robert1952:
Dave the Renegade:
Can’t call Bedford a British motor,as they were owned by General Motors along with Vauxhall.And furthermore, Detroit and ■■■■■■■ engines are American, as are Eaton-Fuller 'boxes
Robert
Eaton Fuller is actually an Irish company.
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
By the time Bedford introduced the TM, Volvo and Scania had cracked the European market. After the TK Bedford concentrated on military vehicles and neglected the home marketI think the TM actually pre dated the introduction of the F10/12 so not exactly a two horse race at that point.Realistically the TM’s only chance would have been turbo 92 series or nothing on introduction even if that meant a slight delay and then hope that they could have gained better customer acceptance with that than lumbering it with the obsolete 71N.
What is certain that idea couldn’t possibly have been any worse than the commercially suicidal idea of going for the doomed to failure 71N.Then the outsourced ■■■■■■■ thereby removing the business case for the project.
A TM was on the front cover of the first issue of TRUCK in September 1974, so it came before even the 290 F88, the F10 was four years later and the LB range was the 80/110/140 at that time, the best MB had on offer was the LP range and I’m fairly sure MAN had only just hit the UK market in 74, I’ve never seen one earlier than an M reg.
I think that in its prime Bedford was very good at producing vehicles for the lighter end of the market. They were excellent value for money and as a youngster I covered many miles riding in the cabs of ‘S’ Types. These Bedfords got many a fledgling haulage business started in the 1950s. As others have commented, being a taller driver myself, then the TK driving position was uncomfortable after an hour or two because of peering under the windscreen top rail with a bent head position! Co-incidentally only yesterday I was watching as we towed a 1943 Bedford OW down the yard (it got water in the engine during our Boxing Day flood). I thought to myself what a grand little truck it is, there wasn’t a bump, bang, squeak, or rattle from it as it was towed past me.
newmercman:
robert1952:
Dave the Renegade:
Can’t call Bedford a British motor,as they were owned by General Motors along with Vauxhall.And furthermore, Detroit and ■■■■■■■ engines are American, as are Eaton-Fuller 'boxes
Eaton Fuller is actually an Irish company.
EATON:Key Dates:
1911: Joseph Oriel Eaton, Henning O. Taube, and Viggo V. Torbensen establish the Torbensen Gear and Axle Company, a small machine shop in Bloomfield, New Jersey, manufacturing heavy-duty truck axles.
1914: Company moves its operations to Cleveland.
1917: Company is sold to Republic Motor Truck Co.
1922: Eaton reacquires the firm.
1923: Company is renamed Eaton Axle and Spring Co.
1932: Company’s name is changed to Eaton Manufacturing Company.
1958: Fuller Manufacturing Co., maker of automotive transmissions, is acquired.
1963: Eaton acquires lockmaker Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company and Dole Valve Co., maker of appliance and automotive controls.
1966: Eaton is renamed Eaton Yale & Towne Inc.
1971: Company’s name is changed to Eaton Corporation.
1978: Electronics company Cutler-Hammer Inc. is acquired; the Yale lock and security business is divested.
1982: Eaton reports its first loss in 50 years.
1994: Eaton acquires Westinghouse Electric Corporation’s distribution and control unit for $1.1 billion.
1998: The company’s truck axle and brake business–its founding business–is sold to Dana Corporation.
1999: Aeroquip-Vickers, Inc., producer of industrial hydraulic equipment, is acquired for $1.7 billion.
2000: Semiconductor equipment business is spun off as Axcelis Technologies, Inc.
2004: Powerware Corporation is acquired.
The main theme at the moment seems to be TM, I have a few pics somewhere but when needed well 
to go on with here’s a trio of vids starting with some which were still working in 2012, mebbe still are, they feature about a minute into the clip youtube.com/watch?v=t2l5VGgbmvc
This a working one in Denmark youtube.com/watch?v=vfIU0GRYcSk
and a Bedford enthusiast/owner in Holland shows off his TM youtube.com/watch?v=vfIU0GRYcSk
Oily
There is much talk of the TM especially from carry fast but let’s not forget it never sold in massive numbers nor was it in the sector that Bedford was renowned for.
It was its small army trucks and the likes of the tk and the older s and o types that kept them going for years.
Picture a high street scene from the 60s to the early 90s and there will be a tk or a Ford d series delivering somewhere look at a picture of a motorway service area or a dock from the 70s to 90s there will only be the odd TM.
This thread will run on and on but it will be brushed over that Bedford was strong in the light and medium sector but was never a contender in heavy trucks
I grew up in tipper country of north west Leicestershire…my dad worked at whitwick granite later ARC. Bedford Tk was the obvious choice for an owner operator buying his own truck there was forest road garage in coalville which was a Vauxhall/ Bedford dealer they were cheap and reliable at first but obviously didn’t stand up to tipper work as well as a Foden or similar . Monk had a huge fleet of tk s on the M1 project when it came through Leicestershire in 1964. I remember having a ride down to oxford in one of the first TK s in our district this was about 1961 it seemed way ahead of contemporary vehicles very quiet and fast with a two speed axle. The downside they were a death trap in a front end collision.
kr79:
There is much talk of the TM especially from carry fast but let’s not forget it never sold in massive numbers nor was it in the sector that Bedford was renowned for.
It was its small army trucks and the likes of the tk and the older s and o types that kept them going for years.
Picture a high street scene from the 60s to the early 90s and there will be a tk or a Ford d series delivering somewhere look at a picture of a motorway service area or a dock from the 70s to 90s there will only be the odd TM.
This thread will run on and on but it will be brushed over that Bedford was strong in the light and medium sector but was never a contender in heavy trucks
Ironically,as I’ve said,given the right 92T series engine fit,Bedford was in a potentially much stronger position with the TM at the heavier end of the market,than it was with the TK or even TL at the lighter end.I certainly preferred the D series than either of those two Bedford lightweights.
While fitting the TM with the 71N,together with bothering with the narrow day cab option,arguably damaged its credibility in the market beyond repair during the all important years of the mid-late 1970’s after its introduction.IE in this case its sales figures don’t reflect its massive forward thinking potential leap in the day if only its designers and sales team had given it the best chance of living up to that potential.In this case being the very real possibility of an in house 92 series powered TM range,then leading into a 60 series powered one.
However against all that was the equally real fact that GM wanted out of the truck manufacturing business anyway both at home and globally.Which just leaves the question when and why did it make that decision ?. 
The story here tm.exmod-uk.com/history.php and in particular perhaps the answer to the original post from pete smith , the 1980s section.
Oily
An interesting read Oily and as you say the answer is shown in the latter part of the article. I recall the company I was a fitter for, Van Hee Transport in the Northeast were dealers in AWD parts, we had shelves of components but in all the time I was there I don’t remember any customers buying anything or anyone from AWD checking on their ‘stuff’, I would presume the lot was binned when the transport company ceased operations or someone made a few Bob from it afterwards! Cheers Franky.
oiltreader:
The story here tm.exmod-uk.com/history.php and in particular perhaps the answer to the original post from pete smith , the 1980s section.
Oily
I’m guessing that using a cancelled UK military order as a scapegoat.Would have sounded better than we’re phasing out all of our heavy truck manufacturing operations because we don’t want to upset Volvo who we’ve entered into/finalised negotiations with regarding building and marketing heavy trucks.The smoking gun in that case being that deal shown here in 1986 and the shutting down of Astro production in 1987 with the reason conveniently given as just ‘cancelled’.
history.gmheritagecenter.com/wi … ck_History
On that note I’d imagine a 60 series powered TM range in the late 1980’s would have thrown a spanner in the works of Volvo’s European/UK plans.Just as an all 92 series powered range would have done in the mid-late 1970’s.
We’ve already established (on other threads) that one of the factors mitigating against the success of British truck makers’ premium tractive units, was the lack of Europe-wide back-up / support, especially in the case of smaller manufacturers. How well was Bedford set up across Europe in the '70s & '80s? Robert
Now I’m no expert so the following is just my opinion but I think part of the problem was the reliance on loyalty to what were old designs,you had the military buying the TK range and British Telecom buying the old HA Viva van. I had an 1982 ha and they weren’t exactly state of the art motors. I’d like to know what the sales figures were like for Bedford when you took those type of regular contracts out of the equation.
As for the TM I think a Detroit engine of any sort was a big mistake back in those days you didn’t have the maintenence contracts of today,most firms had there own fitters and spares stocks so stuck with what they knew. A lot of the firm’s round here had the old trucks round the back of the garage to cannibalise for parts if they’d fitted gardener’s,■■■■■■■■ etc from the beginning they may have stood more of a chance.
robert1952:
We’ve already established (on other threads) that one of the factors mitigating against the success of British truck makers’ premium tractive units, was the lack of Europe-wide back-up / support, especially in the case of smaller manufacturers. How well was Bedford set up across Europe in the '70s & '80s? Robert
With the might of GM’s resources behind it I’d guess probably better than most.
We know that the TM was marketed in Germany under the old Opel trucks banner.Also sold in Italy and France.In which case I’d doubt if the relevant local GM dealers sold them on the basis when you’ve bought it you’ll have to take it to England for servicing or warranty work etc.
Although realistically as in the case of cars at that point in time the home manufacturers had much more back up on their own respective turf.That situation was only likely to change depending on required level of sales being established first to make the service back up viable not vice versa.Having said that American engine and drivelines like Detroit and ■■■■■■■ and Fuller had service back up throughout the world anyway.
Reading between the lines it was always going to be a case of the big in house players like Volvo etc doing whatever it took to dominate the market.Not just based on the relative merit of the product v the competition.But also by commercial politics and deals which removed that competition.Which seems to be what happened in this case probably among others.
In which case it would be interesting to find out the exact details of that ‘deal’ between GM and Volvo and how it was that GM coincidentally seemed to be formulating an exit strategy from the heavy truck manufacturing sector even before,let alone after,it was sealed.
dazcapri:
As for the TM I think a Detroit engine of any sort was a big mistake back in those days you didn’t have the maintenence contracts of today,most firms had there own fitters and spares stocks so stuck with what they knew. A lot of the firm’s round here had the old trucks round the back of the garage to cannibalise for parts if they’d fitted gardener’s,■■■■■■■■ etc from the beginning they may have stood more of a chance.
Would buying a 92T powered TM have been an any bigger leap of faith or cannibalised Atki stopper than an F10 or F12 in that regard ?.
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
As for the TM I think a Detroit engine of any sort was a big mistake back in those days you didn’t have the maintenence contracts of today,most firms had there own fitters and spares stocks so stuck with what they knew. A lot of the firm’s round here had the old trucks round the back of the garage to cannibalise for parts if they’d fitted gardener’s,■■■■■■■■ etc from the beginning they may have stood more of a chance.Would buying a 92T powered TM have been an any bigger leap of faith or cannibalised Atki stopper than an F10 or F12 in that regard ?.
They already had the f88/89 range which used the same basic engines as f10/12 so it wasn’t that much of a leap of faith
Ive often wondered why Bedfords fitted their gearboxes on there side with the tipper pump on the top, The KM That we had was like this It caused allsorts of problems in the winter water used to get into the turret and freeze up so you couldn’t get into gear, I even fitted a new rubber cover to it but it didn’t solve the problem, And the rear axle on a angle, Supposedley for better ground clearance, Plus It was geared all wrong in my opinion We ran it for 10 month & got rid, We replaced it with a Leyland Clydesdale which IMO Was a far superior motor, Regards Larry.
dazcapri:
Carryfast:
Would buying a 92T powered TM have been an any bigger leap of faith or cannibalised Atki stopper than an F10 or F12 in that regard ?.They already had the f88/89 range which used the same basic engines as f10/12 so it wasn’t that much of a leap of faith
I’d doubt if Volvo’s F10/12 customer base was made up of just previous F88 let alone 89 buyers.While in either case the F10/12 obviously wouldn’t have been run on the basis of cannibalised old F88’s let alone Gardner powered Atkis.
Although the same argument could obviously have applied in the case of customers moving from a Gardner powered heap to F88 which was still in production after introduction of the TM.That would obviously fit the description of a similar leap of faith with no chance of re using the old left over Gardner bits.
The writing was on the wall before the bag of nails of the TM was launched
Whether it had the unproven uneconomical Detroit fitted or even if a ■■■■■■■ was available at the time
The fact is Bedford left it too late to enter the heavy end of lorry manufacturing
Bedford were trying to make a silk ■■■■■ out of a sows ear
gazsa401:
The writing was on the wall before the bag of nails of the TM was launched
Whether it had the unproven uneconomical Detroit fitted or even if a ■■■■■■■ was available at the time
The fact is Bedford left it too late to enter the heavy end of lorry manufacturing
Bedford were trying to make a silk ■■■■■ out of a sows ear
The only sows ear part of the equation being the use of the obsolete 71N series Detroit which isn’t surprising being that it had been designed for the fuel cost regime of the 1960’s not 1970’s.A regime in which anyone with any sense ideally used the 12v71 not the 6v71 to power a max weight truck. 
While by the standards of the day there’s no reason to think that the 92T series was much less fuel efficient than the big cam ■■■■■■■ or any more unproven than the F89/F12.
Everything else suggesting that the TM was more than capable of holding its own in the 16-40t + gross sector.
The point being that GM didn’t shut down production of just the TM.It walked away from heavy truck manufacturing completely both here and everywhere else in the case of both the TM and the Astro coincidentally,or maybe not,seemingly in conjunction with a ‘deal’ with Volvo.