Why did British Leyland fail?

The MX series of engines are AFAIK a clean sheet design from PACCAR developed in conjunction with ■■■■■■■■

I do have access to dismantled AV590 engines which I will take a look at in the New Year when I am next on the particular site. Although I have access to both an AV 590 and a Leyland 0600 they are both installed and running, so any accurate meaningful measurements are unlikely. I stripped a series of failed AV590s about 12 months ago with the intention of attempting to recover as many core parts for machining and reassembly as possible. The customer’s circumstances have since changed, the sheer time and expense required to deal with removing damaged/corroded head studs, re-threading the blocks in various oversizes and manufacturing stepped studs, of multiple differing combinations including lengths has temporarily brought a halt to the project. The engines in question do not have fully balanced crankshafts although the AEC did offer the option of a fully counterbalanced shaft. Such a shaft obviously clears in the AV590 although from memory the removed shaft fitted-clearance gave rise to the impression that counterweights would have extremely limited clearance. Apart from the bore size difference of 16mm the 760 has dry liners (thinner) and the 590 wet.

If anyone wishes to play around with the following available measurements they are welcome. Calculating the effect of shortening the conrod or repositioing the gudgeon pin, especially in relation to a difference in conrod/liner clearance would take me a month of Sundays to find the right equation, let alone work out things like the cosine of angles. (I do realise this is not the governing factor).

Bore 136MM 760 engine
Stroke 142 mm 760 engine
crankpin nominal dia 75mm
main journal nominal dia 95mm
con rod between centres 264.007mm
wet liner length 290mm
760 piston:
height 175mm
crown to c/l gudgeon pin 106.4mm
gudgeon pin c/l to skirt 68.6 mm
gudgeon pin dia 50.8mm

The link below concerns Leyland Motors, management personalities, the 500 engine, political policy and metrication:

mk-marketing.eu/Publications … ionM-E.pdf

[zb]
anorak:
The engines issue is less clear, to me at least. The radical concepts of Dr. Fogg could have been made to work, if enough money and brain-power had been lavished on them, I think. The conservative approach of the Continentals would then have been put to the sword in some style. If I am to point a finger at a specific failing, it would be the underestimation of the amount of engineering involved in doing something new.

To be fair to Fogg previous discussions suggest that the fixed head idea was meant only in regard to a larger capacity design certainly not the obviously higher stressed smaller 500.However it would probably also be fair to say that if you’re in the areas of the type of cylinder pressures whereby it’s not possible to make a decent conventional block to head joint work then those type of pressures are also likely to start breaking other things in the chain anyway.In addition to which the fixed head idea obviously creates major headaches regards routine maintenance and engine rebuilds.On that note OHC v a pushrod engine is bad enough in that regard let alone a fixed head to add to the aggravation.Realistically at the end of the day the engine issue comes down to the choice between development of the 680 or 760.DAF obviously chose well in that regard.

Which leaves the question of the 760.In which it’s my guess that logically they probably would have looked into the possibility of stroking it as part of the TL12 project and reached the conclusion that it would have needed some changes in the block design measurements and then chose not to bother instead. :open_mouth: :unamused: :frowning:

cav551:
The MX series of engines are AFAIK a clean sheet design from PACCAR developed in conjunction with ■■■■■■■■

I do have access to dismantled AV590 engines which I will take a look at in the New Year when I am next on the particular site. Although I have access to both an AV 590 and a Leyland 0600 they are both installed and running, so any accurate meaningful measurements are unlikely.

The MX being a clean sheet is what I’d taken for granted although Tomdhu’s comments and the bore size suggests that maybe there is a link with the 680 ?.Which then leaves the question of the 158 mm XF ?.Which in itself would suggest a great amount of development room in the 680 if that’s based on the 11.6.

As for mix and match of components as part of a stroking project I think the preference is usually to maintain a decent con rod length to avoid excessive angularity and resulting loadings on the rod ?.

Returning to the situation of the AEC in the post war period 1945- 1954 approx.

The company had orders from London Transport which they were under great pressure to deliver ASAP and production was not keeping up with the contracted rate of delivery. Although not all called off in one tranche these orders were for 4750 Regent III chassis and 780 Regal IV chassis. There was a severe shortage of raw materials and also of skilled labour. Skilled men returning from the war could find easier higher paid work elsewhere. The specification for LT’s Regent IIIs demanded extremely tight tolerances for the location of body mounting points since the aim was for complete interchangeability of bodies from several manufacturers. They were at the same time trying to develop the replacement for the LT Regent III and its new AV 590 engine. The space in which to mount a psv engine is, and then was, even more constricted than that for an HGV owing to overall lenght legislation. It was so tight in fact that it was impossible to mount the radiator in front of the engine until legislation changed.

Keeping their biggest customer happy was a major almost overriding concern.

Edit add: altogether the AEC produced over 9600 bus chassis for London Transport post war between 1946 and 1972.

ramone:
The cab was there , but it took until the Marathon to develop it

There’s no way that anything linked with the Ergo,including the Marathon,was going to cut it when the right benchmark needed to face the imports onslaught was at least the SA 400 and Bedford TM cabs.Even the T45 being marginal in that regard.

Carryfast:

ramone:
The cab was there , but it took until the Marathon to develop it

There’s no way that anything linked with the Ergo,including the Marathon,was going to cut it when the right benchmark needed to face the imports onslaught was at least the SA 400 and Bedford TM cabs.Even the T45 being marginal in that regard.

Whateva

Carryfast:

cav551:
The MX series of engines are AFAIK a clean sheet design from PACCAR developed in conjunction with ■■■■■■■■

I do have access to dismantled AV590 engines which I will take a look at in the New Year when I am next on the particular site. Although I have access to both an AV 590 and a Leyland 0600 they are both installed and running, so any accurate meaningful measurements are unlikely.

The MX being a clean sheet is what I’d taken for granted although Tomdhu’s comments and the bore size suggests that maybe there is a link with the 680 ?.Which then leaves the question of the 158 mm XF ?.Which in itself would suggest a great amount of development room in the 680 if that’s based on the 11.6.
.

Hi,

I think may have misled myself about the 162mm stroke on the 1160 engine. The 162mm stroke is on the mX and that is a completely new design with a single cylinder head, wet liners and 4 valves per cylinder. My apologies. Meanwhile I am researching further on the max stroke on the 1160.

Tomdhu:

Saviem:

Hi Saviem,
Your account of the anguishing Saviem– Berliet merger jogged my memory so I did a quick scan of Michael Edwardes book and in there is an account of of discussions between Renault and BL.
In 1977 there was lots of ideas exchanged about Renault giving a car design for production in the UK to offset BL Cars shortage of product in the fleet market but it transpired that they really wanted their hands on Land Rover and Range Rover. If collaboration had worked and if it was extended, I wonder what it would have done to Leyland Trucks. Maybe you could comment on that?

Apparently Renault were really upset when BL did the car deal with Honda (Triumph Acclaim) and BL in turn helped Honda with their 4x4. Renault ended up doing a merger with AMC so that they could get the Jeep 4x4 technology.

Another manufacturer that wanted to cherry pick bits of BL was GM who had fairly extensive discussions with Leyland Trucks where the end result would be economies of scale if Bedford and Leyland were to merge.

The only deal that was done was with ■■■■■■■ and their “B” series went in the Road Runner whilst Leyland Trucks supplied ■■■■■■■ with machined components.

The ploy that never happened was one whereby Leyland could have plagiarised the DAF engine technology for the TL11 instead of using the TL12! .

Evening all,

Tomdhu, while pondering my total lack of understanding of the hi tech requirements of the Chinese Fairy Light, (a battle that year after year my failing geriatric eyesight, knees, and my dear friend “Arthur Ritis” contribute to obstifucate any endeavours that I may expend to get the BBBBBBB things to work, I was thinking about your posts, and the doors of my memory creak open.

I am conscious of the fact that this thread concerns Leyland, yet there are so many parallels across the lorry industry of Western Europe, and the machinasions that (had to), take place to keep the production facilities working. Despite the (sad) trait that we have in the UK to criticise our own industry, and the people that ran it, the same scenario was enacted in many other countries.

I will not bore the reader with an endless list of comparative performance/production/ sales/warranty claims across various engine ranges, but your comments about clean sheet thinking designs regarding the Leyland .500, and AEC V8 bear some comparison.

Berliet, an engineering led, cash devouring, almost totally unmanageable goliath of the `50s and 60s, right through to their , (Government inspired), bale out by Michelin, whose cash they devoured in such totally un repentant ingratitude, had their inspired moments of clean sheet design both in engines, and product!

Prompted by the amorous advances of messers ■■■■■■■ to take on the design manufacturing licence of the Vim and Vale Vs, (as William Lyons with Meadows/Guy, and Krupp), the Ingenieurs at Venissieux came up with the V600, V800, and the( thankfully stillborn), V10, 100x110mm 90 degree V serie. Paul Berliet killed the V6 in `67, due to sheer cost, but the V8 6911cu cm arrived to power the , (really very advanced Stradair 55, through to 819), plus the Cruisair rear engine bus, (where this high reving, oil and diesel guzzling little smoking V8 was replaced by a good old Perkins Peterbourough V8 .510), and eventually found a home in the , (little used), armoured VXB 170 for Les Gendarmes, (boy would our civil liberties people “love” our Constabulary to have use of such a device)!!!..but derated from its frantic 190 hp to a very short legged 170!!!1

Then there was the V12 multi fuel MS1240 with its amazing 29556 cu cm capacity, 550 hp in `62, and a thirst to match, (207 litres per 100km), but she would run at 103 tonnes gtw in 8x8 form, (but Willeme did a far better job with her TGs, either as V Detroits, or economic KTA ■■■■■■■■■ Really the MS1240, was two of the TLM/TBO 14.780 240 hp blocks stiched together!

But the basic Berliet engine design majored around the 10, and 12 litre mark, in straight 6 configuration, starting with natural aspiration, then turbo charged , then intercooled. Natural progression of existing design, the common, and over riding denomination being economy of fuel consumption. La Belle, she had to import all her fuel, minimising consumption was a priority, hence the development of the 06.20.30/45 engine , and the 12 litre, to the exclusion of the V8 08.35.40.

For the Regie Renault having control of both Saviem, (Renault, Latil, et Somua), and the overblown teenager, (in behaviour), Berliet was a quandary…who should lead?..Saviem, (with its tie with German MAN produced lorries 30% cheaper per unit than Berliet, and held 45% market share in 75. Berliet exported 40% of its production, held 40% market share in 75, employed six times the personnel of Saviem and contributed 30% more in fiscal dues to the exchequer…no wonder the politicians kept the two separate, (and fighting for market share)…

Yes the Regie Renault did look at the BL side of Leyland, (and they were not alone), but as Tomdhu says the cream was Jaguar, and Land Rover. I understand that the offer made included the rights to produce the TL Serie 12 Renault as well as the Charbonneaux design T 16 range, (but this was a mid 60s design, that ran up to the `80s). Plus access to the small diesel market…surely a good option for the BLMC side. The Sherpa was of interest, mainly as an export replacement for the Estafette Van range. This was later born out by the success of the Sherpa in the Italian market. When I was in Milan, the Sherpa was Leylands spearhead in the market, and very well accepted, (even over the Hanomag/Mercedes.)

But coming back to Leyland, and in particular the fixed head .500 serie. In one of my barns I have a really nice tandem axle trailer that was built by a very active Leyland Dealer, the late Ralph Ferrie`s Brownhills Commercials. It was designed to carry two, “broken” fixed head .500s up to the north, to return with two “good uns”!. It worked 7 days a week, behind a Sherpa van. Yet somehow the customers were not placated, maybe it was warranty procedures, or maybe it was Dealer attitude. Other manufacturers have had quality problems, yet none seem to have destroyed their market base as Leyland did…Why??

Later, in another life I ran, and had my own money invested in Letlands, T45s, Freighters, and RoadRunners. Not just a few, yet I found the product good, certainly on a par with anything else on the market, and the cost per mile to operate was quite reasonable…in fact with 12 TL12 engine T45s they worked out considerably cheaper than the equivalent F10 Volvo on my fleet. Residuals were lower, but front end cost was lower as well!

But the question that really “bugs” me,( and perhaps Tomdhu can lay to rest), is why when AEC were so well represented in Europe, and so well respected, both in the Benelux, and in France with Willeme, (as well as BMC)…why did that die…and take down Willeme as well? Leyland with Hotchkiss…really quite a joke!

Would really like to know your opinions…

Back to a (largish), Bollinger…

And to remember those quite delightful AEC engine Willemes, (with Berliet Willeme “had” the 6x4 Chantiers, (Construction), market…they may have been designed for 26 tonnes gtw 6x4s…but most used 26 tonnes as a minimum payload…back in the 70s!

Cheerio for now.

CM article with technical details about the AEC V8 published at the time of release:

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … in-stretch

Saviem:

Tomdhu:

Saviem:

.

Evening all,

Tomdhu, while pondering my total lack of understanding of the hi tech requirements of the Chinese Fairy Light, (a battle that year after year my failing geriatric eyesight, knees, and my dear friend “Arthur Ritis” contribute to obstifucate any endeavours that I may expend to get the BBBBBBB things to work, I was thinking about your posts, and the doors of my memory creak open.

I am conscious of the fact that this thread concerns Leyland, yet there are so many parallels across the lorry industry of Western Europe, and the machinasions that (had to), take place to keep the production facilities working. Despite the (sad) trait that we have in the UK to criticise our own industry, and the people that ran it, the same scenario was enacted in many other countries.

I will not bore the reader with an endless list of comparative performance/production/ sales/warranty claims across various engine ranges, but your comments about clean sheet thinking designs regarding the Leyland .500, and AEC V8 bear some comparison.

Berliet, an engineering led, cash devouring, almost totally unmanageable goliath of the `50s and 60s, right through to their , (Government inspired), bale out by Michelin, whose cash they devoured in such totally un repentant ingratitude, had their inspired moments of clean sheet design both in engines, and product!

Prompted by the amorous advances of messers ■■■■■■■ to take on the design manufacturing licence of the Vim and Vale Vs, (as William Lyons with Meadows/Guy, and Krupp), the Ingenieurs at Venissieux came up with the V600, V800, and the( thankfully stillborn), V10, 100x110mm 90 degree V serie. Paul Berliet killed the V6 in `67, due to sheer cost, but the V8 6911cu cm arrived to power the , (really very advanced Stradair 55, through to 819), plus the Cruisair rear engine bus, (where this high reving, oil and diesel guzzling little smoking V8 was replaced by a good old Perkins Peterbourough V8 .510), and eventually found a home in the , (little used), armoured VXB 170 for Les Gendarmes, (boy would our civil liberties people “love” our Constabulary to have use of such a device)!!!..but derated from its frantic 190 hp to a very short legged 170!!!1

Then there was the V12 multi fuel MS1240 with its amazing 29556 cu cm capacity, 550 hp in `62, and a thirst to match, (207 litres per 100km), but she would run at 103 tonnes gtw in 8x8 form, (but Willeme did a far better job with her TGs, either as V Detroits, or economic KTA ■■■■■■■■■ Really the MS1240, was two of the TLM/TBO 14.780 240 hp blocks stiched together!

But the basic Berliet engine design majored around the 10, and 12 litre mark, in straight 6 configuration, starting with natural aspiration, then turbo charged , then intercooled. Natural progression of existing design, the common, and over riding denomination being economy of fuel consumption. La Belle, she had to import all her fuel, minimising consumption was a priority, hence the development of the 06.20.30/45 engine , and the 12 litre, to the exclusion of the V8 08.35.40.

For the Regie Renault having control of both Saviem, (Renault, Latil, et Somua), and the overblown teenager, (in behaviour), Berliet was a quandary…who should lead?..Saviem, (with its tie with German MAN produced lorries 30% cheaper per unit than Berliet, and held 45% market share in 75. Berliet exported 40% of its production, held 40% market share in 75, employed six times the personnel of Saviem and contributed 30% more in fiscal dues to the exchequer…no wonder the politicians kept the two separate, (and fighting for market share)…

Yes the Regie Renault did look at the BL side of Leyland, (and they were not alone), but as Tomdhu says the cream was Jaguar, and Land Rover. I understand that the offer made included the rights to produce the TL Serie 12 Renault as well as the Charbonneaux design T 16 range, (but this was a mid 60s design, that ran up to the `80s). Plus access to the small diesel market…surely a good option for the BLMC side. The Sherpa was of interest, mainly as an export replacement for the Estafette Van range. This was later born out by the success of the Sherpa in the Italian market. When I was in Milan, the Sherpa was Leylands spearhead in the market, and very well accepted, (even over the Hanomag/Mercedes.)

But coming back to Leyland, and in particular the fixed head .500 serie. In one of my barns I have a really nice tandem axle trailer that was built by a very active Leyland Dealer, the late Ralph Ferrie`s Brownhills Commercials. It was designed to carry two, “broken” fixed head .500s up to the north, to return with two “good uns”!. It worked 7 days a week, behind a Sherpa van. Yet somehow the customers were not placated, maybe it was warranty procedures, or maybe it was Dealer attitude. Other manufacturers have had quality problems, yet none seem to have destroyed their market base as Leyland did…Why??

Later, in another life I ran, and had my own money invested in Letlands, T45s, Freighters, and RoadRunners. Not just a few, yet I found the product good, certainly on a par with anything else on the market, and the cost per mile to operate was quite reasonable…in fact with 12 TL12 engine T45s they worked out considerably cheaper than the equivalent F10 Volvo on my fleet. Residuals were lower, but front end cost was lower as well!

But the question that really “bugs” me,( and perhaps Tomdhu can lay to rest), is why when AEC were so well represented in Europe, and so well respected, both in the Benelux, and in France with Willeme, (as well as BMC)…why did that die…and take down Willeme as well? Leyland with Hotchkiss…really quite a joke!

Would really like to know your opinions…

Back to a (largish), Bollinger…

And to remember those quite delightful AEC engine Willemes, (with Berliet Willeme “had” the 6x4 Chantiers, (Construction), market…they may have been designed for 26 tonnes gtw 6x4s…but most used 26 tonnes as a minimum payload…back in the 70s!

Cheerio for now.

Marvelous post Saviem, and my how it has stirred the memory cells. I will rake over the coals of my fading recollections and see if I can find an answers to the AEC/Europe fiasco.

Such a pity that most of my contemporaries who joined us from Southall are no longer with us or I havn’t heard from in 40 years. Names such as Pete Mountford (RIP) and Rodney Hollands (RIP) spring to mind along with Robin Nunley, Jurek Piasecki, John Zeigler, John Priestman, Bob Bowley and Cliff Ewing. The others on the Leyland side include such well known names as Graham Montgomerie and Doug Jack.

Incidentally, Doug and I, at weekends, used to kick the tyres on well used double deckers and negotiate a price before driving them up to Fife where a well known bus operator used to use them on contract work. We would fly back on the Sunday to Manchester to resume our regular day job at Leyland.

From what my AEC sources told me Donald Stokes pulled the plug on the AEC / European ventures and from what both Tomdhu and I have written then there were two diametrically opposed viewpoints about European market potential between Southall and Leyland. The loss of European business caused plenty of discord between the two managements. Given Donald Stokes’ undoubted record of success as an Export Sales Manager it does seem to have been a strange decision by him.

gingerfold:
From what my AEC sources told me Donald Stokes pulled the plug on the AEC / European ventures and from what both Tomdhu and I have written then there were two diametrically opposed viewpoints about European market potential between Southall and Leyland. The loss of European business caused plenty of discord between the two managements. Given Donald Stokes’ undoubted record of success as an Export Sales Manager it does seem to have been a strange decision by him.

I’d guess it would have been a simple decision based on the European operations’ actual effects on the balance sheet.IE were they making money or were they a liability in terms effort v reward.On that note the European roads were relatively full of the usual Continental manufacturers’ products,especially in their respective domestic markets.While anything AEC or Leyland would have been the very rare exception.While Stokes obviously wasn’t applying any double standards in that regard between either Leyland or AEC marketing policy.

Added to which would have been the political pressures in that Europe had to pay its way out of its war debts in the form of building up its own industries and buying the products made by them.I’d imagine all the respective automotive industries being an important part of that.IE post war Europe was no place for the analogy of exporting coal to Newcastle or Yorkshire and the Brits were never going to,or even be allowed to,take the required market share from the major European manufacturers.While the Ergo/Marathon/T45 cabs and best shot of the 760/TL12 engine,let alone the 500,were never going to cut it even they could.

The difference is that the European governments and customer base knew it unlike ours.To the point of the contradiction in throwing loads of tax payers’ cash at the domestic industries.While at the same time leaving the door open to mass imports of the products made by those industries. :bulb: :unamused: :frowning:

I think that there is some truth in what you say if you consider the truck models of both AEC and Leyland, which were both behind European offerings for driver comfort and acceptability. But both AEC and Leyland had considerable pan-European success with passenger vehicle chassis which in many cases were superior to local offerings. Consider Portugal, whilst not a large country by population, it was a lucrative market for AEC and AEC totally dominated the Portuguese passenger transport market, and it also supplied most of the medium weight and heavy truck market. Also both companies in the 1950s and early '60s had success with loose engine sales to various European chassis assemblers, as confirmed by Saviem in his posts. Also factor in the engine technology licensed to Barrerios (Spain), DAF, and Scania in the 1950s, amongst others, then maybe there were potential missed opportunities in Europe later in the 1960s. Whilst this is a truck related forum we have to remember that both AEC and Leyland were major well respected players in passenger vehicles for many years It would be interesting to learn if passenger vehicles profit margins were better than truck profit margins in the export markets.

The key point in that comparison seems to be that European manufacturing capabilities and resulting technological advance and market saturation,during the relevant key period IE mid/late 1960’s- early1980’s,was a different world.Compared to the previous period 1950’s-early 1960’s when there was probably plenty of room for both AEC and Leyland to take the required market share to make their respective export operations financially viable.On that note many of those previous co operative ventures,such as with DAF among others,obviously came back to bite Leyland Group later having just helped to provide for and even accelerate the technological capability of its competitors. :bulb:

Which seems a similar situation to our case but in reverse.Whereby we were using US engine and transmission technology ( Detroit/Allison ) to take market share from US manufacturers like Oshkosh in its domestic and export markets. :open_mouth: Sometimes the decision making process of the commercial world,especially in the case of the contradiction between state subsidised industries without protectionist trade policies to go with it,just seems to make no sense.With Leyland Group and UK government obviously not being alone in that. :bulb: :wink:

Evening all,

Exciting day at the local, (newly re invested and reopened), hospital. Great news…Ive only got Rheumatoid Arthritis…told them that about 8 months ago!..(but they did not believe me)!..having been quizzed about my alcohol consumption, and lifestyle…(I work B hard), …“oh no you cannot at your age” quoth the medic from south of our shores!..so I end up with a bloomin great needle pushed without any ceremony into my rear end, and then the ignomy of being handed a “customer satisfaction” form to fill in before I left…If they can find a fluent French speaker to translate…then I hope they have a knowledge of Norman French Factory obscenities…if I have spelled them correctly…always a problem of mine spelling that is!

Tomdhu, the late Graham Montgomerie, the “Mad Monk” as we knew him, (on account of his hairs performance in high winds)…and wherever we tested lorries there were high winds! Grahame had a knack of taking complex information, processing it, and putting it onto paper in the most logical and easily understood terms. Also he was not bad behind the steering wheel, and you could make him laugh!

Graham wrote the most concise, factual, and clear piece on the Maxi-Couple theory, and its execution in the Berliet 12 litre range of engines that any European Journalist ever expounded. It was so good that I sent a copy to my ultimate boss, Francois Zanotti the joint head with Vincent Grobb of Renault Vehicules Industriels, the result was an instruction to afford Graham, and Commercial Motor every assistance in researching or writing about the products of RVI! To my knowledge no other journalist from anywhere in Europe ever received such an accolade…even my very great friend the late Pat Kennett, but Pat was always looking for a story, and his analysis of product was ruthless…and sometimes this totally clinical approach actually favoured the products of Leyland, because his analysis was free of “gossip, and ineuendo”.

In my brief discourse in my last post regarding Berliets “clean sheet” disasters…I omitted the greatest one…perhaps the true parallel with Leyland and the .500 serie…the Berliet 825 V8 first fitted into the TR300 under the redoubtable KB2400 serie cab, (destined for a 27 year life)…unlike the explosive, un reliable power plant. So bad that it would have finished lesser manufacturers, but access to Citroen/Michelin`s coffers, (plus those of the state), saw this lemon emerge as the creamy smooth intercooled MIVS 08 35 40 some 7 years later.

Perhaps its cash reserves, and sticking with the product, and vitally compensating the operator that counts in the long term…but it bought Berliet to its knees financially, and almost into the arms of Fiat, (or Volvo, who were desperate for the KB 2400 cab), and then forced into a partnership and managerial control of the Regie Renault, via its subsidiary Saviem.

Somehow Leyland never managed this bounce back, the 500 serie lost them credibility, maybe the Guy and Scammell products should have been killed off sooner, (look at Mercedes with Henschell, MAN with Bussing/OAF, and Fiat with Unic/OM, Lancia), or perhaps these were smaller mergers to cope with, both in terms of production volume and market share.

Interesting, and stimulating thought provoking scenarios…Im away to a large Bollinger to contemplate them!

Cheerio for now.

Saviem:
Evening all,

…even my very great friend the late Pat Kennett, but Pat was always looking for a story, and his analysis of product was ruthless…and sometimes this totally clinical approach actually favoured the products of Leyland, because his analysis was free of “gossip, and ineuendo”.

One only has to examine the wonderful regular column Pat Kennett ran in Truck & Driver magazine during the early '80s. He was clearly a Leyland man through and through. His exploits in the provinces and colonies as a Leyland trouble-shooter intrigued and entranced readers at the time. You will already be aware of my respect for Pat Kennett through my writings about the ERF NGC ‘European’. Tomdhu, you must have encountered him during your days in Africa. If we collected all his published memoires together I reckon we’d end up with an extraordinary insight into Leyland’s ventures abroad. :wink: Robert

robert1952:

Saviem:
Evening all,

…even my very great friend the late Pat Kennett, but Pat was always looking for a story, and his analysis of product was ruthless…and sometimes this totally clinical approach actually favoured the products of Leyland, because his analysis was free of “gossip, and ineuendo”.

One only has to examine the wonderful regular column Pat Kennett ran in Truck & Driver magazine during the early '80s. He was clearly a Leyland man through and through. His exploits in the provinces and colonies as a Leyland trouble-shooter intrigued and entranced readers at the time. You will already be aware of my respect for Pat Kennett through my writings about the ERF NGC ‘European’. Tomdhu, you must have encountered him during your days in Africa. If we collected all his published memoires together I reckon we’d end up with an extraordinary insight into Leyland’s ventures abroad. :wink: Robert

Hi Robert,

Yes, Pat Kennett had a fine reputation and I really enjoyed your appreciation of him in your post in January last year. I would have met him in the early 70’s but frankly wasn’t able to put a face to the name until I looked him up on Google Images. Our paths would rarely have crossed as I think he went on fairly protracted travels to Latin America and then I was travelling regularly from ‘71 to ‘75 before going overseas long term.

I think he came to International from the domestic side and later specialised in South America where he was part of the team that comprised Mike Burke, Cliff Ewing and Louis Portman.

In terms of transport journalists who visited my patch, there were two who came out in 1983 and wrote an article in “Buses”, an Ian Allen publication. I think they may have been part time free lancers out on holiday who were surprised to see double deckers there which had been imported second hand from the UK.

Pat lived just at Ogston, Derbys, which is just few miles from me and didn’t make old age alas. He used to do the vintage commercial commentary at our local steam rally. I remember him saying that he couldn’t master the Foden 12 speed box, he had one on test for a couple of days and never managed a decent gearchange!

Pete.

windrush:
Pat lived just at Ogston, Derbys, which is just few miles from me and didn’t make old age alas. He used to do the vintage commercial commentary at our local steam rally. I remember him saying that he couldn’t master the Foden 12 speed box, he had one on test for a couple of days and never managed a decent gearchange!

Pete.

He mastered it in the end though! He wrote a learned article in T&D in '87 comparing all the old-school gearboxes and wrote at some length about the 12-speed Foden. Cheers!

Roberrt