It is 30 years now since I left school and went into the wide world, starting an HGV mechanic apprenticeship on a Leyland and Volvo fleet.
Over the years I have had the chance to work on and drive many makes and types of HGV’s, but unless you are in the preservation scene it is nearly impossible today to drive a BRITISH built lorry.
So the point of my post is have your say on WHAT WENT WRONG with the British lorry industry, I am sure we all have our views, so have your say, it is not a politics post lads just say what you think.
Personally I think the seeds were planted in the late 60’s with the high spec high power VOLVO & Scania imports arriving, lack of investment by uk lorry builders, driver power (wanting a NON-GAFFER motor) and also the changing road network (high speed motorway operations).
I have put a few Brit pics on the post, the Atki built not far from my house,the roadtrain built just down the road at Leyland and said in the early 1980’s to be the lorry that was going to save Leyland and a 110 Scania (interesting yard picture with Volvo 88’s & DAF’s on view and a lone Guy Big J.
Top class motor, this Road Train we got brand new, was double shifted fot the first 9 month, it performed very well , with its 300 T Eagle & the Fuller range change box. Regards Larry.
The trouble with the british truck industry is that they never moved forward with modern progress. Other european truck builders were giving more power and a better retun on fuel consumption. They were also giving better driver comfort and safety features. Instead of the old way of building a truck by putting a fantastic engine Gardner, ■■■■■■■ etc and bolting a Eaton or Fuller box on the back of it then nailing a shed on the chassis for the driver to sit in for god knows how many hours a day. Scania, Volvo, and the like built trucks that were easy to drive with gearboxes that were simple and easy to use and they also had dealers all over euorope. I was driving a B series ERF on low loader work with no power streering and I got a job with MAT transport driving a Scania 110 hell it was like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Reliant Robin. It is very sad that a once proud nation of ours no longer build trucks and it is a sad reflection of Great Britain today, we make nothing at all. We buy everything as cheap as we possibly can from the far east and rip everyone off in the UK by adding a huge mark up on it. I remeber the time that if you drove an Atkinson Borderer or a Scammel Handyman or an AEC Mamoth Major or Mandater then you had the best of the best but just compare the best cab of the day then and that was a Park Royal to the cab of a Scania they were miles apart.
Don’t start me off. The rot started with the red flag act in my opinion. The British motor industry was behind every other country from then on. Weight limits meant that light weight was chased to give maximum payload. Carriers licenses based on unladen weight meant three four wheelers would win over one eight wheeler for the same tonnage. Road tax was based on unladen weight for years too so smallest engine and gearbox was specced. No incentive for companies to make better because it would have been heavier.
I think that appalling management had its part to play too.
For years, British lorries were the best in the world but when the rest of
Europe caught up, the British, in their arrogance, didn’t or refused to see it coming.
Much the same happened to our motorcycle manufacturers and has now happened to
the rest of the motor industry.
Many of the best known names, such as AEC, Guy, Scammell, Albion etc were swallowed
up by Leyland.
Costs were cut where they shouldn’t have been and far too often, unfinished products, like the Buffalo,
were dumped on unsuspecting customers, some of whom almost went bust trying to keep them on
the road.
You don’t give a manufacturer a second chance after they have done that to you.
The writing was on the wall for years and no-one read it.
I had an H reg A Series ERF when a friend of mine had an E reg Scania Vabis, both very second hand.
One was made of wood and fibreglass and had power assisted nothing and the ride quality
of a penny farthing.
The other had power assisted everything and was as quiet and comfortable as any contemporary family car.
Not only all this but it did lots more mpg and didn’t keep breaking down.
Leyland Motors being forced by the Labour government to merge with BMC thus starving the lorry division of investment whilst concentration was focussed on rubbish such as the Allegro. As a result Leyland had to cobble together the Marathon and soldier on with the Buffalo, Bison and Bathgate models losing reputation and market share and the T45 range arrived several years later than it should have done.
Leyland was Britains global player and had the potential and infrastructure to be one of the four or five major manufacturers that the world will ultimately end up with.
Dont forget the shocking attitude displayed to customers during the 1970s.
My old Dad used to work for a Ford truck dealer but used to look after 4 or 5 locally based Leyland Clydesdale tankers for a fuel/heating oil distributor.
I remember at one stage 3 Clydesdales were in the yard waiting for parts.
Leyland parts were ordered and either wouldnt come or would arrive and not be right for the vehicles, part numbers seemed to bear no correlation to what you would get.
Weeks went by and the customer was tearing his hair out and Leyland could not care less.
Eventually they were repaired and at the old man’s recommendation the customer ordered 3 new D series to replace them… just as Ford went on strike!!
Needless to say, 3 new Volvo tankers were ordered instead and what a revalation, reliability and a manufacturer who listened.
The UK fleet was changed for Volvo over the next couple of years, probably 100 sales made.
A lot of poor, outdated produts combined with even more woeful customer service is probably what saw the boots off the industry!
This question always seems to be answered by the insurge of the superior foreign motors leading to the decline of the industry when infact the problems had started before any 110’s or 86’s made an appearance. The haulage industry had foreign machines in its ranks since the end of the war, the fact that they were not any better than the British makes ensured they didn’t take a large slice of the market. The problems were in the way Britain ran the industry, as has been mentioned the licencing, laws, weights and something most forget, what the bosses wanted from the manufacturers produced the types of vehicles many complain of as being inferior to the foreigners. These British manufacturers were at the same time building and exporting to many countries world wide, vehicles that were of better quality, power and weight to what they turned out for the home market. It wasn’t that Britain couldn’t compete with the Scandinavian and European makers it was just that Britain didn’t think it needed to at the time. A costly mistake which probably can’t be pinned down to one particular reason but a combination of many and in a way Britain still suffers from this and why today we are finding it so hard to get the country back on its feet, we have let far too much industry in all its guises waste away since 1945 when we were a world power along with the USA and USSR. Franky.
wheeltapper:
It is 30 years now since I left school and went into the wide world, starting an HGV mechanic apprenticeship on a Leyland and Volvo fleet.
Over the years I have had the chance to work on and drive many makes and types of HGV’s, but unless you are in the preservation scene it is nearly impossible today to drive a BRITISH built lorry.
So the point of my post is have your say on WHAT WENT WRONG with the British lorry industry, I am sure we all have our views, so have your say, it is not a politics post lads just say what you think.
Your photos answer your own question, you,ve got the Atki, a masochists dream motor (speaking from experience) regd 1976 but built on 50s technology, and a Scania 110 regd 1971,6yrs EARLIER, with then modern technology, with PAS, synchro box, suspension seat, elec, as opposed to air, wipers and a general modern driving environment, which would you prefer?
I think it has been touched upon. The attitude of the manufacturers and dealers to the customers.
There are those that will still swear on the Atkinsons ERF and Fodens. One of my favourite British lorries was an ERF C40 with 14 litre ■■■■■■■■ Fuller and a huge comfortable cabs. I preferred the Sudden Accident Strato to the DAF 95
The Bathgate built animals were a good tool for the construction industry, Bison, Buffalo, Octopus, Reiver and Clydesdale. With proper investment the Scammell Crusader and Leyland Marathon were the future. Then turns up the T45 which was probably built to price not design
Scania and Volvo had gained a foothold in the UK by being driver acceptable, never the most powerful or cheapest lorries available, but certainly sought after.
Industrial action in BMC, Leyland and the suppliers had ■■■■■■ so many buyers off that they wanted something reliable, not only physically but a reliable supply of vehicles.
If you wanted a ERF or Foden with a certain engine you were given what they had, or what they wanted to sell you at the time. If you rang Volvo, they would pull all the stops out to ensure what you wanted was available or built specially.
That is my memories of it all and as mentioned with the car division, anyone who is passionate about all things British is using flowery spectacles.
Hillman Limp
Austin All Agro
Austin Prince SS
BL Maxi Fail
BL Landcrab
Morris Marian
Triumph Snag
Triumph Dolopp$*ite
Rover Metro Super!!
Rover Sterling (cost a lot, worth little)
Triumph AC Lame
I had a feeling this would come up as I have recently read a book on the company history.
But what about Atki,Seddon,Seddon Atki,ERF,Foden,Commer/Dodge,Bedford,Ford (TK’s & D series then Cargo were on every corner just watch old Sweeny or professionals on ITV4).
Hansard 1972 puts another perspective on it, while the government were chucking money at BL, other MP’s had a different viewpoint.
Mr. Simeons
Does my hon. Friend agree that most commercial vehicles designed for British roads are meant for short runs? I agree that we are on the brink of entering Europe and that, leaving political considerations aside, many of our vehicles will be running further afield, to Strasbourg and Italy. It is therefore vital for us to come up to the standards of the Continent in the design of our vehicles and cabs, including the provision of bunks, radio sets and other amenities.
Mr. Normanton
That is substantially true, but the extent to which the motorways are opening up great stretches in this country means that we are distributing goods here, let alone on the continent, over vast mileages. For a commercial vehicle to travel half a million miles a year is by no means unusual, and that is driving in Britain. Colossal mileages are done by these vehicles and I hope that transport operators and trade unions will place greater importance on the need for improved driver comfort because this will make a considerable contribution to road safety.
There is no doubt that our motor industry can fill this requirement. It has the expertise and facilities to do it, but unfortunately many haulage contractors are not prepared to pay an extra £100 for a particular type of driver’s seat or an extra £50 for more comfortable driving surroundings. All these are extra as far as the operator is concerned and this is clearly the case of penny wise pound foolish, with the public, because of the reduction in safety, paying the price.
its simple !!! just look at the british leyland corperate logo above on this thread,where have you seen this before.Its a giant plug hole and it represents all the public money going staight down the drain hole.A brilliant and accurate logo ahead of its time, i think the designer was taking the ■■■■ and senior managers must have missed the joke
This was taken 1989, at Uddingston, before it was turned into a brickyard, It was The Caterpiller Heavey Plant Works , I even think its closed alltogether now. Where ever you went Caterpiller Earth moving machines were everywhere, plus the export ,quantity w as great, Cawthorn & Sinclair one of their hauliers took them over seas. Now its Kamatso, What have we got left, thats British ?, Not a lot. Regards Larry, retired haulage man.
IMO British Leyland survived longer than they should have done as a result of the many “old fashioned” British companies still active at the same time,and they still believed in “buying British” regardless of the deteriating build quality,and as long as these conglomerates remained profitable it didn’t matter about the “incidental” costs of running poorly built and uneconomic motors (cars as well !) But when their own profits started falling dramatically and new younger management was taking over there was a sudden “sea change” and as BL had no answer because of years of complacency they just shrivelled up and faded away,not least of course,because government bailouts ceased as well !! Cheers Bewick.
what went wrong was that every one thought they were owed a living and and could not be bothered to work for it. from the sweeper to the man at the top. and now even the politicians have never worked.
When I was at Wrights transport many many moons ago and we was running Atkinsons MK2s with 180s in them. Then we started to get F88s with 240s in them and 290s, you tell me what a driver would sooner drive? Its the F88. much better to drive, better bed, better pulling and more driver appeal overall me thinks. Then there was the T45. Well would drivers sooner not drive a Volvo or a 111 Scania? Well its yes.
For me Leyland just not keep up with what a drive wanted, nore did Seddon, The only thing the did keep them a live was the Daf and Iveco cabs they used. Again tha 400 and 401,411 did not give what the likes of Volvo and Scania could bring to the table.
Sleeper Cabs!
Parked in Ferrymasters Felixstowe in the early 70’s I had a Seddon day cab many other subbies had ERF’s or GUY’s, day cabbed of course. Ferrymaster’s own drivers were sleeping in F86’s. The absolute dogs sphericals to the rest of us, and that’s without the odd F88 they also ran.
At the same time Ferrymasters were shipping Bedfords out in CKD form to all parts and we still believed we led the world in lorry building
The comments on this thread make interesting reading. I started driving in the late 70s and only really got into it in the 80s, by which time much of the rot had already set in, or so it seems. Yes British wagons were around and being developed but - even though some of the products might have been very good, at least from an operator’s POV - from what I can see much of it was an attempt to try to catch up. There wasn’t that much wrong with say an ERF B series, but how was it going to compete with F10s, F12s, 141s and DAF 2800/3300s? The T45 was a brave attempt at bringing the British wagon into the 80s but - in typically British fashion - some novel ideas were screwed by poor execution.
What’s striking are the parallels between what happened to the British lorry industry and the painfully sad, lingering death of the British bike industry. The sheer number of marques that disappeared off the map in the 60s is a clue. Worse still, in the late 60s-early 70s just about all that was on offer were asthmatic, leaky pushrod OHV twins (Trident/ Rocket 3 excepted - they were asthmatic leaky OHV triples), ancient (wheezing, leaky etc) singles or slow two-smokes liek the BSA Bantam. These things might have been acceptable in the early to mid 60s cos that’s just about all there was anywhere (though except see BMW’s boxer twins, but they weren’t exaclty mass-market bikes), unless you wanted a scooter or a Bond 3-wheeler. The really telling aspect that didn’t emerge until it was too late was the complete blank space where forward-thinking product development should have been. People cite the 1969 Honda CB750 as the death knell, but the real killer was that the UK bike industry hadn’t been thinking and paying attention - if they had they could have responded. What the CB750 (and a mere 4 years later the Kwakka Z900) did was to wake the British public up to the fact that they no longer had to accept a quart of oil on the floor every week, crap Joe “Prince of Darkness” Lucas electrics, 4 speed gearboxes that imploded and 40 year old engine designs with no hope of much else. Yes I know early Jap bikes weren’t without problems, but if you’d been used to drum brakes, kick starters that took your shins off and oil everywhere, why wouldn’t you sit and goggle at the prospect of soemthign that went like [zb] off a stick, used no oil and had disc brakes, 5-speed gearboxes and a 4-cylinder OHC engine that felt like a well-oiled sewing machine?
That Triumph resurrected itself at all is a minor miracle, but the ironies are interesting. First the modern Triumph bike manufacturer was largely driven by one man (John Bloor) who had the foresight to knwo what customers - particularly British customers - wanted, not a committee of old stick-in-the-muds with no vision and no idea. The second irony is that Bloor and his team made no secret of the fact that they took half a dozen of the best selling bikes on the market (all Japanese), tore them apart and looked and sat and thought. Bloor may not have been a popular bloke (especially with some of the bike buying public who still wanted “traditional” Triumphs), but he at least had the wit to know that to copy and improve on the best there is (i.e. Jap bikes of the day) is not a sin - it’s smart. He and his team also had the determination to show the cynics (and there are few races more cynical than the British) that they (and Britain) could design and build something from scratch that wasn’t just successful but was a ■■■■ good thing to boot.
It’s a pity the British truck industry never had its own Bloor.
I had a feeling this would come up as I have recently read a book on the company history. 
