ERF-Continental:
Last weekend Alexander got a confirmation that the ‘mysterious’ NGC on the CDB-yard IS a demonstrator.
Sales manager Michel Hansquine from CDB and also living in Mechelen added to him that this tractor was
on a semi-lease to customers for demonstrations. It was registrated with a (green on white) traders-plate
which was covered here on the accompanying picture. Those plates started with ZZA.111 towards …
Score till now is 11 NGCs for both Holland and Belgium…when the second Damco GG (NL) and the Wagner
from Gosselies-Charleroi (B) are excluded in this number.
Useful information, A-J, and thanks to Alexander for solving the mystery. At least we can now label that unit as ‘CDB demonstrator’ instead of ‘Red & white with Savoyarde’! And we can place among the Belgian crop.
I recently finished reading Where’s Sharawrah? By Gordon Pearce (Old Pond Publishing). I’ve put it on this thread because it gives considerable insight into the work of Trans Arabia, who also travelled the roads described within.
What a fabulous little book! If you are sick of the absurdly over sensationalised documentaries about trucking that currently proliferates on the TV, then this is like a breath of fresh air. Quietly told, Gordon’s tales of driving on ‘internals’ in Saudi Arabia in the ‘70s are filled with information, insight and the real-life adventure of Middle-East trucking. An excellent read!
And here’s another new and excellent book. I made detailed reference to its favourable comments on the ERF NGC a couple or so of posts back. A bit of a ‘must’ for ERF buffs I’d say! Robert
…speaking of books…does the book on CUNARD (CAMEL=Cunard Arabian Middle East Line) rings
bells concerning the ERF NGC- and B-series in KSA? Nothing to do with P&O as previously stated!!!
ERF-Continental:
…speaking of books…does the attached book on CUNARD (CAMEL=Cunard Arabian Middle East Line) rings
bells concerning the ERF NGC- and B-series in KSA? The book is out of print for some years…
By sheer coincidence, I found this book a couple of weeks ago in a second-hand bookshop. It was very comprehensive indeed, but it didn’t mention the C.A.M.E.L. operation at all, or anything even related to it! I was really surprised. Robert
Wow, well it’s a very rare copy…it should be more accessible on ebay or so, don’t know what the price
was and it should put a light on CAMEL, shouldn’t it?
robert1952:
Towards the end of the introduction to my next book, Lorries of Arabia 2: ERF NGC (hopefully due out in spring), I make a strong case for the NGC being ERF’s main long-haul tractive unit built for purpose at the time. I attempt to show that it was certainly not a ‘stop-gap’ between the 3MW and the B-series, not least because the B-series was a replacement for the A-series (not the NGC), was only offered with a day cab and comparatively low-powered engines and because ERF didn’t bring out the LHD big sleeper cab until ’77 when they terminated the NGC.
I am delighted to see that Patrick Dyer, in his new book ERF B, C, CP & E-series, makes the same point and backs it up with more evidence. On pages 11 and 24 he makes it quite clear that the B-series day cab was not designed to be turned into a sleeper (just as the A-series wasn’t). He also makes it clear that it wasn’t even designed to be taken on cross-channel trips, let alone exported to the continent. Basically, it was a very good shopping trolley in its original concept.
Robert
Has this not been discussed before? I have recollections of a post which mentioned some (possibly German) legislation which disqualified the SMC-panelled SP from that market, so ERF had to carry on with the Motor Panels cab in Europe, hence the development of the 7MW. Was the legislation not relaxed, allowing the 1977 B series sleeper access to the European market? The obvious sensible strategy would have been to spread the new SP design over all markets, but something forced ERF down the route of developing the 7MW. Either way, the Motor Panels cab was already an old design by 1973- I doubt ERF relished the prospect of using it to compete with Europe’s best much after 1977.
robert1952:
Towards the end of the introduction to my next book, Lorries of Arabia 2: ERF NGC (hopefully due out in spring), I make a strong case for the NGC being ERF’s main long-haul tractive unit built for purpose at the time. I attempt to show that it was certainly not a ‘stop-gap’ between the 3MW and the B-series, not least because the B-series was a replacement for the A-series (not the NGC), was only offered with a day cab and comparatively low-powered engines and because ERF didn’t bring out the LHD big sleeper cab until ’77 when they terminated the NGC.
I am delighted to see that Patrick Dyer, in his new book ERF B, C, CP & E-series, makes the same point and backs it up with more evidence. On pages 11 and 24 he makes it quite clear that the B-series day cab was not designed to be turned into a sleeper (just as the A-series wasn’t). He also makes it clear that it wasn’t even designed to be taken on cross-channel trips, let alone exported to the continent. Basically, it was a very good shopping trolley in its original concept.
Robert
Has this not been discussed before? I have recollections of a post which mentioned some (possibly German) legislation which disqualified the SMC-panelled SP from that market, so ERF had to carry on with the Motor Panels cab in Europe, hence the development of the 7MW. Was the legislation not relaxed, allowing the 1977 B series sleeper access to the European market? The obvious sensible strategy would have been to spread the new SP design over all markets, but something forced ERF down the route of developing the 7MW. Either way, the Motor Panels cab was already an old design by 1973- I doubt ERF relished the prospect of using it to compete with Europe’s best much after 1977.
The German legislation is definitely relevant and should be factored into this discussion. Yes, various contributors reminded us of that legislation and I mentioned it in my book somewhere. I seem to remember reading somewhere else that the SP cab didn’t fall foul of those regs because it wasn’t just made out of fibreglass. I’ll hunt back through the thread… Robert
Thanks again for your dogged attempts to dig up the history, Robert! I cannot see the sense in ERF’s having all of those cabs at once (5/6MW, 7MW and SP, all launched in 1973/4), even allowing for British eccentricity. Some time between about 1970 and 1973, I suspect, a discrete mistake was made, or something changed in the circumstances.
[zb]
anorak:
Thanks again for your dogged attempts to dig up the history, Robert! I cannot see the sense in ERF’s having all of those cabs at once (5/6MW, 7MW and SP, all launched in 1973/4), even allowing for British eccentricity. Some time between about 1970 and 1973, I suspect, a discrete mistake was made, or something changed in the circumstances.
I have a hunch your hunch is right! In the meantime, I have located our previous discussion about the German legislation contained on page 68 of this thread. Basically, it kicks off with you wondering about the German legislation, then me linking it to the book, then John3300 telling us that the legislation didn’t come in till 1978, me challenging the date and John3300 backing up his claim with first-hand experience (empirical evidence of sorts). Finally, you wondered how the B-series got round this. I suspect the composition of the panels, which more than satisfied EEC crash tests may have won the day there. So, it would seem that the German legislation factor may no longer be relevant after all. Robert
ERF-Continental:
…speaking of books…does the attached book on CUNARD (CAMEL=Cunard Arabian Middle East Line) rings
bells concerning the ERF NGC- and B-series in KSA? The book is out of print for some years…
By sheer coincidence, I found this book a couple of weeks ago in a second-hand bookshop. It was very comprehensive indeed, but it didn’t mention the C.A.M.E.L. operation at all, or anything even related to it! I was really surprised. Robert
Hi Robert
Not surprised at no mention of Camel - it was there first venture into transport pushed by there Saudi agent and then the move into the Yemen which turned real bad move for them.
Cunard freight was sold and merged into Mearsk line who own Pentiliver transport which start as Bowmer and Murrel in Cannock early 1970s owned by 2 chaps whos first contract was with me in Birmingham on the Seawheel/Dart contract where I first came into touch with S Jones and in turn Joined them to set up Trans Arabia
Cunard is a very old and real shipping company ( my mother was the housekeeper of the finance director back in the 1930’s and her family had connections with the white star line owner that started in Maryport ■■■■■■■■ they are not involved with freight anymore
ERF-Continental:
…speaking of books…does the attached book on CUNARD (CAMEL=Cunard Arabian Middle East Line) rings
bells concerning the ERF NGC- and B-series in KSA? The book is out of print for some years…
By sheer coincidence, I found this book a couple of weeks ago in a second-hand bookshop. It was very comprehensive indeed, but it didn’t mention the C.A.M.E.L. operation at all, or anything even related to it! I was really surprised. Robert
Hi Robert
Not surprised at no mention of Camel - it was there first venture into transport pushed by there Saudi agent and then the move into the Yemen which turned real bad move for them.
They are very old and real shipping company ( my mother was the housekeeper of the finance director back in the 1930’s and her family had connections with the white star line that started in Maryport ■■■■■■■■ they are not involved with freight anymore
Cheers
Ken b
That fits, Ken. The book is mostly about the glossy, posh passenger fleet with a nod at container traffic. If they had their fingers bitten in the Red Sea they’d want to keep that a bit quiet! Cheers, Robert
[zb]
anorak:
Thanks again for your dogged attempts to dig up the history, Robert! I cannot see the sense in ERF’s having all of those cabs at once (5/6MW, 7MW and SP, all launched in 1973/4), even allowing for British eccentricity. Some time between about 1970 and 1973, I suspect, a discrete mistake was made, or something changed in the circumstances.
I have a hunch your hunch is right! In the meantime, I have located our previous discussion about the German legislation contained on page 68 of this thread. Basically, it kicks off with you wondering about the German legislation, then me linking it to the book, then John3300 telling us that the legislation didn’t come in till 1978, me challenging the date and John3300 backing up his claim with first-hand experience (empirical evidence of sorts). Finally, you wondered how the B-series got round this. I suspect the composition of the panels, which more than satisfied EEC crash tests may have won the day there. So, it would seem that the German legislation factor may no longer be relevant after all. Robert
Here’s another quote from John that helps to quell the plastic vs metal theory:
3300John » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:58 pm Fodenway i agree with s39 Foden fibre glass cabs one peice but needed more refining. you see in 1978 europe banned fibreglass cabs that why erf started using injection moulded plastic glued onto a steel frame for the B series. John 3300John
If the SP was designed like it was to overcome European anti-fibreglass legislation, the introduction of the 7MW is even more difficult to explain. Why not just wait for a year, until the SP was available, assuming that the introduction of the Europe-friendly sleeper version could have been brought forward to the 1974 launch date? All of that could have been planned in. I guess that the SP would have taken about 3-4 years to develop, the 7MW about half that, so the strategy for both products would have been decided around 1970-71.
I reckon ERF was unsure that the SP would pass future European legislation, even if the design of it was aimed at that goal. Instead of putting its capital into all versions of the SP cab, it hedged its bets by diverting some of the budget into modernising the Motor Panels cab. The 3/4/5/6MW, after all, was hopelessly outdated even in 1968, when everyone else was launching walk-through tilt cabs. If there was a small chance the Germans (or whoever) would outlaw the SP design-possibly on the grounds of fire safety, who would have known?- ERF’s European dream would have been over. The 7MW was the safe short-term option, while the sleeper version of the SP could be funded and developed at a more leisurely pace.
Just my guesswork, to explain the apparently inexplicable!
If the SP was designed like it was to overcome European anti-fibreglass legislation, the introduction of the 7MW is even more difficult to explain. Why not just wait for a year, until the SP was available, assuming that the introduction of the Europe-friendly sleeper version could have been brought forward to the 1974 launch date? All of that could have been planned in. I guess that the SP would have taken about 3-4 years to develop, the 7MW about half that, so the strategy for both products would have been decided around 1970-71.
I reckon ERF was unsure that the SP would pass future European legislation, even if the design of it was aimed at that goal. Instead of putting its capital into all versions of the SP cab, it hedged its bets by diverting some of the budget into modernising the Motor Panels cab. The 3/4/5/6MW, after all, was hopelessly outdated even in 1968, when everyone else was launching walk-through tilt cabs. If there was a small chance the Germans (or whoever) would outlaw the SP design-possibly on the grounds of fire safety, who would have known?- ERF’s European dream would have been over. The 7MW was the safe short-term option, while the sleeper version of the SP could be funded and developed at a more leisurely pace.
Just my guesswork, to explain the apparently inexplicable!
That sounds the like the most logical explanation.But it seems to contain the obvious flaw that satisfying legislation was one thing.But the guarantee of widespread general customer acceptance,bearing in mind the gathering pace of development of the all steel competition,was another.Everything says to me go for the SA 400 cab type ERF NGC mk 2 also with RHD option in that regard.
If the SP was designed like it was to overcome European anti-fibreglass legislation, the introduction of the 7MW is even more difficult to explain. Why not just wait for a year, until the SP was available, assuming that the introduction of the Europe-friendly sleeper version could have been brought forward to the 1974 launch date? All of that could have been planned in. I guess that the SP would have taken about 3-4 years to develop, the 7MW about half that, so the strategy for both products would have been decided around 1970-71.
I reckon ERF was unsure that the SP would pass future European legislation, even if the design of it was aimed at that goal. Instead of putting its capital into all versions of the SP cab, it hedged its bets by diverting some of the budget into modernising the Motor Panels cab. The 3/4/5/6MW, after all, was hopelessly outdated even in 1968, when everyone else was launching walk-through tilt cabs. If there was a small chance the Germans (or whoever) would outlaw the SP design-possibly on the grounds of fire safety, who would have known?- ERF’s European dream would have been over. The 7MW was the safe short-term option, while the sleeper version of the SP could be funded and developed at a more leisurely pace.
Just my guesswork, to explain the apparently inexplicable!
This is a good theory IMO. And yes the 5MW was already hopelessly out of date (if fun to drive) even as the Belgians were testing it. However, ERF already had that long-standing relationship with Motor Panels to fall back on. John3300’s missive, quoted by me a couple of posts up, suggests that rather than being a Germany issue it was more of an EEC legislation change in 1978. Coincidentally, I notice that 1978 was when the new ISO description for lorries came out. ERF would have been wise then, to hedge their bets in the face of EEC (not just German) regulations. Robert
If I am right (or partly right), ERF would have heaved a corporate sigh of relief, when it became clear that the SP was suitable for future European legislation. Imagine if such a small British firm was to be saddled with the cost of developing an all-steel cab to compete with the F10 et al. Where would they have gone for assistance? The 7MW would have needed a complete new interior and some restyling, and even then it would have been considered behind the times, I would imagine. The other Motor Panels cab was being used at the other end of Sandbach, so that was out of the question, without an even more radical restyle! Leyland, Bedford and Seddon Atkinson owned the other British sets of tools for a big cab, and they were not in the habit of letting a competitor use their bits, so that leaves a Ford-style foreign shopping trip.
[zb]
anorak:
Seddon Atkinson owned the other British sets of tools for a big cab, and they were not in the habit of letting a competitor use their bits, so that leaves a Ford-style foreign shopping trip.
That was the question which I raised did SA actually have exclusive rights to the outsourced MP supplied 400 type cab.If not badge engineered shared cab design wasn’t unknown among European manufacturers with the win win situation of the more users of it the greater the economies of scale and therefore more competitive the price.
