Hi, Carryfast, we ran quite a few Leylands, But Let me say the T 45 Roadtrain we had from new was a great performer , no bull ■■■■ here, this motor was double shifted for a long time time & never once let us down, It could go along with anything, & If I may quote ask anyone of Fergusons drivers that were driving in this era, with their Volvos Etc, To be honest they hated being overtaken by Nigel Dunbars Leyland T45 Powered by The RR. 300. T Even the late Stewart Ferguson was amazed at the fuel. 10.mpg. when he openley admitted to the Mercs doing 6 mpg. So dont knock the british wagons, because at the end of the day, It was the Unions & R Soles like Scargill that f///ed the British Industry, so why dont you ■■■■ off & join him wherever he is hiding, . I can stand up & be counted any time you want mate Im a true Brit, & bloody proud of it . U R S.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Hi, Carryfast, we ran quite a few Leylands, But Let me say the T 45 Roadtrain we had from new was a great performer , no bull [zb] here, this motor was double shifted for a long time time & never once let us down, It could go along with anything, & If I may quote ask anyone of Fergusons drivers that were driving in this era, with their Volvos Etc, To be honest they hated being overtaken by Nigel Dunbars Leyland T45 Powered by The RR. 300. T Even the late Stewart Ferguson was amazed at the fuel. 10.mpg. when he openley admitted to the Mercs doing 6 mpg. So dont knock the british wagons, because at the end of the day, It was the Unions & R Soles like Scargill that f///ed the British Industry, so why dont you ■■■■ off & join him wherever he is hiding, . I can stand up & be counted any time you want mate Im a true Brit, & bloody proud of it . U R S.
Very well said that man .
Lawrence Dunbar:
Hi, Carryfast, we ran quite a few Leylands, But Let me say the T 45 Roadtrain we had from new was a great performer , no bull [zb] here, this motor was double shifted for a long time time & never once let us down, It could go along with anything, & If I may quote ask anyone of Fergusons drivers that were driving in this era, with their Volvos Etc, To be honest they hated being overtaken by Nigel Dunbars Leyland T45 Powered by The RR. 300. T Even the late Stewart Ferguson was amazed at the fuel. 10.mpg. when he openley admitted to the Mercs doing 6 mpg. So dont knock the british wagons, because at the end of the day, It was the Unions & R Soles like Scargill that f///ed the British Industry, so why dont you ■■■■ off & join him wherever he is hiding, . I can stand up & be counted any time you want mate Im a true Brit, & bloody proud of it . U R S.
You’ve got to understand who your dealing with here Larry when you “cross swords” with “Carryfast the futile” as any rational argument put forward by an experienced British haulier of many years standing is something akin to standing on top of Bowes moor and trying to ■■■■ into the wind !!All he will do is get you extremely annoyed with his “cockeyed” theories of how we should have operated in the UK during the 60’s/70’s/80’s,We should have insisted that all the motors we ordered/bought should have had nothing less than a fuel gobbling V8 500HP Detroit Diesel under the bonnet.If you can get “Carryfast” to see sensible reason you should really be working for the “Samaritans” many have tried on these threads but all have failed dismally !!! Me being one of the many I would add !! Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Lawrence Dunbar:
Hi, Carryfast, we ran quite a few Leylands, But Let me say the T 45 Roadtrain we had from new was a great performer , no bull [zb] here, this motor was double shifted for a long time time & never once let us down, It could go along with anything, & If I may quote ask anyone of Fergusons drivers that were driving in this era, with their Volvos Etc, To be honest they hated being overtaken by Nigel Dunbars Leyland T45 Powered by The RR. 300. T Even the late Stewart Ferguson was amazed at the fuel. 10.mpg. when he openley admitted to the Mercs doing 6 mpg. So dont knock the british wagons, because at the end of the day, It was the Unions & R Soles like Scargill that f///ed the British Industry, so why dont you ■■■■ off & join him wherever he is hiding, . I can stand up & be counted any time you want mate Im a true Brit, & bloody proud of it . U R S.You’ve got to understand who your dealing with here Larry when you “cross swords” with “Carryfast the futile” as any rational argument put forward by an experienced British haulier of many years standing is something akin to standing on top of Bowes moor and trying to ■■■■ into the wind !!All he will do is get you extremely annoyed with his “cockeyed” theories of how we should have operated in the UK during the 60’s/70’s/80’s,We should have insisted that all the motors we ordered/bought should have had nothing less than a fuel gobbling V8 500HP Detroit Diesel under the bonnet.If you can get “Carryfast” to see sensible reason you should really be working for the “Samaritans” many have tried on these threads but all have failed dismally !!! Me being one of the many I would add !! Cheers Dennis.
Blimey Bewick.All that from the T 45 and you went and bought zb Scanias when you finally realised that a Gardner powered Atki wasn’t up to the job. 
But I also drove a T 45 and couldn’t wait to get back into the DAF 2800 when it got back from being serviced.So it looks like we’re both in the zb when the Leyland fans come to get us. 
.
But no unions to keep wage levels in line with prices = a flat line economy.Just like we’ve got now and ever since Thatcher and her mates zb’d the economy up with a bit of help from Callaghan.
Nothing much to do with the US arguments but I served my time with a haulier who had served his time with Leyland Motors and he never tired of telling us that Leyland were the best in the world but he ran Atkis and ERFs with Gardner engines for 8 wheel and artics and the only time we saw a Leyland product was in the Albion Reivers that he ran for 6 wheelers. ■■■■■■■ had just started to appear when I left.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Lawrence Dunbar:
Hi, Carryfast, we ran quite a few Leylands, But Let me say the T 45 Roadtrain we had from new was a great performer , no bull [zb] here, this motor was double shifted for a long time time & never once let us down, It could go along with anything, & If I may quote ask anyone of Fergusons drivers that were driving in this era, with their Volvos Etc, To be honest they hated being overtaken by Nigel Dunbars Leyland T45 Powered by The RR. 300. T Even the late Stewart Ferguson was amazed at the fuel. 10.mpg. when he openley admitted to the Mercs doing 6 mpg. So dont knock the british wagons, because at the end of the day, It was the Unions & R Soles like Scargill that f///ed the British Industry, so why dont you ■■■■ off & join him wherever he is hiding, . I can stand up & be counted any time you want mate Im a true Brit, & bloody proud of it . U R S.You’ve got to understand who your dealing with here Larry when you “cross swords” with “Carryfast the futile” as any rational argument put forward by an experienced British haulier of many years standing is something akin to standing on top of Bowes moor and trying to ■■■■ into the wind !!All he will do is get you extremely annoyed with his “cockeyed” theories of how we should have operated in the UK during the 60’s/70’s/80’s,We should have insisted that all the motors we ordered/bought should have had nothing less than a fuel gobbling V8 500HP Detroit Diesel under the bonnet.If you can get “Carryfast” to see sensible reason you should really be working for the “Samaritans” many have tried on these threads but all have failed dismally !!! Me being one of the many I would add !! Cheers Dennis.
Blimey Bewick.All that from the T 45 and you went and bought zb Scanias when you finally realised that a Gardner powered Atki wasn’t up to the job.
But I also drove a T 45 and couldn’t wait to get back into the DAF 2800 when it got back from being serviced.So it looks like we’re both in the zb when the Leyland fans come to get us.
But no unions to keep wage levels in line with prices = a flat line economy.Just like we’ve got now and ever since Thatcher and her mates zb’d the economy up with a bit of help from Callaghan.
Get back in the trench “carryfast” we are coming to get you !!! Yo ! Cheers Bewick.
truckfing:
Nothing much to do with the US arguments but I served my time with a haulier who had served his time with Leyland Motors and he never tired of telling us that Leyland were the best in the world but he ran Atkis and ERFs with Gardner engines for 8 wheel and artics and the only time we saw a Leyland product was in the Albion Reivers that he ran for 6 wheelers. ■■■■■■■ had just started to appear when I left.
If Leyland were the best in the world then the world (or at least all of those markets that matter) would still be buying Leyland products not Euro and US products instead.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Lawrence Dunbar:
Hi, Carryfast, we ran quite a few Leylands, But Let me say the T 45 Roadtrain we had from new was a great performer , no bull [zb] here, this motor was double shifted for a long time time & never once let us down, It could go along with anything, & If I may quote ask anyone of Fergusons drivers that were driving in this era, with their Volvos Etc, To be honest they hated being overtaken by Nigel Dunbars Leyland T45 Powered by The RR. 300. T Even the late Stewart Ferguson was amazed at the fuel. 10.mpg. when he openley admitted to the Mercs doing 6 mpg. So dont knock the british wagons, because at the end of the day, It was the Unions & R Soles like Scargill that f///ed the British Industry, so why dont you ■■■■ off & join him wherever he is hiding, . I can stand up & be counted any time you want mate Im a true Brit, & bloody proud of it . U R S.You’ve got to understand who your dealing with here Larry when you “cross swords” with “Carryfast the futile” as any rational argument put forward by an experienced British haulier of many years standing is something akin to standing on top of Bowes moor and trying to ■■■■ into the wind !!All he will do is get you extremely annoyed with his “cockeyed” theories of how we should have operated in the UK during the 60’s/70’s/80’s,We should have insisted that all the motors we ordered/bought should have had nothing less than a fuel gobbling V8 500HP Detroit Diesel under the bonnet.If you can get “Carryfast” to see sensible reason you should really be working for the “Samaritans” many have tried on these threads but all have failed dismally !!! Me being one of the many I would add !! Cheers Dennis.
Blimey Bewick.All that from the T 45 and you went and bought zb Scanias when you finally realised that a Gardner powered Atki wasn’t up to the job.
But I also drove a T 45 and couldn’t wait to get back into the DAF 2800 when it got back from being serviced.So it looks like we’re both in the zb when the Leyland fans come to get us.
But no unions to keep wage levels in line with prices = a flat line economy.Just like we’ve got now and ever since Thatcher and her mates zb’d the economy up with a bit of help from Callaghan.
You mean ‘they’ are coming to get ‘us’ now I’ve told them about your ideas in choosing Scanias instead of T 45’s.
Regarding the idea of the amalgamation of Bedford and Leyland:
I went for a job interview (as an engineering student) at Leyland in 1982. The excitement about the place, regarding the pending launch of the Roadrunner (1984) was palpable. Everyone seemed confident that they had created a winner. Later in life, I worked in the corner of a haulage yard, where they had a few of these, in a fleet of Cargos. The fitter preferred the Ford, considering the Leyland fiddly to work on. Nevertheless, the Roadrunner was indeed a great success, staying in production until, I think, 2005. It sat squarely in Bedford’s core market.
If GM had taken Leyland over at any time in the 1980s, it would have killed Bedford, given that Leyland was in far better condition at the time- much of Leyland’s production facilities were new and its engineering departments were fighting fit, having just replaced an entire range of products. GM would have converted its Bedford customers to the Lancashire product and got rid of anything it didn’t need immediately after. No wonder the British Government was not amenable to a GM takeover of Leyland. By allowing Bedford to soldier on, it would be employing people and paying tax for at least a bit longer. Regarding the award of military contracts, they chose the best-equipped suppliers at the time.
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding the idea of the amalgamation of Bedford and Leyland:I went for a job interview (as an engineering student) at Leyland in 1982. The excitement about the place, regarding the pending launch of the Roadrunner (1984) was palpable. Everyone seemed confident that they had created a winner. Later in life, I worked in the corner of a haulage yard, where they had a few of these, in a fleet of Cargos. The fitter preferred the Ford, considering the Leyland fiddly to work on. Nevertheless, the Roadrunner was indeed a great success, staying in production until, I think, 2005. It sat squarely in Bedford’s core market.
If GM had taken Leyland over at any time in the 1980s, it would have killed Bedford, given that Leyland was in far better condition at the time- much of Leyland’s production facilities were new and its engineering departments were fighting fit, having just replaced an entire range of products. GM would have converted its Bedford customers to the Lancashire product and got rid of anything it didn’t need immediately after. No wonder the British Government was not amenable to a GM takeover of Leyland. By allowing Bedford to soldier on, it would be employing people and paying tax for at least a bit longer. Regarding the award of military contracts, they chose the best-equipped suppliers at the time.
There’s no way that the British truck manufactruring industry could have survived just based on the light weight sector because it couldn’t remain competitive in the heavyweight sector and it’s that sector that the OP based the original question on.
If Bedford couldn’t make the TM a success then there’s no way that Leyland could have made the T 45 a success considering the T 45’s inferiority over the european competition ranged against it,compared to the TM especially in it’s 4400 form.
Leyland were effectively finished from the time of the development of the DAF 2800 and the Scandinavian competition like the Volvo F10/12 etc and the fact that all Leyland decided to bother with to answer that competition with was the T 45,shows that the Leyland management already knew that the writing was on the wall or it would have invested a lot more effort in building something similar to,if not better than,the TM instead.The difference is that both Leyland and Bedford didn’t have the advantage of a more advanced thinking customer base to provide sufficient demand in the domestic market,to justify the development and production costs,of much better trucks,which they needed to compete with the euro and scandinavian competition,at the time when they required it.But unlike Leyland Bedford went ahead anyway and tried whereas Leyland already knew it was a pointless lost cause and effectively just gave up.It was Leyland that just turned out a cheap and nasty product in order to just carry on a bit longer and keep employing people,not GM/Bedford.
However if anyone did want to turn out something that would have been better than all the foreign competition and the TM they could have done a lot worse than to start a local manufacturing operation turning out cab over Kenworth Aerodynes with the full range of engine options. 
If you put a peterblt or a kenworth next to a daf xf and asked a 5 year old what one is best I’d bet they would say the American one as it is big and shiney I think this is also how carryfasts logic works.
[quote="ramoneSo who do you think owns the rights to the old companies from the Leyland group then,i know the transport museum at Leyland owns the AEC trade mark but i`m not sure whats included there[/quote]
Co-incidentally someone 'phoned me Tuesday evening to ask about the AEC trademark. The AEC Society investigated this a few years ago and DAF own the intellectual rights to all the former Leyland group designs and model names. Trademarks are a different kettle of fish and whilst the museum at Leyland might claim to own the AEC trademark I don’t think they do. The AEC Society thought that DAF owned the AEC trademarks. AEC was floated on the stock exchange as a separate company from London Transport in 1933. AEC i.e. The Associated Equipment Company was originally owned by London Transport and it registered the original AEC Trademarks. The person who asked me the question is investigating further and lapsed trademark registrations can be bought. Someone bought the BRS name very cheaply a few years ago.
It’s a sim molar situation with bl card I’m pretty sure when BMW palmed off rover but kept mini they also kept the rights to the triumph Wolsey etc names.
kr79:
If you put a peterblt or a kenworth next to a daf xf and asked a 5 year old what one is best I’d bet they would say the American one as it is big and shiney I think this is also how carryfasts logic works.
It’s more an issue of if you were comparing a DAF 2800,or an F10/12,with a cab over Aerodyne,at the time when all this issue mattered,with at least the same,or preferably more,power,not forgetting that only a 5 year old thinks that power in this case means running the thing up to 2,000 rpm in every gear,instead of just the same,or more,power than the DAF or Volvo had but produced at less rpm.
The euro truck fans also seem to like to apply double standards in the case of (rightly) complaining about the zb comfort levels of a day cabbed Atki compared to a decent cabbed DAF or Volvo and I’m sure that there’s plenty of guvnors at the time who would have said that if you put the Atki next to the DAF or Volvo and asked a 5 year old what one is best they would (rightly) say the DAF or Volvo as it’s bigger inside and had more room and comfort.Which was one of the major selling points of the foreign competition compared to the type of zb that most British customers were still expecting their drivers to use.Which just shows that a 5 year old would have had more sense than most British customers at the time.
The difference is,in the case of the Aerodyne,we would have had a competitor to the space cab and globetrotter cabs before the euro and scandinavian competition had got round to introducing them.
Carryfast:
Carryfast:
No I’m trying to convince those who believe the tory version of history that making American trucks would have been the only way to repair the damage done to the development of British trucks and the British truck manufacturing industry,by the outdated demands of it’s customers.Just as it was the way chosen to start up the Australian truck manufacturing industry.However all of the damage done to the British economy and British industry as a whole by the Callaghan Labour government and then the Tory Thatcher one would still have happened so it wouldn’t have made any difference to the final outcome.
You mention in your last post about double standards , but here you are doing exactly that , using double standards .
As you say , it would have made no difference to the final outcome , then you proceed to bombard us with hypotheticals , about if this , that or the other had been different . The plain truth of the matter is blatantly obvious , this , that or the other never materialised & we now are where we are .
But it was the retarded British bosses who started buying these over powered too comftable trucks rather than the piles of crap British trucks. By the time the brits got anywhere near the standard the Europeans had raised the bar yet again.
Atkinson borderer came out in 68 but was only really a mild facelift of a late 50s truck. 1975 they release the 400 series which has a proper sleeper cab Volvo replace there ageing F88 in 77 with the f10:12 range and it’s moved the goal posts and it’s another 10 years until the strato comes out which can wise can get anywhere near Volvo.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding the idea of the amalgamation of Bedford and Leyland:I went for a job interview (as an engineering student) at Leyland in 1982. The excitement about the place, regarding the pending launch of the Roadrunner (1984) was palpable. Everyone seemed confident that they had created a winner. Later in life, I worked in the corner of a haulage yard, where they had a few of these, in a fleet of Cargos. The fitter preferred the Ford, considering the Leyland fiddly to work on. Nevertheless, the Roadrunner was indeed a great success, staying in production until, I think, 2005. It sat squarely in Bedford’s core market.
If GM had taken Leyland over at any time in the 1980s, it would have killed Bedford, given that Leyland was in far better condition at the time- much of Leyland’s production facilities were new and its engineering departments were fighting fit, having just replaced an entire range of products. GM would have converted its Bedford customers to the Lancashire product and got rid of anything it didn’t need immediately after. No wonder the British Government was not amenable to a GM takeover of Leyland. By allowing Bedford to soldier on, it would be employing people and paying tax for at least a bit longer. Regarding the award of military contracts, they chose the best-equipped suppliers at the time.
There’s no way that the British truck manufactruring industry could have survived just based on the light weight sector because it couldn’t remain competitive in the heavyweight sector and it’s that sector that the OP based the original question on.
If Bedford couldn’t make the TM a success then there’s no way that Leyland could have made the T 45 a success considering the T 45’s inferiority over the european competition ranged against it,compared to the TM especially in it’s 4400 form.
Leyland were effectively finished from the time of the development of the DAF 2800 and the Scandinavian competition like the Volvo F10/12 etc and the fact that all Leyland decided to bother with to answer that competition with was the T 45,shows that the Leyland management already knew that the writing was on the wall or it would have invested a lot more effort in building something similar to,if not better than,the TM instead.The difference is that both Leyland and Bedford didn’t have the advantage of a more advanced thinking customer base to provide sufficient demand in the domestic market,to justify the development and production costs,of much better trucks,which they needed to compete with the euro and scandinavian competition,at the time when they required it.But unlike Leyland Bedford went ahead anyway and tried whereas Leyland already knew it was a pointless lost cause and effectively just gave up.It was Leyland that just turned out a cheap and nasty product in order to just carry on a bit longer and keep employing people,not GM/Bedford.
However if anyone did want to turn out something that would have been better than all the foreign competition and the TM they could have done a lot worse than to start a local manufacturing operation turning out cab over Kenworth Aerodynes with the full range of engine options.
The TM wasn`t a success infact i would go as far as saying it was the least successful of the British lorries that were supposed to be the answer to the continentals (ERF B series Seddon Atkinson 400 ,Leyland Marathon,Ford Transcontinental) i wonder if they had put a Rolls or a 240 Gardner or a 250 ■■■■■■■ in they would have been more successful.They did eventually put a L10 in but i think it was too late Bedford were never a player in the heavier end a bit like Ford really
Just borrowed this from oiltreaders thread and if its typical of American trucks well they can keep em It looks very cramped and dated ,cheap and nasty.I had a 84 Foden with a steering wheel like that
kr79:
But it was the retarded British bosses who started buying these over powered too comftable trucks rather than the piles of crap British trucks. By the time the brits got anywhere near the standard the Europeans had raised the bar yet again.
Atkinson borderer came out in 68 but was only really a mild facelift of a late 50s truck. 1975 they release the 400 series which has a proper sleeper cab Volvo replace there ageing F88 in 77 with the f10:12 range and it’s moved the goal posts and it’s another 10 years until the strato comes out which can wise can get anywhere near Volvo.
It was the retarded British bosses who started buying those better powered more comfortable trucks rather than the piles of crap that they’d been asking the British manufacturers to provide them with previously but at a time lagged (retarded) point compared to when the British manufacturers would have needed to start getting a return on their investment ‘if’ those British manufacturers had started developing the trucks,required to compete with the foreign competition,that had been based on the demands of their domestic markets at the time,not ours.
The TM 4400 was good enough to blow the F10/12 out of the water but the problem was that it was too far ahead of the British customers’ demands in power outputs not behind them unless you know a way of getting 400 hp + at 2,000 rpm from an F12 motor while at the F12’s maximum output at 2,000 rpm + the 8V92 in the TM would only have needed to be turning over at around 1,500 rpm .
Added to that ‘would’ have been British built Kenworths which again would have been years in front of the F10/12 in terms of power outputs,considering the engine options which would have been available,and cab comfort levels until the 60 series Detroit would have been introduced which would have raised the efficiency bar higher again.However the British industry never got the chance to prove the competitive advantage all those options would have provided it with.
Unlike the Australian truck manufacturing industry was given in examples like the New Zealand market.Where,as I’ve said,unlike here,locally built Kenworths,amongst other American truck designs,still compete head on with euro types to this day ever since that time.Although it’s obvious that trying to make the point,that the problem was the customers in the domestic market,not the manufacturers,is probably going to take even longer than it took for those British customers to eventully come to their senses,before the euro truck fans start to understand assuming they even want to understand.
ramone:
Just borrowed this from oiltreaders thread and if its typical of American trucks well they can keepem It looks very cramped and dated ,cheap and nasty.I had a84 Foden with a steering wheel like that
This is typical of American trucks of the time when the F10/12 were supposedly two of the best wagons on the road.Like every driver would have chosen the Volvo given the choice by the guvnor.