What are you waffling about, introducing totally irrelevant, random crap into the conversation?
When was the TM introduced? Not 1965, I’m pretty damned sure.
Much of the success of the British trucks can be squarely laid at the feet of protectionism, whereby anything but British or Australian was priced out of the markets. Fairer taxation sounded the death knell for the trucks designed for a small island and sent here. NZ kept the protections going far longer than us, ergo more Pommie trucks ended up there.
Worthy of note is, the Pom trucks that lasted the longest here, were the ones prepared to modify their trucks to suit the vastly different conditions. Aitkinson is the best example of that, they ended up with a truck equal to the best available at the time, but in no way, shape or form resembling the Aitkinson available in the UK.
If the Volvo was the substandard offering that you described, how did they survive and thrive, when your home market trucks withered and died?
Even Bewick, who was a parochial supporter of home grown trucks and held out to the end, eventually switched to Scania. He thought them a better product.
As usual, your expertise is groundless and hollow. You’ve never been in a position where your purchasing decision has to be financially justified. You’ve never been in a position of responsibility, balancing the operational needs, customer needs and driver needs.
You spent five minutes in the industry and think your ability to spec a truck for a job are better than successful men like Bewick. The truth of the matter is you’re akin to a couple of schoolboys, sitting on the side of the road, discussing the merits of each truck, as it passes.
@carryfast , I have no idea what Toyota, Isuzu and Range Rover have to do with the price of eggs, in Hong Kong. Your brain is all over the shop, like a mad woman’s breakfast. I have no problems insuring my Range Rover.
Star_down_under, you said, The truth of the matter is you’re akin to a couple of schoolboys, sitting on the side of the road, discussing the merits of each truck, as it passes.
Wasn’t that ever part of the whole point of the old timers’ forum? You need to go on the Owners & Operators’ forum for commonsense fleet management and bean counting.
It started with me stating that in the 1980s I was glad to leave an elderly F88 for a Ford Transcon and an ERF B-series. I didn’t state what the design year was for any of them, as it was irrelevant to my point about being wary about getting what you wish for.
You’ve insisted we confine the entire discussion to the '60s. I’m fine with that, but because we were still driving around in F88s in the '80s other parallels are being drawn with later models. Strictly speaking we need to start again and start comparing apples with apples. In 1965, as you suggest, there was little to touch the F88, but that has nothing to do with the import of my original argument.
Firstly, I didn’t describe the F88 other than to state that it was elderly and battle worn. I didn’t describe it in general, I described the vehicle I experienced.
You said:
As usual, your expertise is groundless and hollow. You’ve never been in a position where your purchasing decision has to be financially justified. You’ve never been in a position of responsibility, balancing the operational needs, customer needs and driver needs.
You spent five minutes in the industry and think your ability to spec a truck for a job are better than successful men like Bewick.
My expertise on here has not been regarded as either groundless or hollow. Someone would’ve flagged that one up during my 15 years on here. My ‘five minutes in the industry’ did include driving artics all over Europe, North Africa and down to the Arabian Gulf. I owned and operated an artic. I freelanced for the trucking mags and wrote books on transport. When have I ever claimed to be better than Bewick, whom I hold in high regard, at speccing vehicles? Never. So who is waffling now?
Throughout my years on this forum I have always and consistently made it clear that I have my own person driver preferences and that’s how I choose my favoured trucks; NOT through the filter of an operator or an accountant. It’s PRECISELY because I haven’t got Bewick’s experience that I present my choices as a personal viewpoint. Your attack was unwarranted sir.
If TN is reduced to a huddle of old men bickering about the details of trucks built 60 years ago and long gone from our roads, then TN really will be nearly dead. 
My point clearly isn’t about when the F88 was introduced it’s all about when it’s replacement the F10 was.
As opposed to the Brit made competitors.
Of which you’ve obviously refused to recognise the fact of that timeline or that they were even worthy of being called competitors in the premium vehicle league.Making the F88 obsolete on their introduction.
Thanks Ro it really is rewriting history to suggest that the TM, NGC and SA 400 weren’t all anything other than game changers for the UK industry and actually led the way for products like the F10 well before the F10 arrived.
As for the idea that the F88 was even still thought of as being relevant by the mid 1970’s, let alone closed minded buyers still buying the thing, unfortunately that really is the truth and a shocking indictment of customer choices and blinkered views helping to bring down the whole UK truck manufacturing industry.
Ha ha i haven’t looked in on here for a while but apart from the new format being totally different to the old site some things are just as they were. SDU trying to have a sensible chat or even debate , Les getting his wires crossed thinking SDU is having a go at him but as usual Carryfast is the culprit ruining thread after thread. It’s Volvos turn now to be rubbished , what you will find is no matter how sensible you try to put your point across the Leatherhead looney will trash it with utter crap.
A good reading of the situation, ramone ; but for one detail: if you look in the top right corner of each post, it shows you who the poster is directly responding to. And SDU is responding to me. Now I agree that it looks very much as if he thought he was responding to CF, so he may have pressed the wrong button. However, since it is nonetheless addressed to me, I had to respond in defence! 
I’m impressed CF still manages to get people to take him seriously enough to argue with him 
I quite enjoy the to-ing and fro-ing about the old days. At my age it’s all I’ve got left 
He was definitely responding to Carryfast, i was suprised when i saw your response and thought it was a gemuine mistake. This could be an interesting topic i for one would be interested in the happenings and thoughts of how the Aussies regarded our motors
Well here’s a Oz Atki at work in Western Australia, I believe. After reading through this page SDU’ll need cheering up! 
Oh dear, what have I done? Sorry Les, it appears my response was directed at the wrong post. I’ve always had the impression you spoke with the authority of experience and your beliefs presented logically.
Ramone read the situation correctly, seeing through my error. My humblest apologies, if I have caused any distress.
Back to the basis of discussion. Most certainly, the Volvo was the pinnacle of offerings upon its release. Would I want to be driving one, commercially now, most definitely not. It was Carryfast who introduced and wanted to compare it to trucks released five to ten years later.
No truck manufacturers can afford to redesign their products every year, so have to present the most futuristic vehicles possible whilst maintaining practicality. Volvo did just that, born out by the fact that the G and F 88/89 were relivant for over ten years.
Accepted, star_down_under! No harm done. I’ve respected your posts hitherto and I’m sure I will continue to do so.
Now we can move on and happily enjoy the news and views. 
Precisely, we all have differing needs, loyalties, preferences and encounters. Collectively there is centuries of transport related exposure, condensed on this forum by experienced members of the global trucking community. Carryfast is not amongst that cohort.
What’s that saying, empty vessels…
SDU’ll need cheering up!
Cheers mate, that’s an interesting picture in its own right. Both truck and trailer are from the late 60s or very early 70s, going by the axle configuration. We called that model a half cab, as though the sleeper was an integral part of the cab, it was only half height. Later models were full height with outside accessed lockers each side, below the sleeping quarters.
The trailer clearly demonstrates the versatility of a flat top. The gates and spreader bars are removable. The canvas, visible inside the gates, is a curtain, designed to hang from the top of the gates, attached by ropes or steel hooks. They can be hung inside or outside of the gates. In this instance they are hung inside to carry a bulk load, probably grain. A small amount of the freight is loaded and shovelled onto the bottom of the curtain, to hold it in place when the rest of the commodity is loaded. Finally the cap tarp is secured in the usual manner.
For palletised, or similar freight the curtains are hung on the outside of the gates. Gates can be any height, to suit the operator and anticipated loading, but 5~6’ was the norm and most versatile. Both the curtain and tarp drop are made to suit the gates. This means, with five foot gaates and curtains, loading can be almost ten feet high.
Obviously, tarps can be stowed in the the toolboxes, one seen open along the side of the trailer.
In the era of the picture, generally if the gates were not required, they were stowed against the headrack. In later years we had racks under the trailer, to hold the gates.
In times past the flat top trailer was ubiquitous, now with the proliferation of curtainsiders, flat tops have become almost a specialised trailer.
Cheers SDU! I never knew about that system of loading. It looks as if the preparation was quite time-consuming, but once it was set up it would have provided a secure loading space. And versatile too. In a way I suppose our tilts performed a similar role, though tilts couldn’t be used for bulk grain. Would they have been assembled by a two-man band? Or were those gates made of light alluminium or similar?
the weight of the gates varied wildly, depending on if they were made for economy or robustness, also the size had a bearing.
The gates have three 2"× ³/¹⁶" tongues that align with slots in the coaming rail. When the gates are damaged the tonge and groove can bind. It is usually a single man operation to stand and remove gates, but a cooperative fork lift driver can make life so much more pleasant.
Gates could occasionally be alloy, but the cost usually dictated steel