windrush:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I wouldn’t like to take that Atkinson on some of the sites I encountered, it was a struggle getting around some of the access roads with a standard length eight legger without knocking a few kerbs out!
Pete.
That’s why these long wheelbase flat platform 8-wheelers didn’t sell in any sizable numbers. Plus there was no payload advantage over an artic.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
DEANB:
An article from 1962.Click on pages twice to read.]
The smoking gun that they knew that the EU regs were made to suit EU manufacturers and put us at a disadvantage even before we’d joined.
Also seems to confirm the difference in the case of NZ and what might have been here.The EU regs were not made to suit any nation in particular. Throughout history, nothing has stopped UK makers from building vehicles to suit any of the prevailing legislation in any European country. Try naming a set of regs which could not easily be passed by a British vehicle of the age. I can’t.
The most odd regulations I can think of were the Italian 8-axle ones of the 1960s and early '70s, and what did they demand? Eight wheelers, of course. None of the local makers did one, so the customers had to rely on conversions. GB makers were actually better-equipped than the locals.
The rail-friendly German multi-axle rules of the 1950s played right into the hands of GB makers. All of them could deliver a Chinese 6, because it was a doddle to take one axle off an ordinary eight wheeler.
What about the French 13 tonne axle requirement which, if I remember correctly, applied throughout the 1960s and '70s. British export chassis had that sewn up too.
The only restrictive legislation I can think of was the British 38 tonne rules of 1983, in which the axle spacing of a tri-axle trailer was required to be greater than that of the huge, established Continental fleet. Your argument works, but in one gear only- reverse.
Actually Carryfast is correct in his general statement, what he has got wrong is the time frame. Before EU regs each country had its own Construction and Use Regulations which determined dimensions and gross weights, and determined type approval for imported makes. After the end of WW2 GB had to export to rebuild the economy and the easiest export markets were to former Empire countries which were in the British Commonwealth. Even so many of these countries had heavier gross weights than in the UK. British C & U Regs in the early 1950s were still those of 1933, and even in the early 1950s they were out of date. Leyland and AEC were the leading British exporters of heavy goods vehicles and PSVS, followed by Foden. The higher power Leyland O.680 and AEC 11.3 litre engines weren’t introduced in 1953 to satisfy home demand, but to satisfy export markets such as Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand who were operating at higher gross weights than in the UK, where here the max. gvw was 22 tons for an eight-wheeler or artic. (30 tons for eight-wheeler and trailer). These weights were increased by 2 tons in 1954. Higher weights overseas meant strengthened chassis and axles etc were required, so Leyland and AEC were actually building two versions of each model they made, one for the home market and one for the export market.
Britain’s overall vehicle lengths were restrictive as well as gross weights, so European countries weren’t even considered as export markets in the 1950s. What Leyland and AEC did consider in the late 1950s and early '60s were joint ventures by selling engines and other components to smaller commercial vehicle builders in Europe, most notably in France, Spain, Holland, etc. There was collaboration between AEC and an Italian eight-wheeler builder (was it OM?).
The long overdue revision of UK C&U Regs in 1964 increased gross weights and opened the door to the artic revolution. Even so it didn’t totally address the dimensions issue. I’m not going any further with this as it will spoil it for members of the CVRTC on here. I’m working on the Autumn edition of CVRTC News and one of the feature articles will be the anomalies of the 1964 / 65 C & U Regs,
Carryfast:
Froggy55:
Most French truck fans consider cabs as the LAD (though some LAD-cabbed Leylands were sold under the Hotchkiss brand in France) or Mickeymouse (Foden) cabs as disgustingly ugly. To me they’re just deliciously exotic!Ironically I agree with them on that and the ERF A series.
…
As for French their designers seem to have had some eye problems.
No fan of the Transcon then?
gingerfold:
Actually Carryfast is correct in his general statement, what he has got wrong is the time frame. Before EU regs each country had its own Construction and Use Regulations which determined dimensions and gross weights, and determined type approval for imported makes. After the end of WW2 GB had to export to rebuild the economy and the easiest export markets were to former Empire countries which were in the British Commonwealth. Even so many of these countries had heavier gross weights than in the UK. British C & U Regs in the early 1950s were still those of 1933, and even in the early 1950s they were out of date. Leyland and AEC were the leading British exporters of heavy goods vehicles and PSVS, followed by Foden. The higher power Leyland O.680 and AEC 11.3 litre engines weren’t introduced in 1953 to satisfy home demand, but to satisfy export markets such as Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand who were operating at higher gross weights than in the UK, where here the max. gvw was 22 tons for an eight-wheeler or artic. (30 tons for eight-wheeler and trailer). These weights were increased by 2 tons in 1954. Higher weights overseas meant strengthened chassis and axles etc were required, so Leyland and AEC were actually building two versions of each model they made, one for the home market and one for the export market.Britain’s overall vehicle lengths were restrictive as well as gross weights, so European countries weren’t even considered as export markets in the 1950s. What Leyland and AEC did consider in the late 1950s and early '60s were joint ventures by selling engines and other components to smaller commercial vehicle builders in Europe, most notably in France, Spain, Holland, etc. There was collaboration between AEC and an Italian eight-wheeler builder (was it OM?).
The long overdue revision of UK C&U Regs in 1964 increased gross weights and opened the door to the artic revolution. Even so it didn’t totally address the dimensions issue. I’m not going any further with this as it will spoil it for members of the CVRTC on here. I’m working on the Autumn edition of CVRTC News and one of the feature articles will be the anomalies of the 1964 / 65 C & U Regs,
Thanks gingerfold.I think it would be fair to say that with some better thought out c and u regs we could could have seen a much more rigid 8 friendly regime like that of NZ and possibly a resulting advantage to the domestic manufacturers.Ironically our showman’s transport sector often being closer to that and showing that it would have worked well on Brit roads.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Froggy55:
Most French truck fans consider cabs as the LAD (though some LAD-cabbed Leylands were sold under the Hotchkiss brand in France) or Mickeymouse (Foden) cabs as disgustingly ugly. To me they’re just deliciously exotic!Ironically I agree with them on that and the ERF A series.
…
As for French their designers seem to have had some eye problems.No fan of the Transcon then?
Probably more a case of exceptions proving rules in that they were just following the bigger squarer equals better long haul pack.
Have to say there seems something different in the case of the KW and TM in combining that with a certain finesse.They just both look exceptionally pleasing to the eye to me for what is still essentially a big square cab over box but which is still the basic design I prefer to the rounded Berliet and Saurer type designs.Also much prefer the later Foden S83/85 styling to those old weird looking designs of theirs.
gingerfold:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
DEANB:
An article from 1962.Click on pages twice to read.]
The smoking gun that they knew that the EU regs were made to suit EU manufacturers and put us at a disadvantage even before we’d joined.
Also seems to confirm the difference in the case of NZ and what might have been here.The EU regs were not made to suit any nation in particular. Throughout history, nothing has stopped UK makers from building vehicles to suit any of the prevailing legislation in any European country. Try naming a set of regs which could not easily be passed by a British vehicle of the age. I can’t.
The most odd regulations I can think of were the Italian 8-axle ones of the 1960s and early '70s, and what did they demand? Eight wheelers, of course. None of the local makers did one, so the customers had to rely on conversions. GB makers were actually better-equipped than the locals.
The rail-friendly German multi-axle rules of the 1950s played right into the hands of GB makers. All of them could deliver a Chinese 6, because it was a doddle to take one axle off an ordinary eight wheeler.
What about the French 13 tonne axle requirement which, if I remember correctly, applied throughout the 1960s and '70s. British export chassis had that sewn up too.
The only restrictive legislation I can think of was the British 38 tonne rules of 1983, in which the axle spacing of a tri-axle trailer was required to be greater than that of the huge, established Continental fleet. Your argument works, but in one gear only- reverse.
Actually Carryfast is correct in his general statement, what he has got wrong is the time frame. Before EU regs each country had its own Construction and Use Regulations which determined dimensions and gross weights, and determined type approval for imported makes. After the end of WW2 GB had to export to rebuild the economy and the easiest export markets were to former Empire countries which were in the British Commonwealth. Even so many of these countries had heavier gross weights than in the UK. British C & U Regs in the early 1950s were still those of 1933, and even in the early 1950s they were out of date. Leyland and AEC were the leading British exporters of heavy goods vehicles and PSVS, followed by Foden. The higher power Leyland O.680 and AEC 11.3 litre engines weren’t introduced in 1953 to satisfy home demand, but to satisfy export markets such as Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand who were operating at higher gross weights than in the UK, where here the max. gvw was 22 tons for an eight-wheeler or artic. (30 tons for eight-wheeler and trailer). These weights were increased by 2 tons in 1954. Higher weights overseas meant strengthened chassis and axles etc were required, so Leyland and AEC were actually building two versions of each model they made, one for the home market and one for the export market.
Britain’s overall vehicle lengths were restrictive as well as gross weights, so European countries weren’t even considered as export markets in the 1950s. What Leyland and AEC did consider in the late 1950s and early '60s were joint ventures by selling engines and other components to smaller commercial vehicle builders in Europe, most notably in France, Spain, Holland, etc. There was collaboration between AEC and an Italian eight-wheeler builder (was it OM?).
The long overdue revision of UK C&U Regs in 1964 increased gross weights and opened the door to the artic revolution. Even so it didn’t totally address the dimensions issue. I’m not going any further with this as it will spoil it for members of the CVRTC on here. I’m working on the Autumn edition of CVRTC News and one of the feature articles will be the anomalies of the 1964 / 65 C & U Regs,
In summary, without spoiling the article, would we be correct to say that the GB makers were well-equipped to supply to the impending EEC regulations, given their established export successes?
^^^^^^
No we were nearer on gross weights, but overall combination lengths for an artic were still too short. There had to an urgent revision for overall lengths in 1968, moving to 40-foot trailers from the UK 33-ft trailer. This was to accommodate the 40-ft ISO container and unaccompanied European trailers that were starting to appear here. The problem then for many UK hauliers was that they had invested in new semi-trailers in 1965, when the length increased from 24-ft, give or take a few inches, and they had to invest in new longer trailers again post 1968
I’m guessing that when the construction industry controllers finally made the decision to permit eight wheeler tippers to be allowed on sites (they were against it originally as they considered them unstable) then that must have increased sales? Looking at old pics of A roads and the early Motorways being built eight leggers are virtually non existant in them which seems strange now as that industry is probably the most common user of them now.
Pete.
windrush:
I’m guessing that when the construction industry controllers finally made the decision to permit eight wheeler tippers to be allowed on sites (they were against it originally as they considered them unstable) then that must have increased sales? Looking at old pics of A roads and the early Motorways being built eight leggers are virtually non existant in them which seems strange now as that industry is probably the most common user of them now.Pete.
That’s correct Pete, the eight-wheeler tipper market seems quite healthy, and at a guess I would think that Scania is the best seller. There are plenty of them among the muck-away and aggregates hauliers around Manchester. P P O’Connor has plenty.
Interesting reading the chassis/cab weights in that test. They have the Sed Ak 400 and Foden as being virtually the same, yet the Sed Ak 400’s we had at Tilcon fitted with the same Gardner engine and same Cravens Tasktip bodies carried almost 15 cwt less less than our Fodens? 
We certainly couldn’t get anywhere near a 20 tonne payload on the Seddon’s which was one of the reasons that they were not replaced at the usual six year replacement time.
Pete.
gingerfold:
^^^^^^
No we were nearer on gross weights, but overall combination lengths for an artic were still too short. There had to an urgent revision for overall lengths in 1968, moving to 40-foot trailers from the UK 33-ft trailer. This was to accommodate the 40-ft ISO container and unaccompanied European trailers that were starting to appear here. The problem then for many UK hauliers was that they had invested in new semi-trailers in 1965, when the length increased from 24-ft, give or take a few inches, and they had to invest in new longer trailers again post 1968
In the case of maintaining the ■■■■■■■■■■ of the rigid 8 they needed to allow it to pull a 33 ft moving onto 40 ft then 45ft drawbars.In that case I guess we’d still have a thriving 8 wheeler market.The flexibility of combining a considerable amount of 20ft and 40ft container traffic or 20ft and unaccompanied trailers would have been a game changer for the UK road transport and manufacturing industries.I could easily see a situation in which UK made NZ type KW’s would win out over DAF’s in that environment or possibly also Foden still in the game.
Going through that very interesting article, it appears that all the 1976 British 8-wheelers are underpowered to French or German standards of that time. No French transporter would have thought of putting at work a 180 bhp 30-tonner! On the other side, chassis/cabs are lightweight.
Froggy55:
Going through that very interesting article, it appears that all the 1976 British 8-wheelers are underpowered to French or German standards of that time. No French transporter would have thought of putting at work a 180 bhp 30-tonner! On the other side, chassis/cabs are lightweight.
We managed ok with them though, a bit steady on hills but on the level they were much the same as larger engines as there were still the same speed limits and geared right they could manage 60 mph on Motorways. Also many were only on short journeys compared to the French etc, the UK isn’t all that large really. They did upgrade them to 201 bhp later to meet new regulations but performance was no different and reliability worse! 
Pete.
windrush:
Froggy55:
Going through that very interesting article, it appears that all the 1976 British 8-wheelers are underpowered to French or German standards of that time. No French transporter would have thought of putting at work a 180 bhp 30-tonner! On the other side, chassis/cabs are lightweight.We managed ok with them though, a bit steady on hills but on the level they were much the same as larger engines as there were still the same speed limits and geared right they could manage 60 mph on Motorways. Also many were only on short journeys compared to the French etc, the UK isn’t all that large really. They did upgrade them to 201 bhp later to meet new regulations but performance was no different and reliability worse!
Pete.
Totally agree Pete, the 180 did it’s job fine, especially with the 12sp. Mind you when I went on to a couple of Scotch a week the bigger powered motors made a big difference in time n more importantly in me pocket
Froggy55:
Going through that very interesting article, it appears that all the 1976 British 8-wheelers are underpowered to French or German standards of that time. No French transporter would have thought of putting at work a 180 bhp 30-tonner! On the other side, chassis/cabs are lightweight.
It was a combination of silly customer thinking and legislation.At that point in time the manufacturers needed to be thinking in terms of TL12 or turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■ including the soon to be introduced ■■■■■■■ 290 big cam.Also no real reason why the government couldn’t have allowed 31 or 32 t gross.
gingerfold:
^^^^^^
No we were nearer on gross weights, but overall combination lengths for an artic were still too short. There had to an urgent revision for overall lengths in 1968, moving to 40-foot trailers from the UK 33-ft trailer. This was to accommodate the 40-ft ISO container and unaccompanied European trailers that were starting to appear here. The problem then for many UK hauliers was that they had invested in new semi-trailers in 1965, when the length increased from 24-ft, give or take a few inches, and they had to invest in new longer trailers again post 1968
Not likely to trouble the chassis manufacturers, then. Even the trailer makers probably saw it as a welcome bit of legislated obsolescence. Obviously, it was an inconvenience for hauliers, and an overall cost to GB plc. Politicians frightened of being saddled with perceived responsiblility for foisting juggernauts on the public?
My Dad, Dennis Walling was on the night trunk from Manchester to Paisley for McKelvie in the late 50s to mid-60s. His lorry was a Leyland Octopus eight wheeler, reg.# MHS 56 This lorry was fast for its day as it was fitted with a “Booster” ( overdrive ) Has anyone got any pictures of McKelvie vehicles, particularly of MHS 56. they would like to share.
I would be very grateful. GBW.
For those interested in NZ 8 wheel scene, I found this 1989 video:
youtube.com/watch?v=3h4scL2osKg
There’s an F12 8x4 tractor, plus numerous rigids- Scania 111 (no front view, but did not sound like a V8), Isuzus, F88, ERF 5MW. There’s also a Leyland Buffalo tractor, with what looks like an added tag axle.
[zb]
anorak:
For those interested in NZ 8 wheel scene, I found this 1989 video:
youtube.com/watch?v=3h4scL2osKgThere’s an F12 8x4 tractor, plus numerous rigids- Scania 111 (no front view, but did not sound like a V8), Isuzus, F88, ERF 5MW. There’s also a Leyland Buffalo tractor, with what looks like an added tag axle.
That ERF 4 + 4 outfit at 2.52 did look the business.What might have been here with a different government mind set.
