Geoff,
I don’t wish to get into a big debate with you concerning the ERGO cab,but the Leyland Comet and Bison were big sellers in the tipper and flatbed market.This was in the days when four and six wheeler rigids were still a big percentage of the haulage industry.
These vehicles earned their operators good money,and many would like a modern vehicle that performed as economically as they did with the same payload,
At the end of the day haulage is all about making a profit.
Cheers Dave.
You know at first I laugh…then I wonder where the rational for dear Carryfasts posts come from…then I get annoyed at the "skewing " of timescales, information, “facts”, and the total lack of logic contained therein.
Just simple paramaters…
If you build products, (that is in this case lorries), first…
you identify the market segments that you wish to have success, (that is build/sell more product than your rivals).
You provide a product suited to that market.
Your product exceeds the benifits offered by other products.
You sell more,
have more market share, make more money, (if you have done your sums right)
And everyone connected to your business…dealers, operators, component suppliers …is happy!
After over 100acres cut for sileage today, I`m too tired to dig out the market shares for Ergo Leyland Group products…but in their day they were spectacular!!
How on earth we have got onto the relative merits of propriatory engines over the offerings of Leyland Group…Heaven only knows!!
Viz the 280, v 305 Rolls in Scammell product…the very first 305 operational engine was fitted at Rolls own expense into a Saviem V8340 chassis cab, and trialed with a number of French fleet operators at Rolls expense.I have documentary evidence of its results in service in my possesion.
The standard Crusader was fitted with the 280 version, (as the Big J 4T), not noted for its economy, but a “rorty” drivers motor, noted (as the Big J ), as a great driving engine.
These vehicles were not designed to compete in the “fleet” sector of the market, and having owned a number of ex MOD, “Leyland” 6x4 Crusaders, I can comment based upon experience, that they were distinctly not suitable for Hire and Reward operation.
Carryfast, when you design and build a vehicle for a market segment, you are aware of the paramaters, demands and constraints of the market you are aiming for. If the product you come up with does not meet the demands and requirements of that market…well it fails.The market in the UK was at the time of the Ergo set by Domestic legislation, so the products were built to those parameters, no other!
Really I do not know why I have wasted my time writing this…I could have been eating my Chicken salad, and drinking an extra glass of Bollinger , but as it used to say on the sides of Wolverhamptons buses, “out of darkness cometh light”, but in the words of the good book, in dear Carryfasts case, “there are none so blind as cannot see”…Im away to Frances greatest cultural creation, my Bollinger!
Cheerio for now.
Dave the Renegade:
Geoff,
I don’t wish to get into a big debate with you concerning the ERGO cab,but the Leyland Comet and Bison were big sellers in the tipper and flatbed market.This was in the days when four and six wheeler rigids were still a big percentage of the haulage industry.
These vehicles earned their operators good money,and many would like a modern vehicle that performed as economically as they did with the same payload,
At the end of the day haulage is all about making a profit.
Cheers Dave.
Agreed Dave, not everyone in transport ran maximum capacity artics (though this thread tends to assume that was the case) and there were plenty of haulage applications where smaller power units were acceptable. There were plenty of Marshall’s and Bison’s around, plus the Albion version and I honestly thought this thread was about the best application of the Ergomatic CAB itself, Leyland, AEC and Albion, but as per norm it has drifted WAY off beam. I never drove one on the road, we had a couple purely at TILCON on internal duties when I started there, one was an AEC Marshal powder tanker that had of course been one of several on the road before they swapped over to Foden S50 half cabs and the other was an Albion tanker (ex Oxted Greystone Lime) which had the fixed cab. The Albion was certainly a more spartan cab internally compared to the AEC but presumably it would have been considerably cheaper to buy? Both cabs had rotted badly by that time though.
Pete.
Saviem:
How on earth we have got onto the relative merits of propriatory engines over the offerings of Leyland Group…Heaven only knows!!Viz the 280, v 305 Rolls in Scammell product…the very first 305 operational engine was fitted at Rolls own expense into a Saviem V8340 chassis cab, and trialed with a number of French fleet operators at Rolls expense.I have documentary evidence of its results in service in my possesion.
The standard Crusader was fitted with the 280 version, (as the Big J 4T), not noted for its economy, but a “rorty” drivers motor, noted (as the Big J ), as a great driving engine.
These vehicles were not designed to compete in the “fleet” sector of the market, and having owned a number of ex MOD, “Leyland” 6x4 Crusaders, I can comment based upon experience, that they were distinctly not suitable for Hire and Reward operation.
Carryfast, when you design and build a vehicle for a market segment, you are aware of the paramaters, demands and constraints of the market you are aiming for.
So you’re saying that products like the 500 powered ERGO was the right truck for it’s target market sector in this case being max weight long haul operation.While the Rolls powered Crusader wasn’t 
. 
The fact is it was the use of outside engine suppliers like ■■■■■■■ and Rolls that actually resulted in the Leyland Group eventually being able to move forward with the T45 when such use,if made earlier together with the 3 VTG cab project,would have allowed such progress to be made far sooner.Instead of wasting limited cash reserves on the 500 engine and development of the ERGO/Marathon cabs.
You also seem to be saying that the Crusader wasn’t available in 4x2 spec or that the 305 engine wouldn’t have been available to order by any customer who chose it except for 6x4 military operation .As for the results of those French trials of the 305 I’d be ( very ) surprised if they’d have proved that the thing wasn’t massively more capable in every way than the TL12 in the Marathon or even in the T45 judging by the 305’s output and SFC figures by comparison.
As for the bs idea that the Crusader was supposedly ‘distinctly not suitable for uk hire and reward operation’ that doesn’t seem consistent with this topic or BRS’s involvement at the design stage.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=61389&hilit=Crusader
As I’ve said it was the constraints of having to meet the demands of the backward thinking uk domestic ‘fleet market’ that contributed more to the demise of Leyland and the other uk truck manufacturers,than any of the so called industrial action taken by their workforces to try to keep wage levels in line with prices.That action was just an excuse by those who were really to blame.Those being a combination of the bankers and politicians who were pulling the strings of establishments like the Leyland Group together with their backward thinking customers.
windrush:
Dave the Renegade:
Geoff,
I don’t wish to get into a big debate with you concerning the ERGO cab,but the Leyland Comet and Bison were big sellers in the tipper and flatbed market.This was in the days when four and six wheeler rigids were still a big percentage of the haulage industry.
These vehicles earned their operators good money,and many would like a modern vehicle that performed as economically as they did with the same payload,
At the end of the day haulage is all about making a profit.
Cheers Dave.Agreed Dave, not everyone in transport ran maximum capacity artics (though this thread tends to assume that was the case) and there were plenty of haulage applications where smaller power units were acceptable. There were plenty of Marshall’s and Bison’s around, plus the Albion version and I honestly thought this thread was about the best application of the Ergomatic CAB itself, Leyland, AEC and Albion, but as per norm it has drifted WAY off beam. I never drove one on the road, we had a couple purely at TILCON on internal duties when I started there, one was an AEC Marshal powder tanker that had of course been one of several on the road before they swapped over to Foden S50 half cabs and the other was an Albion tanker (ex Oxted Greystone Lime) which had the fixed cab. The Albion was certainly a more spartan cab internally compared to the AEC but presumably it would have been considerably cheaper to buy? Both cabs had rotted badly by that time though.
Pete.
If you’d have read my comments I’ve actually said that such work was all that the thing was actually suited to with 6 wheeler operation being it’s absolute limit preferably 4 wheeler work being about right especially in 500 form.As opposed to Leyland using the design to also satisfy the top weight long haul sector of the market.
Carryfast:
windrush:
Dave the Renegade:
Geoff,
I don’t wish to get into a big debate with you concerning the ERGO cab,but the Leyland Comet and Bison were big sellers in the tipper and flatbed market.This was in the days when four and six wheeler rigids were still a big percentage of the haulage industry.
These vehicles earned their operators good money,and many would like a modern vehicle that performed as economically as they did with the same payload,
At the end of the day haulage is all about making a profit.
Cheers Dave.Agreed Dave, not everyone in transport ran maximum capacity artics (though this thread tends to assume that was the case) and there were plenty of haulage applications where smaller power units were acceptable. There were plenty of Marshall’s and Bison’s around, plus the Albion version and I honestly thought this thread was about the best application of the Ergomatic CAB itself, Leyland, AEC and Albion, but as per norm it has drifted WAY off beam. I never drove one on the road, we had a couple purely at TILCON on internal duties when I started there, one was an AEC Marshal powder tanker that had of course been one of several on the road before they swapped over to Foden S50 half cabs and the other was an Albion tanker (ex Oxted Greystone Lime) which had the fixed cab. The Albion was certainly a more spartan cab internally compared to the AEC but presumably it would have been considerably cheaper to buy? Both cabs had rotted badly by that time though.
Pete.
If you’d have read my comments I’ve actually said that such work was all that the thing was actually suited to with 6 wheeler operation being it’s absolute limit preferably 4 wheeler work being about right especially in 500 form.As opposed to Leyland using the design to also satisfy the top weight long haul sector of the market.
So you are now saying the ergo was ok doing long distance work in 4/6 wheeler configuration but not at top weight.What would your reasons for this be? If you arent saying it was good for long haul work in this guise i will ask you again ,what in 64/65 was suitable in your opinion for long haul work that was being manufactured over here at the time ,4,6,8 or artc configuration .The 4 and 6 wheeler rigids are just as important as the artic sector of transport and many did and still do travel the length and breadth of the country.At the end of 69 the Crusader was introduced in 6 x 4 guise with a V8 AEC engine .This vehicle had the motor panels cab ,the same 1 which was used in the Seddon ,Guy,Foden,Erf and even a test version on Aec.The Crusader cab was raised much like the Marathon cab was,it didnt tilt and was nothing spectacular,so why your obsession with this model ?The only thing i can think of was that it was offered with the option of your beloved DD V8 engine.I think and could be totally wrong here (you may want to try using that last phrase CF from time to time ,i wont copyright it) that one road that Leyland could have gone down was the reversal of the Marathon cab.Take a Marathon cab and lower it down to a suitable level for use in the lower weight section.Obviously the doors would have had to be modified but it was a much improved enviroment for the driver over the original ergo ever was.This may have been totally inpractical but it may also have worked.The T45 cab was introduced to cover the full range from 7.5 tons up to top weight artics,a step further than the ergo did which i could see the logic in.This range replaced all the models from the Leyland Group so they had to offer outside engine options to cater for their customers who had previously bought Guy or Scammell .It gave customers more choice which Leyland had previously been criticised for
carryfast wrote… As for the bs idea that the Crusader was supposedly ‘distinctly not suitable for uk hire and reward operation’ that doesn’t seem consistent with this topic or BRS’s involvement at the design stage.
saviem wrote… and having owned a number of ex MOD, “Leyland” 6x4 Crusaders, I can comment based upon experience, that they were distinctly not suitable for Hire and Reward operation.
Think saviem meant the MOD crusaders were not suitable for hire and reward,not the crusader in general.
This thread is brilliant. Think if AEC had introduced the big yankee style cab the british operators would have laughed at them.AEC had to produce what the (allegedly backward) operators wanted.
vwvanman0:
carryfast wrote… As for the bs idea that the Crusader was supposedly ‘distinctly not suitable for uk hire and reward operation’ that doesn’t seem consistent with this topic or BRS’s involvement at the design stage.saviem wrote… and having owned a number of ex MOD, “Leyland” 6x4 Crusaders, I can comment based upon experience, that they were distinctly not suitable for Hire and Reward operation.
Think saviem meant the MOD crusaders were not suitable for hire and reward,not the crusader in general.
This thread is brilliant. Think if AEC had introduced the big yankee style cab the british operators would have laughed at them.AEC had to produce what the (allegedly backward) operators wanted.
I genuinely think that if Aec had stayed away from Leyland and had the backing they needed they would be a market leader today .They simply ran out of funds before Leyland took them
ramone:
Carryfast:
windrush:
Dave the Renegade:
Geoff,
I don’t wish to get into a big debate with you concerning the ERGO cab,but the Leyland Comet and Bison were big sellers in the tipper and flatbed market.This was in the days when four and six wheeler rigids were still a big percentage of the haulage industry.
These vehicles earned their operators good money,and many would like a modern vehicle that performed as economically as they did with the same payload,
At the end of the day haulage is all about making a profit.
Cheers Dave.Agreed Dave, not everyone in transport ran maximum capacity artics (though this thread tends to assume that was the case) and there were plenty of haulage applications where smaller power units were acceptable. There were plenty of Marshall’s and Bison’s around, plus the Albion version and I honestly thought this thread was about the best application of the Ergomatic CAB itself, Leyland, AEC and Albion, but as per norm it has drifted WAY off beam. I never drove one on the road, we had a couple purely at TILCON on internal duties when I started there, one was an AEC Marshal powder tanker that had of course been one of several on the road before they swapped over to Foden S50 half cabs and the other was an Albion tanker (ex Oxted Greystone Lime) which had the fixed cab. The Albion was certainly a more spartan cab internally compared to the AEC but presumably it would have been considerably cheaper to buy? Both cabs had rotted badly by that time though.
Pete.
If you’d have read my comments I’ve actually said that such work was all that the thing was actually suited to with 6 wheeler operation being it’s absolute limit preferably 4 wheeler work being about right especially in 500 form.As opposed to Leyland using the design to also satisfy the top weight long haul sector of the market.
So you are now saying the ergo was ok doing long distance work in 4/6 wheeler configuration but not at top weight.What would your reasons for this be? If you aren
t saying it was good for long haul work in this guise i will ask you again ,what in64/65 was suitable in your opinion for long haul work that was being manufactured over here at the time ,4,6,8 or artc configuration .The 4 and 6 wheeler rigids are just as important as the artic sector of transport and many did and still do travel the length and breadth of the country.At the end of69 the Crusader was introduced in 6 x 4 guise with a V8 AEC engine .This vehicle had the motor panels cab ,the same 1 which was used in the Seddon ,Guy,Foden,Erf and even a test version on Aec.The Crusader cab was raised much like the Marathon cab was,it didnt tilt and was nothing spectacular,so why your obsession with this model ?The only thing i can think of was that it was offered with the option of your beloved DD V8 engine.I think and could be totally wrong here (you may want to try using that last phrase CF from time to time ,i wont copyright it) that one road that Leyland could have gone down was the reversal of the Marathon cab.Take a Marathon cab and lower it down to a suitable level for use in the lower weight section.Obviously the doors would have had to be modified but it was a much improved enviroment for the driver over the original ergo ever was.This may have been totally inpractical but it may also have worked.The T45 cab was introduced to cover the full range from 7.5 tons up to top weight artics,a step further than the ergo did which i could see the logic in.This range replaced all the models from the Leyland Group so they had to offer outside engine options to cater for their customers who had previously bought Guy or Scammell .It gave customers more choice which Leyland had previously been criticised for
You’re just contradicting yourself with all that bs.Firstly the Crusader was introduced in 1968 not '69 and it’s the whole production life of a design that matters not the introduction date and the fact is,as I’ve said,the Crusader’s fixed cab was less of an issue and had more potential to make a decent long haul sleeper version with more room,than the unreliability and erroneous market placement,in the top weight long haul market sector,in the case of the ERGO/Marathon.Especially as I’ve said considering that the Crusader had 300 + hp capability not just with the Detroit option but also with the Rolls 305 at least as of the mid 1970’s assuming the buyers had been bright enough to make use of it which they obviously weren’t.
Which just leaves the question of exactly what would the foreign competition have been ‘if’ the AEC 3 VTG cab had been developed not cancelled and put on the Crusader chassis using the Rolls 305 engine at least as of the mid 1970’s instead of the Marathon.As I’ve said Leyland Group’s problems were all caused by the combination of the bankers and politicians who were pulling the strings and a backward thinking domestic fleet market that wouldn’t have bought into the idea of a decent 300 + hp wagon even if by some miracle Leyland had managed to build it.As for an independent AEC the same question applies exactly what product at the time would an independent AEC have had to answer the vehicle which I’ve described considering that it’s idea for the 3 VTG was to put the lame unreliable AEC V8 in it even if by some miracle it had found the funds required if it had stayed as an independent firm. 
Having said that it’s no suprise that Scammell actually did put the Detroit in the Crusader and it’s also no surprise that the thing proved a lot more reliable in service than the AEC V8 did in anything which that was put into. 
Does anyone have any production figures for the crusader in the civilian market and how does it stack up against the marathon
I know astran trailed a crusader and acording to the book both driver and management slated it as been not a patch on the scania 110s it was up against.
Also tbe truck supplied was a day cab and that pretty much sums up the arrogance and complacancy of the british lorry builders of the day.
Who in there right mind would supply a high profile haulier with a demo truck tottaly unsuited to there needs
kr79:
Does anyone have any production figures for the crusader in the civilian market and how does it stack up against the marathon
Sales figures don’t always provide a guide to the actual superiority of a product.IE I think Jaguar,Rover,Triumph,Merc,and BMW probably sold less cars here combined in each year of the ERGO and Marathon’s production life than Austin Morris did. 
As for a Rolls 305 pwered Crusader v a TL12 Marathon it would have been no contest form the point of view of which one was the superior product.At least from the point of view of anyone who was bright enough to have specced that version of the Crusader.Which,as history unfortunately shows,knowing how to spec a decent truck wasn’t a strong point of the British buyers at the time. 
kr79:
I know astran trailed a crusader and acording to the book both driver and management slated it as been not a patch on the scania 110s it was up against.
Also tbe truck supplied was a day cab and that pretty much sums up the arrogance and complacancy of the british lorry builders of the day.
Who in there right mind would supply a high profile haulier with a demo truck tottaly unsuited to there needs
What we don’t know is exactly what spec the thing was.Obviously the British army and many other uk and colonial operators didn’t agree for some reason.While the Marathon obviously never exactly became a popular choice in the long haul international or export market sector which isn’t surprising. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
windrush:
Dave the Renegade:
Geoff,
I don’t wish to get into a big debate with you concerning the ERGO cab,but the Leyland Comet and Bison were big sellers in the tipper and flatbed market.This was in the days when four and six wheeler rigids were still a big percentage of the haulage industry.
These vehicles earned their operators good money,and many would like a modern vehicle that performed as economically as they did with the same payload,
At the end of the day haulage is all about making a profit.
Cheers Dave.Agreed Dave, not everyone in transport ran maximum capacity artics (though this thread tends to assume that was the case) and there were plenty of haulage applications where smaller power units were acceptable. There were plenty of Marshall’s and Bison’s around, plus the Albion version and I honestly thought this thread was about the best application of the Ergomatic CAB itself, Leyland, AEC and Albion, but as per norm it has drifted WAY off beam. I never drove one on the road, we had a couple purely at TILCON on internal duties when I started there, one was an AEC Marshal powder tanker that had of course been one of several on the road before they swapped over to Foden S50 half cabs and the other was an Albion tanker (ex Oxted Greystone Lime) which had the fixed cab. The Albion was certainly a more spartan cab internally compared to the AEC but presumably it would have been considerably cheaper to buy? Both cabs had rotted badly by that time though.
Pete.
If you’d have read my comments I’ve actually said that such work was all that the thing was actually suited to with 6 wheeler operation being it’s absolute limit preferably 4 wheeler work being about right especially in 500 form.As opposed to Leyland using the design to also satisfy the top weight long haul sector of the market.
So you are now saying the ergo was ok doing long distance work in 4/6 wheeler configuration but not at top weight.What would your reasons for this be? If you aren
t saying it was good for long haul work in this guise i will ask you again ,what in64/65 was suitable in your opinion for long haul work that was being manufactured over here at the time ,4,6,8 or artc configuration .The 4 and 6 wheeler rigids are just as important as the artic sector of transport and many did and still do travel the length and breadth of the country.At the end of69 the Crusader was introduced in 6 x 4 guise with a V8 AEC engine .This vehicle had the motor panels cab ,the same 1 which was used in the Seddon ,Guy,Foden,Erf and even a test version on Aec.The Crusader cab was raised much like the Marathon cab was,it didnt tilt and was nothing spectacular,so why your obsession with this model ?The only thing i can think of was that it was offered with the option of your beloved DD V8 engine.I think and could be totally wrong here (you may want to try using that last phrase CF from time to time ,i wont copyright it) that one road that Leyland could have gone down was the reversal of the Marathon cab.Take a Marathon cab and lower it down to a suitable level for use in the lower weight section.Obviously the doors would have had to be modified but it was a much improved enviroment for the driver over the original ergo ever was.This may have been totally inpractical but it may also have worked.The T45 cab was introduced to cover the full range from 7.5 tons up to top weight artics,a step further than the ergo did which i could see the logic in.This range replaced all the models from the Leyland Group so they had to offer outside engine options to cater for their customers who had previously bought Guy or Scammell .It gave customers more choice which Leyland had previously been criticised forYou’re just contradicting yourself with all that bs.Firstly the Crusader was introduced in 1968 not '69 and it’s the whole production life of a design that matters not the introduction date and the fact is,as I’ve said,the Crusader’s fixed cab was less of an issue and had more potential to make a decent long haul sleeper version with more room,than the unreliability and erroneous market placement,in the top weight long haul market sector,in the case of the ERGO/Marathon.Especially as I’ve said considering that the Crusader had 300 + hp capability not just with the Detroit option but also with the Rolls 305 at least as of the mid 1970’s assuming the buyers had been bright enough to make use of it which they obviously weren’t.
Which just leaves the question of exactly what would the foreign competition have been ‘if’ the AEC 3 VTG cab had been developed not cancelled and put on the Crusader chassis using the Rolls 305 engine at least as of the mid 1970’s instead of the Marathon.As I’ve said Leyland Group’s problems were all caused by the combination of the bankers and politicians who were pulling the strings and a backward thinking domestic fleet market that wouldn’t have bought into the idea of a decent 300 + hp wagon even if by some miracle Leyland had managed to build it.As for an independent AEC the same question applies exactly what product at the time would an independent AEC have had to answer the vehicle which I’ve described considering that it’s idea for the 3 VTG was to put the lame unreliable AEC V8 in it even if by some miracle it had found the funds required if it had stayed as an independent firm.
Having said that it’s no suprise that Scammell actually did put the Detroit in the Crusader and it’s also no surprise that the thing proved a lot more reliable in service than the AEC V8 did in anything which that was put into.
Again you conveniently side step the first question ,no suprise there ,again you bang on about the 3 VTG a prototype vehicle which never entered service for reasons unknown to anyone apart from the powers that be maybe there were too many problems to sort we dont know,the unreliable V8 was due to it being rushed through without proper development so if it had been developed it may have been a world beater but again it would have been for the top end of the market not the bread and butter fleets .The Marathon was available with the 335 ■■■■■■■ so that would prove to be a little more powerful than the Crusader if anybody else really cares and i dont think they do.Its nothing to do with who provides the lorry with the biggest engine its all about making money just like any other business.The vehicle that gets from a to b and back again on a regular basis in a reliable fashion and using the least amount of fuel is the name of the game always as been and i would guess always will be until someone invents a fax machine that can fax full loads at the press of a button ,im going for a pint
Carryfast:
kr79:
Does anyone have any production figures for the crusader in the civilian market and how does it stack up against the marathonSales figures don’t always provide a guide to the actual superiority of a product.IE I think Jaguar,Rover,Triumph,Merc,and BMW probably sold less cars here combined in each year of the ERGO and Marathon’s production life than Austin Morris did.
As for a Rolls 305 pwered Crusader v a TL12 Marathon it would have been no contest form the point of view of which one was the superior product.At least from the point of view of anyone who was bright enough to have specced that version of the Crusader.Which,as history unfortunately shows,knowing how to spec a decent truck wasn’t a strong point of the British buyers at the time.
I`d like to see the results of that test ,fuel figures alone would be very interesting
Carryfast:
kr79:
I know astran trailed a crusader and acording to the book both driver and management slated it as been not a patch on the scania 110s it was up against.
Also tbe truck supplied was a day cab and that pretty much sums up the arrogance and complacancy of the british lorry builders of the day.
Who in there right mind would supply a high profile haulier with a demo truck tottaly unsuited to there needsWhat we don’t know is exactly what spec the thing was.Obviously the British army and many other uk and colonial operators didn’t agree for some reason.While the Marathon obviously never exactly became a popular choice in the long haul international or export market sector which isn’t surprising.
You would think the manafacturer would look at the companys operation and suppuly something suitable. A sleeper cab to go to iran may have been a good idea.
The politicians were not making decisions at BL, they were only throwing money at it, huge amounts of money that were being used as operating funds rather than investments for the future, as they were supposed to be. The reason for this was the lost revenue from strikes hurt the finances of the group so much that it needed constant bail outs just to remain in business.
Carryfast’s remedy would have been to add to the financial problems by buying in engines! This would have then set the group engine plants off, they would have gone on strike, their brothers on the assembly lines would have done their ‘one out, all out’ thing and nothing would have been built!
The history of BL is well documented, the failure of the group had SFA to do with the truck division, the Ergo cab, the 500 series engines or anything else. However, we won’t let the facts interfere in a good argument…
newmercman:
The politicians were not making decisions at BL, they were only throwing money at it, huge amounts of money that were being used as operating funds rather than investments for the future, as they were supposed to be. The reason for this was the lost revenue from strikes hurt the finances of the group so much that it needed constant bail outs just to remain in business.Carryfast’s remedy would have been to add to the financial problems by buying in engines! This would have then set the group engine plants off, they would have gone on strike, their brothers on the assembly lines would have done their ‘one out, all out’ thing and nothing would have been built!
The history of BL is well documented, the failure of the group had SFA to do with the truck division, the Ergo cab, the 500 series engines or anything else. However, we won’t let the facts interfere in a good argument…
I think the inconvenient truth,that the T45 fitted with the 350 Rolls,was about as good,as Leyland Group’s answer,to the long haul top weight market sector,ever got,just as the Commander was in the case of military heavy haulage,shoots down that argument and ramone’s.
While as I’ve said it also shows that Leyland’s workforce could make whatever was shown on the drawings while managing to produce the goods notwithstanding the disputes caused by the bankers and politicians who certainly were the ones who were really pulling the strings at Leyland Group and who certainly were instrumental in starving the group of the cash needed to develop it’s products and pay it’s workforce in line with price increases.Which,as I’ve said,is why we didn’t see something like a Rolls 305 powered Crusader with a 3 VTG type cab in the mid 1970’s.Wether the backward thinking uk domestic market would have wanted it at that time when it was built would have been another matter.
kr79:
Carryfast:
kr79:
I know astran trailed a crusader and acording to the book both driver and management slated it as been not a patch on the scania 110s it was up against.
Also tbe truck supplied was a day cab and that pretty much sums up the arrogance and complacancy of the british lorry builders of the day.
Who in there right mind would supply a high profile haulier with a demo truck tottaly unsuited to there needsWhat we don’t know is exactly what spec the thing was.Obviously the British army and many other uk and colonial operators didn’t agree for some reason.While the Marathon obviously never exactly became a popular choice in the long haul international or export market sector which isn’t surprising.
You would think the manafacturer would look at the companys operation and suppuly something suitable. A sleeper cab to go to iran may have been a good idea.
I think that would be a better bet to go to Iran with than an Ergo or a Marathon.Especially if it was specced with the Rolls 305 or a turbocharged Detroit 8V71 all of which would have just been a case of asking for it all on the phone from the factory and aftermarket cab modifiers.
Not got the astran book to hand but i believe it was a 280 roller in it which wlas more powerful than the scania 110s they ran at the time but along with runnibg repairs it required major repairs in iran.
Id guess anyone doing that work would sacrifice 30bhp for a sleeper cab too.
To be fair the marathon by all acounts was never a great sucsess on the middle east run.
But there was pictures on facebook recently of a guy doing middle east work in an ergo sleeper cab AEC mandator