Carryfast, I will have that bet with on sales figures of Crusaders and Marathons and I’ll collect my winnings now. Strip out the figures for Crusaders built for the military and the Marathon wins 2 to 1. You’ve criticised the “narrow sleeper cab” of the Marathon, kindly describe the Crusader’s sleeper cab on the general haulage 32 ton gvw models please.
Yes, I’ve just checked the figures. Between 1975 and 1981 Guy built all the 4x2 Crusaders and if every chassis number in the series had been built (which they wouldn’t have been because any cancelled orders would still have used a chassis number) then Guy assembled 1998 Crusaders. Between the end of 1973 and May 1980 5,293 Marathons were built (actual end of production line summaries). If we allow for 500 6x4 Marathons (generous) then in the general haulage market the Marathon was far more popular than the Crusader. It seems perverse that Scammell should have built 811 Marathons in 1979 -80 whilst Guy was still building Crusaders.
Incidentally we’ve had all these discussions before if you refer back to the “Best Ergo” thread of 2013.
gingerfold:
Yes, I’ve just checked the figures. Between 1975 and 1981 Guy built all the 4x2 Crusaders and if every chassis number in the series had been built (which they wouldn’t have been because any cancelled orders would still have used a chassis number) then Guy assembled 1998 Crusaders. Between the end of 1973 and May 1980 5,293 Marathons were built (actual end of production line summaries). If we allow for 500 6x4 Marathons (generous) then in the general haulage market the Marathon was far more popular than the Crusader. It seems perverse that Scammell should have built 811 Marathons in 1979 -80 whilst Guy was still building Crusaders.Incidentally we’ve had all these discussions before if you refer back to the “Best Ergo” thread of 2013.
I haven’t seen any actual relevant figures and don’t remember seeing them there. 
Although that still leaves the questions how many potential Crusader customers just prioritised the Marathon’s tilt cab over the Marathon’s fixed cab.Was every Marathon allocated to customer order or were some sent to stock with dealers then moved at a discounted loss later.Bearing in mind the Australian example.How many Marathon’s were Rolls or ■■■■■■■ powered versions v TL12 ?.Having filtered all those figures I’d doubt if it would provide any conclusive proof that the in house Marathon significantly outperformed the Crusader or that the Crusader was a niche low volume product in marketing terms.
While what we do know is that Crusader production was transferred to Guy supposedly because Scammell couldn’t meet the demand for it.While Scammell supposedly then managed to put together 811 Marathons in a year v around 330 per year average Crusaders possibly less put together by Guy. 
Carryfast:
Scammell supposedly then managed to put together 811 Marathons in a year v around 330 per year average Crusaders possibly less put together by Guy.
Oh dear, you didn’t engage brain before index finger did you!
We’ve actually reached the point where you’ve started arguing with yourself!
811 Marathons ordered, built and sold.
330 Crusaders ordered built and sold.
This FACT means that the Marathon was more than twice as popular as the Crusader.
You know, you would have been a good fit in the boardroom at BL. “Now lads, listen, I’ve got an idea, let’s bin the Marathon that outsells the Crusader and revamp the Crusader with a proprietary engine and cab, we’ll show those idiots in the car division how to really lose money”
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
Carryfast:
Scammell supposedly then managed to put together 811 Marathons in a year v around 330 per year average Crusaders possibly less put together by Guy.Oh dear, you didn’t engage brain before index finger did you!
We’ve actually reached the point where you’ve started arguing with yourself!
811 Marathons ordered, built and sold.
330 Crusaders ordered built and sold.This FACT means that the Marathon was more than twice as popular as the Crusader.
You know, you would have been a good fit in the boardroom at BL. "Now lads, listen, I’ve got an idea, let’s bin the Marathon that outsells the Crusader and revamp the Crusader with a proprietary engine and cab, we’ll show those idiots in the car division how to really lose money
That would depend on whether the figures being published were believable bearing in mind the contradiction between supposedly can’t handle 330 units per year but then suddenly had no problem with doing 811.
Or whether your ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered Marathon customers are only buying them because they can’t have a Crusader 2 with an SA 400 type cab.Bearing in mind gingerfold’s figures don’t differentiate Rolls and ■■■■■■■ Marathons from TL12.Also if I’ve got it right the whole sorry Marathon episode resulted from the need to find something to do with the loads of also actually outsourced Sankey supplied ERGO cabs,not in house at all,that Leyland had tied itself to. 
Now who’s version of history is more believable.Mine or the idiots who really did hand over the firm lock stock and barrel to DAF and I won’t mention a certain German automobile manufacturer. 
Seddon Atkinson wasn’t exactly a roaring success and they were making the lorry you describe. What difference would a Scammell badge have made?
The whole concept of British Leyland was the cause of its downfall, both in the car and truck divisions. It should have been a takeover, not a merger. Conceptionally there were some good ideas within the group and these should have been developed to their full potential.
Carryfast’s FWD hatchback heaps were actually years ahead of the competition, with the same philosophy applied to the car division as I suggested for the trucks, it could have been a success. Austin and Morris building the Mini and small FWD hatchbacks, Triumph and Roverbuilding mid range and large saloons and Jaguar building executive saloons. Four distinct cars with varying degrees of luxury or sportiness, with the Mini as an entry level car and Jaguar as a range topper, all badged as Leyland, with the possible exception of Jaguar.
I’ve said my piece on the truck division and how they should have rationalised their products and brands and would like to reiterate that the Marathon should have never been built, the time and money wasted on it should have been devoted to the T45 range, giving Leyland a competitive truck in each market segment, not a that’ll do cobbled together vehicular representation of the arrogance and incompetence within the upper management of British Leyland.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
that’ll do cobbled together (vehicular) representation of the arrogance and incompetence within the upper management of British Leyland.Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
You’ve just summed up what was wrong with virtually the whole of British (commercial vehicle and component manufacturing) industry. viz Leyland, Gardner, Foden.
We were beset with industrial disputes at the time, but it takes two parties to create a dispute. Arrogance and incompetence within management clearly played a significant part. It must have been a demoralising time for many staff at BL and elsewhere to see the foreign competition appearing with what looked like better products and then to know their own management’s reaction. Moreover to know that said reaction just wasn’t going to work.
Rather than adopt the successful Japanese philosophy of involving the workforce, British management stuck its old-school-tie nose in the air (I’m in charge) and continued on the trail - which still continues - of no longer seeking to compete with their rivals by producing better products, but instead choosing to try to put them out of business. The easiest way being to buy out the opposition, close the factories and sell the assets to keep the shareholders happy, while disregarding the inevitable result of alienating entire trades. The result manifesting itself in QC rejection and warranty claims.
But that is the subject more suited to different thread, (Why did British Leyland fail? maybe) so perhaps Newmercman could cut and paste with the relevant back preamble?
As soon as Carryfast got involved this ceased to be a Marathon only thread, may as well leave it to its own devices now, the damage is done, I’ve adopted the can’t beat em, join em approach.
Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
Seddon Atkinson wasn’t exactly a roaring success and they were making the lorry you describe. What difference would a Scammell badge have made?The whole concept of British Leyland was the cause of its downfall, both in the car and truck divisions. It should have been a takeover, not a merger. Conceptionally there were some good ideas within the group and these should have been developed to their full potential.
Carryfast’s FWD hatchback heaps were actually years ahead of the competition, with the same philosophy applied to the car division as I suggested for the trucks, it could have been a success. Austin and Morris building the Mini and small FWD hatchbacks, Triumph and Roverbuilding mid range and large saloons and Jaguar building executive saloons. Four distinct cars with varying degrees of luxury or sportiness, with the Mini as an entry level car and Jaguar as a range topper, all badged as Leyland, with the possible exception of Jaguar.
I’ve said my piece on the truck division and how they should have rationalised their products and brands and would like to reiterate that the Marathon should have never been built, the time and money wasted on it should have been devoted to the T45 range, giving Leyland a competitive truck in each market segment, not a that’ll do cobbled together vehicular representation of the arrogance and incompetence within the upper management of British Leyland.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
The only thing i would question here nmm is the Marathon in your opinion should never have been built. If you go back to the 70s when it was introduced most of the British manufacturers were developing new vehicles ie the ERF B series Fodens S80 SA400 even Ford and Bedford had a go ,if Leyland hadnt produced the Marathon wouldn`t they have been left further behind. The Marathon was infact a test bed for the T45 so there was a purpose for it . If you look at the British competion was there 1 that stood out , they were all a much of a muchness .All with good points all with bad points. The Marathon was really a high powered Mandator/Buffalo with a much improved cab , the T45 introduction was also delayed due to whatever they came up with so the Marathon survived perhaps longer than it should have done
I hear you Ramone, it was a decent enough lorry, but it could have been so much better, instead of rushing in half cocked, as Leyland did with the Marathon, had they waited a couple more years and evolved the TL12 in the Buffalo, instead of the disastrous fixed head 500 series, they would have gained more ground than they lost. Imagine the T45 hitting the road before the F10, lighter, faster and more economical with a very modern cab design, it would have wiped the floor with the Volvo. That’s my point, it could have been the truck to beat.
Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
I hear you Ramone, it was a decent enough lorry, but it could have been so much better, instead of rushing in half cocked, as Leyland did with the Marathon, had they waited a couple more years and evolved the TL12 in the Buffalo, instead of the disastrous fixed head 500 series, they would have gained more ground than they lost. Imagine the T45 hitting the road before the F10, lighter, faster and more economical with a very modern cab design, it would have wiped the floor with the Volvo. That’s my point, it could have been the truck to beat.Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk
Thinking about it ,thats probably what it was ,a Mandator/Buffalo with a raised cab which would have been needed for cooling , they wouldnt have got the radiator or effective cooling through the standard Ergo.
bma.finland:
0
somehing like this?
Yeah , obviously with the TL12 with Vanaja being AEC users
newmercman:
Seddon Atkinson wasn’t exactly a roaring success and they were making the lorry you describe. What difference would a Scammell badge have made?The whole concept of British Leyland was the cause of its downfall, both in the car and truck divisions. It should have been a takeover, not a merger. Conceptionally there were some good ideas within the group and these should have been developed to their full potential.
Carryfast’s FWD hatchback heaps were actually years ahead of the competition, with the same philosophy applied to the car division as I suggested for the trucks, it could have been a success. Austin and Morris building the Mini and small FWD hatchbacks, Triumph and Roverbuilding mid range and large saloons and Jaguar building executive saloons. Four distinct cars with varying degrees of luxury or sportiness, with the Mini as an entry level car and Jaguar as a range topper, all badged as Leyland, with the possible exception of Jaguar.
I’ve said my piece on the truck division and how they should have rationalised their products and brands and would like to reiterate that the Marathon should have never been built, the time and money wasted on it should have been devoted to the T45 range, giving Leyland a competitive truck in each market segment, not a that’ll do cobbled together vehicular representation of the arrogance and incompetence within the upper management of British Leyland.
It’s a bit unfair that you’ve put the car division issues into the mix in which case you’ll have to delete your own post going by ze rules you’ve set. 
But seriously If the SD1,let alone the 800 and the Acclaim,were the right cars for the job then the 5 series would obviously have taken out BMW.So that was the most profitable part of the Group deliberately taken out of the frame.While BMC’s products spoke for themselves.
While the T45 was a case of deliberately better late than never.Which leaves the question are you saying that the TL12 and compromised cab version as it was originally introduced to the market was a better product than the later bigger cab,big power Rolls/■■■■■■■ versions. ?. I’d guess anything’s possible if you don’t think that the SA MP cab wasn’t one of the best available and you think that the TL12 could have been turned into a ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ beater and if you think that the failure of the uk automotive industry was the result of arrogance rather than conspiracy.
While I’m obviously including Bedford and SA within my theory.They all failed because they were all intended to fail for political reasons.Not because a Bedford TM or SA type MP cabbed,■■■■■■■ powered,truck couldn’t have wiped the floor with the foreign competition given the government will to make it happen as opposed to vice versa.
While even to be the most charitable to the Marathon it was only really a credible competitor to the F88 which as we know was a 1960’s design not 70’s.
ramone:
newmercman:
I hear you Ramone, it was a decent enough lorry, but it could have been so much better, instead of rushing in half cocked, as Leyland did with the Marathon, had they waited a couple more years and evolved the TL12 in the Buffalo, instead of the disastrous fixed head 500 series, they would have gained more ground than they lost. Imagine the T45 hitting the road before the F10, lighter, faster and more economical with a very modern cab design, it would have wiped the floor with the Volvo. That’s my point, it could have been the truck to beat.Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk
Thinking about it ,that
s probably what it was ,a Mandator/Buffalo with a raised cab which would have been needed for cooling , they wouldnt have got the radiator or effective cooling through the standard Ergo.
If we’re saying that the TL 12 Marathon should only have been limited to the rigid 6/8 wheeler sector that would be a game changer regarding most of what I’ve said.With the exception of that poxy steering wheel and a preferance for a full width cab.That wouldn’t have been a nearly truck that would probably have been one of the best rigids available in the day.
But what did Leyland do.They tried to sell it as a max weight premium Long hauler although look on the brights side they somehow got it to beat an F12 if the media were to be believed.
I disagree on the outsourcing of engines, vertical integration was the way to go, proven by the success of those that did it that way and the failure of those that didn’t.
To complicate that a little, Rolls Royce diesels could have been part of British Leyland, then they would have had the best of both worlds, already standard fitment in the Crusader, it kind of makes sense, even though it wasn’t radically different to the TL12.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
I disagree on the outsourcing of engines, vertical integration was the way to go, proven by the success of those that did it that way and the failure of those that didn’t.To complicate that a little, Rolls Royce diesels could have been part of British Leyland, then they would have had the best of both worlds, already standard fitment in the Crusader, it kind of makes sense, even though it wasn’t radically different to the TL12.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Wasnt the later Eagle designed by an ex AEC engine designer im sure Graham has mentioned this
newmercman:
I disagree on the outsourcing of engines, vertical integration was the way to go, proven by the success of those that did it that way and the failure of those that didn’t.To complicate that a little, Rolls Royce diesels could have been part of British Leyland, then they would have had the best of both worlds, already standard fitment in the Crusader, it kind of makes sense, even though it wasn’t radically different to the TL12.
Surely the operator goes for what’s best not where/how it was sourced by the manufacturer.Bearing in mind that there are no conclusive precedents concerning vertical integration being mutually exclusive with the assembly model.As shown by Leyland previously and more recently Volvo using outsourced components as and when required.Also DB supplying loose Detroit engines together with the choice of ■■■■■■■ in Western Star.While for me the ultimate truck today would probably be an Australian spec KW with a loose supplied ( or just blatantly copied 
) Scania V8 in it put with an 18 speed Fuller.Which leaves your own example in which if I’ve got it right a Pete glider with a CAT in it is more than a match for an in house Volvo ?.While surely the premise of the assembly model meaning failure is contradicted by the fact that Paccar used the cash earn’t based on the assembly model to buy out DAF and Leyland.Ironically I’d guess that manufacturers competing with each other to make the in house model work best is the definition of a ■■■■■■■ contest as to which has got the biggest bankers to back them.In which case the Germans were always going to win that race and even Scania’s bankers blinked first in that regard.
As for the TL12 v Rolls absolutely ‘if’ the UK government had wanted Leyland to survive it would/should have made a hostile takeover of Rolls Royce diesels.In which case Leyland most certainly would have had a radically different engine in terms of torque output potential than the TL12 for the reason I’ve given and as proved by its ability to take on the ■■■■■■■ in the T45.
Having said that did it really matter when the only way that our sick war ravaged economy could have taken on the might of the German/European post war foreign aid scam was in the form of trade barriers and protectionist measures regardless.Instead of which they all went along with US foreign policy aims regarding Europe and the rest is history.
Some explanation of sources of production figures. Firstly, all published vehicle registration figures, monthly or annually, are audited by the SMMT. Note these are actual registrations, not sales figures supplied by manufacturers. For any production figures I have quoted my source is the Leyland Group documents held in the British Commercial Vehicles Museum. They are not figures that I have requested from there, but they are from actual factory records and chassis build sheets that I have personally accessed and researched, a time consuming exercise, but to me interesting and absorbing. Whatever else might have been going wrong at British Leyland it was certainly not the documentation of its products. The records are very detailed and comprehensive. To establish how many TL12 engines were built then there will be a record of the production figures at the BCVM. To find out how many ■■■■■■■ and RR powered Marathons were built then it will require a trawl of all the individual Marathon chassis build sheets, as each engine type had its own designation.
Take chassis build sheets as an example. When a sales order was received then the lorry chassis was immediately allocated a building number that became its chassis number. So, say Gingerfold Transport ordered a TL12 Marathon tractor unit in 1978 it would be identified as 2MTL3828FN. Then there was a 5 digit number beginning with a 3, and prefixed 2T25/27.
2 = Mark 2
M and T25/27= Marathon
TL = TL12 engine
38 = Design GTW in tons, (still limited to 32 tons GTW in the UK in 1977)
28 = TL12 engine BHP rating
F = Tractor Unit
N = Sleeper cab.
The 5 digit chassis number was a sequential number and by 1977 it was in the mid-30,000 range. In about 1970 Leyland had changed AEC’s chassis numbering system from a series system for each AEC model to Leyland’s sequential system. For the researcher AEC’s own system was easier to follow. For example, if my Marathon’s number was 35,611, then 35,610 could have been a Reliance coach (with its own model prefix) and 35,612 could have been a Marshal (again with its own model prefix).
The chassis build sheets are very detailed, not just for Marathons but for every model built in the Leyland group. They record the vehicle designation, chassis number, engine type and number, gearbox type and number, rear axle type and number,diff ratio, original tyre make and size fitted, wheels, fuel tank size, and every component fitted. In addition they record the customer, date of registration, and registration number. Dealer stock orders will record the name of the dealer, surprisingly not very many of these. If an order was cancelled then, certainly in the individual model series chassis numbers, there will either be no chassis build sheet and therefore a gap in the numbering sequence, or it will be marked either “not built” or “not allocated”. Guy Motors retained a model series chassis number system for the Crusaders it built. Sometimes a registration number is not recorded, usually because the vehicle was stored before going into service, a not uncommon practice with some hauliers years ago.
Annual chassis build figures by individual factories or assembly plants. Obviously the largest output plants were Leyland and AEC, with annual chassis production capacity of approximately 6,000 and 5,000 respectively. The assembly lines ran on a 5-day week 50 weeks per year. However, the capacity figures are somewhat arbitrary because it depended on what types of chassis were being built. A 4x2 tractor unit takes less time to build than an eight wheeler. Internal factory photographs of AEC at Southall show that anything and everything was on the assembly line at the same time, Mandators, Mammoth Majors, Reliances, Bridgemaster buses, Marshals and so on. Leyland was the same and sales orders dictated production schedules. Having visited the DAF assembly plant at Leyland in recent years it is still the same there, a variety of models are in production at any given time. There was a well recorded production run at Southall in the early 1960s when Harold Wood required an urgent order of 43 Mammoth Major Mk.V eight wheelers. Agreement was reached with the unions to build them as one batch over a weekend, with the normal speed of building being calculated to take the two full days. All 43 had been finished by 11.00 am Sunday morning, causing AEC to investigate if batch production was the way forward to increase productivity. but sales requirements dictated otherwise.
Scammell at Tolpits Lane Watford was not a large site and its annual production could be as low as 1,200 chassis, but some of its products were complex. In the 1970s the 6x4 military spec Crusader was a complex machine, especially the recovery vehicle variants. It was also building the Routeman eight-wheeler, again a slow build chassis compared to a 4x2 tractor unit. When it built the Marathons after Southall closed then it is entirely feasible for them to have built them relatively quickly, especially as at that time Routeman production was ending in readiness for the introduction of the T45 Constructor model.
Hope I haven’t bored you all with the above.
Far from boring, I soak up that kind of detailed information like a sponge. Thanks for taking the time Graham.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk