essexpete:
So going forward from the late 60s which engines should the BL conglomerate have kept in production sufficient long enough to alow time for full testing of engines in the pipeline (and abort them if unsuitable) and also develop a completely new range of engines for the mid 70s on?
Quite clearly they should have commissioned Carryfast as their chief designer.
In the real world they had got the final versions of the fixed head 500 series engine running more reliably. There were some aspects of its design which were to become commonplace: flywheel end timing gears and the overhead camshaft. The latter reverting to the roots of George Rackham’s Leyland and slightly later AEC diesel engine design. The fixed head offered benefits in the reduction of the tendency for the cylinder bore to distort, however valves directly operated by the camshaft in such a design introduce issues regarding a lack of clearance and the potential dismantling required to rectify the potential consequences. That one aspect more than likely finishes the concept. The real problems arose because BL could not manufacture the thing to the necessary QC standard. The following except from Hansard relating to Park Royal illustrates that the real problem was catastrophically appalling management. BL should have persevered with this engine in the shorter term while incorporating some of what they had learnt in a larger volume experimental design. In the meantime the AEC derived block still offered the possibilty of at the very least Iveco Cursor 11 or even Cursor 13 dimensions.
Quote Hansard,:Rt Hon Mr Pavitt:
“At Park Royal the management has been absolutely chaotic. Previously, for most of the time I have been a Member of this House, the manager was a Mr. J. W. Shirley. He was there from 1953 to 1976. He was succeeded by a Mr. Field, who was there from 1976 to 1978. Under their regime, they knew what they were talking about. They were experts and they were well versed in the whole question of bus building. They had the confidence of the work force. Since then, what an article in The Guardian of 24 September indicts as top heavy management has led to the contempt of the work force. I quote from the article: At the root of the contempt is a mythical character called Hurry-up Harry. He is the archetypal Leyland career man who comes down from the Midlands with his well-researched theories and his expertise and runs into distrust from the shop floor every time he opens his mouth. ‘All our management are British Leyland whizz kids,’ said that worker. ‘They call them expediters … They make up the titles as they go along. There are that many of them you have to make two buses a week to pay for them.’". I have two charts showing the management structure as it was before Leyland started the reorganisation, when the top brass could be counted on the fingers of my hand. There is now a chart that makes the family tree of Henry VIII appear a minor matter. It starts with the top echelons and goes down through shade after shade of various assistant managers. As has been said before in the House, there are far more chiefs than Indians.
gingerfold:
The RR Eagle engine was used in DMU railcars, presumably in horizontal configuration■■?.
The AEC 7.7 litre unit (7.65 l actually) as used in the Matador was a 146 mm stroke design. I was told the reason once why AEC shortened the stroke of subsequent engines to 142 mm, but for the life of me I cannot remember what the reason was…
I’ve only ever thought of the Eagle in usual vertical form.Interesting.
That also raises also interesting questions.
By all accounts the Regent III was first fitted with an 8.8 litre motor ?.
I’m guessing a bigger 113mm bore version of the Matador’s motor ?.
Why didn’t they use that in the Matador ?.
Oh wait more force applied to the con rod assemply by the larger piston area ?.If so good call.
Maybe they had to shorten it from 146 mm to make it easier to fit under the bus bonnet ?.
Was all this done still under the leadership of Rackham ironically an ex Leyland employee ?.
I’m guessing he’d gone by the crucial make or break 60’s/70’s period.
My bet is that he’d have said no way to the 760 or even 690 as a 32t truck engine ok in a bus.
Let alone the V8.At least assuming I’m right about the call to use the 7.6 instead of 8.8 in the Matador and the extra capacity of the 8.8 was obtained with a larger bore.
The 590’s bore stroke ratio was more than enough.
The resulting 130 x 154 TL12 would have been a game changer.
cav551:
Quite clearly they should have commissioned Carryfast as their chief designer.
No thanks I’m only the test driver. Although ironically the position does hopefully contain some clout if the designers are prepared to listen to any criticism.Where would Jaguar have been without Norman Dewis and would the Spitfire have been as successful without Alex Henshaw’s input.
“At Park Royal the management has been absolutely chaotic. Previously, for most of the time I have been a Member of this House, the manager was a Mr. J. W. Shirley. He was there from 1953 to 1976. He was succeeded by a Mr. Field, who was there from 1976 to 1978.
Remind us who was in charge of Leyland between 1976 - 1979 and 1965 - 1975.
How long did the Routemaster remain in service after production had ended.
Who actually made the decision to end production.
Bearing in mind that AEC and Park Royal ceased to exist as of 1979.
cav551:
The contunued production of RM type buses by AEC would have seen the company’s demise much more quickly.
I can’t be bothered to look up the exact numbers yet again but fewer than 100-150 buses were sold to operators other than London Transport. This was for a very simple reason - no one else wanted them; they were viewed as outdated with an open rear platform and too expensive and had been viewed from day one as having features which were viewed with suspicion by their fleet engineers.
The only other customer for the bus now also no longer wished to purchase any more of the type, because dwindling bus useage and revenue meant they could not afford the pay rates to attract the staff to operate vehicles which required a crew of two. This left AEC with the option of ending production or filling their yard with vehicles they could not sell and therfore would be unable to recoup their production costs.
You cannot sell what people don’t want.
The fact that there was a prototype front entrance RM running in service is just really like the TL12’s future development: just another might have been. The truth surrounding this is that BL already had three front entrance, rear engine, double deckers in production; they did not want a fourth challenger at a time when the object was to streamline model production.
Let’s get this right the unions fought against the job losses caused by OMO.
Passengers moaned about the resulting delays at every stop compared to previously.
Traffic got held up behind parked buses at every stop.
Engines spent more time idling with less air flow than before.
More fuel got wasted by idling bus engines.
Production of the Routemaster stopped in 1968.
The thing was still in service in 1982.
Pessengers tried to avoid OMO routes in favour of the remaining two man operated services.
AEC and Park Royal closed in 1979 3 years before the Routemaster finally went out of service and even then to the objections of passengers.
As for TL12 a bored out 590 based motor which predictably ran out of steam at less than 900 lbft and at 270 hp.Intended for a max weight truck for the 1980’s.
The rest is history and still people blame Stokes.
So regarding engines in the BL group at the end of the 60s which truck performed more efficiently:
Leyland Octopus with the 0.680 or the Mammoth Major with the AV 760?
Then throw in the Routeman with the Leyland or out sourced engines?
cav551:
In the meantime the AEC derived block still offered the possibilty of at the very least Iveco Cursor 11 or even Cursor 13 dimensions.
Great we’ve now got down to the diametrically opposed design philosophies of MX11 and MX13 v Cursor and their respective designers’ reasoning.
Ultimately you’re going to need to explain the MX13’s 142 lbft per liter v the Cursor’s 129 lbft per litre.
Oh dear, I’ll take your apples and oranges comparison attempt and compare your figure for the 12.9 litre MX 13 530 with the figure for the Cursor 11 480… 11.2 litre Cursor11. peak torque 1696lbft = 151 lbft/lt
or perhaps with the virtually equally rated MX13 485. peak torque 1650 lbft = 127 lbft/lt … did you get them the wrong way round?
essexpete:
So regarding engines in the BL group at the end of the 60s which truck performed more efficiently:
Leyland Octopus with the 0.680 or the Mammoth Major with the AV 760?
Then throw in the Routeman with the Leyland or out sourced engines?
You can add to that the question why did Scammell avoid the 760/TL12 in the Crusader in preference of RR.Why the preference for 680 in Routeman/Trunker/Handyman.
Let me guess Scammell also had it in for AEC like Stokes.
While Stokes was so biased in favour of Leyland that he happily allowed Scammell and Guy to use RR instead of Leyland or AEC motors.
It was a two horse race between 680 and RR and the Dutch won it with the inferior motor in a rigged match.
cav551:
In the meantime the AEC derived block still offered the possibilty of at the very least Iveco Cursor 11 or even Cursor 13 dimensions.
Great we’ve now got down to the diametrically opposed design philosophies of MX11 and MX13 v Cursor and their respective designers’ reasoning.
Ultimately you’re going to need to explain the MX13’s 142 lbft per liter v the Cursor’s 129 lbft per litre.
Oh dear, I’ll take your apples and oranges comparison attempt and compare your figure for the 12.9 litre MX 13 530 with the figure for the Cursor 11 480… 11.2 litre Cursor11. peak torque 1696lbft = 151 lbft/lt
or perhaps with the virtually equally rated MX13 485. peak torque 1650 lbft = 127 lbft/lt … did you get them the wrong way round?
Carryfast:
[quote=“gingerfold” I was told the reason once why AEC shortened the stroke of subsequent engines to 142 mm, but for the life of me I cannot remember what the reason was…
By all accounts the Regent III was first fitted with an 8.8 litre motor ?.
Why didn’t they use that in the Matador ?.
[/quote]
Edit to this.
It seems the 8.8 A 180 was also actually a 115 x 142 mm design running contemporary with the 146 mm stroke 7.6 ?.
Only the 7.6 seems to have had the 146 mm stroke ?.
Most/all else seems to be either 130 mm or 142.
It would be fair to say that relatively short stroke design permeated AEC from pre war albeit at least with relatively reasonable ratios like 120 x 142.
With only the 7.6 being a slight relative exception to the rule.
Which still leaves the question why use the smaller 7.6 in the Matador not the 8.8 or possibly even the 9.6 A 208 - 213 also available then ?.
The answer to that question might just be the smoking gun which seals the case against both the TL12 let alone V8.
AEC’s thinking was too closely related to bus engine requirements which would have got them by at the relatively low gross weights of the pre 32t era.
Game over by the 1970’s.
Yet ‘someone’ decided that was what they were going to put in the T45 at the point when 38t gross was on the horizon.
Carryfast:
By all accounts the Regent III was first fitted with an 8.8 litre motor ?.
Why didn’t they use that in the Matador ?
Edit to this.
It seems the 8.8 A 180 was also actually a 115 x 142 mm design running contemporary with the 146 mm stroke 7.6 ?.
Only the 7.6 seems to have had the 146 mm stroke ?.
Most/all else seems to be either 130 mm or 142.
It would be fair to say that relatively short stroke design permeated AEC from pre war albeit at least with relatively reasonable ratios like 120 x 142.
With only the 7.6 being a slight relative exception to the rule.
Which still leaves the question why use the smaller 7.6 in the Matador not the 8.8 or possibly even the 9.6 A 208 - 213 also available then ?.
The answer to that question might just be the smoking gun which seals the case against both the TL12 let alone V8.
AEC’s thinking was too closely related to bus engine requirements which would have got them by at the relatively low gross weights of the pre 32t era.
Game over by the 1970’s.
Yet ‘someone’ decided that was what they were going to put in the T45 at the point when 38t gross was on the horizon.
In the last century, successful engines were made with a wide range of bore/stroke ratios. The torque is proportional to the bore squared multiplied by the stroke. If you think that stroke is more important, how do you explain it in the context of that fact?
cav551:
In the meantime the AEC derived block still offered the possibilty of at the very least Iveco Cursor 11 or even Cursor 13 dimensions.
Great we’ve now got down to the diametrically opposed design philosophies of MX11 and MX13 v Cursor and their respective designers’ reasoning.
Ultimately you’re going to need to explain the MX13’s 142 lbft per liter v the Cursor’s 129 lbft per litre.
Oh dear, I’ll take your apples and oranges comparison attempt and compare your figure for the 12.9 litre MX 13 530 with the figure for the Cursor 11 480… 11.2 litre Cursor11. peak torque 1696lbft = 151 lbft/lt
or perhaps with the virtually equally rated MX13 485. peak torque 1650 lbft = 127 lbft/lt … did you get them the wrong way round?
How can a specific torque output comparison of two around 13 litre engines possibly be apples v oranges.
You know very well what you were doing, you were comparing the specific torque of the 11 litre Cursor 11 with that of the 13 litre MX13. It is there in black and white in your own words. Moreover going by the figure you quoted the specific torque (which you are so fond of using) of the Cursor 11 is greater than that of the MX13 you quote.
Anyway here is the Cursor 13’s ‘best shot’ producing 1843 lbft:
Here’s another one to throw into the 13litre 1850 torque mix, the Volvo D13, 455hp to 500hp versions are available with 1850 here in the colonies, the corresponding Mack MP8 engines are the same obviously as the hardware is the same, just a different colour with Mack on the valve cover.
All as relevant to a TL12 or a Rolls Royce Eagle as a grapefruit is to a goldfish.
As an aside, I had four of the Cursor 13 engined Stralis 540s, they were powerful lorries, with an early downsplit to keep them in the boil they would go up most hills on the limiter, they were less than 1850, which i hadn’t realized.
I’ve also owned a 510hp 1850lb/ft Paccar MX and they go well too, but their 1850lb/ft is nowhere near as powerful as 1850lb/ft of CAT torque, even though it’s available over a wider rpm range which should give it the advantage, in the real world it doesn’t, the same applies to the Volvo torque, it can’t match a CAT even though the numbers are the same, so perhaps the bore/stroke ratio, engine architecture, BMEP and the rest of the nerdy stuff is only of any value in a game of Top Trumps, maybe that’s why people who actually had experience of a TL12 all say that they pulled like a train, regardless of what was on paper.
essexpete:
So regarding engines in the BL group at the end of the 60s which truck performed more efficiently:
Leyland Octopus with the 0.680 or the Mammoth Major with the AV 760?
Then throw in the Routeman with the Leyland or out sourced engines?
You can add to that the question why did Scammell avoid the 760/TL12 in the Crusader in preference of RR.Why the preference for 680 in Routeman/Trunker/Handyman.
Let me guess Scammell also had it in for AEC like Stokes.
While Stokes was so biased in favour of Leyland that he happily allowed Scammell and Guy to use RR instead of Leyland or AEC motors.
It was a two horse race between 680 and RR and the Dutch won it with the inferior motor in a rigged match.
Added but can you enlighten me as to which was the most effective truck for that time? Surely the business plan should have been to dump the other in house (speaking of the whole group) trucks as quickly as possible? The only problem I see with that would be brand loyalty and stroppy unions.
essexpete:
So regarding engines in the BL group at the end of the 60s which truck performed more efficiently:
Leyland Octopus with the 0.680 or the Mammoth Major with the AV 760?
Then throw in the Routeman with the Leyland or out sourced engines?
The Octopus O.680 was discontinued in 1970 in favour of the Scammell Routeman eight-wheeler, that retained the O.680 engine, and I’ll refer CF to this comment rather than repeat myself in CF’s post. The Routeman had the RR Eagle 220 as an option to the O.680. The rationale for boosting output at Scammell was to keep Tolpits Lane busy as the Scarab / Townsman and Highwayman models had all been discontinued, falling victims to C&U regulations.
The Routeman was a good and popular eight wheeler, especially as a tipper. BL offered the Mammoth Major AV760 until 1977, popular as a tanker chassis, and a small number of Guy Big J eight wheelers with ■■■■■■■ engines. So the group had applied a bit of logical thinking with its 1970s eight wheeler models. It kept customers happy by offering them choices of makes and engine options. With the impending and actual cessation of Mammoth Major production in 1977 the Octopus was re-introduced, initially in 1975 with the 502 engine (205 bhp), then the 511 engine from 1976 (230 bhp), then for former AEC customers the L12 Octopus (203 bhp) came along in 1977, and the final Ergo cabbed Octopus offering was the TL11A option in 1979 (TL11 engine de-rated to 209 bhp). This was something of a stop-gap until the T45 Scammell Constructor was introduced with engine options.
Whilst BL was faffing about with its 32 tons tractor unit range in the 1970s it actually got its eight wheeler offerings more or less spot-on, able to satisfy all its customers wherever previous marque loyalties were. In the 1970s the eight wheeler market was still very important.
gingerfold:
The RR Eagle engine was used in DMU railcars, presumably in horizontal configuration■■?.
The AEC 7.7 litre unit (7.65 l actually) as used in the Matador was a 146 mm stroke design. I was told the reason once why AEC shortened the stroke of subsequent engines to 142 mm, but for the life of me I cannot remember what the reason was…
I’ve only ever thought of the Eagle in usual vertical form.Interesting.
That also raises also interesting questions.
By all accounts the Regent III was first fitted with an 8.8 litre motor ?.
I’m guessing a bigger 113mm bore version of the Matador’s motor ?.
Why didn’t they use that in the Matador ?.
Oh wait more force applied to the con rod assemply by the larger piston area ?.If so good call.
Maybe they had to shorten it from 146 mm to make it easier to fit under the bus bonnet ?.
Was all this done still under the leadership of Rackham ironically an ex Leyland employee ?.
I’m guessing he’d gone by the crucial make or break 60’s/70’s period.
My bet is that he’d have said no way to the 760 or even 690 as a 32t truck engine ok in a bus.
Let alone the V8.At least assuming I’m right about the call to use the 7.6 instead of 8.8 in the Matador and the extra capacity of the 8.8 was obtained with a larger bore.
The 590’s bore stroke ratio was more than enough.
The resulting 130 x 154 TL12 would have been a game changer.
The 8.8 litre engine was used in pre-war AEC lorries and PSVs, it was a relatively short-lived engine and was available with options of indirect or direct fuel injection. It was notable for being a high-revving engine for its time, up to 2,400 rpm. The 7.7 litre was the more numerous engine, being used in the heavy AEC lorries as well as PSVs. The experimental 9.6 litre engines were trialled in the early years of WW2, and versions were used in Armoured cars produced at Southall.
John Rackham was first an AEC man, having been at Walthamstow works in LGOC days. He moved to the Yellow Car Company in New York (municipal bus operator), then in the late 1920s returned to the UK working for Leyland, where he is credited with designing the Titan bus from the wheels up, which was a very successful model. He rejoined AEC in the early 1930s, preferring the drier London climate than that of Lancashire. He retired in about 1950.
Although ironically the position does hopefully contain some clout if the designers are prepared to listen to any criticism.Where would Jaguar have been without Norman Dewis and would the Spitfire have been as successful without Alex Henshaw’s input. 