What went wrong

[carryfast]

Casual Observer:
If we were so infatuated with our own Fred Flintstone type UK built lorries , why did the American involvement in Britains lorry manufacturing industry never materialise in full & save us from continuing on the path to our own downfall .

If you read that sentence again it actually explains why.At the time when it mattered it was only the British customers who could have saved the industry from continuing on the path to it’s downfall by changing it’s buying habits and demands from Fred Flinstone trucks to trucks like Kenworth Aerodynes etc.It never materialised in full,or effectively at all,at the time for the same reason that Leyland chose to start work on designing and producing the zb up T 45 instead of something much better and for the same reason that Bedford wasn’t (and/or wouldn’t have been) able to sell the TM in 4400 form here,in even sufficient numbers to sustain a small scale operation let alone a large scale one,in the late 1970’s let alone if they’d have introduced it in 1974.

If there was to be any large scale US involvement,that would have benefitted the domestic industry,it would have needed to be based on the demands of the domestic market.Which,as you’ve said,at the time was more interested in running Fred Flinstone wagons followed by an incomprehensible polarisation towards European type products not American ones (when it suddenly,belatedly,realised what zb trucks that it had been asking the domestic manufacturers to build and then turned it’s back on them) which has never seemed to apply in other British colonial markets for some reason,especially New Zealand,where the choice between both euro and american types has usually been available obviously based on customer demand.

Which isn’t really surprising when even today we’ve still got people here who’d like to think they know a bit about speccing trucks who can’t understand the difference between a torque curve and a torque peak and who think that there’s no difference between the torque carachteristics of a chainsaw motor compared to those of a modern Scania V8 let alone a ship’s diesel engine.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
Well Gentlemen, here I am, at the end of yet another long day, and yet another looms for the morrow, but am I happy, yes , yes, yes, of course I am. Why, because I am the eternal optomist, I have a great family, good friends from all around the Globe, incredibly great memories of this industry, and the remarkable characters that people it at all levels, and all areas of the industry, good friends and associates who I can identify with on this amazing electronic media!!!. Carryfast, I am truly sad for you, the people who inhabit this electronic medium are not idiots, their wisdom and experience have been gained in many ways, some very hard and cruel, some less so, have you ever started work on a Monday, with all your commitments to meet, and known that you have to generate the income to meet them by the week end? Well, if you have not, just listen to those who have, remember, all can share, and delight in each others experience, and so should you! No one person is to blame for the demise of manufacturing in the UK, but many different factors contributed. Look at the overall picture, learn, accept others greater knowledge, contribute your own, but do so with humility, for none of us is greater than the next, and perhaps we may at last arrive at a reasoned conclusion to the original title of the thread. I am away to the Bollinger, a pleasant end to an evening, introduced to me by a very good friend, a Frenchman, whose operation in the 70s included some 700 vehicles, and was a most wide thinking and open minded man, who held no predjucies,( considering that his family had been executed by an occupying force some 30years before). Bon Chance mes amis, Cheerio for now.

Saviem Admittedly there were ‘some’ other contributory factors to the problems in the British domestic industry than just those that I’ve been describing.But probably not to the same degree.However as for humility and reference to the bigger picture I don’t see much of that coming from those who are happy enough to mainly put the blame on the British workforce,in the sense of accusing them of being a bunch of strike happy incompetent workshy militants hellbent on bringing the industry and the country down.Many of those having actually been involved some years before as teenagers in helping to rid the place of those murderous ‘occupying forces’.

Bearing in mind that the US truck manufacturing industry made a very worthwhile contribution to that effort,probably as much or moreso the British one,and certainly moreso than the European and Scandinavian one of the time,it seems ironic that it’s only me,so far,and some colonial customers who obviously don’t seem to be here to contribute to the issues,who seem to be giving the US industry the credit that it’s due and at least giving the possibility that it could have,at least possibly,have left Britain with more than it has now in relation to a truck manufacturing industry,if only the British customers had given it a chance in just the same way that the colonial customers have provided Australia with at least more of a truck manufacturing industry than Britain has now .

[wheel_nut]

Casual Observer:
History tells us that American automotive products have never enjoyed a healthy following in this country . Agreed , some component parts have been used , but with the exception of construction & agricultural equipment the products from their car , van & lorry makers have seen almost insignificant sales volume . We were left with excess American stock after the war effort ,Jeeps , Diamond T s etc , but there was little or no effort by them to even attempt sales after that . It is only relatively recently that Jeeps ( as part of the rise in 4x4 Chelsea Tractors ) & other American cars ( the Chrysler 300c etc ) have become that bit more popular , in the UK .

If we were so infatuated with our own Fred Flintstone type UK built lorries , why did the American involvement in Britains lorry manufacturing industry never materialise in full & save us from continuing on the path to our own downfall . They were more than happy to open engine plants ( ■■■■■■■ ) , we had Caterpillar plant factory , IH tractors etc , although ■■■■■■■ & Caterpillars Scottish ventures still leave a sour taste with many .

Perhaps they too would have taken the grants , startup packages & development zone assistance , then after realisation sank in , packed their bags & cleared off .

Perhaps it was because they saw no incentive to try & move in to our paltry & insignificant ( to them ) sales territory or even that of Europe & were happy to let European manufacturers remain in their own zone & the Americans would stick to their home market aided by a rapid expansion into Australia .

Perhaps , the money men saw it as more beneficial to leave the vehicle side of Europe well alone & instead enlighten us with the delights of their contribution to world health , the delights of McDonalds , Burger King Pizza Hut etc .

Purely my thoughts , any opinions , arguments for & against etc may well be largely ignored

You will probably find the growth in Chrysler Jeep stemmed from the fact they were built in Europe in Graz with German money until Daimler divested itself of the company and sold it to the Italians

[kr79]

So paccar owned foden from 1980 seddon Atkinson and international were ■■■■■■■ together in the same period why did they not rebadge there respective yank tanks and sell them as fodens and sudden accidents. There must have been a reason.

[zb_anorak]

kr79:
So paccar owned foden from 1980 seddon Atkinson and international were ■■■■■■■ together in the same period why did they not rebadge there respective yank tanks and sell them as fodens and sudden accidents. There must have been a reason.

In the same vein, why did Ford go to the trouble of engineering a European cab onto the Transcon? The rest of it came from their US parts bin, after all. Why did they stop building it after a mere eight years, when the same cab was in production for 26 years, fitted to a European chassis?

[casual_observer]

Well shock , horror I answer my own question apparently . Somehow , as I wrote that post , I had a vision of that happening .

If you were to take it another way , the Americans are hardly renowned for their standing by idly & letting things happen . They seem to have got a slight reputation for inviting themselves into all matters , be that right , wrong or indifferently .They like to show their wares & virtues to all & sundry .

Yet they were happy to have engine , plant & tractor factories over here , they were happy to supply tractors & machinery as imports here , but steered well clear of supplying complete vehicles .

GM owned Bedford , why not supply some wonderful Detroit powered Jimmys badged as Bedford , even as a tester , why did Ford not supply complete vehicles , then go to the bother & expense of making the Transcontinental , but used a US chassis in its development , IH with Seddon Atkinson from the mid 70s also failed to treat us to some American delights .

John Deere dealers opened up over here from the mid to late 60s , to supply UK farmers with their larger & more powerful products , Fords late 1960 s large 6 cylinder tractors were American imports then later built in Belguim , Massey Ferguson also supplied US made units , but they steered clear of the commercial vehicle side .

I have read with interest all this topic from post 1 , & yes there have been mentions of industrial unrest , but not to the point of being work shy incompetents hell bent on bringing the country to its knees . The biggest single issue seems to involve the much proclaimed US saviour of our industry ( one which , as far as I recall never occurred ).

I am fully aware of above post also mentioning Ford Transcontinental .

[carryfast]

Casual Observer:
Well shock , horror I answer my own question apparently . Somehow , as I wrote that post , I had a vision of that happening .

If you were to take it another way , the Americans are hardly renowned for their standing by idly & letting things happen . They seem to have got a slight reputation for inviting themselves into all matters , be that right , wrong or indifferently .They like to show their wares & virtues to all & sundry .

Yet they were happy to have engine , plant & tractor factories over here , they were happy to supply tractors & machinery as imports here , but steered well clear of supplying complete vehicles .

I have read with interest all this topic from post 1 , & yes there have been mentions of industrial unrest , but not to the point of being work shy incompetents hell bent on bringing the country to its knees . The biggest single issue seems to involve the much proclaimed US saviour of our industry ( one which , as far as I recall never occurred ).

I think your idea of the US having ‘reputation’ for inviting themselves into everyone else’s business is probably more a case of people seeing something that isn’t there than is actually shown by the facts.They wanted to stay neutral during WW2 and only entered the war when the Japanese were mad enough to attack them and with a bit of help from Churchill’s repeated attempts to get them to enter it.

The same applied in regard to those half hearted attempts by the British truck manufacturing industry to just invite them get them involved by (trying to) use some outdated US technology in components such as naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ engines and 9 speed Fullers fitted into those still backward day cabbed British heaps because that was about as far as the British customer base would allow them to take things at the time when it mattered.

When what was actually needed was the full fat,state of the art,consisting of locally built US trucks including the decent US type cabs and powerful turbocharged engines and 13 speed Fullers that went with that.All this at the time before the DAF 2800,Volvo F10/12,and Scania 110’s etc had had time to get established in the British market.

As history shows,contrary to your ideas,the US never usually gets involved in anything without being invited or forced to first.In this case,as was shown in the Australian market,it needed someone from here,to go over there,and show them that there was an existing credible customer base in the domsetic British market for much better wagons when it mattered.

That’s why,unlike in the Australian and New Zealand market,‘it never happened’.

[kr79]

[zb]
anorak:

kr79:
So paccar owned foden from 1980 seddon Atkinson and international were ■■■■■■■ together in the same period why did they not rebadge there respective yank tanks and sell them as fodens and sudden accidents. There must have been a reason.

In the same vein, why did Ford go to the trouble of engineering a European cab onto the Transcon? The rest of it came from their US parts bin, after all. Why did they stop building it after a mere eight years, when the same cab was in production for 26 years, fitted to a European chassis?

The big ford was before my time but my dad drove them and said they were a good truck but had faults. I have read a lot about them and though they had niggling faults as most vehicles do the two biggest points given to failure seem to be they were to heavy at our then modest 32 ton limit as the chasis which was I believe from the ford Louisville range and ford had always been seen in uk and Europe as Avan and small truck builder and this coupled with dealers not geared up and understanding the needs of there new customers.
Ironccly the big ford was killed off the same year the uk went to 38 ton and the weight became much less of an issu.

[casual_observer]

[quote=“Carryfast”
I

As history shows,contrary to your ideas,the US never usually gets involved in anything without being invited or forced to first.In this case,as was shown in the Australian market,it needed someone from here,to go over there,and show them that there was an existing credible customer base in the domsetic British market for much better wagons when it mattered.

Thank you for the history lesson , but I do happen to have a different take on matters , if only they had remained as neutral . But , I digress & here is neither the time or place for a debate on such matters .

Once again your stance alters , as from one blaming the British customers for the downfall , you say it needed someone from here to make the move . A UK customer making that contact seems a bit of a tall order , so initiation would have to stem from a UK manufacturer . Maybe it did happen & they were not successful in the quest , maybe it never took place at all .

But I am not alone in seeing that an opportunity for US manufacturers was there , with their controlling interests of UK based builders , so did they miss an opportunity in not providing us with their products , or were they simply not interested in helping us advance out of Fred Flintstone motors , & let other European makers fill in .

[kr79]

More than Likley realised the cost of moddiyfiying there designs to suit European requirements wouldn’t be cost effective.

[carl_williams]

Casual Observer:
[quote=“Carryfast”
I

As history shows,contrary to your ideas,the US never usually gets involved in anything without being invited or forced to first.In this case,as was shown in the Australian market,it needed someone from here,to go over there,and show them that there was an existing credible customer base in the domsetic British market for much better wagons when it mattered.

Thank you for the history lesson , but I do happen to have a different take on matters , if only they had remained as neutral . But , I digress & here is neither the time or place for a debate on such matters .

Once again your stance alters , as from one blaming the British customers for the downfall , you say it needed someone from here to make the move . A UK customer making that contact seems a bit of a tall order , so initiation would have to stem from a UK manufacturer . Maybe it did happen & they were not successful in the quest , maybe it never took place at all .

But I am not alone in seeing that an opportunity for US manufacturers was there , with their controlling interests of UK based builders , so did they miss an opportunity in not providing us with their products , or were they simply not interested in helping us advance out of Fred Flintstone motors , & let other European makers fill in .

Hi Casual Observer,

i think the truth of the matter as regards to GM and Bedford was that they were so sick, of their treatment by the British Govenment and the Leyland take over fiasco, plus the awarding of the Army order to Leyland, they decided that this was a country and government they no longer could work with, and closed Bedford down in frustration. I think this is as near as anyone can get to the truth. So not only did we eventually loose Leyland, which was doomed to failure, but we also lost Bedford

regards
Carl

[sammyopisite]

My view is that once any government starts to involve itself into business it is only going to end in the mire as I cannot recall any political party making anything except a ■■■■ up by interfering in things that they absolutely no knowledge of as they only know how to spend , waste and fritter money not how to make money which is the sole aim of any business to succeed.
cheers Johnnie

[wheel_nut]

kr79:

[zb]
anorak:

kr79:
So paccar owned foden from 1980 seddon Atkinson and international were ■■■■■■■ together in the same period why did they not rebadge there respective yank tanks and sell them as fodens and sudden accidents. There must have been a reason.

In the same vein, why did Ford go to the trouble of engineering a European cab onto the Transcon? The rest of it came from their US parts bin, after all. Why did they stop building it after a mere eight years, when the same cab was in production for 26 years, fitted to a European chassis?

The big ford was before my time but my dad drove them and said they were a good truck but had faults. I have read a lot about them and though they had niggling faults as most vehicles do the two biggest points given to failure seem to be they were to heavy at our then modest 32 ton limit as the chasis which was I believe from the ford Louisville range and ford had always been seen in uk and Europe as Avan and small truck builder and this coupled with dealers not geared up and understanding the needs of there new customers.
Ironccly the big ford was killed off the same year the uk went to 38 ton and the weight became much less of an issu.

Apart from the big Ford being 8 years too early, it was also fitted with crap wedge brakes and dodgy electrics, which didn’t give many operators confidence in buying it

[kr79]

My dad did say they brakes could be a bit hair raising but the truck itself had the basis of been a great truck and that it wasn’t the only motor with dubious braking quality in that era.

[zb_anorak]

sammyopisite:
My view is that once any government starts to involve itself into business it is only going to end in the mire as I cannot recall any political party making anything except a ■■■■ up by interfering in things that they absolutely no knowledge of as they only know how to spend , waste and fritter money not how to make money which is the sole aim of any business to succeed.
cheers Johnnie

Renault was supported for many years by the French Government. It was eventually able to stand on its own two feet, before it sold its commercial vehicle operation to Volvo. When the merged Leyland DAF company went bankrupt in 1993(?), the Dutch Government bailed it out, obviously to the benefit of the Dutch side, rather than the Lancashire one. My recollection of these events is a bit hazy, so please feel free to shoot me down(!) My point is that state assistance can sometimes be the only way. If I may be a bit controversial, I reckon that, if British Leyland had been formed 20 years earlier, it may have made a better stick of things (coincidentally, was 1948 not the year that road transport itself was nationalised?).

[carryfast]

Casual Observer:
[quote=“Carryfast”
I

As history shows,contrary to your ideas,the US never usually gets involved in anything without being invited or forced to first.In this case,as was shown in the Australian market,it needed someone from here,to go over there,and show them that there was an existing credible customer base in the domsetic British market for much better wagons when it mattered.

Thank you for the history lesson , but I do happen to have a different take on matters , if only they had remained as neutral . But , I digress & here is neither the time or place for a debate on such matters .

Once again your stance alters , as from one blaming the British customers for the downfall , you say it needed someone from here to make the move . A UK customer making that contact seems a bit of a tall order , so initiation would have to stem from a UK manufacturer . Maybe it did happen & they were not successful in the quest , maybe it never took place at all .

But I am not alone in seeing that an opportunity for US manufacturers was there , with their controlling interests of UK based builders , so did they miss an opportunity in not providing us with their products , or were they simply not interested in helping us advance out of Fred Flintstone motors , & let other European makers fill in .

My stance hasn’t ‘altered’ at all.You seem to have concentrated on the bit about ‘someone from here’ (yes a manufacturer) going over there but missed the bit about having ‘the existing credible customer base’ in order to have been able to have sold the things here when they’d built them.The problem wasn’t one of no trans Atlantic co operation between UK and US nanufacturers it was one of no demand for better products,by the customers in the British market,when it was needed.Unlike in the clonial markets like New Zealand.Hence the double whammy of first the loss of those previous colonial export markets,when their customers woke up first and then went for US trucks instead,and then the loss of the domestic market when the British customers eventually woke up around 10 years later and went for Euro products instead.

[carryfast]

kr79:
More than Likley realised the cost of moddiyfiying there designs to suit European requirements wouldn’t be cost effective.

Time for a look at the Kenworths in the UK topic again.That’s that argument blown out of the water.

[kr79]

How many where here and of those how many where owner drivers who could justify the extra cost as it was just for them big difference for an owner driver or small firm to justify it than a larger firm hence why lots of top spec scanias etc have been owner drivers or small firms rather than Stobarts etc.

[carryfast]

Carl Williams:

Casual Observer:
[quote=“Carryfast”
I

As history shows,contrary to your ideas,the US never usually gets involved in anything without being invited or forced to first.In this case,as was shown in the Australian market,it needed someone from here,to go over there,and show them that there was an existing credible customer base in the domsetic British market for much better wagons when it mattered.

Thank you for the history lesson , but I do happen to have a different take on matters , if only they had remained as neutral . But , I digress & here is neither the time or place for a debate on such matters .

Once again your stance alters , as from one blaming the British customers for the downfall , you say it needed someone from here to make the move . A UK customer making that contact seems a bit of a tall order , so initiation would have to stem from a UK manufacturer . Maybe it did happen & they were not successful in the quest , maybe it never took place at all .

But I am not alone in seeing that an opportunity for US manufacturers was there , with their controlling interests of UK based builders , so did they miss an opportunity in not providing us with their products , or were they simply not interested in helping us advance out of Fred Flintstone motors , & let other European makers fill in .

Hi Casual Observer,

i think the truth of the matter as regards to GM and Bedford was that they were so sick, of their treatment by the British Govenment and the Leyland take over fiasco, plus the awarding of the Army order to Leyland, they decided that this was a country and government they no longer could work with, and closed Bedford down in frustration. I think this is as near as anyone can get to the truth. So not only did we eventually loose Leyland, which was doomed to failure, but we also lost Bedford

regards
Carl

I think it’s more a case of being sick of their treatment by the British market after having took the chance on bringing the TM into the British market.The success of the TM or otherwise was more important to Bedford’s credibility under GM ownership than getting involved with Leyland would ever have been.It was simply a case of the US parent seeing that the TM wasn’t selling,or at best being ordered with a 7 Litre non turbo bus engine to haul 32 t gross around the country ,and just gave up on the British market as being a waste of time because it was more backward than zb Mexico.

[dave_the_renegade]

Carryfast:

Carl Williams:

Casual Observer:
[quote=“Carryfast”
I

As history shows,contrary to your ideas,the US never usually gets involved in anything without being invited or forced to first.In this case,as was shown in the Australian market,it needed someone from here,to go over there,and show them that there was an existing credible customer base in the domsetic British market for much better wagons when it mattered.

Thank you for the history lesson , but I do happen to have a different take on matters , if only they had remained as neutral . But , I digress & here is neither the time or place for a debate on such matters .

Once again your stance alters , as from one blaming the British customers for the downfall , you say it needed someone from here to make the move . A UK customer making that contact seems a bit of a tall order , so initiation would have to stem from a UK manufacturer . Maybe it did happen & they were not successful in the quest , maybe it never took place at all .

But I am not alone in seeing that an opportunity for US manufacturers was there , with their controlling interests of UK based builders , so did they miss an opportunity in not providing us with their products , or were they simply not interested in helping us advance out of Fred Flintstone motors , & let other European makers fill in .

Hi Casual Observer,

i think the truth of the matter as regards to GM and Bedford was that they were so sick, of their treatment by the British Govenment and the Leyland take over fiasco, plus the awarding of the Army order to Leyland, they decided that this was a country and government they no longer could work with, and closed Bedford down in frustration. I think this is as near as anyone can get to the truth. So not only did we eventually loose Leyland, which was doomed to failure, but we also lost Bedford

regards
Carl

I think it’s more a case of being sick of their treatment by the British market after having took the chance on bringing the TM into the British market.The success of the TM or otherwise was more important to Bedford’s credibility under GM ownership than getting involved with Leyland would ever have been.It was simply a case of the US parent seeing that the TM wasn’t selling,or at best being ordered with a 7 Litre non turbo bus engine to haul 32 t gross around the country ,and just gave up on the British market as being a waste of time because it was more backward than zb Mexico.

Water under the bridge Geoff.It never happened with Bedford and Leyland they are consigned to history along with the rest of the British lorry car and most of motorbike industries.