Why did British Leyland fail?

[ramone]

robert1952:

ramone:

robert1952:

newmercman:
Robert has mentioned the positive reports of BL trucks against the foreign competition, but these were ■■■■■■■ or RR powered trucks and the home grown assemblers could do a better job of wrapping up a ■■■■■■■ or RR engine than BL could, so even though BL finally had a truck capable of putting up a good fight, it was outclassed by ERF, Foden and SA, especially when it came to build quality.

Yes, that’s almost exactly where I was coming from, but I would add that I have been very careful not to bad-mouth the TL engine, simply because I have no personal experience of it as a driver. I still have a sneaky feeling that I might well have enjoyed a Marathon 2 (BRS Iran version for example) or a Roadtrain both of them with a TL12 / 9-speed Fuller driveline. And Gingerfold testifies as to the reliability despite the bad press Marathon 2 got in Destination Doha and BRS Iran history! Like the ERF ‘European’, Leyland’s long-haul version of the Marathon 2 was no ‘gaffer’s motor’ but by repeating the mantra that it was, we run the risk of making it ‘true’ in the history books! I’m aware that you didn’t call it a gaffer’s motor, but I’m just making the wider point. Robert

I think the BRS and the Destination Doha Marathons were the mk1 version , the Marathon 2 was introduced around late`77 and apparently were much improved. I personally think all the British made heavyweights were similar whether it was ERF , SA , Foden or Leyland not much between them

Yep: I’ve just checked and they were both mark 1s; but you get my drift. Robert

I`ve been in quite a few Marathons and thought they were good motors. My dad had a Marathon with a 290 ■■■■■■■ in and when it was off for whatever reason the firm spot hired and it was usually a mixed bag of either Marathons or ERFs with the blue interiors (remember them) and the Marathons hired had the TL12 in , they were better on fuel and had the edge on the ■■■■■■■ up the hills on the M62

[cav551]

Quite right Pete,

my apologies to one and all. Yes of course it was the Terrier with the nitrogen brakes … and the pinch bolt at the bottom of the steering column not to forget to remove if you wanted to tilt the cab! I always thought that the ride was better in the Terrier than in the Roadrunner, especially in an empty tipper.

[carryfast]

gingerfold:
I think, that as usual, we have gone off at a tangent and got away from the original question. There was no single reason why British Leyland failed, nor did it happen overnight. It was a culmination of many reasons over a considerable time span of years. It certainly wasn’t because of the TL12 engine, nor in isolation the AEC V8-740/800. nor the fixed head 500 series. We ran over 60 TL12 powered Roadtrains at Spillers Milling in the 1980s on a variety of operating cycles ranging from single shifted, double shifted, local, distance, plus constant revving tanker blowing. At the time they were regarded very highly in all aspects of operating costs. I am reliably informed that an intercooled version was performing well in development trials at 320 to 330 bhp. Yes, that was probably the limit of its development potential The Rolls Royce Eagle was the first half decent “modern” diesel unit made by Rolls Royce, designed by former AEC engineers,

There was no single reason why Leyland Group failed.But what is certain is the amount of cash blown on keeping BMC afloat.Nor,predictably,did any 300 hp + ‘development’ of the TL12 ever get put into the T45 as a production option.

Which leaves the question why did those ex AEC engineers leave AEC and end up building a decent motor for the competition and which surely more than just coincidentally ended up with a stroke measurement to match the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and certainly not the 760/TL12.Just based on that evidence I’ll put my neck out and say that ‘if’ it had been AEC that had made the Eagle instead of Rolls and ‘if’ Leyland had put that with a cab to rival/match the SA 400 instead of the Marathon and T45 then the fortunes of DAF v Leyland Trucks at least would have been reversed.

[kr79]

gingerfold:
Well summarised Newmercman. Also don’t forget the PSV market. The Leyland National was a disaster, no adequate development of the successful Atlantean was done, to the extent that acquired Leyland subsidiaries such as Daimler and Bristol with bought-in engines eventually provided the bulk of the requirements for such as LT. It was only customer loyalty that kept the AEC Reliance and Leyland Leopard in production as long as it did in the single deck coach market. Customer loyalty is a strange thing, it takes a lot for a dedicated buyer of one marque to eventually switch to another.

[kr79]

gingerfold:
Well summarised Newmercman. Also don’t forget the PSV market. The Leyland National was a disaster, no adequate development of the successful Atlantean was done, to the extent that acquired Leyland subsidiaries such as Daimler and Bristol with bought-in engines eventually provided the bulk of the requirements for such as LT. It was only customer loyalty that kept the AEC Reliance and Leyland Leopard in production as long as it did in the single deck coach market. Customer loyalty is a strange thing, it takes a lot for a dedicated buyer of one marque to eventually switch to another.

Funny you should mention the psv market as the AEC route master ended up outliving it’s replacement Daimler fleet line dms range and that models replacement the leyland titan was powered by gardner engines and london transport which was the biggest user accepted them after the disaster of the 500 in the leyland national

[ramone]

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
I think, that as usual, we have gone off at a tangent and got away from the original question. There was no single reason why British Leyland failed, nor did it happen overnight. It was a culmination of many reasons over a considerable time span of years. It certainly wasn’t because of the TL12 engine, nor in isolation the AEC V8-740/800. nor the fixed head 500 series. We ran over 60 TL12 powered Roadtrains at Spillers Milling in the 1980s on a variety of operating cycles ranging from single shifted, double shifted, local, distance, plus constant revving tanker blowing. At the time they were regarded very highly in all aspects of operating costs. I am reliably informed that an intercooled version was performing well in development trials at 320 to 330 bhp. Yes, that was probably the limit of its development potential The Rolls Royce Eagle was the first half decent “modern” diesel unit made by Rolls Royce, designed by former AEC engineers,

There was no single reason why Leyland Group failed.But what is certain is the amount of cash blown on keeping BMC afloat.Nor,predictably,did any 300 hp + ‘development’ of the TL12 ever get put into the T45 as a production option.

Which leaves the question why did those ex AEC engineers leave AEC and end up building a decent motor for the competition and which surely more than just coincidentally ended up with a stroke measurement to match the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and certainly not the 760/TL12.Just based on that evidence I’ll put my neck out and say that ‘if’ it had been AEC that had made the Eagle instead of Rolls and ‘if’ Leyland had put that with a cab to rival/match the SA 400 instead of the Marathon and T45 then the fortunes of DAF v Leyland Trucks at least would have been reversed.

I would think they left because the place closed down … Why on earth would you champion the SA 400 cab

[bewick]

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
I think, that as usual, we have gone off at a tangent and got away from the original question. There was no single reason why British Leyland failed, nor did it happen overnight. It was a culmination of many reasons over a considerable time span of years. It certainly wasn’t because of the TL12 engine, nor in isolation the AEC V8-740/800. nor the fixed head 500 series. We ran over 60 TL12 powered Roadtrains at Spillers Milling in the 1980s on a variety of operating cycles ranging from single shifted, double shifted, local, distance, plus constant revving tanker blowing. At the time they were regarded very highly in all aspects of operating costs. I am reliably informed that an intercooled version was performing well in development trials at 320 to 330 bhp. Yes, that was probably the limit of its development potential The Rolls Royce Eagle was the first half decent “modern” diesel unit made by Rolls Royce, designed by former AEC engineers,

There was no single reason why Leyland Group failed.But what is certain is the amount of cash blown on keeping BMC afloat.Nor,predictably,did any 300 hp + ‘development’ of the TL12 ever get put into the T45 as a production option.

Which leaves the question why did those ex AEC engineers leave AEC and end up building a decent motor for the competition and which surely more than just coincidentally ended up with a stroke measurement to match the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and certainly not the 760/TL12.Just based on that evidence I’ll put my neck out and say that ‘if’ it had been AEC that had made the Eagle instead of Rolls and ‘if’ Leyland had put that with a cab to rival/match the SA 400 instead of the Marathon and T45 then the fortunes of DAF v Leyland Trucks at least would have been reversed.

Bring me a ■■■■■■■ big Axe,“CF” has just offered to stick his scrawny neck out so this opportunity cannot be missed eh! Now come on Lads form a circle and we’ll “toss a coin” for who will have the privilege of “swinging it” Cheers Bewick. PS and wishing you a very happy New Year “CF” you know we don’t mean it ! " Oh Yes we ■■■■■■■ well do"

[rastone]

Dave the Renegade:

Come on chaps,vehicles have improved since this drivers day .

Just looked through this site.He looks pleased with his engines.Slow for motorway work but good for locals particularly if you have a garden.

Tony

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:
There was no single reason why Leyland Group failed.But what is certain is the amount of cash blown on keeping BMC afloat.Nor,predictably,did any 300 hp + ‘development’ of the TL12 ever get put into the T45 as a production option.

Which leaves the question why did those ex AEC engineers leave AEC and end up building a decent motor for the competition and which surely more than just coincidentally ended up with a stroke measurement to match the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and certainly not the 760/TL12.Just based on that evidence I’ll put my neck out and say that ‘if’ it had been AEC that had made the Eagle instead of Rolls and ‘if’ Leyland had put that with a cab to rival/match the SA 400 instead of the Marathon and T45 then the fortunes of DAF v Leyland Trucks at least would have been reversed.

I would think they left because the place closed down … Why on earth would you champion the SA 400 cab

Bearing in mind that the Eagle was in production in 1967 they would have had to have left more or less during the development and introduction of the 760 let alone 1979.

As for the SA 400 type cab are you seriously suggesting that the T45 let alone Marathon were both better competitors to the foreign onslaught from DAF and Volvo etc.

[carryfast]

Bewick:
Bring me a [zb] big Axe,“CF” has just offered to stick his scrawny neck out so this opportunity cannot be missed eh! Now come on Lads form a circle and we’ll “toss a coin” for who will have the privilege of “swinging it” Cheers Bewick. PS and wishing you a very happy New Year “CF” you know we don’t mean it ! " Oh Yes we [zb] well do"

Blimey you should have applied for a job at Leyland to take over Stokes’ job.I can just picture the scene as you instigated the demon plan to save Leyland trucks using licence built Atki Borderer cabs and Gardner 240 engines for the T45.

[tomdhu]

newmercman:
The answer to the question is really quite simple, BL truck division failed because people stopped buying the products they produced. The reason they stopped buying them was because they were not as good as the competition.

Robert has mentioned the positive reports of BL trucks against the foreign competition, but these were ■■■■■■■ or RR powered trucks and the home grown assemblers could do a better job of wrapping up a ■■■■■■■ or RR engine than BL could, so even though BL finally had a truck capable of putting up a good fight, it was outclassed by ERF, Foden and SA, especially when it came to build quality.

However the most important factor was the fleets that ran BL trucks, think back to the big Leyland fleets, they were by and large nationalised companies, BRS being the main one and even they gave Leyland a wide berth, preferring the Guy Big J and latterly their ‘own’ Crusader, when the BRS became the NFC/Excel etc there was no requirement to buy British and they didn’t anymore for the most part. Of course there were other fleets that ran Leyland trucks, especially those engaged in work for BL, the oil companies mostly ran Leyland too, until ERF, Foden and SA got a foot in the door and then they pretty much all stopped buying Leyland until the T45 hit the roads.

In the van and light truck market the antiquated BL products were no match for competition, the Transit was unbeatable and in the 7.5t market the LN2 Mercedes Benz set a new standard and the Roadrunner didn’t do as well as it should have because of that, although the Roadrunner was a very good little lorry and one of the few success stories of BL.

In the middleweight division the lighter end of the market was dominated by Ford with the Cargo and after MB had revolutionised the heavier end with the 1617, the Volvo F6 and Scania 82 soon followed and there wasn’t a BL product that could compete with any of them.

Multi axle rigids were a strong point and the T45 range had a good product in every sub section, from lightweight 6 wheelers for mixers and aggregates up to heavy duty eight wheelers thanks to the Albion and Scammell DNA in the respective products, but even so they were hemorrhaging sales to the foreigners who had final got their heads around the UK multi axle rigid market and had products every bit as good, if not better than the BL offerings.

And that was that, not many people bought BL trucks through choice and those that were required to buy British had a little more choice and few chose BL trucks and who could blame them, after years of inadequate investment the trucks were not that good, the memory of the flawed engineering in the 500 series and the V8, terrible build quality and long lead times from an indifferent work and sales force had all taken its toll.

Excellent contribution NMM with a realistic focus from the market perspective. Incisive, accurate and concise.

[kr79]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:
There was no single reason why Leyland Group failed.But what is certain is the amount of cash blown on keeping BMC afloat.Nor,predictably,did any 300 hp + ‘development’ of the TL12 ever get put into the T45 as a production option.

Which leaves the question why did those ex AEC engineers leave AEC and end up building a decent motor for the competition and which surely more than just coincidentally ended up with a stroke measurement to match the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and certainly not the 760/TL12.Just based on that evidence I’ll put my neck out and say that ‘if’ it had been AEC that had made the Eagle instead of Rolls and ‘if’ Leyland had put that with a cab to rival/match the SA 400 instead of the Marathon and T45 then the fortunes of DAF v Leyland Trucks at least would have been reversed.

I would think they left because the place closed down … Why on earth would you champion the SA 400 cab

Bearing in mind that the Eagle was in production in 1967 they would have had to have left more or less during the development and introduction of the 760 let alone 1979.

As for the SA 400 type cab are you seriously suggesting that the T45 let alone Marathon were both better competitors to the foreign onslaught from DAF and Volvo etc.

I only drove a full width day cab constructor and the narrower cab on a constructor 6 and freighter and thought they was pretty good for the era and the roadtrain interstate looked good for the time.
I drove a Seddon Atkinson 3-11 and it is to this day the worst lorry I have ever driven and the later iveco cab bed ones were little better

[muckaway]

Not forgetting the Friday afternoon trucks BL built. I heard stories at Smiths where one was a good ‘un but the sister truck was a bag of you know what. I remember F and G reg Leylands had long gone from their fleet while Fodens of the same age were on the fleet at over 12 years old. I don’t know if they still run it, but CW Sproston were still running Smiths’ “rogue” Leyland F38 FFC recently. That was a motor nobody on Smiths, driver or mechanic liked.

[kr79]

The whole t45 range suffered with tin worm like most steel cabs of the era something foden had an advantage with

[muckaway]

Smiths drivers found the Constructor crude compared to Fodens of the same age although the X reg Dad drove went well on and off road and was a great cold weather starter.

[carryfast]

kr79:

Carryfast:
As for the SA 400 type cab are you seriously suggesting that the T45 let alone Marathon were both better competitors to the foreign onslaught from DAF and Volvo etc.

I only drove a full width day cab constructor and the narrower cab on a constructor 6 and freighter and thought they was pretty good for the era and the roadtrain interstate looked good for the time.
I drove a Seddon Atkinson 3-11 and it is to this day the worst lorry I have ever driven and the later iveco cab bed ones were little better

I’m not sure if you’re just making the relevant comparison between the proper long haul SA 400 cab v T45.Or a totally different one based on relative differences in certain chassis componentry fit design and short haul day cabs,in which the SA’s advantages then probably won’t count as much.

Realistically the T45 carried over the type of relatively cramped cab design found in the Marathon.Not helped in the T45’s case by the ridiculous vertically tapering rear panel and screen lines adding to an already relatively short cab front to rear.Which was confirmed to me having driven the Marathon on some night out tramping haulage work together with a Volvo F10,and the T45 on trunking having been lumbered with one for a while at our depot,after a takeover of a firm by ours,which ran a Leyland fleet.In which,just like the Marathon,the T45 was a joke compared to the DAF 2800,or Volvo,cabs.While,admittedly never having had the opportunity to drive one,there’s absolutely no way that the physical dimensions of the SA 400 design couldn’t possibly have not provided something considerably better than the DAF and Volvo or most,if not all, other alternatives regarding space at least.Which seems to be confirmed here bearing in mind that the SA’s front to rear space has actually run out of camera shot.

c2.staticflickr.com/8/7233/6978 … d906_b.jpg

aronline.co.uk/blogs/wp-cont … 00x420.jpg

[carryfast]

Muckaway:
Not forgetting the Friday afternoon trucks BL built.

Somehow the myth,with a bit of truth in it,of the wrong time and day one has got confused over the years.Trust me it was the Monday mornings which were the soul destroying time and day of factory work.Sometimes on rare occasions with an understandable mindset to the job to match.Not Friday afternoon weekend finish/payday ( cash in an envelope weekly pay none of the later monthly bank payments of later years ).

[newmercman]

Geoffrey you’re comparing apples to oranges again! A full sleeper cab against a rest cab is an unfair comparison as well you know. I’ve driven SA400s and Leyland Roadtrains in both sleeper cab and day cab versions and the sleepers were equal in size, but the T45 had the far better interior. In the day cabs the Leyland was streets ahead of the SA. The Leyland also handled better and had much better brakes and the gearshift was in a different league altogether.

I also drove a Constructor with the 300 Rolls, or Perkins as it was then called and that thing was a beast, it was every bit as good as the MAN 8 wheelers, which were reckoned to be the best 8 wheelers out there and it was a lot lighter too.

I looked at buying a couple of low mileage ex Royal Mail low datum sleepers with the 300 Perkins in them and it was only the price that put me off, the dealer in question was a bit on the expensive side, I ended up with an FL10 and a Strato with an L10-325, but I don’t think I got better lorries, just cheaper ones.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Geoffrey you’re comparing apples to oranges again! A full sleeper cab against a rest cab is an unfair comparison as well you know. I’ve driven SA400s and Leyland Roadtrains in both sleeper cab and day cab versions and the sleepers were equal in size, but the T45 had the far better interior. In the day cabs the Leyland was streets ahead of the SA. The Leyland also handled better and had much better brakes and the gearshift was in a different league altogether.

I also drove a Constructor with the 300 Rolls, or Perkins as it was then called and that thing was a beast, it was every bit as good as the MAN 8 wheelers, which were reckoned to be the best 8 wheelers out there and it was a lot lighter too.

I looked at buying a couple of low mileage ex Royal Mail low datum sleepers with the 300 Perkins in them and it was only the price that put me off, the dealer in question was a bit on the expensive side, I ended up with an FL10 and a Strato with an L10-325, but I don’t think I got better lorries, just cheaper ones.

To be fair I wasn’t sure about there being two different sizes of sleeper in either the Marathon or the T45. With that shown in the pic being representative of my personal experience of both.IE as I said a joke compared to the F10 or 2800.Which then leaves the question of why offer 3 sizes of cab option ( assuming that was the case ).When,in the case of the Swedes or DAF at least,it was just day or sleeper ?.Which if I’ve got it right was the same in the case of the TM and SA ?.In our case the sleeper space in the TM at least being used for equipment stowage.

The result being that,going by my experience,many skinflint guvnors inevitably chose the inferior option in the case of the T45,with inevitable results on the thing’s reputation among its unfortunate drivers,or in the used market at re sale time.

Having said that I’m surprised that the dimensions of the T45 cab in whatever spec could have possibly allowed for a comparable amount of space with the SA or for that matter TM.In which case assuming two sizes of sleeper this seems as good as gets which doesn’t seem much different to the previous example ?.

images60.fotki.com/v178/photos/8 … in4-vi.jpg

However having never driven the SA I can’t comment on its relative drive quality and chassis engineering v Leyland but that wasn’t my point anyway in only referring to cab design v the foreign competition in which my view was/is that the SA and TM had the required edge.While your comments seem to again confirm the superiority of the Rolls engine spec.

In which case,as I said,I’d guess that an ( arguably ) better SA or TM type cab design and in house Rolls type engine design,instead of the blind alley of the TL12 and dodgy T45 cab design,probably would have been enough to tip the balance in favour of Leyland over DAF at least.With a reversal in the fortunes of both to match.

[newmercman]

What you have to take into consideration is the market that the T45 was aimed at, it wasn’t intended to better the Daf, Volvo, Scania ranges, it was an evolution of the combined ranges of the BL truck division’s individual manufacturers, but all wrapped up in the same cab, when you think about it that is the logical progression from the Ergomatic and G cabbed ranges.

The best parts from AEC, Albion, Guy, Leyland and Scammell all combined in one complete range with a fresh, modern cab to crown it off, it sounds like a pretty good plan to me, IVECO did exactly the same and that worked out just fine, Daf, MAN, Mercedes and Scania did it too, a common cab structure created a strong corporate image.

Unfortunately it was too late, if the T45 range was launched 5yrs earlier, as it was planned to be, then things would’ve been very different, but it wasn’t…