Page 3. That’s thread no 938 completely down the pan. Who’ll be the last man standing on TN? 
I wasn’t going to respond after reading some other users comments but … Mr Fast says RR were owned by the tax payer but he’s not sure , the government owned both RR and BL in 74/75 apprently .AEC and BMC brought BL down . Where do Foden and ERF come into this and SA. They all used RR with and this is only a guess Foden being the biggest user of the 3 . None were saved by the all record breaking super duper RR engine division with Foden probably being the first to go bankrupt.The rest eventually fading away. In 74/75 the TL12 was relatively new and a decent engine and im not sure who was screaming out for 320 bhp+ at that time. The 220/280 wasn’t the best and needed development BL as mentioned before were skint so couldn’t develop it or have the money to take over the running costs of the plant and staff. Even if it was government owned would they want to give it to Leyland with their track record , i think not. As for AEC and the TL12 being the reason for BL failing just shows how much Mr Fast knows. BMC its workforce and management and the top brass at Leyland yes
Carryfast:
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.
Credible rumours 
Sweet Jesus, having a discussion with you is like playing a pigeon at chess. No matter what move you make you just know that at some point it’s going to jump on the board, flap its wings and scatter the pieces. Godwin’s Law approaches.
Dennis Javelin:
Carryfast:
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.Credible rumours
Sweet Jesus, having a discussion with you is like playing a pigeon at chess. No matter what move you make you just know that at some point it’s going to jump on the board, flap its wings and scatter the pieces. Godwin’s Law approaches.
Credible being the operative word.Leyland Group and RR diesels division were both effectively backed/owned by the taxpayer as of 1974.
Without any doubt at introduction of the Roadtrain.
The OP asked a simple question.
With the simple answers that -
1 AEC and BMC were merged as part of the Leyland Group.
2 Both were major contributors to the failure of the Group.
There being an equally credible case that Leyland was set up to fail to the advantage of foreign interests.Not dropping and replacing TL12 with the RR Eagle at launch of the Roadtrain being evidence of that.
Carryfast:
Dennis Javelin:
Carryfast:
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.Credible rumours
Sweet Jesus, having a discussion with you is like playing a pigeon at chess. No matter what move you make you just know that at some point it’s going to jump on the board, flap its wings and scatter the pieces. Godwin’s Law approaches.
Credible being the operative word.Leyland Group and RR diesels division were both effectively backed/owned by the taxpayer as of 1974.
Without any doubt at introduction of the Roadtrain.
The OP asked a simple question.
With the simple answers that -
1 AEC and BMC were merged as part of the Leyland Group.
2 Both were major contributors to the failure of the Group.
There being an equally credible case that Leyland was set up to fail to the advantage of foreign interests.Not dropping and replacing TL12 with the RR Eagle at launch of the Roadtrain being evidence of that.
How did AEC contribute to Leylands failure? The V8 was launched without AECs approval , it was a concept engine with the designers given a brief to build a compact V8 but were given no indication what it was going to be used for. Your messiah Stokes ordered it to be put in production much to the horror of the designers The ergo range at Southall was never updated until it ceased production in 1977 so they didn’t waste money on development there. The Marathon was built on a shoestring but held its own against the British brigade. BMC however had money poured into them to build the crap they churned out when they weren’t on strike. So how did AEC contribute to Leylands downfall when Leyland made all the decisions ■■?
Carryfast:
Dennis Javelin:
Carryfast:
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.Credible rumours
Sweet Jesus, having a discussion with you is like playing a pigeon at chess. No matter what move you make you just know that at some point it’s going to jump on the board, flap its wings and scatter the pieces. Godwin’s Law approaches.
Credible being the operative word.Leyland Group and RR diesels division were both effectively backed/owned by the taxpayer as of 1974.
Without any doubt at introduction of the Roadtrain.
The OP asked a simple question.
With the simple answers that -
1 AEC and BMC were merged as part of the Leyland Group.
2 Both were major contributors to the failure of the Group.
There being an equally credible case that Leyland was set up to fail to the advantage of foreign interests.Not dropping and replacing TL12 with the RR Eagle at launch of the Roadtrain being evidence of that.
“Without any doubt at introduction of the Roadtrain.”
Would this be the same Roadtrain that was launched in 1980?
In 1974 both BLMC and Rolls Royce Motors were in private hands. Next you’ll be claiming that Bedford was “effectively nationalised” as they were getting lots of military orders.
Also, no-one is saying that the problems that BMC brought to the table didn’t contribute to the downfall of Leyland. Again, AEC were in financial difficulties before Leyland took them over. If they had merged with/been taken over by BMC then they would probably not have seen out the sixties. If Leyland hadn’t moved on them they would definitely have went to the wall in the mid sixties.
ramone:
Carryfast:
How did AEC contribute to Leylands failure? The V8 was launched without AECs approval , it was a concept engine with the designers given a brief to build a compact V8 but were given no indication what it was going to be used for. Your messiah Stokes ordered it to be put in production much to the horror of the designers The ergo range at Southall was never updated until it ceased production in 1977 so they didn’t waste money on development there. The Marathon was built on a shoestring but held its own against the British brigade. BMC however had money poured into them to build the crap they churned out when they weren’t on strike. So how did AEC contribute to Leylands downfall when Leyland made all the decisions ■■?
To answer the OPs question as I said AEC and BMC were merged under the Leyland Group.
You can’t blame Stokes for what were AEC’s engine production and design failings.
You also can’t blame Stokes for BMC predictably being a parasitic liability caused firstly by the government allowing BMC to hold Jaguar and the car industry in general to ransom with the Pressed Steel coup.
Followed by then allowing it to pollute the formation of BLMC.
The truth is Scammell and Rover Triumph came out of the debacle smelling of Roses.If BLMC had just consisted of those components and if Scammell’s relationship with RR had been allowed to flourish history might have been very different.
Unfortunately our treacherous government and foreign competitors like BMW and DAF knew it.
Carryfast:
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.
Are you saying it was pointless by then for either company going on let alone amalgamating as DAF had won the day by then?
Carryfast, decisions were made on the basis of what was known at the time and what was thought to be the best solution. That things didn’t work out exactly as had been hoped for doesn’t mean the government of the day was wrong to do it. Sometimes I don’t know if you’re really serious about the views you put over or are just being awkward for the sake of it.
This will probably be my last contribution to this thread - the pigeon has won.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
How did AEC contribute to Leylands failure? The V8 was launched without AECs approval , it was a concept engine with the designers given a brief to build a compact V8 but were given no indication what it was going to be used for. Your messiah Stokes ordered it to be put in production much to the horror of the designers The ergo range at Southall was never updated until it ceased production in 1977 so they didn’t waste money on development there. The Marathon was built on a shoestring but held its own against the British brigade. BMC however had money poured into them to build the crap they churned out when they weren’t on strike. So how did AEC contribute to Leylands downfall when Leyland made all the decisions ■■?To answer the OPs question as I said AEC and BMC were merged under the Leyland Group.
You can’t blame Stokes for what were AEC’s engine production and design failings.
You also can’t blame Stokes for BMC predictably being a parasitic liability caused firstly by the government allowing BMC to hold Jaguar and the car industry in general to ransom with the Pressed Steel coup.
Followed by then allowing it to pollute the formation of BLMC.
The truth is Scammell and Rover Triumph came out of the debacle smelling of Roses.If BLMC had just consisted of those components and if Scammell’s relationship with RR had been allowed to flourish history might have been very different.
Unfortunately our treacherous government and foreign competitors like BMW and DAF knew it.
AECs engines were not failings , the only one that caused problems was as everyone knows the V8 , a concept engine of which the designers knew nothing for what it was to be used for, they were kept in the dark. So when Stokes and co found out about this they immediately ordered AEC to put it into production .All the appeals of it’s not ready and it may never be fell on deaf ears .They knew it would be a disaster waiting to happen .These are words from the actual designers not google, it was under developed and not designed to do any particular job. Meanwhile Leyland top brass carried on regardless. Again the designers words not mine to the effect of AEC were like guinea pigs as far as Stokes and co were concerned. The limited budget Marathon with the cab built at Leyland was dumped on AEC and the turbocharged 760 designed by AEC were the only other things Southall were responsible for without choice. You admitted yourself that the AEC mock up cab they used to test the V8 was a much better option than the ergo but the ones built were confiscated by Leyland . I honestly can’t understand with all the mismanagement and the millitant midlands workforce and the crap the car side and some of the commercial side churned out you can say AEC contributed to the downfall of BL .No Stokes and co didn’t need any help they could make the decision on their own . Best not mention the 500 fixed head and the dabble with gas turbines to mention a few
Despite what some might think (and of course the whole topic is academic anyway), I love this sort of thread provided it keeps to mild irritation. Not long ago someone was pointing out the slow down of comment on here! One thing I expect we could agree on, the might of Leyland, AEC and BMC should have been World leading. I feel the rot was setting in by the end of 50s and long before the arsey militant unions of the late 60s and 70s.
On a slightly different note regarding VI, would it be a fair observation that the European companies have embraced VI more than their US counterparts?
essexpete:
Despite what some might think (and of course the whole topic is academic anyway), I love this sort of thread provided it keeps to mild irritation. Not long ago someone was pointing out the slow down of comment on here! One thing I expect we could agree on, the might of Leyland, AEC and BMC should have been World leading. I feel the rot was setting in by the end of 50s and long before the arsey militant unions of the late 60s and 70s.
On a slightly different note regarding VI, would it be a fair observation that the European companies have embraced VI more than their US counterparts?
US manufacturers and their Australian subsidiaries are getting right into VI. The only Australian, US based manufacturers left in Australia are Kenworth, Western Star and Freightliner. The former offers the Daf based engine as standard and the ■■■■■■■ at a “don’t tick this box” ridiculous premium. The latter pair, both owned by only Mercedes Benz, only offer choices from the Detroit factory, also owned by Mercedes.
Maybe after reading SDUs post above AEC & Leyland were more advanced than we gave them credit for.Now maybe the thread title should have been if only AEC & Leyland had been in the group. Both full intergrated and if managed properly could have been up there with the best .
What’s the situation with Volvo in Australia SDU do they sell White’s or Volvos European version or both Do Scania sell well over there and what would the Australians prefer in their Western Stars ,if money was no object ■■■■■■■ or Mercedes ?
BMC was failing/failed from the time when it effectively black mailed Jaguar into bailing it out.Some say to the point where its true liabilities were hidden from Lyons when he mistakenly signed up to the deal.
Also contrary to the hype BMC’s front drive products were rightly as toxic in the motor trade as its balance sheet was to the respective BMH and BLMC groups that it predictably helped to bring down.
Which leaves the question of that being the intended aim of our government as part of the deliberate and eventually stated, move away from being a manufacturing based economy.
[/quote]
Lyons was worried about the supply of body shells BMC owned pressed steel who made all the bodies for Jaguar,he also had no heir to leave the firm to after the death of his son. He probably felt like he had no other options although I would imagine he probably regretted it for the rest of his life.
The main trouble with BMC is they were badly managed there cars (regardless of what you think of them) were best sellers. The Mini and 1100/1300 were regularly in the top ten sales lists but everyone was sold at a loss no wonder BMC didn’t last. The profits from the successful companies,the trucks landrover etc.were used to prop up the car side which meant no money for development of new ranges.
dazcapri:
BMC was failing/failed from the time when it effectively black mailed Jaguar into bailing it out.Some say to the point where its true liabilities were hidden from Lyons when he mistakenly signed up to the deal.
Also contrary to the hype BMC’s front drive products were rightly as toxic in the motor trade as its balance sheet was to the respective BMH and BLMC groups that it predictably helped to bring down.
Which leaves the question of that being the intended aim of our government as part of the deliberate and eventually stated, move away from being a manufacturing based economy.
Lyons was worried about the supply of body shells BMC owned pressed steel who made all the bodies for Jaguar,he also had no heir to leave the firm to after the death of his son. He probably felt like he had no other options although I would imagine he probably regretted it for the rest of his life.
The main trouble with BMC is they were badly managed there cars (regardless of what you think of them) were best sellers. The Mini and 1100/1300 were regularly in the top ten sales lists but everyone was sold at a loss no wonder BMC didn’t last. The profits from the successful companies,the trucks landrover etc.were used to prop up the car side which meant no money for development of new ranges.
[/quote]
Rover were never part of BMC or BMH. Leyland took them (and Alvis who Rover had bought shortly before) over in 1967. Whatever was keeping BMC alive it wasn’t the landrover.
Dennis Javelin:
dazcapri:
BMC was failing/failed from the time when it effectively black mailed Jaguar into bailing it out.Some say to the point where its true liabilities were hidden from Lyons when he mistakenly signed up to the deal.
Also contrary to the hype BMC’s front drive products were rightly as toxic in the motor trade as its balance sheet was to the respective BMH and BLMC groups that it predictably helped to bring down.
Which leaves the question of that being the intended aim of our government as part of the deliberate and eventually stated, move away from being a manufacturing based economy.Lyons was worried about the supply of body shells BMC owned pressed steel who made all the bodies for Jaguar,he also had no heir to leave the firm to after the death of his son. He probably felt like he had no other options although I would imagine he probably regretted it for the rest of his life.
The main trouble with BMC is they were badly managed there cars (regardless of what you think of them) were best sellers. The Mini and 1100/1300 were regularly in the top ten sales lists but everyone was sold at a loss no wonder BMC didn’t last. The profits from the successful companies,the trucks landrover etc.were used to prop up the car side which meant no money for development of new ranges.
Rover were never part of BMC or BMH. Leyland took them (and Alvis who Rover had bought shortly before) over in 1967. Whatever was keeping BMC alive it wasn’t the landrover.
[/quote]
So were Rover , Triumph , Jaguar , Daimler aĺl seperate companies that had been bought by Leyland. If so of all the companies within the group Austin Morris would have been the one not to invest heavily in. I remember watching Jeremy Clarksons documentary on BL Cars and he pointed out they were losing money on every Mini sold ■■? What was the point , he also mentioned new body shells being transported from one factory to an other exposed to the eliments . And still they poured money in at the expense of the CV side. Maybe if BMC had been given a wide birth there might still be a BL
ramone:
Dennis Javelin:
dazcapri:
BMC was failing/failed from the time when it effectively black mailed Jaguar into bailing it out.Some say to the point where its true liabilities were hidden from Lyons when he mistakenly signed up to the deal.
Also contrary to the hype BMC’s front drive products were rightly as toxic in the motor trade as its balance sheet was to the respective BMH and BLMC groups that it predictably helped to bring down.
Which leaves the question of that being the intended aim of our government as part of the deliberate and eventually stated, move away from being a manufacturing based economy.Lyons was worried about the supply of body shells BMC owned pressed steel who made all the bodies for Jaguar,he also had no heir to leave the firm to after the death of his son. He probably felt like he had no other options although I would imagine he probably regretted it for the rest of his life.
The main trouble with BMC is they were badly managed there cars (regardless of what you think of them) were best sellers. The Mini and 1100/1300 were regularly in the top ten sales lists but everyone was sold at a loss no wonder BMC didn’t last. The profits from the successful companies,the trucks landrover etc.were used to prop up the car side which meant no money for development of new ranges.Rover were never part of BMC or BMH. Leyland took them (and Alvis who Rover had bought shortly before) over in 1967. Whatever was keeping BMC alive it wasn’t the landrover.
So were Rover , Triumph , Jaguar , Daimler aĺl seperate companies that had been bought by Leyland. If so of all the companies within the group Austin Morris would have been the one not to invest heavily in. I remember watching Jeremy Clarksons documentary on BL Cars and he pointed out they were losing money on every Mini sold ■■? What was the point , he also mentioned new body shells being transported from one factory to an other exposed to the eliments . And still they poured money in at the expense of the CV side. Maybe if BMC had been given a wide birth there might still be a BL
[/quote]
Isigonnads seem to have an enormous amount of clout. With my limited knowledge, I would guess some of the BMC products were light years ahead of some mainstream rivals. As I see it, the front wheel drive cars were more expensive to produce and assemble. Couple that with models that were not quite “finished”, as it were, and perceived as ugly to boot, the cars became problematic. Ultimately the management of the day must shoulder the blame. Both the truck and car businesses should have been streamlined but, as has already be mentioned, no one would want to shoulder the blame for closures and reduction in labour force. Such a shame.
In what respect were the ahead of their time do youu mean FWD.I go back as far as the 1100s 1800s and 2200s and of course the Mini. I honestly don’t know how they compared to other makes of the time. Enter the 70s and well, Allegro Princess Maxi Marina and of course the Ital were what they were but how much money was poured into BMC from other subsidaries in the group to design retool and build such classics. If they had used half the money on the CV side we could still see a British truck & bus corporation. I wouldn’t envy the man at the top but some of the decisions were odd to say the least. Well respected Rover and Triumph were other casualties even though Land Rover survived Jaguar too , what happened to Daimler
Ramone, none of the European manufacturers offer a conventional control truck*, only Australianized versions of of the European offerings.
Volvo and Scania are preferred amongst the Euros. Mercedes are making inroads, but only due to availability and price.
*Mack (bonneted) are available with minorly modified Volvo engines and transmission equipment.
Rover were never part of BMC or BMH. Leyland took them (and Alvis who Rover had bought shortly before) over in 1967. Whatever was keeping BMC alive it wasn’t the landrover.
[/quote]
So were Rover , Triumph , Jaguar , Daimler aĺl seperate companies that had been bought by Leyland. If so of all the companies within the group Austin Morris would have been the one not to invest heavily in. I remember watching Jeremy Clarksons documentary on BL Cars and he pointed out they were losing money on every Mini sold ■■? What was the point , he also mentioned new body shells being transported from one factory to an other exposed to the eliments . And still they poured money in at the expense of the CV side. Maybe if BMC had been given a wide birth there might still be a BL
[/quote]
Isigonnads seem to have an enormous amount of clout. With my limited knowledge, I would guess some of the BMC products were light years ahead of some mainstream rivals. As I see it, the front wheel drive cars were more expensive to produce and assemble. Couple that with models that were not quite “finished”, as it were, and perceived as ugly to boot, the cars became problematic. Ultimately the management of the day must shoulder the blame. Both the truck and car businesses should have been streamlined but, as has already be mentioned, no one would want to shoulder the blame for closures and reduction in labour force. Such a shame.
[/quote]
Jaguar took over Daimler in 1960 and they were in turn taken over by BMC in 1966 who changed their name to British Motor Holdings. They were taken over by Leyland in 1968. Leyland had taken over Standard-Triumph in 1960. I think that Leyland knew that there was too many competing manufacturers in the truck side so decided to “rationalise” it without waiting for companies to go out of business. Their take over/mergers with Albion, Scammell and AEC bear testimony to this. In the early 60’s they took a considerable shareholding in Foden and Bristol for example and would probably have taken them over later in that decade as well. They could probably have managed this but for reasons that I cannot for the life of me understand they moved into car manufacture with the purchase of Standard-Triumph. I also don’t for a minute think that there wasn’t pressure from the government regarding the BMH merger. Whether there were deals done behind closed doors to effect this is highly probable but, if this was the case, then the details would still seem to be highly confidential as there isn’t much about this available from the Public Records Office. I’m planning a visit there later in the year on a separate matter so I might see what I can unearth as my interest has been piqued in this.