This pic was sent to me this morning. For those who have speculated that ERF might have done better to make RHD NGCs for the domestic market, this reverse/negative image of a standard LHD cab interior gives a good impression of what that might have looked like for the driver! Robert
robert1952:
0
I wonder what the EEC had to do with ERF’s decision not to sell the things to GB customers? Can anyone think how that would have worked?
[zb]
anorak:robert1952:
0I wonder what the EEC had to do with ERF’s decision not to sell the things to GB customers? Can anyone think how that would have worked?
Yes, I too baulked at that but decided it was possibly just a spot of woolly thinking. Nonetheless, I have written a letter to Heritage Commercial as follows:
Dear Sir
With reference to your piece, Building the ‘European’ in the December issue, I was interested in DA Oulton’s response to Ed Burrows’s article about ERF NGCs.
Firstly, Mr. Oulton’s memory of the conversation between Peter Foden and a customer wishing to order ‘a good few’ UK-spec ERF NGCs and being refused that request answers the question, ‘was a UK-spec NGC considered?’ but still leaves the question of ‘why not?’ unanswered.
Secondly, Mr. Oulton expresses a valid opinion that the cab probably needed to be developed and upgraded. However, he would have been aware that the B-series Euro-spec SP sleeper cab was under development at that time and that it would eventually replace the 7MW-cabbed NGC in 1977. Although the B-series’s SP cab was more sophisticated, it is arguable that the NGC was still a significantly more comfortable unit to drive. In fact, the picture attached was taken by me just after I’d parked the NGC there and I know which I’d rather drive!
I’d be genuinely interested to know more about his knowledge of the making of those NGC ‘Europeans’, and as I am well into writing my third book about this model in the Lorries of Arabia series (published by Old Pond), Mr. Oulton is just the sort of person I rejoice in interviewing.
Yours faithfully,
(etc).
The editor emailed me only this morning to say that he would print the letter.
Cheers! Robert
robert1952:
John West:
Oh for a diary and a camera! When you’re young you’re never going to be old and anyway, who cares!My memories of Falconfreight are of giving a casual wave somewhere between Riyadh and Jeddah at someone who was probably a Brit!
Oh how I wish I could have thought that somewhere in the future I might want to recall those moments…
John
Happy New Year John! Do you remember their ERFs? They were usually pulling trailers loaded with cement as far as I understand it. Robert
Hi Robert, happy new year to you too. I missed this.
Sorry, my memories of Falconfreight are just vague. I do remember that they had blue ERFs, but that’s it. I can’t recall a single incident of talking to their drivers, although I well may have done.
John.
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:robert1952:
0I wonder what the EEC had to do with ERF’s decision not to sell the things to GB customers? Can anyone think how that would have worked?
Yes, I too baulked at that but decided it was possibly just a spot of woolly thinking. Nonetheless, I have written a letter to Heritage Commercial as follows:
Dear Sir
With reference to your piece, Building the ‘European’ in the December issue, I was interested in DA Oulton’s response to Ed Burrows’s article about ERF NGCs.
Firstly, Mr. Oulton’s memory of the conversation between Peter Foden and a customer wishing to order ‘a good few’ UK-spec ERF NGCs and being refused that request answers the question, ‘was a UK-spec NGC considered?’ but still leaves the question of ‘why not?’ unanswered.
Could it have been a type approval issue ?.IE all the expense of obtaining another seperate type approval ticket.For what might effectively then have been seen as a ‘different’ vehicle to the ‘European’ in terms of chassis and driveline specs.While if not assuming a lower UK spec could that have destroyed the existing type approval ticket of the ‘proper’ European.In addition to which was there possibly any EEC quotas,regarding the use of imported US engines and drive lines,assuming that the 335 and its matching 9 speed Fuller weren’t available from the existing domestic ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ production facilities in the day ?.
John West:
John.
OK John - thanks! If you remember blue ERFs, they were probably C.A.M.E.L.'s lorries. Falcon Freight’s were cream. Cheers, Robert
Carryfast:
Could it have been a type approval issue ?.IE all the expense of obtaining another seperate type approval ticket.For what might effectively then have been seen as a ‘different’ vehicle to the ‘European’ in terms of chassis and driveline specs.While if not assuming a lower UK spec could that have destroyed the existing type approval ticket of the ‘proper’ European.In addition to which was there possibly any EEC quotas,regarding the use of imported US engines and drive lines,assuming that the 335 and its matching 9 speed Fuller weren’t available from the existing domestic ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ production facilities in the day ?.
Don’t think there was Type Approval in the early 1970s. I remember reading about its coming, but that would have been late '70s or even '80s. If they were selling LHD lorries legally on the Continent, how could the EEC stop them selling RHD ones in GB anyway?
robert1952:
John West:
John.OK John - thanks! If you remember blue ERFs, they were probably C.A.M.E.L.'s lorries. Falcon Freight’s were cream. Cheers, Robert
You’re right Robert, I’m getting my camels mixed up with my falcons!
John
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Could it have been a type approval issue ?.IE all the expense of obtaining another seperate type approval ticket.For what might effectively then have been seen as a ‘different’ vehicle to the ‘European’ in terms of chassis and driveline specs.While if not assuming a lower UK spec could that have destroyed the existing type approval ticket of the ‘proper’ European.In addition to which was there possibly any EEC quotas,regarding the use of imported US engines and drive lines,assuming that the 335 and its matching 9 speed Fuller weren’t available from the existing domestic ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ production facilities in the day ?.Don’t think there was Type Approval in the early 1970s. I remember reading about its coming, but that would have been late '70s or even '80s. If they were selling LHD lorries legally on the Continent, how could the EEC stop them selling RHD ones in GB anyway?
The general framework of type approval regs seems to have been already in place and probably well into operation by the time we joined in 1973 thereby affecting the NGC from day 1 ?.
jonesco-plastics.com/pdf/cv/ … 56-EEC.pdf
On that note as a member state possibly even at that time anything sold for registration here still had to comply with any possible EEC type approval directives applying when we joined in this case 70/156 ?.In which case would any type approval certificate obtained for the NGC have remained valid assuming the ‘type’ under went any serious chassis modifications to reduce unladen weight to viable levels for dedicated 32t gross operation and possibly engine and driveline alterations such as naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or Gardner power and lower spec transmission for example.Bearing in mind the regs possibly wouldn’t have allowed for such a wide discrepancy in spec within the same ‘type’ ?.
IE to meet the regs it would possibly have meant submitting the ‘UK’ spec ‘European’ for its own seperate type approval certification.
Such a theory might explain what was being referred to,in the correspondence,as having been over heard between Peter Foden and the potential UK spec NGC customer.All depending on exactly what the customer was actually requesting Peter to supply of course. 
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Could it have been a type approval issue ?.IE all the expense of obtaining another seperate type approval ticket.For what might effectively then have been seen as a ‘different’ vehicle to the ‘European’ in terms of chassis and driveline specs.While if not assuming a lower UK spec could that have destroyed the existing type approval ticket of the ‘proper’ European.In addition to which was there possibly any EEC quotas,regarding the use of imported US engines and drive lines,assuming that the 335 and its matching 9 speed Fuller weren’t available from the existing domestic ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ production facilities in the day ?.Don’t think there was Type Approval in the early 1970s. I remember reading about its coming, but that would have been late '70s or even '80s. If they were selling LHD lorries legally on the Continent, how could the EEC stop them selling RHD ones in GB anyway?
The general framework of type approval regs seems to have been already in place and probably well into operation by the time we joined in 1973 thereby affecting the NGC from day 1 ?.
jonesco-plastics.com/pdf/cv/ … 56-EEC.pdf
On that note as a member state possibly even at that time anything sold for registration here still had to comply with any possible EEC type approval directives applying when we joined in this case 70/156 ?.In which case would any type approval certificate obtained for the NGC have remained valid assuming the ‘type’ under went any serious chassis modifications to reduce unladen weight to viable levels for dedicated 32t gross operation and possibly engine and driveline alterations such as naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or Gardner power and lower spec transmission for example.Bearing in mind the regs possibly wouldn’t have allowed for such a wide discrepancy in spec within the same ‘type’ ?.
IE to meet the regs it would possibly have meant submitting the ‘UK’ spec ‘European’ for its own seperate type approval certification.
Such a theory might explain what was being referred to,in the correspondence,as having been over heard between Peter Foden and the potential UK spec NGC customer.All depending on exactly what the customer was actually requesting Peter to supply of course.
I’m sure there was no such palaver with the Ford Transcon, which was an NGC contemporary. That was another 42-tonner with an almost identical driveline that was simply down-plated according to the rules of the country of operation. All those models had, in any case, high design weights leaving broad margins for leeway. ERF wouldn’t have needed to fuss with lower-powered NGCs for domestic use: they already had the 5MW for that! Robert
I think type approval came into force on 1st Oct 1982. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong .
Here’s a useful link:
legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001 … 025_en.pdf
Robert
robert1952:
I’m sure there was no such palaver with the Ford Transcon, which was an NGC contemporary. That was another 42-tonner with an almost identical driveline that was simply down-plated according to the rules of the country of operation. All those models had, in any case, high design weights leaving broad margins for leeway. ERF wouldn’t have needed to fuss with lower-powered NGCs for domestic use: they already had the 5MW for that! Robert
I’d guess in this case we would possibly be dealing with the perfect storm of a fleet type customer asking for the more advanced cab of the NGC and an unladen weight suitable for 32t gross operation together with the usual low power options of the day. As opposed to the small and specialised in the day domestic market for the big power full fat Transcon/TM and NGC types.
Which then leaves the question of any possible type approval issues to add to that in the case of the one size fits all Transcon and NGC,at least compared to the numerous poverty spec options available in the TM range.If not the obvious suggestion would have to be that we had a derogation over 70/156 for a number of years after joining which I can’t find any confirmation of ?.
On that note I’d doubt if Peter Foden would have had any issues in that regard if he’d have just been asked to just provide a rhd 42 tonner ‘European’ for domestic fleet use. 
At least unless there were EEC import quota issues applying to imported US engines and drivelines bearing in mind that I don’t think that ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ domestic production operations could meet those specs at that time in that their big power options,at that time,were strictly US imports ?.
In view of all those possibilities,the supposed over heard details contained in the correspondence, ring true to me without evidence to the contrary. 
Carryfast:
robert1952:
I’m sure there was no such palaver with the Ford Transcon, which was an NGC contemporary. That was another 42-tonner with an almost identical driveline that was simply down-plated according to the rules of the country of operation. All those models had, in any case, high design weights leaving broad margins for leeway. ERF wouldn’t have needed to fuss with lower-powered NGCs for domestic use: they already had the 5MW for that! RobertI’d guess in this case we would possibly be dealing with the perfect storm of a fleet type customer asking for the more advanced cab of the NGC and an unladen weight suitable for 32t gross operation together with the usual low power options of the day.
Which then leaves the question of any possible type approval issues to add to that in the case of the one size fits all Transcon and NGC,at least compared to the numerous poverty spec options available in the TM range.If not the obvious suggestion would have to be that we had a derogation over 70/156 for a number of years after joining which I can’t find any confirmation of ?.
On that note I’d doubt if Peter Foden would have had any issues in that regard if he’d have just been asked to just provide a rhd 42 tonner ‘European’ for domestic fleet use.
In view of all those possibilities,the supposed over heard details contained in the correspondence, ring true to me without evidence to the contrary.
If we go back to the overheard conversation, it is probably much safer to assume that all he wanted was ERFs fit for Continental work but with RHD. Huge numbers of lorries then and for long after, ran abroad with RHD rather than LHD. Many drivers preferred them - that was what they were used to and it was more convenient when doing domestic work between big trips. Operators would have found them easier to sell on with RHD. This was always a matter of preference. I can’t see that there would have been any point in marketing a dumbed-down RHD NGC when the domestic market was already covered: they would surely have been for UK-Continental operators. Cheers, Robert
robert1952:
If we go back to the overheard conversation, it is probably much safer to assume that all he wanted was ERFs fit for Continental work but with RHD. Huge numbers of lorries then and for long after, ran abroad with RHD rather than LHD. Many drivers preferred them - that was what they were used to and it was more convenient when doing domestic work between big trips. Operators would have found them easier to sell on with RHD. This was always a matter of preference. I can’t see that there would have been any point in marketing a dumbed-down RHD NGC when the domestic market was already covered: they would surely have been for UK-Continental operators. Cheers, Robert
That scenario could only be a case of Peter Foden effectively turning away good business without good reason all to avoid the minimal costs of a rhd steering position development/option to meet justified demands of the domestic market ?. Although possibly maybe it could be explained by the bean counters putting pressure on him to steer domestic demand into the B series instead ?.
Either explanation doesn’t seem to make much commercial sense if that’s what happened. 
Carryfast:
robert1952:
If we go back to the overheard conversation, it is probably much safer to assume that all he wanted was ERFs fit for Continental work but with RHD. Huge numbers of lorries then and for long after, ran abroad with RHD rather than LHD. Many drivers preferred them - that was what they were used to and it was more convenient when doing domestic work between big trips. Operators would have found them easier to sell on with RHD. This was always a matter of preference. I can’t see that there would have been any point in marketing a dumbed-down RHD NGC when the domestic market was already covered: they would surely have been for UK-Continental operators. Cheers, RobertThat scenario could only be a case of Peter Foden effectively turning away good business without good reason all to avoid the minimal costs of a rhd steering position development/option to meet justified demands of the domestic market ?.
Either explanation doesn’t seem to make much commercial sense if that’s what happened.
Well, you could be right on both counts. Though there might have been some reason: lack of space, for example. We know from other accounts I have reported, that they found producing Euro-spec lorries in small numbers to be expensive and not very productive. Probably bit off more than they could chew! Robert
DEANB:
Cant remember if this one has been on here before ?
That’s a new one, Dean! Possibly taken by Ben Schaap himself, as it has a nipper in front of it. It’s in his own livery and has its pre-registration number so it’s probably quite new in the picture. I think the trailer of Konig, Rotterdam. It eventually became Trans Arabia 126. Nice one! Robert
DEANB:
Do we know if the Belgium operator Transport Delcon moved onto NGCs ?0
I very much doubt it, mate. From I remember they had about ten of those - a mixture of 3MW and 5MW cabs - but fell out with ERF over warranties and things that didn’t quite work out. I can’t remember the details but it’s all documented on the LHD ERFs with 5MW cabs thread! Robert