Why ■■■■■■■■ I can quote the dear departed haulier, Glyn Morris who said, “I can do a complete overhaul of a ■■■■■■■ cheaper than I can decoke a Gardner”.
So many factors mentioned in Leyland Ash’s post ring true and bring back sad memories.
What a waste.
Management that didn’t listen to feed back and vehicles that simply didn’t keep up with the market’s requirements.
In Aus you’d see a Hippo, Mandator etc behind a big name fuel tanker. Push bike would beat it across the lights, no engine brake/retarder so hill starts meant you just had to leave it in that gear until the incline reduced sufficiently to grab another gear before the whole show lost momentum.
Images like this belonged in the 50’s, and that’s where Leyland thinking was bogged.
Meanwhile running parallel to these grandad trucks was the gas turbine, GM, ■■■■■■■■ R/R powered mix/match, fixed head wonders and the AEC range, yes indeed what was going on.
No doubt political interference played a huge part. In Aus imports were restricted by a local content rule so as much as possible was local. That meant air and fuel tanks, batteries, assembly, tyres, paint in fact anything to get the Aus labour content up.
But once Mack, Volvo, Western Star, Kenworth etc also assembled locally, it was all over for any company that didn’t listen and respond to customer feedback.
You certainly seem to have your finger on the pulse and hit a few points directly on the head there Mr Cargo, you writing style reminds me of of a guy I used to read in some publications called Pat Kennett. I often think that the demise of the British manufacturing industry was decided before the 1950’s behind closed doors at a very high government leave. And where it seemed to be a bit defiant Lord Nuffield was sent in to mop up, and bang the final nails in.
Jeff…
Some very insightful and informative comments. I would add / endorse that many of Leyland’s problems stemmed from poor management decisions. Whilst it was a company with large numbers of truck sales annually Leyland was primarily a bus chassis manufacturer and that was where all its efforts were directed because bus orders were very profitable business and included in these contracts were spares supply agreements with the bus operators. Trucks always came second to buses in the development programme, profit margins were smaller with trucks than buses. Hence poorly specced trucks with regards to transmissions. The same was true of AEC, a smaller company overall than Leyland, but generally acknowledged as being better engineers than Leyland. AEC was dependent on its huge bus business with London Transport for its profitability. Where AEC’s management differed from Leyland in its days as an independent was that it did have overseas dealer / assembler representation on its main board of directors. Jack Plane from South Africa and ■■? Deering from Hastings Deering in Australia. Both J.H Plane and Hastings Deering ran large operations in South Africa and Australia respectively assembling CKD AEC kits, often modified for local operating, for example multi-ratio Fuller gearboxes were generally fitted to Mandators in Australia and New Zealand. Leyland and AEC were fierce rivals in bus markets and then came the merger between them, in reality Leyland took over AEC.
I will quote a comment in Robert Harris’ latest AEC Bulletin. When the Leyland / AEC tie up was announced the MD of AEC told his management “Yesterday they (Leyland) were lower than a snake’s belly, today they are our best friends.”
Great stuff from Leyland Ash. Keep it coming, please! I loved the 1959 Tel-Aviv pic- it was like taking a peek into a long-forgotten exotic world. The 1950s must have been a GB manufacturer’s dream, with seemingly unlimited opportunities to develop and sell vehicles of all varieties. The export sales manager’s job in a vehicle builder was surely the best way to spend a working life- unlimited foreign travel, plus the confidence that the competition was not likely to be terribly strong when you arrived. How could Stokes have cocked that up? His fear of European markets is well-documented on this forum, but allowing opportunities like Australia and Israel to wither on the vine smacks of incompetence bordering on fraud. His stand-out success- selling a fleet of buses to South America, while being chased by a dog (facts unchecked!)- appears to be the sum total of his work.
[zb] anorak,
Stokes - by every available standard - was someone who should have never become a CEO. As for the Israeli market, I do not know how much he hed to do with the original deal but the Cuba buses were pittance in comparison: I think they sold between 3000 - 4000 Royal Tiger chassis in Israel over a period of 20 years; both of Israel’s operators, Dan and Egged standardised on the design and also re-engined other bus types like Fords, GMCs (yes Carryfast, they junked the 4-71 which passengers hated on account of the noise) and Chaussons they had with Leyland 600s and 350s to achieve an almost complete standartisation of Leyland mechanicals (and Wilson boxes). When I grew up there (the 1960s and the 1970s), “Tiger” was a synonym for “bus”, and the sound of the Leyland 600 was everywhere. However, once Leyland failed to (i) provide Leyland Ashdod with enough chassis and (ii) offer a modern design, operators and the government had no choice but to look elswhere in the early 1970s and, after various trials with DAF and Scania V8s settled for Mercedes Benzes (Egged) and MANs (Dan). I reckon Leyland lost an order of 3000 chassis due to this. Before anyone mentions the National, it was only offered as an integral which would have taken work away from Israeli coachbuilders, and it would have been political suicide for any government to allow this to happen. I don’t even want to think what the reaction would have been to the headless wonder on the conservative Israeli market. In comparison, both German manufacturers were flexible anough to offer their products in chassis only form…
Cheers
L
Also, you could not submit a National to this 
Royal Tiger with Israeli Haargaz body used as troop carrier in the 1973 war…
But also during peacetime, on the Sinai peninsula “routes”
Below, just a small number of Royal Tigers chassis before being transfered to the coachbuilders
and with bodies being finished (1960s)
Pics from Egged’s site http://www.egged.co.il/main.asp?lngCategoryID=2356, in Hebrew I’m afraid but just click on the links for a wealth of pics (Google translate does work up to a degree).
Cheers
T
Just to bring this back to Lorries and show I’m not being too harsh on Leyland only, AEC managed to repeat the same mistakes with the overseas market:
400 hp in the mid sixties, I see an ideal roadtrain material here but nothing came out of the HG6RAB Super Mammoth other than a few sales to South African Railways. Not even the Yanks had many engines with that power back then (pic from BLB). Unbelieveable.
L
Leyland Ash:
Just to bring this back to Lorries and show I’m not being too harsh on Leyland only, AEC managed to repeat the same mistakes with the overseas market:
400 hp in the mid sixties, I see an ideal roadtrain material here but nothing came out of the HG6RAB Super Mammoth other than a few sales to South African Railways. Not even the Yanks had many engines with that power back then (pic from BLB). Unbelieveable.
L
Wow! I have never seen one of those before. I can’t wait to see what Gingerfold has to say about it. What engine was in it- an AV1100? It makes all 1960s Yank trucks look like toys- even the styling has a “British” sophistication about it. With 400bhp, it is obviously a heavy haulage machine but, as you say, the Oz roadtrain market should have lapped it up. I get the impression that those operators, in the 1950s and '60s, were open-minded and desperate for the technology to meet their needs. That tractor unit looks like their wildest dream came true.
What you’re seeing above is just confirmation that the Brits could build whatever the customers demanded it wasn’t the workers fault and it wasn’t the mangement’s fault.It was that massive gulf between what the general domestic market was demanding compared to the export markets that was a large part of the problem and there was no way of reconciling the two issues and there was no way that the Brits could ignore the domestic market being mostly dependent on it which thereby would have meant spending money they didn’t have and splitting production capacity on two totally conflicting types of customer demands.Together with shortage of investment cash to maintain the required levels of development or in fact even remain solvent in an environment in which the investors/bankers wanted the biggest slice of the revenues earn’t in return for the pittance provided in that investment.The fact is that applied throughout the British truck manufacturing industry not just Leyland.As I’ve said it was the bankers and the backward demands of the domestic customer base that did it.
Nine hours and eighteen minutes. Don’t let the loon kill this discussion.
To me that 400hp AEC shows the company was out of touch with the trucking community of the day.
A large vehicle like that is aimed at a specific client and in the 60’s it wasn’t road train work, perhaps in the 40’s or 50’s but by the 60’s things were moving more quickly.
Lighter faster trucks with good top speed and yet still able to hook on extra trailers when required.
You’ll note all these cattle trucks are single drive and would have been coupled to far more trailers than their designed GCW permitted but they performed very well.
Dad bought two of those LAD Beavers 2nd hand and the reduction hubs in one had never been serviced. Many operators thought the diff oil went to the hubs too.
Ever bought a genuine 680 oil filter? It’s a stocking and some string, you built your own filter with the spacer washers.
Operators wanted spin on/off filtration, good cooling, Donaldson air cleaners, big fuel tanks etc and Leyland Australia didn’t understand.
Even when the Leyland product was replaced by Macks, it was still only single drive albiet with quad box instead of the 6+1 Leyland offering.
The B61 Mack had much smaller brakes, no power steer, smaller springs, almost identical Hp, similar tare but Mack had a gun sales team and they scored the contracts. They tailored the vehicle to the customer’s needs and for most clients the end result was exactly what they wanted.
As the cattle industry expanded, so too did the transport requirements with double deck trailers now the norm and with trucks that can sit on 100 uphill and down the other side.
A quick Google search will show the most enormous cattle road trains in the Territory all aimed at fast transport. With approx 4 hours before unloading and watering, you can’t afford breakdowns.
Slow old plodders like Rotinoff or Antar are from an earlier era.
[zb]
anorak:Leyland Ash:
Just to bring this back to Lorries and show I’m not being too harsh on Leyland only, AEC managed to repeat the same mistakes with the overseas market:
400 hp in the mid sixties, I see an ideal roadtrain material here but nothing came out of the HG6RAB Super Mammoth other than a few sales to South African Railways. Not even the Yanks had many engines with that power back then (pic from BLB). Unbelieveable.
L
Wow! I have never seen one of those before. I can’t wait to see what Gingerfold has to say about it. What engine was in it- an AV1100? It makes all 1960s Yank trucks look like toys- even the styling has a “British” sophistication about it. With 400bhp, it is obviously a heavy haulage machine but, as you say, the Oz roadtrain market should have lapped it up. I get the impression that those operators, in the 1950s and '60s, were open-minded and desperate for the technology to meet their needs. That tractor unit looks like their wildest dream came true.
Sorry Cargo, this had nothing to do with road train work for Australia. It was a Super Mammoth built by AEC South Africa (J.H. Plane) specifically for South African Railways. Powered by an AVT 1100 engine. Not for the general trucking market.
Ah so. A specific client, and purpose built machine.
With respect and in regard to the loss of British influence in traditional markets it is all much worse than you think.
If you go to your local supermarket and pick up a packet of Tetley Tea you will find that the brand is now owned by Tata 
Here is their corporate website: tataglobalbeverages.com
Anyone for a cup of curry flavoured?
David
Carryfast:
What you’re seeing above is just confirmation that the Brits could build whatever the customers demanded it wasn’t the workers fault and it wasn’t the mangement’s fault.It was that massive gulf between what the general domestic market was demanding compared to the export markets that was a large part of the problem and there was no way of reconciling the two issues and there was no way that the Brits could ignore the domestic market being mostly dependent on it which thereby would have meant spending money they didn’t have and splitting production capacity on two totally conflicting types of customer demands.Together with shortage of investment cash to maintain the required levels of development or in fact even remain solvent in an environment in which the investors/bankers wanted the biggest slice of the revenues earn’t in return for the pittance provided in that investment.The fact is that applied throughout the British truck manufacturing industry not just Leyland.As I’ve said it was the bankers and the backward demands of the domestic customer base that did it.
Carryfast,
As I have said I accept your argument but only in part. There is nothing contradictory in having different product lines for different markets. Manufacturers have been doing this for years and (at that time) Leyland did have the products and was more than just solvent, it was highly profitable, so I cannot see how they could have lost by developing the models they had and working with the importers. Atkinson upon which you pour scorn did have exactly that: a UK product line and an Aussie / NZ / SA line and it did work for them. I also would not call profits from the combined markets I mentioned “pittance”; KW which is a brand you admire does not think so, and neither do Scania or Mercedes.
As for blame, planning ahead was without any question management’s role, as was keeping and developing those markets in which Leyland had a strong presence. This was not done. As for the workforce, at that time there was no question it was a highly trained, good one - the problems with the Unions (regardless of who was responsible) were a thing of the future, so I agree that it had nothing to do with the workers.
Cheers
L
Cargo,
Thanks for your thoughts. For the avoidance of doubt, I meant to say that Leyland (and AEC) should have modified and developed their existing offerings to fit the market, just as KW, IH and Mack did. The Bufflao in its original form was as I noted too heavy for Oz. What I had in mind was a lighter version using the same engine but with a Joey fitted behind the ZF (or do a “Carryfast” and copy the Fuller Roadranger). As for hp figures, feel free to correct me but I believe KW was already offering the DD 8V-71 with 318 hp in the S in the mid 60s; the ■■■■■■■ 335 was also avaialble by then. Hence, 400 hp does not come as surreal. Again as someone who was there back then I bow to your knowledge but the faster all-rounder you mentioned I understand to belong to a lower segment; as I think you would agree that was botched by Leyland also where they should have met the B61 with the Super Beaver head on (which, had they developed the 680 as DAF did, would have had something like 230-240 hp in 1964, enought to counter the Thermodine).
Certainly no one can tell me Leyland Canada did not need more power in the models offered there (yes, there were Leylands sold in Canada)…
Cheers
L
Leyland Ash:
Carryfast:
What you’re seeing above is just confirmation that the Brits could build whatever the customers demanded it wasn’t the workers fault and it wasn’t the mangement’s fault.It was that massive gulf between what the general domestic market was demanding compared to the export markets that was a large part of the problem and there was no way of reconciling the two issues and there was no way that the Brits could ignore the domestic market being mostly dependent on it which thereby would have meant spending money they didn’t have and splitting production capacity on two totally conflicting types of customer demands.Together with shortage of investment cash to maintain the required levels of development or in fact even remain solvent in an environment in which the investors/bankers wanted the biggest slice of the revenues earn’t in return for the pittance provided in that investment.The fact is that applied throughout the British truck manufacturing industry not just Leyland.As I’ve said it was the bankers and the backward demands of the domestic customer base that did it.Carryfast,
As I have said I accept your argument but only in part. There is nothing contradictory in having different product lines for different markets. Manufacturers have been doing this for years and (at that time) Leyland did have the products and was more than just solvent, it was highly profitable, so I cannot see how they could have lost by developing the models they had and working with the importers. Atkinson upon which you pour scorn did have exactly that: a UK product line and an Aussie / NZ / SA line and it did work for them. I also would not call profits from the combined markets I mentioned “pittance”; KW which is a brand you admire does not think so, and neither do Scania or Mercedes.
As for blame, planning ahead was without any question management’s role, as was keeping and developing those markets in which Leyland had a strong presence. This was not done. As for the workforce, at that time there was no question it was a highly trained, good one - the problems with the Unions (regardless of who was responsible) were a thing of the future, so I agree that it had nothing to do with the workers.
Cheers
L
There’s no doubt that the export markets were well worth keeping wherever possible and that those markets were probably profitable in their own right.But.It’s that all important domestic market which just couldn’t work together with satisfying the export ones.Realistically,bearing in mind the levels of investment which would have been required,to keep the totally conflicting markets satisfied,at the time in question,it would have been a financial impossibility.In real world terms that realistically meant having to compete with firms like KW in our old colonial markets bearing in mind the difference in levels of investment and the fact that the demands of the US domestic market being much closer to those of it’s export markets.
The common link being that at the end of the day the British truck manufacturing industry’s continuing export success was totally dependent on firstly the amount of investment capital available to develop the products required,which isn’t the same thing as revenues and profits in the export markets because investment is just a measure of how much of those profits that the bankers were willing to plough back into the industry and the amount of capital available to the nations economy and banking system as a whole.In the case of the post war uk that wasn’t enough as history shows.
While there was no way that the economies of scale required could have been met in the long term with such a massive gulf existing between what the export markets were looking for and demanding as opposed to the domestic market.The fact is the whole debacle in the case of the uk truck manufacturing industry was an inevitable managed retreat rather than the financially catastrophic instantaneous closure which it could have been.
I really enjoy your posts, Mr Ash, not a Tatra fan are we?
I realise it’s a long time ago and the memory plays tricks but I know here in Aus subtle political influence played a huge part and I’d guess in the UK it would have been the same.
Around those years freeway construction kicked off in a big way. I’ve seen the old movies of demonstrations in the UK when homes were bulldozed to make way for major highways.
Wasn’t quite so dramatic here but “highways” that were previously dirt in the 60’s got sealed and instantly road transport became preferable to rail.
So instead of small/slow the trend became fast and bloody big. Now all our intercity mail is trucked, “B” doubles. Food, “B” doubles. Cars, “B” doubles, fuel, “B” doubles or 8-wheelers+super dog. Industry is about to trial “B” triples on certain city routes.
The general public is often whinging about big trucks on the road but ask them to wait a week or so for delivery and it’s a different story.
I find it astounding that an item can be off loaded from port and be almost anywhere within a few days, right to your door. Rail simply can’t compete with such service and so these days truck speed is important, constant 100kph.
And this is the beginning of the high Hp truck market that was lost back then, it’s taken a long time and they were on the right track, just needed to sort out reliability and reduce the models offered.
Offering dozens of models is for a company that has already sorted the market, production line etc, not one with all the problems such as Leyland etc had back then.
GM sure did have high hp engines in those days, would have been the biggest off the shelf engines I guess, 8V71 the norm and some 12V71’s as trials. But even in the 80’s the pollution warriors were making themselves felt and the day of the of 2-stroke GM’s was ending.
And what a difference common rail injection had to all engines. I spoke to a Volvo rep in the mid 70’s, who’d returned from a sales conference and he went on about how the injectors of today are like garden sprinklers when compared to what Volvo was working on.
Too true.
cargo:
To me that 400hp AEC shows the company was out of touch with the trucking community of the day.
A large vehicle like that is aimed at a specific client and in the 60’s it wasn’t road train work, perhaps in the 40’s or 50’s but by the 60’s things were moving more quickly.
Lighter faster trucks with good top speed and yet still able to hook on extra trailers when required.
You’ll note all these cattle trucks are single drive and would have been coupled to far more trailers than their designed GCW permitted but they performed very well.
Dad bought two of those LAD Beavers 2nd hand and the reduction hubs in one had never been serviced. Many operators thought the diff oil went to the hubs too.
Ever bought a genuine 680 oil filter? It’s a stocking and some string, you built your own filter with the spacer washers.
Operators wanted spin on/off filtration, good cooling, Donaldson air cleaners, big fuel tanks etc and Leyland Australia didn’t understand.
Even when the Leyland product was replaced by Macks, it was still only single drive albiet with quad box instead of the 6+1 Leyland offering.
The B61 Mack had much smaller brakes, no power steer, smaller springs, almost identical Hp, similar tare but Mack had a gun sales team and they scored the contracts. They tailored the vehicle to the customer’s needs and for most clients the end result was exactly what they wanted.
As the cattle industry expanded, so too did the transport requirements with double deck trailers now the norm and with trucks that can sit on 100 uphill and down the other side.
A quick Google search will show the most enormous cattle road trains in the Territory all aimed at fast transport. With approx 4 hours before unloading and watering, you can’t afford breakdowns.
Slow old plodders like Rotinoff or Antar are from an earlier era.
This is good stuff, Cargo.We have all read bits and bobs in the books about the Oz haulage industry, but your posts bring it into much sharper focus.
Would you say that the 200bhp 4x2 tractor was the standard means of pulling a roadtrain across Australia, in the 1960s? What about sectors other than livestock, mining for instance- surely they wanted more powerful, double-drive tractors, even back then?
From what you say, the main failing of the specification of the British imports (apart from the Oz-specific details like filtration etc.) seems to be the lack of a multi-speed gearbox, with a wide range of ratios. Even an Antar would fly if it had an 18-speed Fuller with an appropriate axle ratio!