ramone:
Here we go again , this has all been said in other threads , this obsession of the RR Eagle being a world beater when it clearly wasn’t especially in 75 when they weren’t a popular engine for hauliers some quoting unreliability problems and very heavy fuel consumption. On tother hand the TL12 was well regarded for reliability and economy.This engine wasn’t lumbered on the Leyland group it was their only in house option which with proper funding could have been developed .The tooling was spent and BL couldn’t afford to replace it and soldiered on , so take another workforce on (RR) and the factory at what cost they didnt have the funds
[/quote]
Just maybe the OP in this case might want a more accurate view of history.
In which the idea of tying the basket case BMC around Jaguar’s and BLMC’s knecks and the idea that the TL12 was the truck division’s saviour not it’s nemesis all had predictable results.
While doing whatever it took to put the RR Eagle into Leyland’s hands in 1975 to be put in Southall built Scammell and AEC T45’s, as part of the Ryder recommendations but worth the paper they were written on, would have been the solution not the problem.
A domestic market based on rigid 8 and 4 or 5 axle drawbar trailers could only have helped to stop the imports onslaught together with import quotas based on what we exported would also have helped.
Not only in maintaining a viable truck manufacturing industry but also an efficient road transport industry.
I don’t buy the conspiracy theories either beyond the post war rebuilding of the so-called Axis powers economically to avoid a repeat of the post First World War disaster. Meanwhile dated and conflicting UK management, coupled with damaging unions, lead to the demise of much heavy manufacturing and the primary industries. Whatever is thought of Thatcher, I believe her hand were tied to reducing inflation as the 70s drew to a close.
One of the few success stories has been JCB who remain family controlled and have had a move to VI over the last 40 years. JCB have used other manufacturer’s products when seen as necessary but gradually moved in house (as I understand).
“Whatever is thought of Thatcher, I believe her hand were tied to reducing inflation as the 70s drew to a close.”
She had already decimated British industry by that time. The plans for what would become the “Thatcher revolution” were sown in the early 70’s by the likes of Keith Joseph and Nicholas Ridley. Their first target was the miners which they achieved by stockpiling coal in the first couple of years of their administration. As much as I have no time for Arthur Scargill he was spot on when he told the miners that by producing so much more coal than we could ever sell they were sowing the seeds of their downfall. However the miners desire to grab as much cash as they could was greater that any concerns they had at that time about the future of the industry.
I don’t think it would have made an iota of a difference who owned RR Diesels and it certainly wouldn’t have saved Leyland truck & bus if they had RR on board .Another factory another large workforce and an “iffy” engine in 1975 . What about other RR customers ie Foden and ERF would they want to buy off direct competitors i doubt it even though Foden did use the 680 a few years earlier. What was basically an inferior engine at the time another large site a large workforce to power Marathons , they didn’t start fitting RR until Marathon 2 had been introduced and the old AEC engine designers moved to RR to design the 265 and 290
ramone:
I don’t think it would have made an iota of a difference who owned RR Diesels and it certainly wouldn’t have saved Leyland truck & bus if they had RR on board .Another factory another large workforce and an “iffy” engine in 1975 . What about other RR customers ie Foden and ERF would they want to buy off direct competitors i doubt it even though Foden did use the 680 a few years earlier. What was basically an inferior engine at the time another large site a large workforce to power Marathons , they didn’t start fitting RR until Marathon 2 had been introduced and the old AEC engine designers moved to RR to design the 265 and 290
If VI was supposedly the key to success then it’s obvious that bringing RR in house in Leyland Group would have provided a far better foundation for that than betting the farm on a bored out bus motor.
An iffy motor capable of putting out over 300 hp in 1973 and which Scammell obviously preferred to put in its products than the AEC product.
ramone:
I don’t think it would have made an iota of a difference who owned RR Diesels and it certainly wouldn’t have saved Leyland truck & bus if they had RR on board .Another factory another large workforce and an “iffy” engine in 1975 . What about other RR customers ie Foden and ERF would they want to buy off direct competitors i doubt it even though Foden did use the 680 a few years earlier. What was basically an inferior engine at the time another large site a large workforce to power Marathons , they didn’t start fitting RR until Marathon 2 had been introduced and the old AEC engine designers moved to RR to design the 265 and 290
If VI was supposedly the key to success then it’s obvious that bringing RR in house in Leyland Group would have provided a far better foundation for that than betting the farm on a bored out bus motor.
An iffy motor capable of putting out over 300 hp in 1973 and which Scammell obviously preferred to put in its products than the AEC product.
Firstly , there were no funds to take on another factory and another large workforce , then there’s the development costs to improve the unreliable and thirsty 220/280 RR . There was no money for the commercial vehicle side of BL with management pouring money into the car side which put out classics like the Marina , Maestro , Princess etc . Poor quality on these and many more of BL products just made matters worse. There was no chance of profit coming out of an organisation with the products that in some cases were thrown together Bringing another factory with a ,at the time suspect and not very popular engine on board with no money for development to make the Eagle into the 265/290 that it became would have been laughable. Not sure what buses were fitted with AV760/TL12 engines but why let the truth get in the way of one of your usual fantasy posts
ramone:
I don’t think it would have made an iota of a difference who owned RR Diesels and it certainly wouldn’t have saved Leyland truck & bus if they had RR on board .Another factory another large workforce and an “iffy” engine in 1975 . What about other RR customers ie Foden and ERF would they want to buy off direct competitors i doubt it even though Foden did use the 680 a few years earlier. What was basically an inferior engine at the time another large site a large workforce to power Marathons , they didn’t start fitting RR until Marathon 2 had been introduced and the old AEC engine designers moved to RR to design the 265 and 290
If VI was supposedly the key to success then it’s obvious that bringing RR in house in Leyland Group would have provided a far better foundation for that than betting the farm on a bored out bus motor.
An iffy motor capable of putting out over 300 hp in 1973 and which Scammell obviously preferred to put in its products than the AEC product.
Firstly , there were no funds to take on another factory and another large workforce , then there’s the development costs to improve the unreliable and thirsty 220/280 RR . There was no money for the commercial vehicle side of BL with management pouring money into the car side which put out classics like the Marina , Maestro , Princess etc . Poor quality on these and many more of BL products just made matters worse. There was no chance of profit coming out of an organisation with the products that in some cases were thrown together Bringing another factory with a ,at the time suspect and not very popular engine on board with no money for development to make the Eagle into the 265/290 that it became would have been laughable. Not sure what buses were fitted with AV760/TL12 engines but why let the truth get in the way of one of your usual fantasy posts
RR diesels and Leyland Group were both Nationalised firms at this point in time unless DJ can prove otherwise with some ownership details other than the taxpayer including Nationalised Vickers.The taxpayer ultimately owned both and was picking up the tab either way.
A ‘bored out’ bus motor hoping it could pull the predictable eventual 38t when even 32t was more than enough for it.Which Scammell already knew it couldn’t in the military spec and even civilian spec Crusader.
The rest is history in which the T45 actually ended up with the right, but now outsourced, engine thereby defeating the object of a VI business plan.
Enter DAF on the scene.
ramone:
I don’t think it would have made an iota of a difference who owned RR Diesels and it certainly wouldn’t have saved Leyland truck & bus if they had RR on board .Another factory another large workforce and an “iffy” engine in 1975 . What about other RR customers ie Foden and ERF would they want to buy off direct competitors i doubt it even though Foden did use the 680 a few years earlier. What was basically an inferior engine at the time another large site a large workforce to power Marathons , they didn’t start fitting RR until Marathon 2 had been introduced and the old AEC engine designers moved to RR to design the 265 and 290
If VI was supposedly the key to success then it’s obvious that bringing RR in house in Leyland Group would have provided a far better foundation for that than betting the farm on a bored out bus motor.
An iffy motor capable of putting out over 300 hp in 1973 and which Scammell obviously preferred to put in its products than the AEC product.
Firstly , there were no funds to take on another factory and another large workforce , then there’s the development costs to improve the unreliable and thirsty 220/280 RR . There was no money for the commercial vehicle side of BL with management pouring money into the car side which put out classics like the Marina , Maestro , Princess etc . Poor quality on these and many more of BL products just made matters worse. There was no chance of profit coming out of an organisation with the products that in some cases were thrown together Bringing another factory with a ,at the time suspect and not very popular engine on board with no money for development to make the Eagle into the 265/290 that it became would have been laughable. Not sure what buses were fitted with AV760/TL12 engines but why let the truth get in the way of one of your usual fantasy posts
RR diesels and Leyland Group were both Nationalised firms at this point in time unless DJ can prove otherwise with some ownership details other than the taxpayer including Nationalised Vickers.The taxpayer ultimately owned both and was picking up the tab either way.
A ‘bored out’ bus motor hoping it could pull the predictable eventual 38t when even 32t was more than enough for it.Which Scammell already knew it couldn’t in the military spec and even civilian spec Crusader.
The rest is history in which the T45 actually ended up with the right, but now outsourced, engine thereby defeating the object of a VI business plan.
Enter DAF on the scene.
So answer the question , where would the money come from to pay the extra workforce a plant and the other big one the development costs. The Eagle was developed into the more reliable 265/290 versions by the old AEC men that left Southall. There was not enough money to replace the TL12 tooling so where was the money coming from to develop the RR and all that came with it. Remember , this was a time when BL were closing and selling off sites not adding.
I haven’t bothered reading this thread after the first few posts but I can see from the page above it’s once again turned into debacle which I thought it might! Franky.
Geordielad:
I haven’t bothered reading this thread after the first few posts but I can see from the page above it’s once again turned into debacle which I thought it might! Franky.
What do you expect once currywurst puts his oar in its time to leave I bet he’s great in the pub
Geordielad:
I haven’t bothered reading this thread after the first few posts but I can see from the page above it’s once again turned into debacle which I thought it might! Franky.
Geordielad:
I haven’t bothered reading this thread after the first few posts but I can see from the page above it’s once again turned into debacle which I thought it might! Franky.
Me too sadly hijacked
Sorry lads , i just dont see how RR would have saved BL
Carryfast:
RR diesels and Leyland Group were both Nationalised firms at this point in time unless DJ can prove otherwise with some ownership details other than the taxpayer including Nationalised Vickers.The taxpayer ultimately owned both and was picking up the tab either way.
A ‘bored out’ bus motor hoping it could pull the predictable eventual 38t when even 32t was more than enough for it.Which Scammell already knew it couldn’t in the military spec and even civilian spec Crusader.
The rest is history in which the T45 actually ended up with the right, but now outsourced, engine thereby defeating the object of a VI business plan.
Enter DAF on the scene.
So answer the question , where would the money come from to pay the extra workforce a plant and the other big one the development costs. The Eagle was developed into the more reliable 265/290 versions by the old AEC men that left Southall. There was not enough money to replace the TL12 tooling so where was the money coming from to develop the RR and all that came with it. Remember , this was a time when BL were closing and selling off sites not adding.
Production of the TL12 is replaced by RR how is that supposedly ‘extra’ when all the resources being spent on production of the TL12 are going into production of the RR instead.
As it stands we already had the situation of public funds being used to produce two different engines only one of which was any good.While the successful Eagle range was being produced from at least the late 1970’s including the 265 and 290 at the same time as Leyland lumbered the already too late T45 with the TL12.Regardless of your exaggerated baseless claims of ‘unreliability’ and ‘fuel consumption’ issues.
So worn out tooling and labour resources being used to produce an engine which couldn’t even break the 300 hp barrier.Your solution is let’s run with that idea which is exactly what happened.That ended well.
Geordielad:
I haven’t bothered reading this thread after the first few posts but I can see from the page above it’s once again turned into debacle which I thought it might! Franky.
Me too sadly hijacked
Sorry lads , i just dont see how RR would have saved BL
Let’s just say that the truck division would have closed down a lot sooner if Leyland didn’t finally see sense in dropping the TL12 and putting the Rolls in the T45 instead of that piece of junk.
AEC and BMC was the problem not the solution.
Carryfast:
RR diesels and Leyland Group were both Nationalised firms at this point in time unless DJ can prove otherwise with some ownership details other than the taxpayer including Nationalised Vickers.The taxpayer ultimately owned both and was picking up the tab either way.
A ‘bored out’ bus motor hoping it could pull the predictable eventual 38t when even 32t was more than enough for it.Which Scammell already knew it couldn’t in the military spec and even civilian spec Crusader.
The rest is history in which the T45 actually ended up with the right, but now outsourced, engine thereby defeating the object of a VI business plan.
Enter DAF on the scene.
So answer the question , where would the money come from to pay the extra workforce a plant and the other big one the development costs. The Eagle was developed into the more reliable 265/290 versions by the old AEC men that left Southall. There was not enough money to replace the TL12 tooling so where was the money coming from to develop the RR and all that came with it. Remember , this was a time when BL were closing and selling off sites not adding.
Production of the TL12 is replaced by RR how is that supposedly ‘extra’ when all the resources being spent on production of the TL12 are going into production of the RR instead.
As it stands we already had the situation of public funds being used to produce two different engines only one of which was any good.While the successful Eagle range was being produced from at least the late 1970’s including the 265 and 290 at the same time as Leyland lumbered the already too late T45 with the TL12.Regardless of your exaggerated baseless claims of ‘unreliability’ and ‘fuel consumption’ issues.
So worn out tooling and labour resources being used to produce an engine which couldn’t even break the 300 hp barrier.Your solution is let’s run with that idea which is exactly what happened.That ended well.
Did any others find the TL12 engine just as reliable & I would say more fuel efficent than the equivalent RR diesel power wise or am I on my own?
In the days of rebuilding worn engines I know which one I would prefer to do.
Dennis Javelin:
“RR diesels and Leyland Group were both Nationalised firms at this point in time unless DJ can prove otherwise”
Vickers purchased Rolls Royce Motors in 1980. Prior to that Rolls Royce Motors was a private company.
Firstly I don’t think it’s confirmed that RR diesels were actually in private hands at the point when the government took over BLMC which effectively was a done deal by 1974 ?.
Certainly credible rumours in ‘the trade’ in the day suggested that RR diesels were still in the hands of the taxpayer at that point if it ever even actually left.
What is absolute fact is that RR diesels were in the hands of the taxpayer, in the form of Vickers, at around the launch of the T45 Roadtrain.
Which was lumbered with the TL12 and Spicer transmission.
As opposed to ( what could have been ) 320 RR and Fuller as standard at launch with Eagle production brought in house and the win win of no more TL12 production and horse power woes.
How convenient for DAF.
dave docwra:
Did any others find the TL12 engine just as reliable & I would say more fuel efficent than the equivalent RR diesel power wise or am I on my own?
In the days of rebuilding worn engines I know which one I would prefer to do.
All moot if the customer wanted a reliable 300 hp + and bought a DAF instead and when the tooling to produce the 280 anchor has worn out anyway.
Franky.