Could Triumph Motor Company survive independantly?

MatthewB

Banned
These threads got me thinking....

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-triumph-was-not-bought-by-standard.446788/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...riumph-motorcar-company-not-the-bikes.370129/

Instead of British Leyland acquiring Standard-Triumph in 1960, can Triumph remain an independent entity? They’ve just launched the Herald, and they have some very good cars then in development, including the TR4, Spitfire, 1300 and 2000.

In my view the company had way too many models during the 1960s and 1970s, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Motor_Company#Post_war

Could Triumph have survived on only three types, TR4, 1300 and 2000? This would mean closing all but one Triumph factory.
 
Last edited:
Could Triumph have survived on only three types, TR4, 1300 and 2000? This would mean closing all but one Triumph factory.

I'm still skeptical that it would. First, there's political headwinds, the obvious job preservation at those factories and the (not unreasonable) push for consolidation. Then there's the structural issues that are going to be in the British car industry no matter what. Maybe if the fledgling BMW collapses entirely (as it almost did IOTL) and the demand for "sport-luxury" cars is still there, it's a gap that Triumph can fill, but even that is the sort of thing that can only happen once.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Perhaps Massey-Fergerson buys them? I'm okay ITTL with a non-competitor buying part or all of Triumph. I’m just seeking a viable Triumph car company without merging with another British car firm.

What’s the better open sports car strategy? TR4, Spitfire or Stag? Assuming that the Stag’s cooling issues are addressed.
 
Last edited:
These threads got me thinking....

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-triumph-was-not-bought-by-standard.446788/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...riumph-motorcar-company-not-the-bikes.370129/

Instead of British Leyland acquiring Standard-Triumph in 1960, can Triumph remain an independent entity? They’ve just launched the Herald, and they have some very good cars then in development, including the TR4, Spitfire, 1300 and 2000.

In my view the company had way too many models during the 1960s and 1970s, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Motor_Company#Post_war

Could Triumph have survived on only three types, TR4, 1300 and 2000? This would mean closing all but one Triumph factory.

It was Leyland Motor Company that acquired Triumph, not British Leyland which came into being after later merging with BMC.

Both the following two links give some insight as to events at Triumph prior to the former being acquired by Leyland.

https://www.aronline.co.uk/history/the-rover-triumph-story/1959-brave-new-world/
https://www.aronline.co.uk/history/the-rover-triumph-story/1960-expansion/

IMHO it seems the UK under the Conservative Government of Harold Macmillan was engaged in a policy of trying to push industry into expanding in areas of high unemployment and social deprivation, basically forcing carmakers to build factories outside of their industrial heartland in the Midlands to areas with no history of car building and strike prone union workers. That is one factor which would have prevented Triumph remaining an independent carmaker since it was forced to build the Speke plant in Merseyside, that would in OTL go on to have the worst production record in the whole of the British Leyland group. The Rootes Group would also be a victim of this UK policy in being forced to build the Linwood plant.

Perhaps Triumph being allowed to expand more locally in or near the Midlands instead of being forced to build a plant in Speke would have partially helped matters to some extent in realizing its expansion plans.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Or Triumph goes bankrupt, thus escaping the obligations to maintain both over capacity and low quality production. A new buyer takes over the firm, but keeps just the profitable bits.
 
It seems the answer is no on Triumph surviving independently, with Leyland being their life-line and even allowing them to thrive prior to the formation of BL (Triumph just needed to ditch plants like Speke, along with a possible ATL two term Premiership by Rab Butler in place of Eden and Macmillan to potentially butterflied away the latter's devastating OTL policy for the British Car Industry).

The above links are part of a multi-part history series on the Rover-Triumph story. - https://www.aronline.co.uk/history/the-rover-triumph-story/
 
IMHO it seems the UK under the Conservative Government of Harold Macmillan was engaged in a policy of trying to push industry into expanding in areas of high unemployment and social deprivation...
Memories of conditions soldiers returned from the Great War to and later the Great Depression ran deep.
 
Memories of conditions soldiers returned from the Great War to and later the Great Depression ran deep.

In retrospect forcing established British Carmakers to build plants in such areas was the wrong move to take, a better approach would have been to encourage foreign / multi-national (e.g. Ford, Vauxhall / GM, etc) / new carmakers or other industries to set-up shop in those areas.

Or perhaps even encourage new industries or sacrificial companies to be establish in said areas so others could survive, such as changing laws via a post-war POD to make the UK microcar segment more like Japan's Kei Car class (for other industries to diversify into as opposed to limiting the segment to 3-wheelers sans reverse-gear) or establish Roy Fedden's proposed post-war Fedden Cars as a state-owned/co-operative UK People's Carmaker (and make-workers paradise).

Shame that the Stagg didn't use the excellent Rover (Buick) V8. It's a conversion that many current Stagg owners still carry out to this day.

Triumph invested too much time and money that ditching the Stag V8 would have been uneconomic, especially since it was related to the Slant-4 with both being ultimately being costed down under British Leyland to their detriment during development. Additionally the cancelling of the Stag V8 would have also made Triumph even less autonomous within BL and there being less justification in producing the costed down Slant-4 thereby damaging the brand's prestige in the event BL still comes into being (in which case Triumph would have been discontinued in favour of Rover much earlier compared to OTL), because the only other engine Triumph were working on was the PE166 6-cylinder in OTL (and an unbuilt 4-cylinder version of the PE166 to replace the unreliable Slant-4 during the 1970s).
 

MatthewB

Banned
Shame that the Stagg didn't use the excellent Rover (Buick) V8. It's a conversion that many current Stagg owners still carry out to this day.
The timing was close, but didn’t line up. Triumph merged with Rover in 1968, and development of the Stag project and its V8 was well underway to meet its 1970 introduction. Yes, the smarter move would have been to delay if necessary and use the Rover motor, but it takes good and confident management to change strategy and stop throwing good money after bad. The British car industry was short of those managers.

Interestingly, today, Stags with their original engines are more valued than the Rover conversions. Here in Ontario the Triumph club puts on a British car show every September http://www.torontotriumph.com/BCD/. At the show you can tell which Stags have the Triumph engine as they have their hoods open and engines on display. The owners tell me that with modern-day improved cooling the Stag V8 is a fine motor.

My favourite V8 British is neither the Rover or Triumph, but the Daimler, if only for what it might have been. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_V8_engines. Once British Leyland was in place the conglomerate owned the rights to all three V8s. Of course the Rover was the best, given by its wide use, turnability and longevity.
 
In retrospect forcing established British Carmakers to build plants in such areas was the wrong move to take, a better approach would have been to encourage foreign / multi-national (e.g. Ford, Vauxhall / GM, etc) / new carmakers or other industries to set-up shop in those areas.
Rootes is the prime example with their having to ship engines down from Scotland to the Midlands to be machined before being sent back up, but if they had set up machining facilities at Linwood to be more self-contained is there then much difference between it and the foreign/multi-national companies?


... or establish Roy Fedden's proposed post-war Fedden Cars as a state-owned/co-operative UK People's Carmaker (and make-workers paradise).
Out of interest was Stoke Orchard the only site discussed for the proposed plant or were other locations considered do you know? I'm not sure why but Herefordshire or the East Anglia region are ringing faint bells, although that could just as easily be a misfiring synapse what with my less than great memory. :)
 
Rootes is the prime example with their having to ship engines down from Scotland to the Midlands to be machined before being sent back up, but if they had set up machining facilities at Linwood to be more self-contained is there then much difference between it and the foreign/multi-national companies?

The foreign/multi-national carmakers had the fallback option of factories on the continent in the event subversive unions in UK factories decided to hold strikes (or vice versa e.g. Ford of Germany, Opel), in fact after the UK joined the ECC many of the imports by the late-70s onwards was coming from Ford and GM via factories on the continent.

Of the UK carmakers Morris could have potentially had a factory on the continent pre-WW2, had they acquired a larger French carmaker like Cottin & Desgouttes, Rochet-Schneider or De Dion-Bouton (to potentially become their version of Simca) instead of Léon Bollée* in OTL (where William Morris was basically manipulated into acquiring a small provincial factory that never regained its footing after WW1 as the result of the late founder's beguiling yet eccentric widow Charlotte without doing any research, since the company featured a second rate workforce and no dealership network with all the best people gone to the big carmakers and garage trade).

Later BMC had an opportunity to acquire Borgward given the alleged OTL interest BMC had, so BMC could have effectively had two factories in Europe to source production from in the event of strikes like both OTL Ford and GM. Thereby avoiding their OTL situation (especially after the formation of British Leyland) of multiple single points of failure in their production network stemming from a strike at a single plant impacting other factories / etc despite the duplication of many production facilities in the UK.

*- Apparently Madame Bollée was burdened with the factory upon the death of her husband, and when William Morris and few others visited "she fell around neck and cried on his shoulder, and every time she cried, up went the price" "Eventually he bought it..." (in Morris: The Cars and The Company by Jon Pressnell)

Out of interest was Stoke Orchard the only site discussed for the proposed plant or were other locations considered do you know? I'm not sure why but Herefordshire or the East Anglia region are ringing faint bells, although that could just as easily be a misfiring synapse what with my less than great memory. :)

Stoke Orchard appears to be the only proposed Wolfsburg-like site mentioned both online as well as in Bill Gunston's book Fedden - The Life of Sir Roy Fedden.

Fedden during his time at Leyland in the 1950s did suggest Leyland should have invested in building a larger commercial diesel engine for a wide range of applications as well as a new Leyland development laboratory beside the London Transport Depot at Borehamwood, only to be undermined by Stanley Markland prompting Fedden to quit though remaining on good terms with Henry Spurrier.

In Leyland's case and relevant to Triumph after the former acquired the latter, would have been to build on its links with Saab (e.g. the Saab / Triumph Slant-4), who were at the time merging with Scania to form Saab-Scania. As in retrospect it was a missed opportunity for two truck manufacturers, both outside the ECC at the time and both knowing or realizing (or should have realized in Leyland's case) that to survive they needed to become significant players in its truck and bus markets.

With the odd POD (e.g. Leyland acquiring a debt-free successfully expanded Rootes Group sans Singer, which is quickly renamed Leyland and slots below Triumph and Jaguar) it could be the case of ATL Leyland actually being in a position to acquire Saab-Scania (where Saab's reputation for over-engineered cars rubs off on the rest of Leyland), instead of Saab being acquired by General Motors.
 
Last edited:
The timing was close, but didn’t line up. Triumph merged with Rover in 1968, and development of the Stag project and its V8 was well underway to meet its 1970 introduction. Yes, the smarter move would have been to delay if necessary and use the Rover motor, but it takes good and confident management to change strategy and stop throwing good money after bad. The British car industry was short of those managers.

Interestingly, today, Stags with their original engines are more valued than the Rover conversions. Here in Ontario the Triumph club puts on a British car show every September http://www.torontotriumph.com/BCD/. At the show you can tell which Stags have the Triumph engine as they have their hoods open and engines on display. The owners tell me that with modern-day improved cooling the Stag V8 is a fine motor.

My favourite V8 British is neither the Rover or Triumph, but the Daimler, if only for what it might have been. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_V8_engines. Once British Leyland was in place the conglomerate owned the rights to all three V8s. Of course the Rover was the best, given by its wide use, turnability and longevity.

The idiot engineers managed to get both the head tightening sequence wrong and the torque settings on an engine they designed.
 
(where Saab's reputation for over-engineered cars rubs off on the rest of Leyland)

I well remember a TV documentary of many, many years ago, that had an Austin/Morris guy admonishing a Rover guy - 'ah you Rover people, worry too much about quality, what we need is quantity'!
History, shows him the error of his ways - quality is not a cost, it's a business advantage.
 
I well remember a TV documentary of many, many years ago, that had an Austin/Morris guy admonishing a Rover guy - 'ah you Rover people, worry too much about quality, what we need is quantity'!
History, shows him the error of his ways - quality is not a cost, it's a business advantage.

The Rover SD1 would end up embodying the values of the Austin/Morris guy instead of its over-engineered Rover P6 predecessor. It is both funny and sad to see that pre-BL Rover once had the same reputation for over-engineered cars as Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, etc.
 

MatthewB

Banned
With the odd POD (e.g. Leyland acquiring a debt-free successfully expanded Rootes Group sans Singer, which is quickly renamed Leyland and slots below Triumph and Jaguar) it could be the case of ATL Leyland actually being in a position to acquire Saab-Scania (where Saab's reputation for over-engineered cars rubs off on the rest of Leyland), instead of Saab being acquired by General Motors.
SAAB never made money for General Motors and ended up bankrupt, same as Leyland.

 
SAAB never made money for General Motors and ended up bankrupt, same as Leyland.


Aside from the overlap issue between Triumph and Rover (which could have been rectified had Henry Spurrier retired later / lived long enough for Jaguar's William Lyons to opt for joining a close friend at Leyland Motors instead of BMC), OTL Leyland Motors minus BMC was a very viable concern that could remained independent as opposed to British Leyland.

Otherwise agree that bringing to heel Saab would be a challenge even for a wanked ATL Leyland Motors, though Leyland in OTL did a good job bringing order to Triumph after acquiring Standard-Triumph.
 
Here's an idea

Triumph originally hooked up to Honda to produce their version of the Accord called the Acclaim which funnily enough while in production got the Triumph company a top ten seller.

How about instead of the OTL . . . Triumph expends the hook up and co-op with Honda to expand it's range such as the Legend series . . . which originally turned into the Rover Sterling/800 series and the smaller Honda platformed 200/400 series and 600 series.

This would then allow Austin to continue with the Metro/Maestro and Montego's until they hooked up with say . . . . Nissan or got bought out by Ford '80's who were after the K series engine.

As for Rover, their hook up with BMW happens earlier also, around the mid '80's as not only do BMW buy Rover but also Land Rover. This allows Rover to produce a range of cars based on the 3/5 & 7 Series platforms.

Don't know if that would work

Regards filers
 
Here's an idea

Triumph originally hooked up to Honda to produce their version of the Accord called the Acclaim which funnily enough while in production got the Triumph company a top ten seller.

How about instead of the OTL . . . Triumph expends the hook up and co-op with Honda to expand it's range such as the Legend series . . . which originally turned into the Rover Sterling/800 series and the smaller Honda platformed 200/400 series and 600 series.

This would then allow Austin to continue with the Metro/Maestro and Montego's until they hooked up with say . . . . Nissan or got bought out by Ford '80's who were after the K series engine.

As for Rover, their hook up with BMW happens earlier also, around the mid '80's as not only do BMW buy Rover but also Land Rover. This allows Rover to produce a range of cars based on the 3/5 & 7 Series platforms.

Don't know if that would work

Regards filers

The likes of Triumph, Austin and Rover were no longer independent due to being under British Leyland in OTL, so it would have been impossible for each marque to complete deals with Honda, Nissan and BMW respectively (and it would have not been in either 3 carmaker's interest in agreeing to such a deal).

The following link on the Triumph Acclaim story gives some background as to which suitable competitors would a) BL like to cooperate with, b) not feel engulfed by and c) had a suitable mid-sized car in development (there was even a feasibility study on a potential collaboration with General Motors known as Project Gimbal).
 
Last edited:

MatthewB

Banned
Here's an idea. Triumph originally hooked up to Honda to produce their version of the Accord called the Acclaim which funnily enough while in production got the Triumph company a top ten seller.

How about instead of the OTL . . . Triumph expends the hook up and co-op with Honda to expand it's range such as the Legend series . . . which originally turned into the Rover Sterling/800 series and the smaller Honda platformed 200/400 series and 600 series.

This would then allow Austin to continue with the Metro/Maestro and Montego's until they hooked up with say . . . . Nissan or got bought out by Ford '80's who were after the K series engine..
But we’re not addressing the premise. Triumph as you describe above is not independent. And Austin, Metro/Maestro and Montego has nothing to do with Triumph beyond perhaps badge engineered parts sharing.
As for Rover, their hook up with BMW happens earlier also, around the mid '80's as not only do BMW buy Rover but also Land Rover. This allows Rover to produce a range of cars based on the 3/5 & 7 Series platforms.
And how does an earlier Rover and BMW hook up concern Triumph’s viability as an independent firm?
 
Top