Going back to the comments made regarding the LT contract or tie up , i remember a well informed contributor on here mentioning that there wasnt much profit in it for AEC but they were obliged to supply , or words to that effect. The TL12 tooling needed to be replaced as it was virtually worn out and the cost of replacing wasnt in the coffers.
Happy New Year!
AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
Herewith a typical Dutch configuration, it shows sturdy and ready for an every-day-job!
Van Twist of Dordrecht (near Rotterdam) imported A.E.C. (as well as Seddon, Unic, Willy’s …) and soon I will share an original brochure of their A.E.C.-activities.
Carryfast:
It was me who raised the idea of Leyland being handed RR diesels for no charge thereby bringing it ‘in house’ and the question of why not…
I’m intrigued by the idea of RR (Eagle Diesels) getting involved with Leyland but they had their own engine problems and were bought over buy Perkins. That was after quite a few of the AEC engine team, who designed the V8 and TL12 got jobs at Perkins.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Perkins were owned by Massey Ferguson in Canada who in turn were taken over by Caterpillar.
Certainly the change of ownership of truck engines is a fascinating topic on its own. One of the major milestones along the way , in my view, was GM’s 60 Series engines.
GM had a hugely successful range of straight and " V" engines with 53, 71, 92 and 147 CU per cylinder. But being 2 stroke they did sea change when it was realised that 2 strokes couldnt cut it in terms of fuel economy and pollution. The 60 series with its ECU was phenomenal and they got it right from scratch. It cost them a bundle and the Penske stepped in and got himself a bargain. Then he flipped it to Daimler Chrysler. Smart guy.
ERF-Continental:
Happy New Year!AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
Herewith a typical Dutch configuration, it shows sturdy and ready for an every-day-job!
Van Twist of Dordrecht (near Rotterdam) imported A.E.C. (as well as Seddon, Unic, Willy’s …) and soon I will share an original brochure of their A.E.C.-activities.
I’ve always thought that the 8 wheeler rigid and large drawbar trailer configuration is superior to the artic one.
Unfortunately for our 8 wheeler orientated manufacturing base the anti road transport UK government knew it too thereby again shooting our own industry in the foot.
New Zealand shows what might have been in that regard with its eight wheeler rigid and 5 or 6 axle drawbar dominated road transport industry.
Wasn’t Leyland’s involvement with Rolls Royce in those years more to do with market options. For example the standard UK Roadtrain unit had TL12 with a Spicer 'box whereas the standard export French Roadtrain unit had Rolls Royce 350 coupled to a 9-sp Fuller 'box.
ERF-NGC-European:
Wasn’t Leyland’s involvement with Rolls Royce in those years more to do with market options. For example the standard UK Roadtrain unit had TL12 with a Spicer 'box whereas the standard export French Roadtrain unit had Rolls Royce 350 coupled to a 9-sp Fuller 'box.
As discussed elsewhere ( with some unfortunate, unwarranted, vehement reaction ) Leyland particularly Scammell built an excellent working relationship with RR with some impressive products to match.
Don’t think it can be argued that the TL12 was ever going to cut it at least when 38t was finally introduced.
All predictable at the point when RR was flogged off by the government to the highest bidder as opposed to giving Leyland the competitive in house engine product it needed.
As I said then it all looked, quacked and flew like a deliberate act of sabotage with the intention of handing over the initiative to DAF in a done deal.
As opposed to moving Scammell into Southall and producing in house RR engined T45’s sooner instead of the TL12 powered Marathon.
Also bearing in mind that BMC would have been cut loose at the Jaguar merger stage with government intervention stopping the pressed steel fiasco which was effectively BMC blackmail of the UK automotive industry to bail it out.The unfortunate resulting Jaguar and then Leyland mergers being the result and thereby helping to drag the whole group down.
At the end of the day it’s fair to say that BMC was the catalyst and fly in the ointment combined with a government that was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own.
ERF-Continental:
Happy New Year!AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
You might be deviating from the theme of the thread and I’m not sure what you mean by “possible lorries” but Leyland had a bigger operation in Benelusx than AEC. Brossel was a subsidiary of Leyland, acting as agent and using Leyland units in p.s.v. chassis of its own make. Let’s get back on thread please.
No hard feelings and I don’t leave this thread…I only pointed that A.E.C. was a vivid and active presence over here and Leyland did its job
with a range of products…there was not really a big market on the Marathon etc etc and only locally…
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Wasn’t Leyland’s involvement with Rolls Royce in those years more to do with market options. For example the standard UK Roadtrain unit had TL12 with a Spicer 'box whereas the standard export French Roadtrain unit had Rolls Royce 350 coupled to a 9-sp Fuller 'box.As discussed elsewhere ( with some unfortunate, unwarranted, vehement reaction ) Leyland particularly Scammell built an excellent working relationship with RR with some impressive products to match.
Don’t think it can be argued that the TL12 was ever going to cut it at least when 38t was finally introduced.
All predictable at the point when RR was flogged off by the government to the highest bidder as opposed to giving Leyland the competitive in house engine product it needed.
As I said then it all looked, quacked and flew like a deliberate act of sabotage with the intention of handing over the initiative to DAF in a done deal.
As opposed to moving Scammell into Southall and producing in house RR engined T45’s sooner instead of the TL12 powered Marathon.
Also bearing in mind that BMC would have been cut loose at the Jaguar merger stage with government intervention stopping the pressed steel fiasco which was effectively BMC blackmail of the UK automotive industry to bail it out.The unfortunate resulting Jaguar and then Leyland mergers being the result and thereby helping to drag the whole group down.
At the end of the day it’s fair to say that BMC was the catalyst and fly in the ointment combined with a government that was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own.
Couple of points. RR went belly up in 1971, the T45 wasn’t available until the end of that decade. The Crusader was a fairly new model in 1971 so the Leyland group were already in bed with RR. You state that “the government was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own”. Which government are you pointing the finger at as both Labour and Conservative administrations were in power in the 70’s - or were they both culpable.
Correct Dennis and despite politics…WHAT was the vision of Leyland? Over-organised with passenger cars (mergers), lorries (quite a broad range which did not sort like mercedes-benz and volkswagen/man presented) and their safe market …busses.
ERF-Continental:
Happy New Year!AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
Herewith a typical Dutch configuration, it shows sturdy and ready for an every-day-job!
Van Twist of Dordrecht (near Rotterdam) imported A.E.C. (as well as Seddon, Unic, Willy’s …) and soon I will share an original brochure of their A.E.C.-activities.
Another approach…have you ever seen a similar configuration in the BeNeLux by Leyland? No, the threw their range in…and barely Mastiff, Terrier and the other stuff did put a weight in the BeNeLux-market!!! Well the history repeats…also the passenger cars did not made it, sorry…I did like the Mini and Morris
Dennis Javelin:
[quote="Couple of points. RR went belly up in 1971, the T45 wasn’t available until the end of that decade. The Crusader was a fairly new model in 1971 so the Leyland group were already in bed with RR. You state that “the government was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own”. Which government are you pointing the finger at as both Labour and Conservative administrations were in power in the 70’s - or were they both culpable.
To clear a possible misunderstanding, it was Rolls Royce Aero Engines that went belly up and was bailed out by Edwards Heath’s Conservative government. It was the Labour government that limbered Leyland with BMB back in 1968. Wilson and Wedgewood Benn could not countenance making 400,00 workers unemployed if BMC went ■■■■ up.
RR Eagle Diesel engines ( and the cars) were separate operations. RR Eagle diesels continued until taken over by Perkins engines. Perkins were later bought out for $1.32 billion by Caterpillar.
RR continued supplying engines to Leyland well into the 80’s and 90’s for Marathon and Roadtrain.
You’re now defending and misleading the readers of this thread by high- or low-lighting the other negative results of the British-approach towards your own market wheras teh VISON was in the export-markets…don’t look outside only when the sun shines…E.R.F. and Foden did A HELL OF A JOB and ATTEMPT towards export-markets!!!
Where was BMC? Why would AEC join that minor business then?
Please STOP describing what was wrong…focus on the potential…nevertheless even Brossel or Van Twist (unlike Seddon but they used many AEC-chassis in their own transportation-company) or whatever European-based …it HAD potential but it didn’t show …not on the European roads nor in the sales-figures. Point taken?
You should raise a glass with Carryfast and (with all respect and a Happy New Year) get drunk on whatt should/could be! Back to the thread (again) please, watch it
Let’s get back to the thread, you exclude contributors from the discussion and you yourself end in endless history-lessons of lost business
Tomdhu:
Dennis Javelin:
[quote="Couple of points. RR went belly up in 1971, the T45 wasn’t available until the end of that decade. The Crusader was a fairly new model in 1971 so the Leyland group were already in bed with RR. You state that “the government was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own”. Which government are you pointing the finger at as both Labour and Conservative administrations were in power in the 70’s - or were they both culpable.
To clear a possible misunderstanding, it was Rolls Royce Aero Engines that went belly up and was bailed out by Edwards Heath’s Conservative government. It was the Labour government that limbered Leyland with BMB back in 1968. Wilson and Wedgewood Benn could not countenance making 400,00 workers unemployed if BMC went ■■■■ up.
RR Eagle Diesel engines ( and the cars) were separate operations. RR Eagle diesels continued until taken over by Perkins engines. Perkins were later bought out for $1.32 billion by Caterpillar.
RR continued supplying engines to Leyland well into the 80’s and 90’s for Marathon and Roadtrain.
So what in real terms was the difference in governmental approach. One colour decided to keep a company going and save jobs by merging it with another firm, the other colour decided to bankroll it. Both were to save jobs. Not an unreasonable approach for any government to take IMO.
Tomdhu:
ERF-Continental:
Happy New Year!AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
You might be deviating from the theme of the thread and I’m not sure what you mean by “possible lorries” but Leyland had a bigger operation in Benelusx than AEC. Brossel was a subsidiary of Leyland, acting as agent and using Leyland units in p.s.v. chassis of its own make. Let’s get back on thread please.
Don’t know how far (if) your are aware of the BeNeLux-market…even Brossel tried with Atkinson…why was that? Printed evidence later. You started this by the way
Dennis Javelin:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Wasn’t Leyland’s involvement with Rolls Royce in those years more to do with market options. For example the standard UK Roadtrain unit had TL12 with a Spicer 'box whereas the standard export French Roadtrain unit had Rolls Royce 350 coupled to a 9-sp Fuller 'box.As discussed elsewhere ( with some unfortunate, unwarranted, vehement reaction ) Leyland particularly Scammell built an excellent working relationship with RR with some impressive products to match.
Don’t think it can be argued that the TL12 was ever going to cut it at least when 38t was finally introduced.
All predictable at the point when RR was flogged off by the government to the highest bidder as opposed to giving Leyland the competitive in house engine product it needed.
As I said then it all looked, quacked and flew like a deliberate act of sabotage with the intention of handing over the initiative to DAF in a done deal.
As opposed to moving Scammell into Southall and producing in house RR engined T45’s sooner instead of the TL12 powered Marathon.
Also bearing in mind that BMC would have been cut loose at the Jaguar merger stage with government intervention stopping the pressed steel fiasco which was effectively BMC blackmail of the UK automotive industry to bail it out.The unfortunate resulting Jaguar and then Leyland mergers being the result and thereby helping to drag the whole group down.
At the end of the day it’s fair to say that BMC was the catalyst and fly in the ointment combined with a government that was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own.Couple of points. RR went belly up in 1971, the T45 wasn’t available until the end of that decade. The Crusader was a fairly new model in 1971 so the Leyland group were already in bed with RR. You state that “the government was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own”. Which government are you pointing the finger at as both Labour and Conservative administrations were in power in the 70’s - or were they both culpable.
RR including Diesels was taken into public ownership meaning that both Leyland and RR were owned by the taxpayer.The Eagle was already showing its capabilities, exceeding those of the TL12, at the point when the Marathon was in production.Itself being a strange waste of resources when the T45 was needed to replace AECs products in terms of Ergo and Marathon.No credible reason has ever been provided for the delay in the T45’s introduction let alone why it wasn’t introduced with standard and in house RR engines and ditching the Marathon and TL12 production.Thereby turning over and concentrating AECs production capacity to it including moving Scammell production to Southall.
Yes I’m referring to both governments in the handing over of our manufacturing sector to the advantage of our foreign competitors.All being part of the post war geopolitics.All having been decided by the international banking sector long before the closure of BLMC which was only one isolated part of it.
The truth is an all in house RR powered T45 had the potential to crush the DAF 2800/3300 if introduced at the right time turning over the AEC plant to its production and DAF’s backers knew it.
The rest is history.
Carryfast:
ERF-Continental:
Happy New Year!AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
Herewith a typical Dutch configuration, it shows sturdy and ready for an every-day-job!
Van Twist of Dordrecht (near Rotterdam) imported A.E.C. (as well as Seddon, Unic, Willy’s …) and soon I will share an original brochure of their A.E.C.-activities.
I’ve always thought that the 8 wheeler rigid and large drawbar trailer configuration is superior to the artic one.
Unfortunately for our 8 wheeler orientated manufacturing base the anti road transport UK government knew it too thereby again shooting our own industry in the foot.
New Zealand shows what might have been in that regard with its eight wheeler rigid and 5 or 6 axle drawbar dominated road transport industry.
Dominated? 
When was the last time you were in the land of the long white cloud? You just make this ■■■■ up to suit your warped narrative.
Tomdhu:
Dennis Javelin:
[quote="Couple of points. RR went belly up in 1971, the T45 wasn’t available until the end of that decade. The Crusader was a fairly new model in 1971 so the Leyland group were already in bed with RR. You state that “the government was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own”. Which government are you pointing the finger at as both Labour and Conservative administrations were in power in the 70’s - or were they both culpable.
To clear a possible misunderstanding, it was Rolls Royce Aero Engines that went belly up and was bailed out by Edwards Heath’s Conservative government. It was the Labour government that limbered Leyland with BMB back in 1968. Wilson and Wedgewood Benn could not countenance making 400,00 workers unemployed if BMC went ■■■■ up.
RR Eagle Diesel engines ( and the cars) were separate operations. RR Eagle diesels continued until taken over by Perkins engines. Perkins were later bought out for $1.32 billion by Caterpillar.
RR continued supplying engines to Leyland well into the 80’s and 90’s for Marathon and Roadtrain.
Don’t know of any differences applied to RRs diesels division at Shrewsbury which would not have made it part of the state takeover of Rolls Royce ?.It seems to have applied to the group as a whole as of 1971 ?.
It all gets more murky from the point when Vickers got hold of it then MF and Perkins.
But don’t see any reason why the government couldn’t have stipulated that RR diesels should be handed to Leyland as an in house engine supplier as of early to mid 1970’s as part of the rescue package ?.Not Vickers let alone Massey Ferguson.
The whole charade obviously played into DAFs hands perfectly.