^^^^^^
There is a wealth of information there.
I have also found another CM article that is worth reading, unfortunately I don’t how to do a link, but it is entitled “No Bad Vehicles, only some Better than Others” It was published in CM on 30th June 1972, and it discusses what should be taken into consideration when purchasing a lorry.
gingerfold:
Scammell assembled mainstream haulage models in relatively small numbers annually, typically about 25% of AEC’s annual production and 18% of Leyland’s annual production. No one has claimed a ‘myth’ about its output. Scammell’s forte WAS in specialist vehicles. You claim to have done some work with Scammell; if you ever visited Tolpits Lane then you will know that it would have been difficult to increase output there because of restrictions imposed by the site. I for one have driven a Scammell Handyman and I liked it; Leyland O.680 engine, AEC Thorneycroft D203 gearbox. It was a good tractor unit. Credit where credit is due.
Firstly like Bedford/Tricentrol my ‘work’ with Scammell was limited to just very interesting conversations with its commited anything but militant workforce similar to this during Specialist Vehicle collections and progress checks.
I think volume is irrelevant in terms of the difference between a Nubian Mk 1 or 2 v a 280 Crusader, Routeman, Trunker, Handyman and the later T45 types of haulage market types.
Their take on how to make an everyday haulage motor was put anything but an L12 or TL12 or AEC V8 in it.Or for that matter orders for the military.( Rolls/L 680/Detroit and sometimes ■■■■■■■ ? ) being their default choices.
Thornycroft, which was our main interest there, obviously came as a buyout bonus.
Yes Tolpits Lane was never going to cut it as a site.
All the more question why Leyland closed AEC, let alone closed it first in view of the Ryder Report’s recomendations.Noweher did it sate close AEC but save Tolpits Lane ( for a while at least ) if close AEC at all ?.
Also nowehere did it suggest that buying out Rolls Royce diesels wasn’t the obvious way forward for Leyland’s engine production needs.More like do whatever it takes to save the division.
Unless it was all just a diversion as part of an already decided plan to hand over the truck division to DAF.
Buses to Volvo and just destroy Rover Triumph because ze Germans don’t take prisoners.But the Royals were keen on their Jaguars so save them.
As for keeping BMC staggering on instead of closing it that will make a great catalyst to eventually make the case for the demise process of the whole group.The last bit is the smoking gun which suggests that the Ryder Report was just part of the cover in addition to the question of the conflict of interest in a large Ford figure being involved in it. 
I assume that the Gardner 230 turbo engine was not an option in the T45 tractor units? RMC/Butterley Aggregates had them in eight wheelers though.
Pete.
I don’t think Daf had any aspirations to take over Leyland in the 70s, that would’ve been like Mr Patel taking over Sainsbury’s.
gingerfold:
ERF-NGC-European:
gingerfold:
ERF-NGC-European:
Just a point of order: the ■■■■■■■ 14l NTC 335 was standard equipment in the ERF ‘European’ unit unveiled in Jan 1973. However, for the first two years it was only available as an export modelRo
And also an option in the Marathon from 1977.
And earlier than that, if you remember WTJ 120L (a '73 reg), the Marathon with the NTC 335 and 13-sp Fuller that did Middle-East. Also, ERF were putting 335s in 5MW Europeans at the start of the '70s. I seem to remember reading on here that they were available in the UK in the late '60s and then we built them at Shotts under licence as the NTK 335 in the '70s.
Rowena
It was stated at the time that the Marathon WTJ 120L with the Cu 335 was a one-off for evaluation purposes.
I entirely take your point, Graham, and yes I was aware that it was a one-off; but my point was simply to emphasise that the NTC 335 was available in the early '70s in the UK, not just for heavy haulage but on general haulage too.
ERF-NGC-European:
gingerfold:
It was stated at the time that the Marathon WTJ 120L with the Cu 335 was a one-off for evaluation purposes.I entirely take your point, Graham, and yes I was aware that it was a one-off; but my point was simply to emphasise that the NTC 335 was available in the early '70s in the UK, not just for heavy haulage but on general haulage too.
Truck magazine tested a 335 Marathon in 1976 (or was it '77?). That Eurotest has been uploaded onto TNUK, somewhere. Even if WTJ was a pre-production vehicle, it did eventually go to a customer. I wonder how many more 335 Marathons were made? I wonder if the museum at Leyland has records of them, like it did of those Guy 8LXB vehicles?
Regarding the phased introduction of the T45, I too considered it an over-conservative strategy. Why weren’t ■■■■■■■ 400-engined high-datum models available from the outset? They could have built one- like they did with WTJ- and used it as a demonstrator, while quoting long enough lead times to get the bread-and-butter models into production first.
newmercman:
I don’t think Daf had any aspirations to take over Leyland in the 70s, that would’ve been like Mr Patel taking over Sainsbury’s.
As the Romans said who gains from this.They didn’t want to ‘take over Leyland’ they just wanted Leyland’s customers.
Or more precisely the European governments had all decided collectively that the UK was going to be turned into a retail and services based economy v its Continental competitors for geopolitical reasons.
Bearing in mind that Thatcher and Lubbers sealed the deal not the respective company directors which seems strange.Why would the two country’s PMs need to be involved in a deal between ‘Mr.Patel’ and ‘Sainsburys’.All that less than 10 years after the strange case of the deliberately crippled T45’s introduction.
So we get a Ford man in on the Ryder whitewash which obviously included the trucks division.The same Ford that was in the process of wiping out its UK operations in favour of transfer to Cologne etc.
Leyland Truck and Bus are split in 1981.
After the Ryder report said it will all be kept together.To the point of keeping BMC tied around the neck of the Group.
Leyland Trucks and Bus divisions conveniently then end up going to DAF and Volvo respectively.
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding the phased introduction of the T45, I too considered it an over-conservative strategy. Why weren’t ■■■■■■■ 400-engined high-datum models available from the outset? They could have built one- like they did with WTJ- and used it as a demonstrator, while quoting long enough lead times to get the bread-and-butter models into production first.
Removing the choice of Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in the Roadtrain on its introduction after a ■■■■■■■ 335 13 speed Marathon had hit the roads in 1973 and Scammell were happily running along with the 280 Rolls 
surely sets the alarm bells ringing.That’s not phased that’s commercial suicide.
As would the question why split the Truck and Bus divisions in 1981 after the Ryder Report had said no splits to the point of Leyland being happy to keep the BMC basket case tied to the struggling group sucking the remaining life out of it.
Blimey I’ve got a bridge for sale if anyone wants it. 
I’ve had similar thoughts on the EU and it’s desire to destroy self sufficiency in GB, exporting jobs and thanks to the EU human rights BS, importing economic refugees. However it was the EEC in 1973 and we joined because it was a common market and beneficial to trade, handing over control of our car, truck and bus industry was unlikely to have been on the cards at that time, which means the problems within BL were not strategic sabotage, but pig headedness and incompetence from the top down in the BL hierarchy, government included.
[zb]
anorak:ERF-NGC-European:
gingerfold:
It was stated at the time that the Marathon WTJ 120L with the Cu 335 was a one-off for evaluation purposes.I entirely take your point, Graham, and yes I was aware that it was a one-off; but my point was simply to emphasise that the NTC 335 was available in the early '70s in the UK, not just for heavy haulage but on general haulage too.
Truck magazine tested a 335 Marathon in 1976 (or was it '77?). That Eurotest has been uploaded onto TNUK, somewhere. Even if WTJ was a pre-production vehicle, it did eventually go to a customer. I wonder how many more 335 Marathons were made? I wonder if the museum at Leyland has records of them, like it did of those Guy 8LXB vehicles?
Regarding the phased introduction of the T45, I too considered it an over-conservative strategy. Why weren’t ■■■■■■■ 400-engined high-datum models available from the outset? They could have built one- like they did with WTJ- and used it as a demonstrator, while quoting long enough lead times to get the bread-and-butter models into production first.
All the Marathon build sheets do exist in the archives department at the Leyland museum; I did go through them all but I cannot remember how many had which engine.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding the phased introduction of the T45, I too considered it an over-conservative strategy. Why weren’t ■■■■■■■ 400-engined high-datum models available from the outset? They could have built one- like they did with WTJ- and used it as a demonstrator, while quoting long enough lead times to get the bread-and-butter models into production first.Removing the choice of Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in the Roadtrain on its introduction after a ■■■■■■■ 335 13 speed Marathon had hit the roads in 1973 and Scammell were happily running along with the 280 Rolls
As would the question why split the Truck and Bus divisions in 1981 after the Ryder Report had said no splits to the point of Leyland being happy to keep the BMC basket case tied to the struggling group sucking the remaining life out of it.
Blimey I’ve got a bridge for sale if anyone wants it.
I completely agree… now I need to go and lie down in a darkened room for an hour or two 
gingerfold:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding the phased introduction of the T45, I too considered it an over-conservative strategy. Why weren’t ■■■■■■■ 400-engined high-datum models available from the outset? They could have built one- like they did with WTJ- and used it as a demonstrator, while quoting long enough lead times to get the bread-and-butter models into production first.Removing the choice of Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in the Roadtrain on its introduction after a ■■■■■■■ 335 13 speed Marathon had hit the roads in 1973 and Scammell were happily running along with the 280 Rolls
As would the question why split the Truck and Bus divisions in 1981 after the Ryder Report had said no splits to the point of Leyland being happy to keep the BMC basket case tied to the struggling group sucking the remaining life out of it.
Blimey I’ve got a bridge for sale if anyone wants it.I completely agree… now I need to go and lie down in a darkened room for an hour or two
I also think that the Roadtrain should have been available with all options , i will go a little further by saying i think the Fuller and maybe a 16 speed ZF synchro should also have been options.
I`m going to the BCVM this morning so i will see if i can find out how many 335 C ummins Marathons were built
Carryfast:
newmercman:
The Spicer gearbox was an odd choice for sure, who knows why that happened as there’s no logical reason. Did it have a negative effect on sales, I doubt it.Yes you are correct, the 140 was earlier than 73, four years earlier from what I can gather after seeing the 50th anniversary model launched in Australia in 2019!
This was CM’s take on the Roadtrain admittedly with hindsight but which foresight of any designers worth their salt at the time would have been expected to be able to work out.
As opposed to here is the new Roadtrain recently aquired in house Rolls 320 aftercooled and 13 speed Fuller standard fit 280 derated to order.
Oh wait that’s DAF’s 2800 and 3300 development project on the drawing board just blown out of the water.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … too-little
Would like to see Brian Weatherly put some input on the topic.‘‘Everyone wanted it to succeed’’ but obviously not DAF.
And right at the end Daf decided to discontinue the 80 series because it would cost too much money to get the emissions compatible even though it had a Daf engine. I think other factors were the real reason behind it. On a different note how similar is the rigid Daf 45/65 cab of today to the T45?
Carryfast:
newmercman:
The Spicer gearbox was an odd choice for sure, who knows why that happened as there’s no logical reason. Did it have a negative effect on sales, I doubt it.Yes you are correct, the 140 was earlier than 73, four years earlier from what I can gather after seeing the 50th anniversary model launched in Australia in 2019!
This was CM’s take on the Roadtrain admittedly with hindsight but which foresight of any designers worth their salt at the time would have been expected to be able to work out.
As opposed to here is the new Roadtrain recently aquired in house Rolls 320 aftercooled and 13 speed Fuller standard fit 280 derated to order.
Oh wait that’s DAF’s 2800 and 3300 development project on the drawing board just blown out of the water.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … too-little
Would like to see Brian Weatherly put some input on the topic.‘‘Everyone wanted it to succeed’’ but obviously not DAF.
And right at the end Daf decided to discontinue the 80 series because it would cost too much money to get the emissions compatible even though it had a Daf engine. I think other factors were the real reason behind it. On a different note how similar is the rigid Daf 45/65 cab of today to the T45?
newmercman:
I’ve had similar thoughts on the EU and it’s desire to destroy self sufficiency in GB, exporting jobs and thanks to the EU human rights BS, importing economic refugees. However it was the EEC in 1973 and we joined because it was a common market and beneficial to trade, handing over control of our car, truck and bus industry was unlikely to have been on the cards at that time, which means the problems within BL were not strategic sabotage, but pig headedness and incompetence from the top down in the BL hierarchy, government included.
Government ministers obviously didn’t depend on the fortunes of our manufacturing industry for their wages.
What and exactly ‘who’ was the ‘problem’ that said no Rolls, ■■■■■■■■ Fuller in the Roadtrain at the design stage and on its introduction and why ?.
As opposed to the stated aim of following Mack’s lead which logically mean’t intercooled Rolls powered.
It’s not as though the Unions at all the different plants said we ain’t making that no way or we’ll down tools.So you can’t possibly blame them.
There was also nothing in the Ryder Report that said it.
There was also no reason why Rolls couldn’t have been taken ‘in house’ instead of being flogged off to Vickers according to the Ryder Report.
More like the opposite if it’s to be believed in its conclusions do whatever it takes for survival but obviously keep the Group together at all costs.
The government knew the EU wasn’t beneficial to trade because we were virtually in trade balance with Europe the year before we joined.
2 billion down in 1974.
2.5 billion down in 1976 and only going one way after that.
So whatever the European project was it had nothing to do with us sweeping the European market.
Why was I hearing from WW2 generation old hands on the shop floor from Bedford to Scammell to my own employers to a man and my Father saying that the government was allowing/wanted ‘Germany’ ( Europe ) to win the peace long before the T45’s launch fiasco.
We also know the government’s stated intent to turn the economy away from a manufacturing based one to services and retail based.
But the criminals didn’t dare say it while that generation still had some fight left in them.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding the phased introduction of the T45, I too considered it an over-conservative strategy. Why weren’t ■■■■■■■ 400-engined high-datum models available from the outset? They could have built one- like they did with WTJ- and used it as a demonstrator, while quoting long enough lead times to get the bread-and-butter models into production first.Removing the choice of Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in the Roadtrain on its introduction after a ■■■■■■■ 335 13 speed Marathon had hit the roads in 1973 and Scammell were happily running along with the 280 Rolls
The ■■■■■■■ engine was continued in the Marathon, after the T45 was launched, so as not to lose sales to more conservative customers. Why not put the latest version of the in-house engine in the latest chassis cab, and make that the top of the range? Seems like a perfect strategy to me.
Those decisions were proved right- any complaints about the T45 were directed at the ride, the gearbox and the utilitarian cab interior. No one marked it down for the engine. How many ■■■■■■■ Marathons were sold, after the T45 became available? Which tractor unit headed the sales charts in the early 1980s? I bet the T45 was more popular than any ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ vehicle. IIRC, Volvo headed the table in 28 tonne+ sales, with Leyland in second. If you want to disagree with any of that, you will need numbers. 
ramone:
Carryfast:
As opposed to here is the new Roadtrain recently aquired in house Rolls 320 aftercooled and 13 speed Fuller standard fit 280 derated to order.Oh wait that’s DAF’s 2800 and 3300 development project on the drawing board just blown out of the water.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … too-little
Would like to see Brian Weatherly put some input on the topic.‘‘Everyone wanted it to succeed’’ but obviously not DAF.
And right at the end Daf decided to discontinue the 80 series because it would cost too much money to get the emissions compatible even though it had a Daf engine. I think other factors were the real reason behind it. On a different note how similar is the rigid Daf 45/65 cab of today to the T45?
The plan as stated was for DAF to ‘take over’ Leyland Group’s heavy trucks operations.
Which effectively meant give them Leyland’s customer base for their lesser product assuming an in house produced Eagle 320 Fuller 13 speed as standard option T45 on introduction.
Strangely it seems impossible to find out DAF’s shareholding, if any, in Leyland Truck Division and likewise Volvo in the Bus division, as things stood in 1981, bearing in mind the strangely convenient splitting of the two divisions in total contradiction of the recommendations of the Ryder Report.
We know that DAF ‘‘increased’’ its share holding to 60% in 1986.From exactly what and from when ?.
Why would a foreign competitor want to invest in Leyland at all.
[zb]
anorak:
The ■■■■■■■ engine was continued in the Marathon, after the T45 was launched, so as not to lose sales to more conservative customers. Why not put the latest version of the in-house engine in the latest chassis cab, and make that the top of the range? Seems like a perfect strategy to me.Those decisions were proved right- any complaints about the T45 were directed at the ride, the gearbox and the utilitarian cab interior. No one marked it down for the engine. How many ■■■■■■■ Marathons were sold, after the T45 became available? Which tractor unit headed the sales charts in the early 1980s? I bet the T45 was more popular than any ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ vehicle. IIRC, Volvo headed the table in 28 tonne+ sales, with Leyland in second. If you want to disagree with any of that, you will need numbers.
This is from Brian Weatherly’s article in CM.
‘‘There were some serious questions’’
‘‘About its spec’’.
‘‘Notably Leyland’s decision to power the Roadtrain with its own 12.5 litre 280 hp TL12 engine’’.
‘‘At a time when many fleets were buying proprietary engines’’.
( You know like Rolls/■■■■■■■ ‘290’ and foreseeably even more.Obviously also voting with their wallets regarding something with a 6 inch stroke like the Maxidyne which Leyland was supposedly following ).
‘‘T45 customers were faced with the choice of TL12 or not option’’.
Doesn’t seem consistent with ‘’ everyone wanted it to succeed’'.
I didn’t say that.CM did.So you’re saying the article has got that bit wrong it didn’t happen ?.
[zb]
anorak:
I bet the T45 was more popular than any ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ vehicle. IIRC, Volvo headed the table in 28 tonne+ sales, with Leyland in second. If you want to disagree with any of that, you will need numbers.
Why was the TL12 dropped very shortly after introduction of the Roadtrain as opposed to the TX still being in production well into the 1990’s.At that point by definition TL12 ‘numbers’ were less than zero.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
I bet the T45 was more popular than any ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ vehicle. IIRC, Volvo headed the table in 28 tonne+ sales, with Leyland in second. If you want to disagree with any of that, you will need numbers.Why was the TL12 dropped very shortly after introduction of the Roadtrain as opposed to the TX still being in production well into the 1990’s.At that point by definition TL12 ‘numbers’ were less than zero.
The official reasons for dropping the TL12 was firstly proprietary engines were cheaper to buy than manufacturing the TL12 in-house, economy of scale in production. If ■■■■■■■ for example, sells 1,000 engines annually to each of Leyland, Seddon Atkinson, and ERF, the unit cost to ■■■■■■■ is less than the unit cost of Leyland producing 1,000 TL12s. Secondly, the TL12 engine manufacturing plant needed capital expenditure. Most of the machinery for this engine had come from Southall and it dated back to 1960 when the monobloc A590 / A 690 engines were introduced.
The days of British Leyland being an engineering-led or sales-led organisation were long gone; accountants ruled the roost. Leyland had shelved any plans for future new engines in the mid-70s, causing talented engineers such as Keith Roberts and a former Perkins man (whose name escapes me) to seek new jobs. KR went to Rolls Royce, as discussed earlier, several others went to DAF.
I must admit that this thread has made me re-assess the history of BL, and of course hindsight is a great help. It was really ‘game-over’ for the company from the late 1970s.
