BEST 'ERGO' ?

[newmercman]

Prior to deregulation, both in the UK and the Colonies, the lorry driver had the image of a Knight of the Road, post deregulation and the lorry driver is a second class citizen, a coincidence, I think not

It’s a serious business this haulage lark and under the old system you had to prove there was a need for your services, now you just need a few quid in the bank, which savings, a divorce/house sale, redundancy package or an inheritance can easily provide, so you get people who have no right to be in the business out there carving the job up

Carryfast (as usual ) you might want to listen to what Bewick has to say, the bloke has actually been there and done the job, maybe he should video himself and stick it on youtube, you might watch it then and learn something In your last few posts you clearly have no valid argument

To throw another thing into the mix, the NIMBY, do you think these jumped up tossers would be able to shut down a haulage company if there was a proven need for their services, they would get told to foxtrot oscar as the haulage company concerned would have demonstrated that they were a valuable asset to the local business community

Do you think that our roads would be full of Eastern European lorries No is the answer, even to the point where you could have got your dream job driving abroad, albeit not in a Detroit Diesel powered roadtrain

Do you think that our industry would have moved abroad Not so much, shipping costs would be at realistic levels, rather than the two balloons and a goldfish it costs to send stuff around the world now, so more industry would have stayed here, sure costs would be higher, but we would all have good paying jobs, so would easily afford it

You say you’re a Union Man and have a dislike of Thatcherite Principles, yet advocate the opposite in the next breath Make your mind up ffs

[gingerfold]

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.

Absolutely correct. Barbara Castle as Minister of Transport in the late 1960s destroyed the British Road Haulage Industry with various legislative acts and the implications are still with us today.

Carryfast can never see the overall “bigger picture”.

[gingerfold]

To return to Ramone’s question of some time ago. Well the Scammell Handyman could certainly achieve a 22 tons payload. Don’t know about the Crusader, never had any to operate.

Saviem,well-spotted, I posted the Mammoth Minor photo for a reason, which you quickly cottoned on to.

[gingerfold]

The options of ■■■■■■■ and Rolls Royce engines in the Marathon was aimed at Guy Big J customers for when the Big J range was discontinued, and as Ramone rightly states to give customers a choice and to provide some component standardisation in mixed marque fleets.

[gingerfold]

Having posted the ■■■■■■■ powered Guy Big J, there is a slight contradiction in that at the time this Big J entered service with Spillers, (early 1970s), Spillers was an entirely BL heavy fleet comprising Leylands (approx 80%) and AECs (20%), but it was the heyday of fixed head 500 engine failures in the Buffalos and there was a lengthy waiting list for Mandators and Mamoth Majors, so Spillers bought what else was available from BL, namely a few Big J tractors and Big J eight-wheelers with ■■■■■■■ engines, plus a couple of Scammell Handymans (should that by “Handymen”?) with Leyland 0.680 engines. Also at that time Seddon 32/4s with ■■■■■■■ engines entered Spillers’ fleet, which were just about the lightest and cheapest 32-ton tractor unit available.

[kr79]

Someone has probaly said it but i cant face reading through it all again but as the t45 range was replacing pretty much all leyland aec guy and scammell models it made sense to offer ■■■■■■ and rolls options to keep guy and scammel customers happy along with offering an alternative to operators operating other british makes-

[240_gardner]

VALKYRIE:
AN ATKINSON ERGOMATIC-CABBED? ! FIRE ENGINE.

Yes! I wonder if AtkiPete and Chris Gardner know about this Ergomatic-cabbed Atkinson fire engine
…it’s a real turn up for the books! And it makes you wonder why the builders selected the
Ergomatic cab.
VALKYRIE

Yes I did, thanks… but only since 1968

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Prior to deregulation, both in the UK and the Colonies, the lorry driver had the image of a Knight of the Road, post deregulation and the lorry driver is a second class citizen, a coincidence, I think not

It’s a serious business this haulage lark and under the old system you had to prove there was a need for your services, now you just need a few quid in the bank, which savings, a divorce/house sale, redundancy package or an inheritance can easily provide, so you get people who have no right to be in the business out there carving the job up

Carryfast (as usual ) you might want to listen to what Bewick has to say, the bloke has actually been there and done the job, maybe he should video himself and stick it on youtube, you might watch it then and learn something In your last few posts you clearly have no valid argument

To throw another thing into the mix, the NIMBY, do you think these jumped up tossers would be able to shut down a haulage company if there was a proven need for their services, they would get told to foxtrot oscar as the haulage company concerned would have demonstrated that they were a valuable asset to the local business community

Do you think that our roads would be full of Eastern European lorries No is the answer, even to the point where you could have got your dream job driving abroad, albeit not in a Detroit Diesel powered roadtrain

Do you think that our industry would have moved abroad Not so much, shipping costs would be at realistic levels, rather than the two balloons and a goldfish it costs to send stuff around the world now, so more industry would have stayed here, sure costs would be higher, but we would all have good paying jobs, so would easily afford it

You say you’re a Union Man and have a dislike of Thatcherite Principles, yet advocate the opposite in the next breath Make your mind up ffs

As you’ll have seen I’ve got no problems with so called ‘Thatcherite’ ( actually capitalist ) princibles in the case of allowing free open domestic competition and allowing the use of the most efficient trucks possible.Which as I’ve said usually means biggest/heaviest is best as shown by the Scandinavians.My problem is that the uk government then translates that into protectionism for the rail transport industry domestically and opening the country’s industries,not just the road transport industry,up to ‘foreign’ competition without tarrif and quota barriers.

I’d reverse your final sentence you say that you’re a Thatcher supporter but then you support the type of raving socialist bs as could be heard from any misguided trade unionist with obvious loony left tendencies.

So the same question applies are you seriously suggesting that the road transport industry could survive by going backwards to where it was at the time and under the same regs which Bewick was describing.

[carryfast]

kr79:
Someone has probaly said it but i cant face reading through it all again but as the t45 range was replacing pretty much all leyland aec guy and scammell models it made sense to offer ■■■■■■ and rolls options to keep guy and scammel customers happy along with offering an alternative to operators operating other british makes-

I think you’ve missed the bit concerning the fact that it also contained the inconvenient truth of a change in market thinking concerning power outputs which the TL12 just couldn’t satisfy unlike the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ options.

[ramone]

Just a point on the Marathon ,when the Marathon 2 was introduced the Rolls Royce and ■■■■■■■ engines were offered as options but neither produced more power than the TL12 ,even the misleadingly named E290 put out the same power as the Aec variant.This is where i find it difficult to understand CFs post stating that the TL12 even at 32 tons was inadequately powered compared with its rivals.At the time i think the norm was nearer 240/250 hp ,the F10 ,111, 2800 were all similarily powered.

[zb_anorak]

ramone:
Just a point on the Marathon ,when the Marathon 2 was introduced the Rolls Royce and ■■■■■■■ engines were offered as options but neither produced more power than the TL12 ,even the misleadingly named E290 put out the same power as the Aec variant.This is where i find it difficult to understand CFs post stating that the TL12 even at 32 tons was inadequately powered compared with its rivals.At the time i think the norm was nearer 240/250 hp ,the F10 ,111, 2800 were all similarily powered.

You are right- all were about 275bhp net. There were more powerful engines available, of course, including the NTC335 Marathon. Leyland’s decision to pitch the “standard” Marathon at about 280bhp was spot on. In answer to the original post, the best Ergo-cabbed motor must be a Marathon 2 with the NTC335 engine and the original long sleeper cab. I assume this was still available as an option. Sod the length regulations!

[bewick]

Once the “Leartherhead Leper” starts ■■■■■■■ spouting theres no stopping the torrent of Bollox is there ! However regardless of what that silly ■■■■ was saying I maintain that the old system of carriers licencing was a far better means of regulating the industry,yes,it could have been refined somewhat over the years but IMHO the basic principal was sound in that "a need or requirement " had to be proved and supported,if possible,by documentary proof from the customers.Obviously carriers licences could be surrendered by one Haulier and re-granted to another ( you didn’t “buy” a carriers licence,but paid for the “goodwill” of a surrendered one),so the industry could have carried on developing over the years.Bewick.

[ramone]

Bewick:
Once the “Leartherhead Leper” starts [zb] spouting theres no stopping the torrent of Bollox is there ! However regardless of what that silly [zb] was saying I maintain that the old system of carriers licencing was a far better means of regulating the industry,yes,it could have been refined somewhat over the years but IMHO the basic principal was sound in that "a need or requirement " had to be proved and supported,if possible,by documentary proof from the customers.Obviously carriers licences could be surrendered by one Haulier and re-granted to another ( you didn’t “buy” a carriers licence,but paid for the “goodwill” of a surrendered one),so the industry could have carried on developing over the years.Bewick.

Ive only read about the old system Dennis ,but i heard it was very difficult to acquire a licence ,but with fewer carriers obviously the rate for the job could be maintained at higher levels but wouldnt that have a knock on effect to the end customer .Obviously the current system needs replacing ,as anyone with a few grand in the bank and a container haulier offering diesel on tap isn`t the road to go down.What do you think would be a fair system now ?

[bewick]

ramone:

Bewick:
Once the “Leartherhead Leper” starts [zb] spouting theres no stopping the torrent of Bollox is there ! However regardless of what that silly [zb] was saying I maintain that the old system of carriers licencing was a far better means of regulating the industry,yes,it could have been refined somewhat over the years but IMHO the basic principal was sound in that "a need or requirement " had to be proved and supported,if possible,by documentary proof from the customers.Obviously carriers licences could be surrendered by one Haulier and re-granted to another ( you didn’t “buy” a carriers licence,but paid for the “goodwill” of a surrendered one),so the industry could have carried on developing over the years.Bewick.

Ive only read about the old system Dennis ,but i heard it was very difficult to acquire a licence ,but with fewer carriers obviously the rate for the job could be maintained at higher levels but wouldnt that have a knock on effect to the end customer .Obviously the current system needs replacing ,as anyone with a few grand in the bank and a container haulier offering diesel on tap isn`t the road to go down.What do you think would be a fair system now ?

There was always a good deal of competition with the old system “ramone” and no-way did the haulier have what could be termed “the whip hand” by any means but at least it was possible to earn a reasonable return albeit via a great deal of hard work at lot of which was “outside” normally accepted working hours.So you still had similar circumstances as to-day whereby you had sometimes knocked your plug out to get to a delivery only to be told “sorry drive” we don’t unload anything after 4 pm,so come back to-morrow at 9 am !! This kind of thing could really screw up a re-load the following day !! But in the main transport was a much better place 30/40/50 years ago than the level to which it has sunk down to to-day.Well thats my opinion anyway,which I accept is’nt worth much ! Cheers Dennis.

[ramone]

Bewick:

ramone:

Bewick:
Once the “Leartherhead Leper” starts [zb] spouting theres no stopping the torrent of Bollox is there ! However regardless of what that silly [zb] was saying I maintain that the old system of carriers licencing was a far better means of regulating the industry,yes,it could have been refined somewhat over the years but IMHO the basic principal was sound in that "a need or requirement " had to be proved and supported,if possible,by documentary proof from the customers.Obviously carriers licences could be surrendered by one Haulier and re-granted to another ( you didn’t “buy” a carriers licence,but paid for the “goodwill” of a surrendered one),so the industry could have carried on developing over the years.Bewick.

Ive only read about the old system Dennis ,but i heard it was very difficult to acquire a licence ,but with fewer carriers obviously the rate for the job could be maintained at higher levels but wouldnt that have a knock on effect to the end customer .Obviously the current system needs replacing ,as anyone with a few grand in the bank and a container haulier offering diesel on tap isn`t the road to go down.What do you think would be a fair system now ?

There was always a good deal of competition with the old system “ramone” and no-way did the haulier have what could be termed “the whip hand” by any means but at least it was possible to earn a reasonable return albeit via a great deal of hard work at lot of which was “outside” normally accepted working hours.So you still had similar circumstances as to-day whereby you had sometimes knocked your plug out to get to a delivery only to be told “sorry drive” we don’t unload anything after 4 pm,so come back to-morrow at 9 am !! This kind of thing could really screw up a re-load the following day !! But in the main transport was a much better place 30/40/50 years ago than the level to which it has sunk down to to-day.Well thats my opinion anyway,which I accept is’nt worth much ! Cheers Dennis.

Well ive mentioned this before but i cant ever see the likes of what you and quite a few more hauliers acheived starting from scratch and building a large operation.The big guns have it all sewn up and transport is far too regulated nowadays with ridiculous laws and money making schemes with the vosa men just waiting to pounce at every opportunity and take your last few £s ,not to mention the price of diesel and the over congested roads

[bewick]

Aye “ramone” your probably right about the virtual “mission immpossible” to start with a single motor to-day and go on to create a substantial fleet,and run leagally as well.You see,back in the 50’s/60’s apart from BRS,the industry was basically smaller local outfits,yes there was bigger regional firms like Smith of Maddiston,Suttons etc. and ,of course,the TDG Group but they ran as seperate un-connected operations with each one having to “sink or swim” by their own individual efforts.W & J Riding of Longridge and the great Tom Riding were a shining example of the TDG method of operation,without a doubt Cheers Dennis.

[ramone]

[zb]
anorak:

ramone:
Just a point on the Marathon ,when the Marathon 2 was introduced the Rolls Royce and ■■■■■■■ engines were offered as options but neither produced more power than the TL12 ,even the misleadingly named E290 put out the same power as the Aec variant.This is where i find it difficult to understand CFs post stating that the TL12 even at 32 tons was inadequately powered compared with its rivals.At the time i think the norm was nearer 240/250 hp ,the F10 ,111, 2800 were all similarily powered.

You are right- all were about 275bhp net. There were more powerful engines available, of course, including the NTC335 Marathon. Leyland’s decision to pitch the “standard” Marathon at about 280bhp was spot on. In answer to the original post, the best Ergo-cabbed motor must be a Marathon 2 with the NTC335 engine and the original long sleeper cab. I assume this was still available as an option. Sod the length regulations!
0

I never knew that the Marathon was available with the NTC335 but then again you learn something new everyday,would it have had the 13 speed fuller ?

[zb_anorak]

ramone:
I never knew that the Marathon was available with the NTC335 but then again you learn something new everyday,would it have had the 13 speed fuller ?

Marathon number 1 had the NTC335 in it:
commercialmotor.com/big-lorr … athon-on-b
There is mention of it in this article (which is full of errors!):
aronline.co.uk/blogs/facts-a … thon-task/
Dunno about the gearbox; I think it was what you say- I’ll have to watch my Southall Twilight video again, to confirm that.

[ramone]

[zb]
anorak:

ramone:
I never knew that the Marathon was available with the NTC335 but then again you learn something new everyday,would it have had the 13 speed fuller ?

Marathon number 1 had the NTC335 in it:
commercialmotor.com/big-lorr … athon-on-b
There is mention of it in this article (which is full of errors!):
aronline.co.uk/blogs/facts-a … thon-task/
Dunno about the gearbox; I think it was what you say- I’ll have to watch my Southall Twilight video again, to confirm that.

I recognise the Marathon in the first link ,was it the 1 that was in the Destination Doha cd or have i seen it somewhere else.Its definitely on this site somewhere
The second link was a good read giving the Marathon a good write up

[zb_anorak]

ramone:
I recognise the Marathon in the first link ,was it the 1 that was in the Destination Doha cd or have i seen it somewhere else.Its definitely on this site somewhere
The second link was a good read giving the Marathon a good write up

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=59422&start=150