Why did British Leyland fail?

[carryfast]

ramone:
Why would they develop 2 new 13 litre engines at the same time , the V8 was the clean sheet ■■?

Why would they settle on something whith less output potential requiring higher engine speed than vice versa.On that note the story is that the V8 was ditched by AEC then resurrected under Leyland’s orders ?.

In which case when and why was the V8 originally ditched,where did the timeline of the 760 fit into that and who decided that a hopelessly short stroke high speed V8 was a better option than a clean sheet 136 x 152 13 litre six,in resurrecting the V8,and more importantly why ?.Politically instigated industrial sabotage,along the lines which I’ve described,would logically explain that.Just as it would the resources wasted on design and production of the 500.

[carryfast]

.

[robert1952]

The pictures below tell a story of late Leylands that could still sustain the gruelling Middle-East run. Robert

A Buffalo arrives in Isfahan, Iran:

A Marathon en route to Doha in Qatar:

An S26 T45 on regular trips to the Middle East:

Even this Leyland 80 managed to wind up somewhere interesting:

[carryfast]

robert1952:
An S26 T45 on regular trips to the Middle East:

It would be interesting to find out what engine option that is ( Rolls or ■■■■■■■ ) but can’t see any identification there.Someone posted about the rarity of the T45 in Australia but they seem to have been common in NZ.

Although for some reason seem to have have sometimes had a reputation for not being up to the job.

commercialmotor.com/big-lorr … mmells-are

commercialmotor.com/big-lorr … glorryblog

[saviem]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

kr79:
Leyland were using the 680 which become the tl11 in to the 80s so why didn’t they devolp it further.

Maybe because the British ‘investment institutions’,possibly under American pressure,decided to invest the money lent to us as part of the Marshall Aid plan,in foreign banks and industry not ours thereby providing the Dutch with more cash to do the job properly ?.

On that note check out what was going on in my Father’s line of work during at least the immediate post war years.You’ll see the same parallels of a government ( read bankers ) deliberate starvation of product development funding and forcing together of alienated seperate firms being forced to compete for meagre investment funds.As I was told all part of the same ‘behind closed doors dealing’ going on to ‘re pay’ the Americans for the economic damage caused by the Germans.

aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Publ … ayward.pdf

Please list the amounts of money lent under the Marshall Plan, by country.

Its well past my , (new), bedtime…

But I really cannot let anoraks valid challenge to dear old carryfast pass without a few points for carryfast to hang his arguments upon…sort of an “aid memoire”

The ERP, (European Recovery Program), commonly known as the Marshall Plan, was launched by US President Harry Truman to aid recovery of the shattered European economies post WW2, (and halt the roll forward of Communist influence in countries severely weakened by the conflict). The architects of the plan were the Brooking Institution, George Kennan, and William Clayton.

A core objective was the removal of barriers to inter European Trade.

The plan was to run, (initially), from 1947/1952.

Initial capital USD13 Billion, (easy to work out a 2016 equivalent value), a lump of cash.

Disposition was made in favour of the “Allies”, although the USSR was offered participation, (which they rejected and launched their own version of the plan for satellite countries, the Molotov Plan.

I will not bore you by listing the 18 recipient countries, but the major three recepients were,
United Kingdom 26% of funds
France 18% of funds
Western Germany 11% of funds

I leave it up to carryfast to look up the rest

At the expiry of the Marshall Plan, the US instigated the Mutual Security Plan, which if I remember correctly ran at circ 7 billion USD per year into the `60s.

Yes, the Marshall Plan had dramatic significance to the recovery of Europe, and its effect is well worth study,) and as ever there are many what if’s and little sidings to speculate about…

Look forward to carryfasts response to anorak`s challenge.

Cheerio for now.

[cav551]

The introduction of the dry liner AV 691 engine in 1964 was not intended as a power upgrade of the wet liner AV690, instead it was meant to overcome the constant complaints of overheating issues associated with all the AEC wet liner engines. The small 7.7 litre AV 470 had separate severe issues with cylinder head clamping, but the 590 and 690 were found to have issues following output having been steadily increased over the years, with cylinder heat transfer. The theory was that the thick liners did not transfer heat adequately to the coolant, hence the change to dry liner block construction. The result was the 471, 505, 691 and I understand a very limited number of 591 engines. The 760 was a larger bore 691, which was found to be better at getting rid of its heat because of a lesser thickness of surrounding ironwork. It is very true that there is not a lot of iron surrounding the 760 liner, a piston seizure severe enough to drag the liner was likely to crack the block.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
Look forward to carryfasts response to anorak`s challenge.

Cheerio for now.

It’s there Saviem.It went along the lines of did the British share all actually stay in or even reach Britain,or was much of it diverted by the government/bankers to add to the foreign share ?.Not to mention the condition contained in Germany’s repayment terms making its repayments conditional on the German economy remaining in trade surplus unlike ours.

According to my Father and many of those I knew of the same generation working in the UK manufacturing industry the answer is the latter.Proved by examples like those contained in the details of the BAC merger which clearly shows the investment crisis affecting all sectors of the British manufacturing sector in that case obviously the aerospace industry.In which even successful second to none engineering like Vickers aircraft was starved of development cash and obviously enough to pay its workforce being part of that.Which is why,luckily for our family mortgage payments and living standards,my father walked away and found a better paying job in a small engineering firm in Teddington and finally the UK engineering manufacturing industrial sector completely for the same reason.

An obvious question for Anorak being how could a deal,which made Germany’s responsibilities regarding it,dependent on it maintaining a trade surplus with its competitors,have helped the idea of inter european ‘trade’.Or for that matter what was to be gained even if we had an artificial condition of trade balance which would have been the only way to make such a deal work.On that note I’m sure German buyers would have been more than a bit put out under an environment which forced a quota of Brit made trucks on them.

The fact is the whole thing was a stitch up which put us at a disadvantage.Based on the unwarranted fear of the Germans running off to join the Russians and for the Americans to get the best chance of getting a reasonably early repayment of the much larger combined cash sum lent to the rest of Europe compared to that ( supposedly ) to us.Not to mention putting the UK aerospace industry threat to that of the US out of the frame.

[robert1952]

Carryfast:

robert1952:
An S26 T45 on regular trips to the Middle East:

It would be interesting to find out what engine option that is ( Rolls or ■■■■■■■ ) but can’t see any identification there.Someone posted about the rarity of the T45 in Australia but they seem to have been common in NZ.

Although for some reason seem to have have sometimes had a reputation for not being up to the job.

commercialmotor.com/big-lorr … mmells-are

commercialmotor.com/big-lorr … glorryblog

That Scammell ‘Middle-Easter’ belonged to Bob, an Astran o/d subbie. It had clearly been ‘messed with’: it had a ■■■■■■■ NTE 400 and Jake-brake. There’s more info and loads of pics on a thread I created called LHD Leyland Roadtrains. Robert

[carryfast]

robert1952:
That Scammell ‘Middle-Easter’ belonged to Bob, an Astran o/d subbie. It had clearly been ‘messed with’: it had a ■■■■■■■ NTE 400 and Jake-brake. There’s more info and loads of pics on a thread I created called LHD Leyland Roadtrains. Robert

Thanks Robert it does look impressive in that great photo.

[john_west]

My opinion on the USA’s treatment of Britain after WW2 is not good. As can be seen from Saviem’s Marshall plan percentages, we were given ‘special treatment’.

In fact we weren’t, repayment of lend lease etc lasted well into the 21st century. The USA screwed us into the ground and took every penny. But…

The government should have accepted that we were no longer the ‘empire’ that we used to be - that’s the labour and succeeding conservative governments. It continues to this day. Every MP wants to finish their career as someone important, and very well paid, within greater Europe.

We still carried massive armed forces and ridiculous prestige assignments. No wonder Japan and West Germany were able to recover so quickly, no armies, no navies, no air forces - their Marshall plan money went straight into rebuilding. GB’s went into maintaining totally unaffordable ‘face’ projects.

Just my opinion.

John

[carryfast]

John West:
My opinion on the USA’s treatment of Britain after WW2 is not good. As can be seen from Saviem’s Marshall plan percentages, we were given ‘special treatment’.

In fact we weren’t, repayment of lend lease etc lasted well into the 21st century. The USA screwed us into the ground and took every penny. But…

The government should have accepted that we were no longer the ‘empire’ that we used to be - that’s the labour and succeeding conservative governments. It continues to this day. Every MP wants to finish their career as someone important, and very well paid, within greater Europe.

We still carried massive armed forces and ridiculous prestige assignments. No wonder Japan and West Germany were able to recover so quickly, no armies, no navies, no air forces - their Marshall plan money went straight into rebuilding. GB’s went into maintaining totally unaffordable ‘face’ projects.

Just my opinion.

John

Ironically the biggest mistake was in not backing Germany by staying neutral in 1914 together with America.That would have limited it to a short German Russian war in which we all could only have come out of it richer with the win win of no WW2.So maybe just karma for Churchill’s stupid catastrophic warmongering.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
Please list the amounts of money lent under the Marshall Plan, by country.

It’s not a question of any public listing ‘by country’.It’s a question of how much of the so called ‘British share’ was covertly diverted to add to the foreign share.Thereby leaving an obvious gap between what was shown on paper compared to what British industry actually received when it asked the government/bankers to deliver.Which would then logically result in more investment cash being available to our European competitors’ manufacturing industries ( and/or American in the case of the aircraft industry ).

In addition to direct/indirect government interference in the shelving/sabotaging of any British developments which threatened more financially important combined European post war recovery.Or for that matter US interests in which case you can add the TSR2 and almost if not wholly the VC10 at its design stage and eventual fate respectively to that list.

Maybe in addition to the TL13 that never even got onto the drawing board unlike the 500.

■■■■■

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
Please list the amounts of money lent under the Marshall Plan, by country.

It’s not a question of any public listing ‘by country’.It’s a question of how much of the so called ‘British share’ was covertly diverted to add to the foreign share.
[zb].

Another of your replies of the usually expected level of intelligence.

Some random figures of interest covering just one relevant year.A country that was virtually broke with a so called ‘share’ of Marshall Aid Plan loans meant to invest in re building its shattered economy.Somehow seemed to use billions of it in foreign investments.Much of that in Europe including Germany and even more ironically in the USA.The figures related to the returns on that cash speak for themselves ( page 4 ).

bankofengland.co.uk/archive/ … oi5051.pdf

[newmercman]

Carryfast:

Saviem:
Look forward to carryfasts response to anorak`s challenge.

Cheerio for now.

It’s there Saviem.It went along the lines of did the British share all actually stay in or even reach Britain,or was much of it diverted by the government/bankers to add to the foreign share ?.Not to mention the condition contained in Germany’s repayment terms making its repayments conditional on the German economy remaining in trade surplus unlike ours.

According to my Father and many of those I knew of the same generation working in the UK manufacturing industry the answer is the latter.Proved by examples like those contained in the details of the BAC merger which clearly shows the investment crisis affecting all sectors of the British manufacturing sector in that case obviously the aerospace industry.In which even successful second to none engineering like Vickers aircraft was starved of development cash and obviously enough to pay its workforce being part of that.Which is why,luckily for our family mortgage payments and living standards,my father walked away and found a better paying job in a small engineering firm in Teddington and finally the UK engineering manufacturing industrial sector completely for the same reason.

An obvious question for Anorak being how could a deal,which made Germany’s responsibilities regarding it,dependent on it maintaining a trade surplus with its competitors,have helped the idea of inter european ‘trade’.Or for that matter what was to be gained even if we had an artificial condition of trade balance which would have been the only way to make such a deal work.On that note I’m sure German buyers would have been more than a bit put out under an environment which forced a quota of Brit made trucks on them.

The fact is the whole thing was a stitch up which put us at a disadvantage.Based on the unwarranted fear of the Germans running off to join the Russians and for the Americans to get the best chance of getting a reasonably early repayment of the much larger combined cash sum lent to the rest of Europe compared to that ( supposedly ) to us.Not to mention putting the UK aerospace industry threat to that of the US out of the frame.

I love this! It actually makes complete sense, the American paranoia of communism would have seen them do anything they could to stop the red devil spreading into Germany. The Germans had proved themselves quite a formidable force as they rampaged their way through Europe and beyond, if Germany had become part of the Soviet empire then American superpower status would never have happened.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Carryfast is on to something here, bloody typical, not content with his usual blame the British gaffers, he’s now dragged the Americans and Russians into it too[emoji3]

[newmercman]

Carryfast:

John West:
My opinion on the USA’s treatment of Britain after WW2 is not good. As can be seen from Saviem’s Marshall plan percentages, we were given ‘special treatment’.

In fact we weren’t, repayment of lend lease etc lasted well into the 21st century. The USA screwed us into the ground and took every penny. But…

The government should have accepted that we were no longer the ‘empire’ that we used to be - that’s the labour and succeeding conservative governments. It continues to this day. Every MP wants to finish their career as someone important, and very well paid, within greater Europe.

We still carried massive armed forces and ridiculous prestige assignments. No wonder Japan and West Germany were able to recover so quickly, no armies, no navies, no air forces - their Marshall plan money went straight into rebuilding. GB’s went into maintaining totally unaffordable ‘face’ projects.

Just my opinion.

John

Ironically the biggest mistake was in not backing Germany by staying neutral in 1914 together with America.That would have limited it to a short German Russian war in which we all could only have come out of it richer with the win win of no WW2.So maybe just karma for Churchill’s stupid catastrophic warmongering.

Churchill had a point to prove, he was solely responsible for the Gallipoli fiasco in WW1, so he was always going to fight to the death in WW2, shame he never got actual blood on his hands instead of the blood of hundred’s of thousands of innocent men. At least Hitler did his time in the trenches, legend has it that he adopted his signature mustache after getting gassed in the trenches when his mask failed to seal because of his Kaiser style mustache. Both of them were as mad as a box of frogs.

[windrush]

Off topic but Churchill was a POW during the Boer War but escaped, he was also involved in other earlier conflicts so he did have first hand experience of battle. However, as everyone else on this planet (and some who are on a different one!) seems to have been involved in BL’s downfall he is as good an escape goat as any of them even though he was long dead at the time!

Pete.

[carryfast]

windrush:
Off topic but Churchill was a POW during the Boer War but escaped, he was also involved in other earlier conflicts so he did have first hand experience of battle. However, as everyone else on this planet (and some who are on a different one!) seems to have been involved in BL’s downfall he is as good an escape goat as any of them even though he was long dead at the time!

Pete.

It goes along the lines of the bank of England among others having advised Churchill to stay out of the argument between Russia and Germany,bearing in mind that’s all it actually was.

Because war with Germany would devastate the British economy,which it did.

The bs issue of the invasion of Belgium just being a result of France having our ( Churchill’s ) backing in its alliance with Russia and therefore threatening Germany with a war on two fronts. With Germany then inevitably having to take the easiest route in a justified plan of attack being the best form of defence.Bearing in mind that Germany’s recognition of Belgian neutrality obviously didn’t include it being used as a protective buffer in the event of France going to war with Germany in alliance with Russia.

This all matters in the case of Leyland together with the whole of UK industry because the resulting WW2,which was just a case of the unfinished business of WW1 from ze Germans point of view,finished off the job of wrecking the UK economy and with it our ability to invest.Not to mention the dodgy dealing going on post WW2 concerning what money there was.Ironically to keep ze Germans happy and to make sure that America didn’t lose out financially from the deal.

That explains much of financial and political problems facing people like Stokes.In that they had very little investment cash to work with,because much of what we’d been provided under Marshall Aid was diverted to our foreign competitors and what cash there was,was ordered to be spent on projects which presented the least threat to the European competition.So that America could get its money back,bearing in mind its greater financial exposure in Europe and the paranoid fear that ze Germans would join the Russians.

[robert1952]

windrush:
Off topic but Churchill was a POW during the Boer War but escaped, he was also involved in other earlier conflicts so he did have first hand experience of battle. However, as everyone else on this planet (and some who are on a different one!) seems to have been involved in BL’s downfall he is as good an escape goat as any of them even though he was long dead at the time!

Pete.

Churchill served under Kitchener against the Mahdi in Khartoum, taking part in one of the very last cavalry charges undertaken by the British Army. Gave him a taste for war, I reckon (don’t like it up 'em mister Mainwaring!).

Anyway, it wasn’t Churchill’s fault; it was Peter Foden for producing high quality trucks and disguising them as ‘gaffer’s’ motors: damned underhand if you ask me! Robert

[dave_the_renegade]

I vote for Carryfast to be a panelist on ‘’ Question Time ‘’ extended edition.

[gazsa401]

+1