being a credible contender in the heavy/long haul truck market sector in which they were placed.
If your logic is correct then no one with any sense would have ever used an 11 litre + tractor unit with a decent cab on tanker work.
Evening Gentlemen, oh dear…I see that the kindergarden is out again!
Interesting to note that in 1979 the dear old “Ergo” Marathon accounted for 7.5% of the 28tonnes plus market in the UK. And that was a huge share!! 1980 Marathon 2 arrived, with ■■■■■■■ 290, (actually 273, if I remember correctly), the TL12 being utilised for the T45 Range. The Leyland ■■■■■■■ installation was generally regarded as the best gear/axle/chassis installation of this engine of all UK builders…bar none, and was streets ahead of the 250 powered vehicle, (and those of other “assemblers”).
Cab appointments were improved, and overall it was a very good vehicle to operate…oh and you could legally couple the sleeper to a 40ft trailer inside C&U regs. Just how many imports could do that?..pity our enforcement people allowed that to slip by.
Now the TL12 “Flexi-Torque”, (I wonder where the Leyland marketing men got the idea for that name from)? A lovely lorry to drive, I bought some in 85,no problems on an “own account”, 80,000miles pa, 32tonnes always loaded,only preventative and routine maintenance costs. Achieved their budget, realised more than their Guaranteed buy back, and all six went down to South Wales, and new homes after 48months. (When I eventually unpack all my boxes, I can quote the reg numbers…someone may have owned one of my little beauties)!!!
The use of the Rolls Engine in the French market was a master stroke, the cudos of the" prestige" name, the power output, and the sheer “driveability” of the well engineered design, both in Marathon, as well as T45 form. In a stagnant market, at competitive, but not “factory gate” pricing they sold well. So well that at one marketing meeting I had to draw the attention of my assembled French “brass”, to the fact that Leyland had sold in the same period more lorries in France…than combined sales of Saviem and Berliet in the UK, at the time a strong tractor market. Roger Doughety ran the French business well, just a shame that our Dutch cousins killed it off to help themselves when they were “given” Leyland.
That Marathon cab may look “gawky” but it was a good design, a little old, but not a bad work place, and immesurably better as a driving and living enviroment to the Scammel Crusader. That Motor Panels “envelope” was never as well designed, or as thought out as the Ergomatic shell, and anyone who claims it was…well, they really have little experience of lorries.
Ineed a Bollinger, 6oil and filter changes this morning, (all John Deere), and everyone working this afternoon! Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Evening Gentlemen, oh dear…I see that the kindergarden is out again!Interesting to note that in 1979 the dear old “Ergo” Marathon accounted for 7.5% of the 28tonnes plus market in the UK. And that was a huge share!! 1980 Marathon 2 arrived, with ■■■■■■■ 290, (actually 273, if I remember correctly), the TL12 being utilised for the T45 Range. The Leyland ■■■■■■■ installation was generally regarded as the best gear/axle/chassis installation of this engine of all UK builders…bar none, and was streets ahead of the 250 powered vehicle, (and those of other “assemblers”).
Cab appointments were improved, and overall it was a very good vehicle to operate…oh and you could legally couple the sleeper to a 40ft trailer inside C&U regs. Just how many imports could do that?..pity our enforcement people allowed that to slip by.
Now the TL12 “Flexi-Torque”, (I wonder where the Leyland marketing men got the idea for that name from)? A lovely lorry to drive, I bought some in 85,no problems on an “own account”, 80,000miles pa, 32tonnes always loaded,only preventative and routine maintenance costs. Achieved their budget, realised more than their Guaranteed buy back, and all six went down to South Wales, and new homes after 48months. (When I eventually unpack all my boxes, I can quote the reg numbers…someone may have owned one of my little beauties)!!!
The use of the Rolls Engine in the French market was a master stroke, the cudos of the" prestige" name, the power output, and the sheer “driveability” of the well engineered design, both in Marathon, as well as T45 form. In a stagnant market, at competitive, but not “factory gate” pricing they sold well. So well that at one marketing meeting I had to draw the attention of my assembled French “brass”, to the fact that Leyland had sold in the same period more lorries in France…than combined sales of Saviem and Berliet in the UK, at the time a strong tractor market. Roger Doughety ran the French business well, just a shame that our Dutch cousins killed it off to help themselves when they were “given” Leyland.
That Marathon cab may look “gawky” but it was a good design, a little old, but not a bad work place, and immesurably better as a driving and living enviroment to the Scammel Crusader. That Motor Panels “envelope” was never as well designed, or as thought out as the Ergomatic shell, and anyone who claims it was…well, they really have little experience of lorries.
Ineed a Bollinger, 6oil and filter changes this morning, (all John Deere), and everyone working this afternoon! Cheerio for now.
Firstly the idea that nothing except the Marathon’s ERGO based shed was legally able to be coupled to a 40 foot trailer seems to be on the same bs level as chalk marks needed around the wheels of wagons on a loading dock because the driver has run out of time while waiting to get tipped.Which would also have made a Trans Con,TM and an SA 400 illegal when coupled to a 40 foot trailer too.
The idea that both the TL12 ‘and’ the Rolls were the right engines for the T45 is a contradiction.The fact is,like the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ option,the Rolls was needed because the TL12 had arguably run out of development potential,( not helped by the fact that the Leyland Group had run out of money to develop it even if it hadn’t ),to provide a sufficient output for running at 32 t gross let alone 38 t.Just as Scammell already knew from the time of introduction of the Crusader using the Rolls engine option.
Ah, a return to sanity, in which the desire to learn actual fact replaces the need to preach opinion.
Just a minor point- the Marathon 2 was introduced in 1978, then the T45 in 1980, if I remember correctly. Regarding the short sleeper on the 2: what did operators do with the original Marathon, and the Ergo sleeper, which was (I think) the same length- break the law with 40ft trailers? If so, why did Leyland introduce an illegal vehicle in the first place? Why did the Government allow it, initially? Did enforcement of the length law become stronger in the late 1970s, forcing Leyland into the expense of engineering a retrograde step (smaller cab) into their flagship model? What were the lawmakers thinking- they could have fiddled the legislation to make the long sleeper legal, just like they fiddled the company car tax rules to favour the 1800 BL engine over the 1600/2000 Ford?
Carryfast:
Saviem:
Evening Gentlemen, oh dear…I see that the kindergarden is out again!Interesting to note that in 1979 the dear old “Ergo” Marathon accounted for 7.5% of the 28tonnes plus market in the UK. And that was a huge share!! 1980 Marathon 2 arrived, with ■■■■■■■ 290, (actually 273, if I remember correctly), the TL12 being utilised for the T45 Range. The Leyland ■■■■■■■ installation was generally regarded as the best gear/axle/chassis installation of this engine of all UK builders…bar none, and was streets ahead of the 250 powered vehicle, (and those of other “assemblers”).
Cab appointments were improved, and overall it was a very good vehicle to operate…oh and you could legally couple the sleeper to a 40ft trailer inside C&U regs. Just how many imports could do that?..pity our enforcement people allowed that to slip by.
Now the TL12 “Flexi-Torque”, (I wonder where the Leyland marketing men got the idea for that name from)? A lovely lorry to drive, I bought some in 85,no problems on an “own account”, 80,000miles pa, 32tonnes always loaded,only preventative and routine maintenance costs. Achieved their budget, realised more than their Guaranteed buy back, and all six went down to South Wales, and new homes after 48months. (When I eventually unpack all my boxes, I can quote the reg numbers…someone may have owned one of my little beauties)!!!
The use of the Rolls Engine in the French market was a master stroke, the cudos of the" prestige" name, the power output, and the sheer “driveability” of the well engineered design, both in Marathon, as well as T45 form. In a stagnant market, at competitive, but not “factory gate” pricing they sold well. So well that at one marketing meeting I had to draw the attention of my assembled French “brass”, to the fact that Leyland had sold in the same period more lorries in France…than combined sales of Saviem and Berliet in the UK, at the time a strong tractor market. Roger Doughety ran the French business well, just a shame that our Dutch cousins killed it off to help themselves when they were “given” Leyland.
That Marathon cab may look “gawky” but it was a good design, a little old, but not a bad work place, and immesurably better as a driving and living enviroment to the Scammel Crusader. That Motor Panels “envelope” was never as well designed, or as thought out as the Ergomatic shell, and anyone who claims it was…well, they really have little experience of lorries.
Ineed a Bollinger, 6oil and filter changes this morning, (all John Deere), and everyone working this afternoon! Cheerio for now.
Firstly the idea that nothing except the Marathon’s ERGO based shed was legally able to be coupled to a 40 foot trailer seems to be on the same bs level as chalk marks needed around the wheels of wagons on a loading dock because the driver has run out of time while waiting to get tipped.Which would also have made a Trans Con,TM and an SA 400 illegal when coupled to a 40 foot trailer too.
The idea that both the TL12 ‘and’ the Rolls were the right engines for the T45 is a contradiction.The fact is,like the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ option,the Rolls was needed because the TL12 had arguably run out of development potential,( not helped by the fact that the Leyland Group had run out of money to develop it even if it hadn’t ),to provide a sufficient output for running at 32 t gross let alone 38 t.Just as Scammell already knew from the time of introduction of the Crusader using the Rolls engine option.
I must admit ive had a few beers but ive read this post 15 times and i still cant find the bit where saviem says that only the marathon was legally able to be coupled up to a 40 foot trailer . The reason Leyland or AEC offered optional engines in the Marathon was ,going back to where Leyland made their initial mistakes ,offering the customers what they required ,so if you had a mixed bag of ERF ,Foden ,SA for example you could specify the same engine in all ,thats no slur on the TL12 its just giving the operator more choice ,i wonder what CF would have made of the Marathon if they had put the V8 DD under the cab .Scammell introduced the Crusader in the very late 60s early 70s and guess what, the very first engine it had which was on show was a V8 Aec engine ,registration WGE 318H it was operated by George Hempill in Glasgow…google is a wonderful tool … i have far too much time on my hands 
Anorak, you are quite right, 78 Marathon 2, 80, T45. The C&U regs were a complete contradiction, if the industry had been involved then the representatives must have had little impact on the civil servants.But remember UK legislators favoured Rail, from the 20s on, so Road Transport received no favours.
That stricter enforcement of UK C&U legislation should have been made I have no doubt. Importers should have had to comply, before being able to sell here, the same with UK manufacturers who fudged the rules, and hoped to get by, not leave it to the end user to hope for the best…oh but that is the British way.
All sorts of anomalies were created, gingerfold well illustrates one, with the Mammouth Minor. Others will remember the truly frightening creations by the assemblers to validate a potential rise in gtw to 44tonnes. Today they look archane, in their day they were enormous, unstable, and badly engineered. But how else to move forward?
Move forward…if any one in the hire and reward sector had any brains they would have stayed at 32, or gone down to 28tonnes, and pushed for a return to stricter licensing. Why, to preserve income and margin, rather than the free for all that prevails even to the present day…but why worry, another will be along in a minute.
Cheerio for now.
ramone:
Carryfast:
Saviem:
Interesting to note that in 1979 the dear old “Ergo” Marathon accounted for 7.5% of the 28tonnes plus market in the UK. And that was a huge share!! 1980 Marathon 2 arrived, with ■■■■■■■ 290, (actually 273, if I remember correctly), the TL12 being utilised for the T45 Range. The Leyland ■■■■■■■ installation was generally regarded as the best gear/axle/chassis installation of this engine of all UK builders…bar none, and was streets ahead of the 250 powered vehicle, (and those of other “assemblers”).Cab appointments were improved, and overall it was a very good vehicle to operate…oh and you could legally couple the sleeper to a 40ft trailer inside C&U regs. Just how many imports could do that?..pity our enforcement people allowed that to slip by.
Firstly the idea that nothing except the Marathon’s ERGO based shed was legally able to be coupled to a 40 foot trailer seems to be on the same bs level as chalk marks needed around the wheels of wagons on a loading dock because the driver has run out of time while waiting to get tipped.Which would also have made a Trans Con,TM and an SA 400 illegal when coupled to a 40 foot trailer too.
The idea that both the TL12 ‘and’ the Rolls were the right engines for the T45 is a contradiction.The fact is,like the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ option,the Rolls was needed because the TL12 had arguably run out of development potential,( not helped by the fact that the Leyland Group had run out of money to develop it even if it hadn’t ),to provide a sufficient output for running at 32 t gross let alone 38 t.Just as Scammell already knew from the time of introduction of the Crusader using the Rolls engine option.
I must admit ive had a few beers but ive read this post 15 times and i still cant find the bit where saviem says that only the marathon was legally able to be coupled up to a 40 foot trailer . The reason Leyland or AEC offered optional engines in the Marathon was ,going back to where Leyland made their initial mistakes ,offering the customers what they required ,so if you had a mixed bag of ERF ,Foden ,SA for example you could specify the same engine in all ,thats no slur on the TL12 its just giving the operator more choice ,i wonder what CF would have made of the Marathon if they had put the V8 DD under the cab .Scammell introduced the Crusader in the very late
60s early70s and guess what, the very first engine it had which was on show was a V8 Aec engine ,registration WGE 318H it was operated by George Hempill in Glasgow…google is a wonderful tool … i have far too much time on my hands
The issue of the TL12 not being powerful enough for even a well specced 32 t gross let alone 38 t gross wagon,by the standards of the time of T45’s introduction,was a foreseeable fact not a slur.Which,like everything else concerning the Leyland Group,was all about lack of funding to develop it or make anything better.Which is why Scammell had already long before decided to offer the Rolls engine option in the Crusader.As for the AEC V8 it’s no surprise that Scammell decided to fit the proven,more powerful and reliable Detroit 8V71 over the AEC V8 to cater for it’s V8 options although it seems obvious that the 300 + hp 4 stroke Rolls option was always going to be a better idea for the uk and euroland sales.The fact is Scammell already knew in the case of the Crusader’s engine options,what Leyland realised much later with the T45,and that had nothing whatsoever to do with customers wanting to integrate their buying policies concerning putting the same type of engine in different trucks.
Your perception,as per normal Saviem, is spot on regaring the “dogs breakfast” of C & U regs thru’ the 60’s and into the '70’s,although I am not fully conversant with said regs I do recall that the introduction of the 40 footer semi trailers was a real “■■■■■■■ to a lot of old,well established,hauliers who were running what was,at that time,state of the art 33foot trailers (16 pallets) then up popped the 40 footer and you guessed it."Please “Mr customer” we are now running some new 40 footers and we will gladly carry 20 pallets for the same price as “Old Joe Bloggs” charges you for 16 !!I re-call that Robsons of Carlisle caught a right cold as they had at that time a huge fleet of 33 foot tandems (mainly Northerns),it cost them a fortune to re-equip I believe.Another old pal of mine I re-call,the late Alex Boyes Jnr of A.D.Boyes, having a right rant about customers not willing to pay for the extra 7ft of space!! But as you suggest the haulage industry is it’s own worst enemy but also I contend as a result of the introduction of Operators licencing which abandoned the old,well established, Carriers licence system of having to demonstrate the need for additional capacity before the grant of additional ULW tonnage and adopting a system of “every man and his dog” could be granted an Operators licence merely by showing they had “access” to enough working capital to maintain the vehicle/s.No mention was made of the fact that this “new operator” would then attempt to “cut the nads” off a job that a long established operator had been hauling for years,and yes you are quite correct the same suicidal mindset is still alive and well to-day I’m sad to say.Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Your perception,as per normal Saviem, is spot on regaring the “dogs breakfast” of C & U regs thru’ the 60’s and into the '70’s,although I am not fully conversant with said regs I do recall that the introduction of the 40 footer semi trailers was a real “■■■■■■■ to a lot of old,well established,hauliers who were running what was,at that time,state of the art 33foot trailers (16 pallets) then up popped the 40 footer and you guessed it."Please “Mr customer” we are now running some new 40 footers and we will gladly carry 20 pallets for the same price as “Old Joe Bloggs” charges you for 16 !!I re-call that Robsons of Carlisle caught a right cold as they had at that time a huge fleet of 33 foot tandems (mainly Northerns),it cost them a fortune to re-equip I believe.Another old pal of mine I re-call,the late Alex Boyes Jnr of A.D.Boyes, having a right rant about customers not willing to pay for the extra 7ft of space!! But as you suggest the haulage industry is it’s own worst enemy but also I contend as a result of the introduction of Operators licencing which abandoned the old,well established, Carriers licence system of having to demonstrate the need for additional capacity before the grant of additional ULW tonnage and adopting a system of “every man and his dog” could be granted an Operators licence merely by showing they had “access” to enough working capital to maintain the vehicle/s.No mention was made of the fact that this “new operator” would then attempt to “cut the nads” off a job that a long established operator had been hauling for years,and yes you are quite correct the same suicidal mindset is still alive and well to-day I’m sad to say.Cheers Dennis.
The fact is the road transport industry anywhere has never moved forwards by going backwards in terms of load deck space and heavier weight capacity and/or restrictions in regards to those entering the industry.As Saviem would probably know the extra load space and heavier weights,provided by freedom in legislation,which allowed the typical larger,heavier,continental type draw bar outfits and artics of the time found throughout France and Italy,let alone Holland and Germany,often operated by an ‘owner driver’ using the house garden for parking, and who wouldn’t even know what the idea of ‘Carrier Licencing’ meant,obviously didn’t do the European haulage industry and truck manufacturers any harm.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Your perception,as per normal Saviem, is spot on regaring the “dogs breakfast” of C & U regs thru’ the 60’s and into the '70’s,although I am not fully conversant with said regs I do recall that the introduction of the 40 footer semi trailers was a real “■■■■■■■ to a lot of old,well established,hauliers who were running what was,at that time,state of the art 33foot trailers (16 pallets) then up popped the 40 footer and you guessed it."Please “Mr customer” we are now running some new 40 footers and we will gladly carry 20 pallets for the same price as “Old Joe Bloggs” charges you for 16 !!I re-call that Robsons of Carlisle caught a right cold as they had at that time a huge fleet of 33 foot tandems (mainly Northerns),it cost them a fortune to re-equip I believe.Another old pal of mine I re-call,the late Alex Boyes Jnr of A.D.Boyes, having a right rant about customers not willing to pay for the extra 7ft of space!! But as you suggest the haulage industry is it’s own worst enemy but also I contend as a result of the introduction of Operators licencing which abandoned the old,well established, Carriers licence system of having to demonstrate the need for additional capacity before the grant of additional ULW tonnage and adopting a system of “every man and his dog” could be granted an Operators licence merely by showing they had “access” to enough working capital to maintain the vehicle/s.No mention was made of the fact that this “new operator” would then attempt to “cut the nads” off a job that a long established operator had been hauling for years,and yes you are quite correct the same suicidal mindset is still alive and well to-day I’m sad to say.Cheers Dennis.The fact is the road transport industry anywhere has never moved forwards by going backwards in terms of load deck space and heavier weight capacity and/or restrictions in regards to those entering the industry.As Saviem would probably know the extra load space and heavier weights,provided by freedom in legislation,which allowed the typical larger,heavier,continental type draw bar outfits and artics of the time found throughout France and Italy,let alone Holland and Germany,often operated by an ‘owner driver’ using the house garden for parking, and who wouldn’t even know what the idea of ‘Carrier Licencing’ meant,obviously didn’t do the European haulage industry and truck manufacturers any harm.
What total and utter load of “Bollox” emanates from your ■■■■■■■■ “CF”,I’m going to ■■■■ off to bed now you’ve joined in,Zzzzzzzzz 
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Your perception,as per normal Saviem, is spot on regaring the “dogs breakfast” of C & U regs thru’ the 60’s and into the '70’s,although I am not fully conversant with said regs I do recall that the introduction of the 40 footer semi trailers was a real “■■■■■■■ to a lot of old,well established,hauliers who were running what was,at that time,state of the art 33foot trailers (16 pallets) then up popped the 40 footer and you guessed it."Please “Mr customer” we are now running some new 40 footers and we will gladly carry 20 pallets for the same price as “Old Joe Bloggs” charges you for 16 !!I re-call that Robsons of Carlisle caught a right cold as they had at that time a huge fleet of 33 foot tandems (mainly Northerns),it cost them a fortune to re-equip I believe.Another old pal of mine I re-call,the late Alex Boyes Jnr of A.D.Boyes, having a right rant about customers not willing to pay for the extra 7ft of space!! But as you suggest the haulage industry is it’s own worst enemy but also I contend as a result of the introduction of Operators licencing which abandoned the old,well established, Carriers licence system of having to demonstrate the need for additional capacity before the grant of additional ULW tonnage and adopting a system of “every man and his dog” could be granted an Operators licence merely by showing they had “access” to enough working capital to maintain the vehicle/s.No mention was made of the fact that this “new operator” would then attempt to “cut the nads” off a job that a long established operator had been hauling for years,and yes you are quite correct the same suicidal mindset is still alive and well to-day I’m sad to say.Cheers Dennis.The fact is the road transport industry anywhere has never moved forwards by going backwards in terms of load deck space and heavier weight capacity and/or restrictions in regards to those entering the industry.As Saviem would probably know the extra load space and heavier weights,provided by freedom in legislation,which allowed the typical larger,heavier,continental type draw bar outfits and artics of the time found throughout France and Italy,let alone Holland and Germany,often operated by an ‘owner driver’ using the house garden for parking, and who wouldn’t even know what the idea of ‘Carrier Licencing’ meant,obviously didn’t do the European haulage industry and truck manufacturers any harm.
What total and utter load of “Bollox” emanates from your [zb] “CF”,I’m going to [zb] off to bed now you’ve joined in,Zzzzzzzzz
It all depends on the definition of bollox.
No doubt going back to 33 foot trailers running somewhere between 28t and 32 t gross and nothing better than a Marathon 2 powered by a TL12 ( or an Atki powered by a 180 Gardner ) and the re introduction of Carrier Licencing to apply retrospectively,will be UKIP’s plan, for the revival of the uk road transport industry and the revival of Britain’s truck manufacturing industry,when they get elected.
It would probaly be more profitable than the current genral haulage market.
Up to a couple of years ago when banks were throwing money at people you ciuldnt open truck and driver without reading how someone started up owner driving by pulling boxes with a spanking new fh16 or v8 scsnia covred in lights and custom paint. How many are still going now as it takes a lot of 1.30 per miles to pay for it