1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
IN YOUR OPINION
Page 121
Page 122
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Transport Not All Theory
WITH reference to the remarks I made at the Fleet Management Conference at Dunblane, I would like to stress that, in addition to those printed, I also mentioned that I agreed with the C-licence manager that they should have equal status to the other departmental managers. Also, whilst you stated that I deprecated the advance of theorists, I did mention that I personally felt a practical man was the best choice for manager, supported by a first-class accountant or secretary.
The only reason I spoke was to draw attention to the fact that transport was not all theory, as the most successful men in transport over the past 30 years would not claim any educational attainments, and had they listened to theorists probably they would still have been operating a few vehicles. These men had initiative, drive, worked long hours and knew what could be done. No one doubts that there is a place for the theorist in modern transport and that his intellectual approach would be of great benefit, but it will he a sorry day for the transport industry if theorists alone ever run it.
Ackworth, Yorks. F. L. JOLLY, Group Manager, Ackworth Transport Co. Ltd.
Reasons for Swing to Leyland
I HAVE been following the correspondence regarding the .1 near-monopolistic position of the Leyland group with some interest over the past weeks. However, I feel that many of the writers have been influenced by personal prejudice rather than by business sense, and I think it is time that a few relevant facts were brought to light to show why there has been the swing to Leyland products.
It must be agreed that, since the appearance of the solitary AEC Regent IV in the late 1940s, AEC double-deck design has lagged in comparison with almost every other manufacturer of double-deck vehicles.
It may be argued that, in addition, some 2,000 Routemasters have been built, but the components manufactured by AEC for this vehicle fall far short of the quantity necessitated by a complete chassis, especially when it is remembered that many Routemasters have Leyland engines. The only other double-deck types produced by AEC have been the Bridgemaster and the Renown. Less than 500 of these have been produced altogether, and the obvious reluctance of operators to buy these vehicles, especially Bridgemasters, seems to indicate that these designs were again found wanting.
Allowing the facts as given above, unless AEC had a realistic rear-engined double-decked chassis—that is, one with a transversely mounted engine—in a very advanced state of development, there was no point in the Leyland Motor Corporation encouraging the costly design and production of a chassis which would have to be very similar indeed to the already-established Atlantean.
An analysis of The Commercial Motor census of vehicles in service and on order shows that there are far more Atlanteans than Fleetlines with both municipal and company operators, and orders by the municipalities for the Atlantean are still well in advance of those for the Fleetline. But the gap is not proportionately so large as is that of actual vehicles in service. Orders for BET and THC companies show, however, that the Atlantean has almost completely been excluded by the Fleetline, and I think the explanation for this disparity is financial.
The case of the Renown and Lowlander is different again. These designs, and the Bridgemaster, were produced by demand of the operators who could not obtain the Bristol Lodekka but wanted its advantages.
Leyland took its two low-height designs out of production when the Lodekka was announced for the open market—surely proof that the Corporation is not ousting all other makes for the sake of its own name, as the only concession to the Leyland interest in Bristol Commercial Vehicles in the Loclekka is the option of having a Leyland 0.600 engine installed—or does Mr. Kellett think we should have an AEC Lodekka and an AEC Atlantean? I'm afraid that a double-deck version of the Swift is highly unlikely; the basis of any double-decked chassis design is extreme accessibility of the engine, hence the "bustle ". This has sufficiently proved its accessibility to encourage five municipalities to order single-deck vehicles which utilize Atlantean or Fleetline chassis, one municipality the former and the other four the latter.
Finally, whilst I do not think there is any likelihood of the Leyland Motor Corporation having a complete monopoly in the near future, its contribution to this country's economy must not be forgotten. If one or two of the now moribund manufacturers had gone overseas for orders instead of leaving these markets to German, Swedish and, latterly, Japanese manufacturers, there would probably be no need for the recent letters decrying Leyland's nearmonopoly. By their vital and progressive approach to salesmanship, as well as design, Leyland has rightly achieved its premier position in the p.s.v. industry; surely sour grapes is not the reward that they should receive for their efforts. Harrogate. M. H. HEARD.
Leyland Monopoly Survey Needed ?
I WOULD like to add to Mr. Kellett's letter on the I AEC/Leyland controversy, published in the November 12 issue. There appears to have been a concerted attempt of late by the Leyland Motor Corporation to remove all competition between its subsidiaries in the p.s.v. field with the sole exception of the Panther/Swift. I hope that the following evidence will show that this has been achieved predominantly at the expense of AEC. The Renown has been withdrawn from production, together with the Lowlander, in favour of the Gardneror Leyland-engined Bristol Lodekka and therefore no AECpowered vehicle of this type is now available. The Regent V is now offered with the 7.75or 113-litre engine only, so no competition now exists between the Regent V and the 9-8-litre-engined Leyland Titan. Thus many operators who have standardized on the AEC 9.6-litre engine in its various post-war forms are now forced to use an engine which is either too large or small for their requirements or, as many operators have done, to buy the 0.600 powered Titan, which has an engine which most consider to be about the optimum size for a double-decker. This position need not have come about if the AV505 had been offered in the Regent V. According to your recent road test of the Swift, the AH505 (and therefore, I presume, the AV505) is a refined engine with a high power-to-weight ratio; and, from the report in The Commercial Motor of November 12 concerning the fitting of AV505 units to London Transport's 1966 RMLs, the power setting would seem to be right for a double-decker. Is it feared that an AV505-enginecl Regent V would be too much competition for the PD2/PD3? The Commercial Motor has perhaps been more alive to the threat of a Leyland monopoly in the p.s.v. manufacturing industry rather than wallowing in the complacency of many other journals on this issue. I feel sure that as the buyers' choice has now been limited so severely, the Monopolies Commission would be more than interested in making an investigation into the matter and maybe a survey of your own would help. Twickenham, Middlesex. DAVID D. KIRK. [THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS NOW CLOSED.—ED.]