Wheel Nut:
Apart from the added popularity of the ERF brand in France, most of the countries stayed loyal to their own in the 60’s and 70’s. DAF was popular with the Dutch and Belgians. MB/MAN with the Germans and Renault/Berliet with the French. None of us wanted the American stuff so we cannot all have been wrong.
While this is largely true, most manufacturers had some success in countries other than their own. The obvious example is the Swedes, but there were DAFs sold in Germany, Mercs in France etc. This is where the British firms missed the boat (literally!) in the 1950s. A few sales of big-cab lorries in every European country, with good service back-up, would have laid the foundations for the future. Failure to do that, on its own, would be enough to be What Went Wrong.
Wheel Nut:
Apart from the added popularity of the ERF brand in France, most of the countries stayed loyal to their own in the 60’s and 70’s. DAF was popular with the Dutch and Belgians. MB/MAN with the Germans and Renault/Berliet with the French. None of us wanted the American stuff so we cannot all have been wrong.
[set scene]I can imagine Carryfast as the sales rep walking into a 1978-80 yard
Guv’nor about?
Whos asking?
I am, CF just wondered what your buying policy was for vehicles.
Listen Mr, you will never buy any trucks from me, you don’t have a clue about hp and torque curves so for that reason I hope you go bust, you have the bloody audacity to buy this crap from the UK manufacturers. I bet you go on holiday to bloody Skegness too!
Our buying policy is 150 - 200 hp with day cabs as it suits our operation, the 28 tonne limit is fine as we can keep the weight down and with fuel at almost a groat a gallon they are economical
Do any of your lorries go abroad?
Aye lad we do, we have a job where we catch trainferry or sail into Antwerp and then onto italy.
You are going the wrong way, you should go my way!
Oh so you have continental experience then?
No, never driven a lorry abroad I’m a zb salesman remember.
Listen lad, we are patriotic here. I support my Queen and country, get orffa my land
CF leaves yard.
[curtain falls] He has been banging on about it ever since that zb in the yard and all his descendents have been blaming the unions and everyone who worked in the British truck manufacturing industry for it’s downfall and demise.
Wheel Nut:
Apart from the added popularity of the ERF brand in France, most of the countries stayed loyal to their own in the 60’s and 70’s. DAF was popular with the Dutch and Belgians. MB/MAN with the Germans and Renault/Berliet with the French. None of us wanted the American stuff so we cannot all have been wrong.
While this is largely true, most manufacturers had some success in countries other than their own. The obvious example is the Swedes, but there were DAFs sold in Germany, Mercs in France etc. This is where the British firms missed the boat (literally!) in the 1950s. A few sales of big-cab lorries in every European country, with good service back-up, would have laid the foundations for the future. Failure to do that, on its own, would be enough to be What Went Wrong.
God that’s ugly looks a fair size sleeper though.
Sure I read in the 60s early 70s it was nigh on impossible to have a sleeper and pull a full length trailer. If that’s right it’s the same arguement as today with the scania longline ok if you can use a short trailer.
Wheel Nut:
Apart from the added popularity of the ERF brand in France, most of the countries stayed loyal to their own in the 60’s and 70’s. DAF was popular with the Dutch and Belgians. MB/MAN with the Germans and Renault/Berliet with the French. None of us wanted the American stuff so we cannot all have been wrong.
While this is largely true, most manufacturers had some success in countries other than their own. The obvious example is the Swedes, but there were DAFs sold in Germany, Mercs in France etc. This is where the British firms missed the boat (literally!) in the 1950s. A few sales of big-cab lorries in every European country, with good service back-up, would have laid the foundations for the future. Failure to do that, on its own, would be enough to be What Went Wrong.
Carryfast:
While this is largely true, most manufacturers had some success in countries other than their own. The obvious example is the Swedes, but there were DAFs sold in Germany, Mercs in France etc. This is where the British firms missed the boat (literally!) in the 1950s. A few sales of big-cab lorries in every European country, with good service back-up, would have laid the foundations for the future. Failure to do that, on its own, would be enough to be What Went Wrong.
1948 would have been better .
hankstruckpictures.com/pix/t … /icx03.jpg
[/quote]
I agree fully. I did state on the US vs. Euro Trucks thread- which I created just for you- that the Americans came up with the good ideas first. The Europeans then made a better job of it.
Like anyone driving a 1950’s Brit heap would have cared wether it looked a bit uglier than their zb old Foden etc etc nail or not.
I’m surprised there were any drivers left here considering how easy it was to emigrate to the States and Canada back then.
Carryfast:
While this is largely true, most manufacturers had some success in countries other than their own. The obvious example is the Swedes, but there were DAFs sold in Germany, Mercs in France etc. This is where the British firms missed the boat (literally!) in the 1950s. A few sales of big-cab lorries in every European country, with good service back-up, would have laid the foundations for the future. Failure to do that, on its own, would be enough to be What Went Wrong.
I agree fully. I did state on the US vs. Euro Trucks thread- which I created just for you- that the Americans came up with the good ideas first. The Europeans then made a better job of it.
[/quote]
No the Americans were actually ‘producing’ the good ideas before the Europeans had even thought about it.The Europeans then just followed them and still follow them.Meanwhile unfortunately for the British manufacturers they were just lumbered with British customers and,even worse,British governments.
Like anyone driving a 1950’s Brit heap would have cared wether it looked a bit uglier than their zb old Foden etc etc nail or not.
I’m surprised there were any drivers left here considering how easy it was to emigrate to the States and Canada back then.
Ugly or not, if that sort of vehicle was available in 1948, it is very impressive. Does anyone know if that model of KW had a tilt cab?
Before anyone says, “not another one gone Yank,” I believe this is relevant to the original post- these US trucks, and their roads, were a template for post-war European transport. The long-sighted European manufacurers took the hint in the 1950s, but the British did not.
If KW had made a decent effort at selling a vehicle like this, in Europe, in 1948,they would have stood a chance of gaining a foothold. They would have had to move fast- by 1960 the European lorries were more advanced than the Yanks.
The main factor that went wrong was weak poor government in the seventies, under Wilson, Heath and Callaghan.
I have already given my views of the fiasco of the Bedford takeover of Leyland, but had problems been dealt with in the late sixties early seventies that would not have occurred. The days of Red Rob and the likes strangling our industries took away the money that was so needed for research and development.
To summarise I will illustrate by an industry I knew about, and I hope you forgive me for deviating. In the early sixties Jules Thorn with his Thorn Electrical Industries (Later Thorn EMI) started the production of fridges at their Spennymoor plant. We delivered them. They had 80% of the UK market with their Tricity products. Electric Cookers were also made at the same plant, which was very profitable.
Unfortunately two things went wrong. We joined the EU and communism spread within the trade union movement that got a stranglehold on industry.
Zanussi of Italy started importing into the UK and soon were saturating the market. Thorn had problems competing especially when they found out that every fridge Zanussi made was subsidised by the Italian government which was against EU rules. As usual our government were playing cricket strictly to the rules, whereas the Italians were looking after themselves.
Whilst this was happening Thorn had dreadful problems with industrial relations. Over a ten year period they never had a day’s production when there was not a strike, a go slow or an overtime ban. There was no hope. Profit was being taken away to Italy, and production costs were inflated because of industrial relations
When Thatcher came in she took a hard strong control, to sort out industrial relations, which argumently was the only way to sort things out. But this created a situation which was the survival of the fittest. Thorn, like the Commercial Vehicle Industry had suffered years of losses with no profits. There is no fridge production now at Spennymoor and a factory complex that had employed 8,500 people was no more. Zanussi , I understand are a large Italian employer. Does that situation sound familiar?
Carl Williams:
The main factor that went wrong was weak poor government in the seventies, under Wilson, Heath and Callaghan.
I have already given my views of the fiasco of the Bedford takeover of Leyland, but had problems been dealt with in the late sixties early seventies that would not have occurred. The days of Red Rob and the likes strangling our industries took away the money that was so needed for research and development.
To summarise I will illustrate by an industry I knew about, and I hope you forgive me for deviating. In the early sixties Jules Thorn with his Thorn Electrical Industries (Later Thorn EMI) started the production of fridges at their Spennymoor plant. We delivered them. They had 80% of the UK market with their Tricity products. Electric Cookers were also made at the same plant, which was very profitable.
Unfortunately two things went wrong. We joined the EU and communism spread within the trade union movement that got a stranglehold on industry.
Zanussi of Italy started importing into the UK and soon were saturating the market. Thorn had problems competing especially when they found out that every fridge Zanussi made was subsidised by the Italian government which was against EU rules. As usual our government were playing cricket strictly to the rules, whereas the Italians were looking after themselves.
Whilst this was happening Thorn had dreadful problems with industrial relations. Over a ten year period they never had a day’s production when there was not a strike, a go slow or an overtime ban. There was no hope. Profit was being taken away to Italy, and production costs were inflated because of industrial relations
When Thatcher came in she took a hard strong control, to sort out industrial relations, which argumently was the only way to sort things out. But this created a situation which was the survival of the fittest. Thorn, like the Commercial Vehicle Industry had suffered years of losses with no profits. There is no fridge production now at Spennymoor and a factory complex that had employed 8,500 people was no more. Zanussi , I understand are a large Italian employer. Does that situation sound familiar?
Absolutely Carl, exactly as I remember it, although to be honest it gave a pecuniary advantage to the transport company I worked for as nearly every container came in stuffed to the roof with white goods from Italy, the company also had a clearing house on the dock which handled all these imports.
It is the reason that I get quite angry with people who say Margaret Thatcher killed this country, most of the country was already on life support, she just turned it off. She had to be cruel to be kind.
Carl Williams:
The main factor that went wrong was weak poor government in the seventies, under Wilson, Heath and Callaghan.
I have already given my views of the fiasco of the Bedford takeover of Leyland, but had problems been dealt with in the late sixties early seventies that would not have occurred. The days of Red Rob and the likes strangling our industries took away the money that was so needed for research and development.
To summarise I will illustrate by an industry I knew about, and I hope you forgive me for deviating. In the early sixties Jules Thorn with his Thorn Electrical Industries (Later Thorn EMI) started the production of fridges at their Spennymoor plant. We delivered them. They had 80% of the UK market with their Tricity products. Electric Cookers were also made at the same plant, which was very profitable.
Unfortunately two things went wrong. We joined the EU and communism spread within the trade union movement that got a stranglehold on industry.
Zanussi of Italy started importing into the UK and soon were saturating the market. Thorn had problems competing especially when they found out that every fridge Zanussi made was subsidised by the Italian government which was against EU rules. As usual our government were playing cricket strictly to the rules, whereas the Italians were looking after themselves.
Whilst this was happening Thorn had dreadful problems with industrial relations. Over a ten year period they never had a day’s production when there was not a strike, a go slow or an overtime ban. There was no hope. Profit was being taken away to Italy, and production costs were inflated because of industrial relations
When Thatcher came in she took a hard strong control, to sort out industrial relations, which argumently was the only way to sort things out. But this created a situation which was the survival of the fittest. Thorn, like the Commercial Vehicle Industry had suffered years of losses with no profits. There is no fridge production now at Spennymoor and a factory complex that had employed 8,500 people was no more. Zanussi , I understand are a large Italian employer. Does that situation sound familiar?
Absolutely Carl, exactly as I remember it, although to be honest it gave a pecuniary advantage to the transport company I worked for as nearly every container came in stuffed to the roof with white goods from Italy, the company also had a clearing house on the dock which handled all these imports.
It is the reason that I get quite angry with people who say Margaret Thatcher killed this country, most of the country was already on life support, she just turned it off. She had to be cruel to be kind.
I loaded out of Thorn at Spennymoor quite a few years ago and that was a big site like a small village its unbelievable what goes on here ,as for Mrs Thatcher she had more balls than Heath Callaghan and Wilson put together .British manufacturing … will the last 1 leaving please turn the lights out
Carl Williams:
The main factor that went wrong was weak poor government in the seventies, under Wilson, Heath and Callaghan.
I have already given my views of the fiasco of the Bedford takeover of Leyland, but had problems been dealt with in the late sixties early seventies that would not have occurred. The days of Red Rob and the likes strangling our industries took away the money that was so needed for research and development.
To summarise I will illustrate by an industry I knew about, and I hope you forgive me for deviating. In the early sixties Jules Thorn with his Thorn Electrical Industries (Later Thorn EMI) started the production of fridges at their Spennymoor plant. We delivered them. They had 80% of the UK market with their Tricity products. Electric Cookers were also made at the same plant, which was very profitable.
Unfortunately two things went wrong. We joined the EU and communism spread within the trade union movement that got a stranglehold on industry.
Zanussi of Italy started importing into the UK and soon were saturating the market. Thorn had problems competing especially when they found out that every fridge Zanussi made was subsidised by the Italian government which was against EU rules. As usual our government were playing cricket strictly to the rules, whereas the Italians were looking after themselves.
Whilst this was happening Thorn had dreadful problems with industrial relations. Over a ten year period they never had a day’s production when there was not a strike, a go slow or an overtime ban. There was no hope. Profit was being taken away to Italy, and production costs were inflated because of industrial relations
When Thatcher came in she took a hard strong control, to sort out industrial relations, which argumently was the only way to sort things out. But this created a situation which was the survival of the fittest. Thorn, like the Commercial Vehicle Industry had suffered years of losses with no profits. There is no fridge production now at Spennymoor and a factory complex that had employed 8,500 people was no more. Zanussi , I understand are a large Italian employer. Does that situation sound familiar?
I think your logic is about as good as the average British truck operator during the 1970’s.Firstly you’ve raised the issues of zb governments and then EEC membership and unfair competition with our so called EEC ‘trading partners’ (competitors).All good so far.However the fact is it’s a self preservation society and no one can blame the Italians for looking after themselves but we can blame the British government for our EEC membership and the subsequent ‘trade’ with our competitors in an institution which anyone with even the slightest intelligence would know were only in it for themselves not for us.
As for so called communism amongst the rank and file members of the British unions I think that was more an issue with the government ministers like Wilson and Thatcher over the years who’ve thrown our interests away to the benefit of places like Eastern Europe,Russia and China and ironically Northern Italy has never exactly been a bastion of non communist activeties either .
I’ve been a union member and supporter over the years and during the time when all this mattered and from my point of view and most others at the time,British union activeties and aims were no different to those of our American counterparts like the Teamsters and the UAWU and what we saw was a country being subjected to massive price led inflation,caused by EEC membership,oil price increases,and a government that wouldn’t do anything to help such as reducing indirect taxation on goods and services and selling oil on the domestic market at near cost price just like the other oil producers but which at the same time didn’t want any wage increase demands to match those price increases.Any attempts by the British unions to do something about that situation was,not surprisingly,met by our communist run government calling everyone else a zb communist not them who were the real zb commies.
Anyway Thatcher got what she wanted and look where the economy is now and who’s benefitted from it.No surprise it’s Eastern Europe,Russia and zb China and their zb commie collaborators within the British ‘establishment’.
However none of that explains why it was that Bedford found it easier to flog some day cabbed 7 Litre non turbo V6 powered TM’s than any 4400’s to run at 32 t gross.
What went wrong, … Well for a start the backward hauliers of britain wouldnt buy Bedford TMs with V8 Detroit turbocharged engines.Then the yanks didnt come over here and take over what was left of, at 1 point 1 of the best commercial vehicle industries in the world.If they had have come over here we probably wouldnt have had Volvo , Scania and the likes because those yanks (i actually like `em the people that is) were so advanced in their thinking.We would probably now have our dustbin men collecting bins in Kenworths with 600 bhp engines ,they may struggle to get down some of the streets but thats a minor oversight and those engines may be a little overpowered but who cares it can go on our poll tax .I think i would have to draw the line at wearing a 10 gallon hat and cowboy boots though and the obligatory shades. So lay off Carryfast cos he has converted me to his logical way of thinking .
Yours Brad aged 5 1/2
Ramone that reminds me of the time when I worked for a BMC dealer and our salesman insisted that the council needed to buy a Mastiff with the V8 Perkins fitted to power a street lamp cleaner! Something with a four potter fitted would have been more than adequate, it only crawled between lamp posts, they settled on a Boxer with the 6.354 in the end to apease everyone. I suppose what they really REALLY wanted was a Detroit engined Bedford but alas they were not around then. Just think of all those missed opportunities.
ramone:
What went wrong, … Well for a start the backward hauliers of britain wouldnt buy Bedford TMs with V8 Detroit turbocharged engines.Then the yanks didnt come over here and take over what was left of, at 1 point 1 of the best commercial vehicle industries in the world.If they had have come over here we probably wouldnt have had Volvo , Scania and the likes because those yanks (i actually like `em the people that is) were so advanced in their thinking.We would probably now have our dustbin men collecting bins in Kenworths with 600 bhp engines ,they may struggle to get down some of the streets but thats a minor oversight and those engines may be a little overpowered but who cares it can go on our poll tax .I think i would have to draw the line at wearing a 10 gallon hat and cowboy boots though and the obligatory shades. So lay off Carryfast cos he has converted me to his logical way of thinking .
Yours Brad aged 5 1/2
If Bedford couldn’t sell the 4400 for use as a 32 tonner there’s no way that any council here would ever have bought a six wheeler rigid version,let alone a Kenworth Aerodyne, to do the weekly dustbin round.
. 
Just think of all those missed opportunities.
