What went wrong

[ramone]

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

As to Australiia until the 1960’s many British makes were the preferred choice until once again Leyland messed up big time. It is a pertinent point to make that as a vast country with a population of only 22 million people its requirements (and vehicle numbers) are totally different to the requirements of a country like the UK with 60 million people and a small area to cover. It stands to reason that American designs for a similar vast region and road network will be better suited for Australia.

I dont think Carryfast will see it that way mainly because it makes sense

[carryfast]

ramone:

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

As to Australiia until the 1960’s many British makes were the preferred choice until once again Leyland messed up big time. It is a pertinent point to make that as a vast country with a population of only 22 million people its requirements (and vehicle numbers) are totally different to the requirements of a country like the UK with 60 million people and a small area to cover. It stands to reason that American designs for a similar vast region and road network will be better suited for Australia.

I dont think Carryfast will see it that way mainly because it makes sense

So American designs like Kenworths are only suited to vast areas and Interstates .

I think the fact that New Zealand is one of Kenworth Australia’s,amongst other locally made US types like Navistar,largest markets and compete head on with European types,amongst others,blows that argument out of the water.The fact is Leyland and AEC wouldn’t have stood the slightest chance of catching up with US designs in cab comfort or engines and drivelines in the timeline required.

Which is why Kenworth Australia etc won out and still survive while Leyland and AEC didn’t.Whereas development of the Bedford TM and opening up a Kenworth UK would probably have done the same in Britain and then maybe Europe too what Kenworth Australia and Navistar etc etc have done in Australia and New Zealand.

‘If’ only the British customers thought the same way as New Zealanders,when it mattered.

youtube.com/watch?v=2u1VqMjc … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=w0A9ocrW … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=U-G-XRyq … re=related

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

As to Australiia until the 1960’s many British makes were the preferred choice until once again Leyland messed up big time. It is a pertinent point to make that as a vast country with a population of only 22 million people its requirements (and vehicle numbers) are totally different to the requirements of a country like the UK with 60 million people and a small area to cover. It stands to reason that American designs for a similar vast region and road network will be better suited for Australia.

I dont think Carryfast will see it that way mainly because it makes sense

So American designs like Kenworths are only suited to vast areas and Interstates .

I think the fact that New Zealand is one of Kenworth Australia’s,amongst other locally made US types like Navistar,largest markets and compete head on with European types,amongst others,blows that argument out of the water.The fact is Leyland and AEC wouldn’t have stood the slightest chance of catching up with US designs in cab comfort or engines and drivelines in the timeline required.

Which is why Kenworth Australia etc won out and still survive while Leyland and AEC didn’t.Whereas development of the Bedford TM and opening up a Kenworth UK would probably have done the same in Britain and then maybe Europe too what Kenworth Australia and Navistar etc etc have done in Australia and New Zealand.

‘If’ only the British customers thought the same way as New Zealanders,when it mattered.

youtube.com/watch?v=2u1VqMjc … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=w0A9ocrW … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=U-G-XRyq … re=related

The american motors might have the big engines but cab comfort i dont think so , they are cramped and dont have the creature comforts that Volvo are offering over there but the Americans love them so they buy what they prefer

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

As to Australiia until the 1960’s many British makes were the preferred choice until once again Leyland messed up big time. It is a pertinent point to make that as a vast country with a population of only 22 million people its requirements (and vehicle numbers) are totally different to the requirements of a country like the UK with 60 million people and a small area to cover. It stands to reason that American designs for a similar vast region and road network will be better suited for Australia.

I dont think Carryfast will see it that way mainly because it makes sense

So American designs like Kenworths are only suited to vast areas and Interstates .

I think the fact that New Zealand is one of Kenworth Australia’s,amongst other locally made US types like Navistar,largest markets and compete head on with European types,amongst others,blows that argument out of the water.The fact is Leyland and AEC wouldn’t have stood the slightest chance of catching up with US designs in cab comfort or engines and drivelines in the timeline required.

Which is why Kenworth Australia etc won out and still survive while Leyland and AEC didn’t.Whereas development of the Bedford TM and opening up a Kenworth UK would probably have done the same in Britain and then maybe Europe too what Kenworth Australia and Navistar etc etc have done in Australia and New Zealand.

‘If’ only the British customers thought the same way as New Zealanders,when it mattered.

youtube.com/watch?v=2u1VqMjc … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=w0A9ocrW … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=U-G-XRyq … re=related

The american motors might have the big engines but cab comfort i dont think so , they are cramped and dont have the creature comforts that Volvo are offering over there but the Americans love them so they buy what they prefer

If US trucks are so uncomfortable and zb’d outside of their own home market of so called ‘vast areas’ then obviously KW Australia would have gone the same way that Leyland and AEC went here by now because everyone there and in New Zealand would be buying Scanias and Volvos instead.

[saviem]

Hello all, nice bit of snow to warm the frozen ground, well, I see that we are all here again , (looking at our navels), and wondering yet again “what went wrong”? May I commend gingerfold on a concise, and accurate generalisation of the conditions leading to the demise of lorry manufacture, (but not the lorry industry, for UK industry expertise in marketing, sales and aftersales has become the benchmark, and adopted norm in the European industry). Likewise his accurate analysis of the change to the industry in the Antipodes. Following the end of hostilities in 1945 the then Government encouraged the open giving of engineering and technical co operation in order to “rebuild” the manufacturing base of our european allies, and former foes. This largess was expected to encourage trade links, and as a consequence grow export markets outside of our traditional “empire” base, sadly it did not quite work like that! It must also be remembered that UK linked and managed colonial companies could , and would demand “low tec” vehicles, in order volumes from Leyland, that were impossible for the low volume manufacturers like Atkinson etc to build. And I am ignoring the overseas manufacturing operations of such manufacturers as Atkinson, ERF, et al, at this juncture. Tardy, and insular UK road transport legislation did not help design and engineering of UK lorry manufacturers to produce products suitable for “pan european”, (if we had been able to access these somewhat legislation restricted markets anyway), sales. Sure, we did have some success in the EFTA european market, Atkinson, Foden, Leyland, AEC of course, all well liked, and as good as the home grown stuff, but the volumes were never produced. If we nip forward to the 70s, because this is where most see the demise taking place,what did we have? Rampant inflation, remember when Leyland had four price rises in 12months, lifting a 4wheeler price by 40%, Atkinson 3, up 36% on a Gardner tractor, which they still could not produce! ERF four, up 39%. What was to blame, component and raw material prices, lack of supply, industrial unrest all have correctly been documented earlier in this thread. Why did the europeans do so well? Easy, contrary to what is perceived their domestic markets were flat to declining. Gross over supply despite various ruthless mergers and collaborations in France, Italy,and Germany. The 1964 Transport Act, and the liberlisation of operator licensing , the already documented supply problems, simply opened a window of opertunity never seen before or since in any european market place. The Europeans had the capacity, and modern plants , but the people who made this happen those who rose to this prize, they were our own people, either from inside the manufacturing, retail, or transport sectors. They knew what was required in terms of product, and more importently service levels, and gave it. The rest is history! Ah well, out to sort the hens now, Cheerio for now.

[saviem]

While attending to my happy hens a couple of thoughts ocoured to me, that perhaps others may like to comment upon. Leyland and Bedford, now had that marriage have taken place, and not foundered on the jingoistic protestations to keep Land Rover British, would we still have a “substantial” lorry manufacturing base in the UK? or would it have gone the same way as most American managed European commercial vehicle manufacturers? Secondly, could the component supply deal between AEC and the (financially weak),French Willeme concern, have been developed by AEC into a full blown takeover, giving them a substantial manufacturing, and more importantly loyal client base in France, and her colonies . Thereby creating a true European player in vehicle manufacture. Interested to hear anyones thoughts. Cheerio for now.

[zb_anorak]

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

This is the sort of reply I had hoped for!

I may be challenging accepted wisdom here, but I would contend that our industry was no more clapped out than that on the Continent. Leyland had continued to develop their engines through the War, culminating in the introduction of the 600, which was one of the greatest lorry engines ever. They and Gardner were at the forefront of diesel engine design in the 1940s and early '50s. Contrast this with Mercedes, who did not even have direct injection until 1964. Leyland’s factories were still functional after the War- compare this to MAN, whose factories were almost completely decimated, but they picked themselves up, developing new engines and cabs through the 1950s.

In terms of technology and production capacity, GB was ahead, or at least level, after the War, but failed to grasp the opportunities embodied in the “export or die” philosophy. I would suggest that AEC (and Leyland)’s European efforts in the late ‘50s were a case of “too little, too late.” By this time, the Continental makers had designed, tooled and were building the big, steel cabs the market wanted, and had the customers for them.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

As to Australiia until the 1960’s many British makes were the preferred choice until once again Leyland messed up big time. It is a pertinent point to make that as a vast country with a population of only 22 million people its requirements (and vehicle numbers) are totally different to the requirements of a country like the UK with 60 million people and a small area to cover. It stands to reason that American designs for a similar vast region and road network will be better suited for Australia.

I dont think Carryfast will see it that way mainly because it makes sense

So American designs like Kenworths are only suited to vast areas and Interstates .

I think the fact that New Zealand is one of Kenworth Australia’s,amongst other locally made US types like Navistar,largest markets and compete head on with European types,amongst others,blows that argument out of the water.The fact is Leyland and AEC wouldn’t have stood the slightest chance of catching up with US designs in cab comfort or engines and drivelines in the timeline required.

Which is why Kenworth Australia etc won out and still survive while Leyland and AEC didn’t.Whereas development of the Bedford TM and opening up a Kenworth UK would probably have done the same in Britain and then maybe Europe too what Kenworth Australia and Navistar etc etc have done in Australia and New Zealand.

‘If’ only the British customers thought the same way as New Zealanders,when it mattered.

youtube.com/watch?v=2u1VqMjc … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=w0A9ocrW … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=U-G-XRyq … re=related

The american motors might have the big engines but cab comfort i dont think so , they are cramped and dont have the creature comforts that Volvo are offering over there but the Americans love them so they buy what they prefer

If US trucks are so uncomfortable and zb’d outside of their own home market of so called ‘vast areas’ then obviously KW Australia would have gone the same way that Leyland and AEC went here by now because everyone there and in New Zealand would be buying Scanias and Volvos instead.

I think you will find Scania and Volvo do sell well over in Oz and Volvo are selling in the US now dont forget they started small over here and those diehard british manufacteurers were too arrogant to change

[ramone]

Saviem:
While attending to my happy hens a couple of thoughts ocoured to me, that perhaps others may like to comment upon. Leyland and Bedford, now had that marriage have taken place, and not foundered on the jingoistic protestations to keep Land Rover British, would we still have a “substantial” lorry manufacturing base in the UK? or would it have gone the same way as most American managed European commercial vehicle manufacturers? Secondly, could the component supply deal between AEC and the (financially weak),French Willeme concern, have been developed by AEC into a full blown takeover, giving them a substantial manufacturing, and more importantly loyal client base in France, and her colonies . Thereby creating a true European player in vehicle manufacture. Interested to hear anyones thoughts. Cheerio for now.

I thought AEC were in no position to take anyone over hence the merger with Leyland if thats what you can call it.Gingerfold commented a while back that AEC were under financial constrates probably and unfortunately resulting in that disastarous pairing which killed what many would say were the premium commercial vehicle manufacteurer in Britain.I suppose its all ifs and buts and if they could have survived alone it was probably only a matter of time before …

[remy]

Just as a little side topic, in the mid 70’s Scania tried to get into the US lorry market useing a few other lorry dealerships on the east coast to sell their lorries and parts. A 1975 trucking mag had a write up about it and Scania thought it would do well but they did’nt sell many at all.
They sold a few cabovers and the bonneted double drive axle job, don’t know why these did’nt sell well but there was’nt many on the roads. Now the only Scanias you see now are parked in someones junk yard.

Charles

[kr79]

Also remember Volvo was brought to the UK by a haulier Jim Mckelvie saw Volvo were offering a product that was heading the way we needed to be going with vehicle design and it was the humble little F86 that won many uk operaters over. Volvo uk looked at trucks that were perculiar to the uk such as the four axle rigid and designed trucks that people needed.

[kr79]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

As to Australiia until the 1960’s many British makes were the preferred choice until once again Leyland messed up big time. It is a pertinent point to make that as a vast country with a population of only 22 million people its requirements (and vehicle numbers) are totally different to the requirements of a country like the UK with 60 million people and a small area to cover. It stands to reason that American designs for a similar vast region and road network will be better suited for Australia.

I dont think Carryfast will see it that way mainly because it makes sense

So American designs like Kenworths are only suited to vast areas and Interstates .

I think the fact that New Zealand is one of Kenworth Australia’s,amongst other locally made US types like Navistar,largest markets and compete head on with European types,amongst others,blows that argument out of the water.The fact is Leyland and AEC wouldn’t have stood the slightest chance of catching up with US designs in cab comfort or engines and drivelines in the timeline required.

Which is why Kenworth Australia etc won out and still survive while Leyland and AEC didn’t.Whereas development of the Bedford TM and opening up a Kenworth UK would probably have done the same in Britain and then maybe Europe too what Kenworth Australia and Navistar etc etc have done in Australia and New Zealand.

‘If’ only the British customers thought the same way as New Zealanders,when it mattered.

youtube.com/watch?v=2u1VqMjc … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=w0A9ocrW … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=U-G-XRyq … re=related

The american motors might have the big engines but cab comfort i dont think so , they are cramped and dont have the creature comforts that Volvo are offering over there but the Americans love them so they buy what they prefer

If US trucks are so uncomfortable and zb’d outside of their own home market of so called ‘vast areas’ then obviously KW Australia would have gone the same way that Leyland and AEC went here by now because everyone there and in New Zealand would be buying Scanias and Volvos instead.

Yeah they have big sleeper areas but to drive they are 30 years behind anything in Europe to actualy drive.
Think your trucking experince is based on watching convoy

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

As to Australiia until the 1960’s many British makes were the preferred choice until once again Leyland messed up big time. It is a pertinent point to make that as a vast country with a population of only 22 million people its requirements (and vehicle numbers) are totally different to the requirements of a country like the UK with 60 million people and a small area to cover. It stands to reason that American designs for a similar vast region and road network will be better suited for Australia.

I dont think Carryfast will see it that way mainly because it makes sense

So American designs like Kenworths are only suited to vast areas and Interstates .

I think the fact that New Zealand is one of Kenworth Australia’s,amongst other locally made US types like Navistar,largest markets and compete head on with European types,amongst others,blows that argument out of the water.The fact is Leyland and AEC wouldn’t have stood the slightest chance of catching up with US designs in cab comfort or engines and drivelines in the timeline required.

Which is why Kenworth Australia etc won out and still survive while Leyland and AEC didn’t.Whereas development of the Bedford TM and opening up a Kenworth UK would probably have done the same in Britain and then maybe Europe too what Kenworth Australia and Navistar etc etc have done in Australia and New Zealand.

‘If’ only the British customers thought the same way as New Zealanders,when it mattered.

youtube.com/watch?v=2u1VqMjc … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=w0A9ocrW … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=U-G-XRyq … re=related

The american motors might have the big engines but cab comfort i dont think so , they are cramped and dont have the creature comforts that Volvo are offering over there but the Americans love them so they buy what they prefer

If US trucks are so uncomfortable and zb’d outside of their own home market of so called ‘vast areas’ then obviously KW Australia would have gone the same way that Leyland and AEC went here by now because everyone there and in New Zealand would be buying Scanias and Volvos instead.

I think you will find Scania and Volvo do sell well over in Oz and Volvo are selling in the US now dont forget they started small over here and those diehard british manufacteurers were too arrogant to change

For the purposes of this argument it’s the performance of US designed trucks and drivetrains on the still largely single carriageway road network of New Zealand and the very similar conditions in general to those found in Britain,away from our motorway network together with cabs that were designed to be lived in for weeks at a time in their home market and their abilities to cross a continent using Interstate motorways and climb mountain ranges like the Rockies as well as they go across the flat plains of Nebraska in temperatures ranging from 50 degrees C to -50 degrees C ,that’s the most relevant to the issue of trucks that (should/would have been) the most able to take the British and European markets by storm.

Yes Scania and Volvo do sell well in Oz and New Zealand.‘But’.The difference is that,unlike anything the British could possibly have done, with what it had at it’s disposal,it’s the US designs that have,so far and to date,managed to hold their own in direct head on competition,in probably what are the only markets in the world,where locally produced US designed trucks are sold alongside,and in head on competition with,Euro type products like DAF,Scania,and Volvo on a large scale basis.

On the subject of competition,between the European and US/Colonial truck industries I don’t think the US/Colonials have ever had,and never will have,anything to fear from the Europeans.But unfortunately Britain has always been a non runner from the time when the Diamond T showed that it was the best way to haul a tank through the mountains of Italy not a Scammell and definitely better than anything that the Germans had or could build. .

[zb_anorak]

Saviem:
Secondly, could the component supply deal between AEC and the (financially weak),French Willeme concern, have been developed by AEC into a full blown takeover, giving them a substantial manufacturing, and more importantly loyal client base in France, and her colonies . Thereby creating a true European player in vehicle manufacture. Interested to hear anyones thoughts. Cheerio for now.

Bonsoir Monsieur Saviem, you are always welcome to my thoughts, for what they are worth. A merger or takeover in the 1950s would have been another way for a forward-looking GB manufacturer to get into Europe, if only for access to the customers and dealer network. Bussing, Henschel and Bernard spring to mind. These firms had competitive cabs, for the heavy end of the Continental market, in the late '50s and may have relished the prospect of Leyland, AEC or Gardner engines. I have always considered AEC’s dalliance with Willeme to be unambitious, as Willeme were a smaller firm than those other three, although I stand to be corrected on the latter point.

To brighten the place up a bit, here’s a photo of a Willeme/AEC:

[carryfast]

kr79:

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

gingerfold:
Manufacturing industry in post-war Britain of the 1940’s was clapped out due to wartime demands. There was no money to invest because the country was virtually bankrupt. The government’s policy was export or die to bring foreign currency into the exchequer. All we had to offer our export markets were re-hashed prewar designs made in labour intensive inefficient manufacturing plants. Our main export markets were the countries of the old British Empire and little effort was made to find new export markets. Leyland and AEC were the only Britsish manufacturers at the quality heavy truck end of the market with the potential and capacity to have a global presence if their products were right. (Such as ERF, Atkinson, and Foden were all small manufacturers whose annual chassis build numbers were counted in hundreds, not thousands). By the late 1950s Leyland and AEC (still independent companies) had started to make some inroads into the European markets, sometimes with dealer networks, but usually as joint collaberations with other smaller European manufacturers. AEC in particular, through Jim Slater (later a well known City whizz kid financier) HAD identified Europe as the great potential market and AEC established relatively successful operations in France and the Benelux countries in particular. Come the 1962 Leyland takeover of AEC and as has been discussed before on this forum we all know what happened thereafter.

As to Australiia until the 1960’s many British makes were the preferred choice until once again Leyland messed up big time. It is a pertinent point to make that as a vast country with a population of only 22 million people its requirements (and vehicle numbers) are totally different to the requirements of a country like the UK with 60 million people and a small area to cover. It stands to reason that American designs for a similar vast region and road network will be better suited for Australia.

I dont think Carryfast will see it that way mainly because it makes sense

So American designs like Kenworths are only suited to vast areas and Interstates .

I think the fact that New Zealand is one of Kenworth Australia’s,amongst other locally made US types like Navistar,largest markets and compete head on with European types,amongst others,blows that argument out of the water.The fact is Leyland and AEC wouldn’t have stood the slightest chance of catching up with US designs in cab comfort or engines and drivelines in the timeline required.

Which is why Kenworth Australia etc won out and still survive while Leyland and AEC didn’t.Whereas development of the Bedford TM and opening up a Kenworth UK would probably have done the same in Britain and then maybe Europe too what Kenworth Australia and Navistar etc etc have done in Australia and New Zealand.

‘If’ only the British customers thought the same way as New Zealanders,when it mattered.

youtube.com/watch?v=2u1VqMjc … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=w0A9ocrW … re=related

youtube.com/watch?v=U-G-XRyq … re=related

The american motors might have the big engines but cab comfort i dont think so , they are cramped and dont have the creature comforts that Volvo are offering over there but the Americans love them so they buy what they prefer

If US trucks are so uncomfortable and zb’d outside of their own home market of so called ‘vast areas’ then obviously KW Australia would have gone the same way that Leyland and AEC went here by now because everyone there and in New Zealand would be buying Scanias and Volvos instead.

Yeah they have big sleeper areas but to drive they are 30 years behind anything in Europe to actualy drive.
Think your trucking experince is based on watching convoy

In this case my ‘experience’ was growing up being told the difference between US v British trucks by someone who drove both when lives depended on it during a war and being part of the British truck manufacturing industry between 1975-1980 with enough involvement in it to understand and confirm those differences between US componentry and therefore the trucks built using it v British at the time .

The reasons for that difference had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those working in the factories and everything to do with the results of the demands of the customers in the respective home markets.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
Willeme were a smaller firm than those other three, although I stand to be corrected on the latter point.

And no surprise where Willeme had to go when it needed some decent engines to power it’s heavy haulage wagons.Not Britain,France, Germany or Sweden.

[kr79]

Yes the Americans devolped the high power sleeper cabs before Europe but as someone said America had big distances and good roads to use before Europe. But the Europeans over took them in terms of driver comfort and technology about 25 years ago your stuck in the 70s man.
Volvo are doing pretty well these days and paccar use a daf engine now.

[carryfast]

.

[carryfast]

.

[carryfast]

.