Wonderful progress meanwhile and very informative input!!!
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
robert1952:
The first ERF ‘European’ was a LHD 5MW-cabbed tractive unit. Here is what ERF had to say about it in their in-house magazine CHASSIS (issue No. 20).That article contains the all evidence,regarding the case which I’ve made,concerning the contradiction caused by the massive gap between the demands of the UK market as opposed to the Euro one.It was a gap which the domestic manufacturers were never going to be able to sustain being that they needed to be selling those ‘Euro market’ type products here instead of trying to work with it in the form of producing one type of superior product for the so called ‘euro market’ and one type of inferior product truck for the backward domestic market.Without that harmonisation of the two markets the domestic manufacturers didn’t stand a chance firstly in being able to compete on equal terms with their European rivals.Nor when those rivals eventually took advantage when the demands of the domestic market did start to harmonise with the demands of the European one.Simply because trying to satisfy that inherent contradiction had left the domestic manufacturers too far behind in terms of development and investment.
Complete blx. The report form the Belgian assembler states that the only black mark the 5MW tractor units incurred was for leaks and draughts in the cab, with was addressed by ERF before the 7MW took over. The rest of the contributors to this thread, from all sections of the industry, have already agreed that the venture stalled due to a lack of dealer coverage in Germany and Southern Europe. It was nothing to do with the specification of the European vehicles or ERF having strong demand for its lower-specification, older designs in its home market. If anything, ERF’s ability to engineer vehicles which were well-regarded in both markets is proof that you are wrong.
Hey Anorak, you have right as good as the lorrry is you need service. And espcially importent is the need for a good covered network in France and gemany and maybe Spain and Italy. Of course In Spain and Italy no marque had a good network of the closed markets.What was a problem too was unknowness of ■■■■■■■ engines. OK after war till mid '60’s we had a lot of ■■■■■■■ enginedlorries. But old mechanicans retired and the younger were more usual to work on common engines with a normal Bosch system. Again I have no experience of the ERF’s but what we neeeded was Bosch, Hella and other German parts on it.
Even French parts were never accepted as Paris Rhône,Paul Dahl and so on, Even the first FH wasn’t good accepted with its Lucas and other parts. But soon Volvo moved again to Bosch and so on.
Bosch has everywere service stations but other ■■?. And maybe ERF used Unifeed insteed of Metric■■?
This are all small things but very important. To the sevice points again where were their,Bussels is not far.
But in a small country we aren’t used to drive 100km far to get parts.
Why has Scania opened a service point in Courtrai,most were not inclined to drive to Vanhool for parts so they opened in every county a service point. THat was a point why Automiesse never well sold here in Flanders.
Look nowadays service point are more and more close to their customers so more points,and the trucks has become much better NO yes. So Daf gained lots of hauliers only in West flanders 3 service point,you had never to drive further as about 20km for service,and they were first with aEuropian ITS service. Break down no problem,a look at the chassis number and the certificate of registration and servicing began.
That’s only my opinion and experience,we never got that from Volvo or Scania Always the question we need money first and the DKV marque card was not Always a sureness.
Cheers Eric,
@Eric/Tiptop:
Nice remarks…bear in mind though that Scania was also of Denonville (from 1949-1979) and appointed
Universel Autos in Gent and (quite right) later in Kortrijk while other counties had coverage meanwhile.
That makes it strange to expect that every operator was actually bound to go to Brussels for spares, as to
my opinion for example Van den Bulck in Antwerp didn’t had a wide variety in spare-parts themselves, as
you know Van den Bulck was then Scania-dealer. Just an idea that’s strange…Van Steenbergen themselves
carried quite a spare-parts-stock not able to afford first a route to Brussels and then a route to help/repair
when (often) in Germany. A-J
To be correct and clear…Ets. A. Denonville (30-40 Rue Portaels, Brussels) formed ■■■■■■■ Distributor
Belgium S.A. in 1960, then having business-activities (better) splitted into Scania-Vabis (since 1969 the
addition Vabis was left behind), White, Autocar and last but not least ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ for automotive,
marine and construction for which they have been appointed importer since 1936 till 2005 when ■■■■■■■
took over this business under own umbrella again with a site in Mechelen, not to be confused with the
European Distribution Centre along the A1/E19. Older people often spoke about Denonville as the various
directors for responsible for Scania, White, Autocar, ■■■■■■■ and since 1969-1970 also ERF were family.
Origins of Denonville were active in automative since 1922! Ford, Indiana, Federal and their own Denonville
Diesel of which a picture is shown here earlier. A-J
There are two pictures of NGC 420s in Burkhard of Switzerland colours (see below). I’m not certain whether Burkhard had one ERF or two. Anyone know the answer? Robert
@Robert: nice pictures, I have no clue if Burkhard had one or two, the livery reminds me
that it may be an -ex-demonstrator? A-J
robert1952:
Here is how I see the ERF NGC 420’s entry into Europe.
The NGC 420 ‘European’was revealed at the Brussels Motor Show on 19thJanuary 1973 and was produced until 1977: almost five years. At first it was only marketed as an export model to European operators, otherwise it might have seen more recognition as ERF’s ‘flagship’ unit. However, it wasn’t announced that the NGC 420 would also be made available to UK hauliers until it was exhibited alongside the new B-series at Earls Court in October 1974. British-registered examples then began to appear in early 1975.
I can account for about 70 units. As many of them changed hands, a fully accurate figure is not easy to ascertain (see my earlier list). The NGC 420 was conceived by ERF designer, Jack Cook along with his team. It was a purpose-built long-hauler, designed for international haulage just as Britain was entering the European Common Market and operators were looking for tractive units suitable for continental work. Importantly, it had a full sleeper cab that could be tilted to 68 degrees. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) meant that complete trucks could be delivered to the Continent without the need to deliver them in ‘completely knocked-down kit’(CKD) form to avoid high import duties, as had been the case with export 5MW-cabbed units. At the same time, the Middle-East boom was really getting under way and fantastic opportunities were opening up for the more adventurous driver and operator. This was an interesting period in the history of British road-transport.
In some ways the NGC 420 ‘European’ was quite unique. For a start, it was only built as a left-hand drive unit — probably the only British model ever to be so. As far as I can work out, it was the only Europe-built model to be offered with the combination of LHD and 9-speed Fuller as standard (rather than optional). It was also unique in that it was designed primarily as a long-hauler,
In that description can be seen the flaw in the British manufacturers development policy which wasn’t of their own making or choosing.Within a few years what was ( erroneously ) considered as just ‘specialist international long haul’ specification was ( rightly ) being increasingly seen as being the norm for domestic operations too.IE the idea of around 10 bhp per tonne using the ■■■■■■■ engine and Fuller driveline combination for both the domestic and export markets should have been the target for both export and domestic sales during the period described.While as history shows the European export market was never going to be able to sustain the rate of development and levels of investment required.While in terms of it’s demands was probably more of a liability than an asset to the idea of the typical Brit wagon,based on American engine and driveline components being that there was an obvious divergence in the Euro market away from anything that was American based.The future of the UK truck manufacturing industry was effectively dependent and tied to the domestic market.Trying to export into Europe,in order to compensate for the backward demands at home,and then opening our own market to the European competition when the domestic market eventually came to it’s senses,was a suicidal policy from the Brits point of view.
tonyj105:
robert1952:
ERF-Continental:
@3300John:this is the calor gas LHD ■■■■■■■ 335 5MW as painted when new by my dad, operated out of higham ferrers until it was sent to work out of calor in, i believe , rotterdam .really was an impressive motor, i got my hands on one in later years but it was only a ■■■■■■■ 220 , but still a really nice truck to drive.
Tonyj/Saviem: good the mystery on the Coulier is now solved and can be archived in the proper registers! Thank you, genuine research and checking!
A-J
tiptop495:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
robert1952:
The first ERF ‘European’ was a LHD 5MW-cabbed tractive unit. Here is what ERF had to say about it in their in-house magazine CHASSIS (issue No. 20).That article contains the all evidence,regarding the case which I’ve made,concerning the contradiction caused by the massive gap between the demands of the UK market as opposed to the Euro one.It was a gap which the domestic manufacturers were never going to be able to sustain being that they needed to be selling those ‘Euro market’ type products here instead of trying to work with it in the form of producing one type of superior product for the so called ‘euro market’ and one type of inferior product truck for the backward domestic market.Without that harmonisation of the two markets the domestic manufacturers didn’t stand a chance firstly in being able to compete on equal terms with their European rivals.Nor when those rivals eventually took advantage when the demands of the domestic market did start to harmonise with the demands of the European one.Simply because trying to satisfy that inherent contradiction had left the domestic manufacturers too far behind in terms of development and investment.
Complete blx. The report form the Belgian assembler states that the only black mark the 5MW tractor units incurred was for leaks and draughts in the cab, with was addressed by ERF before the 7MW took over. The rest of the contributors to this thread, from all sections of the industry, have already agreed that the venture stalled due to a lack of dealer coverage in Germany and Southern Europe. It was nothing to do with the specification of the European vehicles or ERF having strong demand for its lower-specification, older designs in its home market. If anything, ERF’s ability to engineer vehicles which were well-regarded in both markets is proof that you are wrong.
Hey Anorak, you have right as good as the lorrry is you need service. And espcially importent is the need for a good covered network in France and gemany and maybe Spain and Italy. Of course In Spain and Italy no marque had a good network of the closed markets.What was a problem too was unknowness of ■■■■■■■ engines. OK after war till mid '60’s we had a lot of ■■■■■■■ enginedlorries. But old mechanicans retired and the younger were more usual to work on common engines with a normal Bosch system. Again I have no experience of the ERF’s but what we neeeded was Bosch, Hella and other German parts on it.
Even French parts were never accepted as Paris Rhône,Paul Dahl and so on, Even the first FH wasn’t good accepted with its Lucas and other parts. But soon Volvo moved again to Bosch and so on.
Bosch has everywere service stations but other ■■?. And maybe ERF used Unifeed insteed of Metric■■?
This are all small things but very important. To the sevice points again where were their,Bussels is not far.
But in a small country we aren’t used to drive 100km far to get parts.
Why has Scania opened a service point in Courtrai,most were not inclined to drive to Vanhool for parts so they opened in every county a service point. THat was a point why Automiesse never well sold here in Flanders.
Look nowadays service point are more and more close to their customers so more points,and the trucks has become much better NO yes. So Daf gained lots of hauliers only in West flanders 3 service point,you had never to drive further as about 20km for service,and they were first with aEuropian ITS service. Break down no problem,a look at the chassis number and the certificate of registration and servicing began.
That’s only my opinion and experience,we never got that from Volvo or Scania Always the question we need money first and the DKV marque card was not Always a sureness.Cheers Eric,
None of which makes any sense to the UK truck manufacturing industry being that it’s make or break fortunes were ( rightly ) based on use of American engine and driveline componentry.Our industry’s future was more dependent on not bothering with the European market and somehow pushing the domestic market forward by deleting the customer choice of such obsolete zb as Gardner engines and DB transmissions.While at the same time protecting our own industry from Scandinavian and European competition by way of trade barriers.In which of course joining the EU was suicidal from that point of view.Realistically,from the UK industry’s point of view,it was all about the domestic and colonial markets with European exports and service being a non existent priority.
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Here is how I see the ERF NGC 420’s entry into Europe.
The NGC 420 ‘European’was revealed at the Brussels Motor Show on 19thJanuary 1973 and was produced until 1977: almost five years. At first it was only marketed as an export model to European operators, otherwise it might have seen more recognition as ERF’s ‘flagship’ unit. However, it wasn’t announced that the NGC 420 would also be made available to UK hauliers until it was exhibited alongside the new B-series at Earls Court in October 1974. British-registered examples then began to appear in early 1975.
I can account for about 70 units. As many of them changed hands, a fully accurate figure is not easy to ascertain (see my earlier list). The NGC 420 was conceived by ERF designer, Jack Cook along with his team. It was a purpose-built long-hauler, designed for international haulage just as Britain was entering the European Common Market and operators were looking for tractive units suitable for continental work. Importantly, it had a full sleeper cab that could be tilted to 68 degrees. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) meant that complete trucks could be delivered to the Continent without the need to deliver them in ‘completely knocked-down kit’(CKD) form to avoid high import duties, as had been the case with export 5MW-cabbed units. At the same time, the Middle-East boom was really getting under way and fantastic opportunities were opening up for the more adventurous driver and operator. This was an interesting period in the history of British road-transport.
In some ways the NGC 420 ‘European’ was quite unique. For a start, it was only built as a left-hand drive unit — probably the only British model ever to be so. As far as I can work out, it was the only Europe-built model to be offered with the combination of LHD and 9-speed Fuller as standard (rather than optional). It was also unique in that it was designed primarily as a long-hauler,In that description can be seen the flaw in the British manufacturers development policy which wasn’t of their own making or choosing.Within a few years what was ( erroneously ) considered as just ‘specialist international long haul’ specification was ( rightly ) being increasingly seen as being the norm for domestic operations too.IE the idea of around 10 bhp per tonne using the ■■■■■■■ engine and Fuller driveline combination for both the domestic and export markets should have been the target for both export and domestic sales during the period described.While as history shows the European export market was never going to be able to sustain the rate of development and levels of investment required.While in terms of it’s demands was probably more of a liability than an asset to the idea of the typical Brit wagon,based on American engine and driveline components being that there was an obvious divergence in the Euro market away from anything that was American based.The future of the UK truck manufacturing industry was effectively dependent and tied to the domestic market.Trying to export into Europe,in order to compensate for the backward demands at home,and then opening our own market to the European competition when the domestic market eventually came to it’s senses,was a suicidal policy from the Brits point of view.
But was it a policy, Carryfast? Wasn’t it more organic, more hit-and-miss than that? If the Middle-East traffic was anything to go by, the transport of export goods by road evolved from merchant adventurers cornering markets where they could. Any policies would have had to respond to the market conditions (then falling, for Brits in the late '70s)which were not stable. Just a thought. Robert
robert1952:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Here is how I see the ERF NGC 420’s entry into Europe.
The NGC 420 ‘European’was revealed at the Brussels Motor Show on 19thJanuary 1973 and was produced until 1977: almost five years. At first it was only marketed as an export model to European operators, otherwise it might have seen more recognition as ERF’s ‘flagship’ unit. However, it wasn’t announced that the NGC 420 would also be made available to UK hauliers until it was exhibited alongside the new B-series at Earls Court in October 1974. British-registered examples then began to appear in early 1975.
I can account for about 70 units. As many of them changed hands, a fully accurate figure is not easy to ascertain (see my earlier list). The NGC 420 was conceived by ERF designer, Jack Cook along with his team. It was a purpose-built long-hauler, designed for international haulage just as Britain was entering the European Common Market and operators were looking for tractive units suitable for continental work. Importantly, it had a full sleeper cab that could be tilted to 68 degrees. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) meant that complete trucks could be delivered to the Continent without the need to deliver them in ‘completely knocked-down kit’(CKD) form to avoid high import duties, as had been the case with export 5MW-cabbed units. At the same time, the Middle-East boom was really getting under way and fantastic opportunities were opening up for the more adventurous driver and operator. This was an interesting period in the history of British road-transport.
In some ways the NGC 420 ‘European’ was quite unique. For a start, it was only built as a left-hand drive unit — probably the only British model ever to be so. As far as I can work out, it was the only Europe-built model to be offered with the combination of LHD and 9-speed Fuller as standard (rather than optional). It was also unique in that it was designed primarily as a long-hauler,In that description can be seen the flaw in the British manufacturers development policy which wasn’t of their own making or choosing.Within a few years what was ( erroneously ) considered as just ‘specialist international long haul’ specification was ( rightly ) being increasingly seen as being the norm for domestic operations too.IE the idea of around 10 bhp per tonne using the ■■■■■■■ engine and Fuller driveline combination for both the domestic and export markets should have been the target for both export and domestic sales during the period described.While as history shows the European export market was never going to be able to sustain the rate of development and levels of investment required.While in terms of it’s demands was probably more of a liability than an asset to the idea of the typical Brit wagon,based on American engine and driveline components being that there was an obvious divergence in the Euro market away from anything that was American based.The future of the UK truck manufacturing industry was effectively dependent and tied to the domestic market.Trying to export into Europe,in order to compensate for the backward demands at home,and then opening our own market to the European competition when the domestic market eventually came to it’s senses,was a suicidal policy from the Brits point of view.
But was it a policy, Carryfast? Wasn’t it more organic, more hit-and-miss than that? If the Middle-East traffic was anything to go by, the transport of export goods by road evolved from merchant adventurers cornering markets where they could. Any policies would have had to respond to the market conditions (then falling, for Brits in the late '70s)which were not stable. Just a thought. Robert
It was probably a combination of the massive mistake we made in joining the EEC and moving priorities away our old colonial markets when it was obvious that trading with Europe was all going to be one way for us which caused the economic collapse of the mid-late 1970’s.Right to the end of the UK truck manufacturing industry it was obvious that Brit wagons were ( rightly ) tied to and associated with using American components,which was always going to put us at a disadvantage in the European market.But also at an advantage ‘if’ we’d have had more loyalty and advanced thinking from the domestic customers and effective trade barriers and ‘if’ we’d have stayed with those old established colonial export markets instead of trying,and inevitably failing,to break into Europe…
Carryfast:
Blah…Our industry’s future was more dependent on not bothering with the European market and somehow pushing the domestic market forward by deleting the customer choice… Blah…While at the same time protecting our own industry from Scandinavian and European competition by way of trade barriers… Blah
Hahahahaha! You must be the only person on the planet who thinks that that is the way to run an industry. It is as if you have taken the “Export or Die” mantra, thought about it for a bit and chosen the latter option.
No one on here regards your views as anything other than a joke. Why do you bother?
ERF-Continental:
@Eric/Tiptop:Nice remarks…bear in mind though that Scania was also of Denonville (from 1949-1979) and appointed
Universel Autos in Gent and (quite right) later in Kortrijk while other counties had coverage meanwhile.
That makes it strange to expect that every operator was actually bound to go to Brussels for spares, as to
my opinion for example Van den Bulck in Antwerp didn’t had a wide variety in spare-parts themselves, as
you know Van den Bulck was then Scania-dealer. Just an idea that’s strange…Van Steenbergen themselves
carried quite a spare-parts-stock not able to afford first a route to Brussels and then a route to help/repair
when (often) in Germany. A-J
Hey ERF, You have right in what you says about it. But think not every haulier is willing to go to a competitor,it was the same with AEC in Belgium. We here had to go to Bollenberg a haulier in all parts and ways. If you live between or near Bussels or Antwerp that gives less awkward to collect parts and service at ■■■■■■■■
Look may opion is if you collect parts at a haulier and next week he takes one of your customers,it will be difficult next time to go to him for service (only what I think).
Only good service at a good prise and of course a reliable lorry can keep it selling.
Once I went to Courtrai at Scania for a small part needed, if I arrive they we washing their hand so just evening time.
We got the invoice at there was a surplus which was more expensive as the small part. Because they were or thought the be boss in W and East Flanders because they were alone dealers. We moved more and more to Volvo which had 4 independ
dealers. Mind I don’t say that ERF was so bad that you Always needed service and had in some ways a better cab as the Transcon,look at the Transconti a very good beast with nearly the same driveline,but with a very poor service. Only Neyt could sell very well because of the service he delivered around Ghent. And if you had to go to Lokeren from Diksmuide (about 80km) for everything it will fast make you not happy.
Bye Eric,
Let me lead you into a historically murkier area here. We need to keep the distinction between the ERF ‘European’ and the European ERF. Not all LHD ERFs qualified for the ‘European’ status because they were not built to long-haul Continental standards (both running gear and cab). The 7MW-cabbed NGC 420 is simple: they were all LHD and all ‘Europeans’. The 5MWs are much more complicated. LHD versions specc’d for the Middle-East and South America, of which there were very many (at least 100 to Jordan alone, and Dai Davies covers the South Americans in his history of ERF book) were not by any means all ‘Europeans’. In addition, there were plenty of bog-standard UK-spec 5MWs with LHD that went to the Continent: these were not ‘Europeans’ either (the heavy haulage tractors in Belgium, the tippers and tar-sprayers for example). Then there were the tractive units operated by UK hauliers. And this is where I simply don’t know which were specced as ‘Europeans’. Certainly, all the NTC 335-powered examples were ‘Europeans’, like the S Jones / Trans Arabia example pictured below. I’m not sure whether the Beresford Rolls-powered unit with the 10-speed 'box was one, even though you could buy a ‘European’ thus equipped. My guess is that these LHD UK-spec tractors were the ones that drivers called ‘Belgian cabs’ instead of ‘Europeans’. Can anyone tell us for sure whether Beresford’s unit, Partrick’s unit, Cadwaller’s unit or Richard Read’s unit(s) were actually ‘Europeans’. The thick plottens. Robert
.
@ Eric, I agree, thank you for your point of view and info.
By the way, Van den Bulck Freres were Scania- and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ but were ofcourse sober to have
a wide variety of possibly needed spares. What about Gheysen & Verpoort in Menen/Lauwe…besides
the heavy haulage equipment they made, they were also appointed dealer for Scania, the reason I guess
Deman of Lauwe, some 5 miles far, was happy the way this worked out for them.
Probably, every manufacturer (respectively ERF, in relation to ■■■■■■■■ Gardner, Rolls Royce) didn’t
care or share idea’s to multiple eachother’s interest and benefit from their endeavours. As said in by
zzarbean Eric Vick had mutual good reasons to bring over Gardner-spares to Mechelen and in return
some help when falling down somewhere in that area, which was not that often the case. So be proud
on the good quality, one of the benefits that assemblers have to change “rapidly” in case the suppliers
(■■■■■■■■ Gardner, Eaton, ZF etc) come with something new and better.
Have a nice day! Possibly you might be able to help out with more info/pictures of DeMeulemeester in
relation to the given picture of their NGC-tractor? Would help enormously, thanks in advance: A-J
Here’s a better picture of S Jones’s 335-powered 5MW ‘European’ (a MGC 380) that went to Trans Arabia. It was kindly donated by Mick Jones. Mick Jones drove for Trans Arabia: the second pic shows the 5MW in Saudi. By the way, a lot of LHD 5MWs (not ‘Europeans’) went to tanker companies in the Gulf (see Dai Davies’s book). Robert
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blah…Our industry’s future was more dependent on not bothering with the European market and somehow pushing the domestic market forward by deleting the customer choice… Blah…While at the same time protecting our own industry from Scandinavian and European competition by way of trade barriers… BlahHahahahaha! You must be the only person on the planet who thinks that that is the way to run an industry. It is as if you have taken the “Export or Die” mantra, thought about it for a bit and chosen the latter option.
No one on here regards your views as anything other than a joke. Why do you bother?
Ironically in the case of trying to export Brit wagons into a non compatible market place like Europe there wasn’t much of a choice.Maybe you can tell everyone how you’d have re engineered a ■■■■■■■ engine to work with a conventional Bosch type fuel injection system for example. 
Let alone going to all the aggravation of metricating British and American engineering because having to work with different systems was too much for the continentals.No surprise that such issues didn’t apply in the case of Brits having to work with imported Euro engineered vehicles or servicing Euro engines as opposed to ■■■■■■■ ones.The fact is for us the Euro experiment actually turned into Import and Die which anyone with any sense could have told them from the start.
So, apart from left-hand drive, the NGC 420’s other standard features included: a six cylinder, fourteen litre turbo-charged ■■■■■■■ small-cam NTC 335 bhp engine (impressive power in 1973); a nine-speed Fuller RT 9509A (RT 9095 from 1975 onwards) constant-mesh gearbox; ZF power-assisted steering and clutch, a thirteen tonne Kirkstall D85 13.2 heavy duty rear axle with epicyclic hub reduction, a 6.5 tonne front axle and a very well-appointed sleeper cab.
The NGC 420 was a nineteen-tonne unit with a forty-two tonne gross train-weight (GTW). British examples could, of course, only be plated at the maximum permissible weight of thirty-two tonnes. This provided a generous power-to-weight ratio of just over 10 bhp per tonne in the case of the ■■■■■■■ 335, which would certainly have kept the Germans happy. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community looked promising and ERF, along with other manufacturers, expected an increase in permissible weights. They were to be profoundly frustrated because Britain dragged its feet until 1983 when the disappointingly low thirty-eight tonne upper limit was introduced, alas long after the NGC 420 had ceased production. Holland’s regular traffic had long been running at forty-two tonnes, with an upper weight limit of fifty tonnes; so it is not surprising that a significant number of NGC 420s were exported to Belgium and Holland where many of them ran at 50-tonnes GTW. Here they were respected as a well-engineered truck, fit for purpose and comfortable to drive, even before they were made available to UK operators. Robert 
robert1952:
So, apart from left-hand drive, the NGC 420’s other standard features included: a six cylinder, fourteen litre turbo-charged ■■■■■■■ small-cam NTC 335 bhp engine (impressive power in 1973); a nine-speed Fuller RT 9509A (RT 9095 from 1975 onwards) constant-mesh gearbox; ZF power-assisted steering and clutch, a thirteen tonne Kirkstall D85 13.2 heavy duty rear axle with epicyclic hub reduction, a 6.5 tonne front axle and a very well-appointed sleeper cab.
The NGC 420 was a nineteen-tonne unit with a forty-two tonne gross train-weight (GTW). British examples could, of course, only be plated at the maximum permissible weight of thirty-two tonnes. This provided a generous power-to-weight ratio of just over 10 bhp per tonne in the case of the ■■■■■■■ 335, which would certainly have kept the Germans happy. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community looked promising and ERF, along with other manufacturers, expected an increase in permissible weights. They were to be profoundly frustrated because Britain dragged its feet until 1983 when the disappointingly low thirty-eight tonne upper limit was introduced, alas long after the NGC 420 had ceased production. Holland’s regular traffic had long been running at forty-two tonnes, with an upper weight limit of fifty tonnes; so it is not surprising that a significant number of NGC 420s were exported to Belgium and Holland where many of them ran at 50-tonnes GTW. Here they were respected as a well-engineered truck, fit for purpose and comfortable to drive, even before they were made available to UK operators. Robert
Or to put it another way the Brits could provide products that were more than capable of matching the Scandinavian and Euro competition especially when you take into account the fact that the 10 hp per tonne Big Cam ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller combination was available during the mid 1970’s.If only the domestic market had been on board at the time.As for the European ‘market’ being the answer,as history proves no chance.
Many of you will have noticed pictures of HNV 59N, an NGC 420 operated by ■■■■■■■ to pull their mobile training room / hospitality trailer around. It passed to Pountains (anyone got a pic of it in Pountain’s livery?) then to Redcap. It is believed to have had a big cam ■■■■■■■ 290 in it. Well these came on the market after NGC 420s ceased production so I imagine that it was either a prototype, or more likely, it replaced an earlier engine. Perhaps someone knows the story. Eventually, it was scrapped. Miraculously, Mick Jones recorded the scrapping with his camera. Here are some of his shots. Robert
