Out of the bi-lingual (English version with translation in French) parts catalogue
suddenly a 8MW exists…? 1MV/W, 2MV/W, 3MV/W …8MV/W?
Jazzandy:
Sorry to use this thread for a message but need to contact En-Tour-Age urgently with the following :-Hi there En-Tour-Age,
Wonder if you can help me. In the early 70’s I used to have my Mack R600 truck serviced at Van Hove in Brussels before they moved to Kobbegem. I am writing a thread called ‘My First Continental Job’ and I am stuck for the address of their original premises. It was in one of the suburbs but if you can locate it for me I would be very grateful!
Andy
Andy,
First of all my compliments for your realistic/romantic way you write your memoires!
I meanwhile check my archives on Mack and Van Hove so I hope I might be of any assistance
and I also asked some Belgian friends to help out. Alexander doesn’t respond…busy?
A-J
My first remarks on the June 1973 issue and drawings…the mirror-brackets being J-form, no
cab grab-handles…no cab inlet/vent on roof…or just a slip of the drawing table?
I’ve just caught up with this thread as I’ve been off-line for a few days travelling in UK. Wow A-J, that parts catalogue was a brilliant find! I’ll scrutinise it at my leisure.
I have some new images to scan, so when I can scan them I’ll post them here as soon as I can.
Robert 
gone
Here’s one to brighten your day, A-J! I’ve been rummaging through my stuff from storage and I found a few bits and pieces, including the invoice from CDB in Brussels for Eykmann’s NGC unit. Gary Corbishley, who now owns it, kindly let me have a photocopy when I first visited him. Note that it was supplied with the NTC 335 / 13-speed Fuller combination when new (though it is possible that CDB changed the gearbox or even converted the original 9-speed. The factory 9-speed plaque is still attached to the dash-board!). Robert
I know UGE 852R isn’t an NGC, but a right-hand-drive 6x4 with a 7MW cab (that replaced the 5MW one), nonetheless here are a couple of pics of it that haven’t yet appeared on this thread. Robert 
Someone alerted us to the picture of the wrecker on the front cover of REVS magazine a couple of weeks or so ago. I am being bold enough to reproduce the front cover of the magazine here on this thread in the hopes that it might serve as a good advertisement for the REVS society that tries to preserve the ERF heritage and is now celebrating 25 years. Photograph of NGC wrecker by Adrian Cypher. Robert
harry:
0
Very effective - it looks like something out of Mad Max! Robert 
A word about sun visors on my recently posted pics. The picture on the front of the REVS magazine of the maroon wrecker is the only photo I have showing it with a sun-visor. The sun-visor appears to be the factory version. I also notice that it is the only photo with it in full livery. The picture was taken by Adrian Cypher.
I’ve just noticed that the 7MW cab attached to ■■■■ Pountain’s hybrid machine has a non-standard sun-visor! Robert
robert1952:
I stand by what I originally wrote:‘This model had what was essentially an A-series chassis; albeit a highly-developed, very sophisticated, top-of-the-range, left-hand-drive, intercontinental one. When ERF started building ‘Europeans’ with 5MW cabs in 1971 they used the A-series chassis, gave it LHD and modified it to European standards. ERF called it the latest A-series in its Earls Court brochure. This process evolved the following year with the introduction of a heavy-duty version of the chassis which ERF, in its 1972 Earls Court brochure, described as the new A-series configuration. A year later, in 1973, the luxurious tilting 7MW-cabbed version was unveiled with that same ‘new A-series’ chassis (unchanged apart from an improved air-filter system). Throughout this brief evolution ERF was clearly marketing an evolving A-series based tractor.’
I stand y that line about the B-series tractive unit basically having an A-series chassis too. Actually, I got that information from a senior REVS member who has worked on ERFs all his life, and whose information is very reliable. It certainly wasn’t me making ‘assumptions’. If you look at the chassis diagrams of A and B-series 4x2 units you could be forgiven for thinking that there was little difference. The esteemed Pat Kennett in his book World Trucks: ERF wrote this on page 45:
‘With a whole range of new and up-to-date engineering tried and proven in the A-series, it was in 1974 the B-series made its bow. Chassis engineering was based on the A-series with some changes like the chassis frame width which was reduced to 37 inches from 40 inches, mainly to accept the large 12.00 tyres demanded in some applications.’
Robert
We have to make a distinction between tractor units and rigids with a statement like this Robert.
The B-Series four, six and eight wheel rigid vehicles were the first of the type to leave Sun Works to bring the chassis technology of these vehicles up-to-date. It is fact (as I have said before on this thread) that the B-Series chassis, although being based on the concept of A-Series design, is a very different animal in detail. It transmits it’s stresses in an entirely different way to the A-Series, and it took Cooke’s team many months of development to perfect, and it’s differences may not be immediately obvious to operators (or even senior REVS members).
The original Turner A-Series chassis frame was highly successful as a 4x2 tractor unit, but when stretched to even a four wheel rigid exceeded it’s design capabilities. It was never used to replace in production the old Sherratt underslung chassis on rigid vehicles sold to customers. The re-designed chassis used for the B-Series range was suitable, and did replace the old chassis on all home market load carrier chassis, but the original unrevised Turner A-Series chassis was still being used under some export 5MW cabbed units as late as 1977.
Caution should also be exercised in quoting Pat Kennett, although he was the first journalist to test the A-Series from his time with ‘Motor Transport’.
The chassis frame width of all A-Series was 37 inches (940mm). It was the old Sherratt frame that was 40 inches wide, and the width was reduced to accommodate the new outboard rear springs. Nothing directly to do with the tyres.
ERF:
We have to make a distinction between tractor units and rigids with a statement like this Robert.The B-Series four, six and eight wheel rigid vehicles were the first of the type to leave Sun Works to bring the chassis technology of these vehicles up-to-date. It is fact (as I have said before on this thread) that the B-Series chassis, although being based on the concept of A-Series design, is a very different animal in detail. It transmits it’s stresses in an entirely different way to the A-Series, and it took Cooke’s team many months of development to perfect, and it’s differences may not be immediately obvious to operators (or even senior REVS members).
The original Turner A-Series chassis frame was highly successful as a 4x2 tractor unit, but when stretched to even a four wheel rigid exceeded it’s design capabilities. It was never used to replace in production the old Sherratt underslung chassis on rigid vehicles sold to customers. The re-designed chassis used for the B-Series range was suitable, and did replace the old chassis on all home market load carrier chassis, but the original unrevised Turner A-Series chassis was still being used under some export 5MW cabbed units as late as 1977.
Caution should also be exercised in quoting Pat Kennett, although he was the first journalist to test the A-Series from his time with ‘Motor Transport’.
The chassis frame width of all A-Series was 37 inches (940mm). It was the old Sherratt frame that was 40 inches wide, and the width was reduced to accommodate the new outboard rear springs. Nothing directly to do with the tyres.
[/quote]
Hello ERF! I was wondering when you’d come back to me on this one! I entirely accept what you say, and I have no doubt that you know more about this issue than I do. What I was actually ‘standing by’ was my qualifying claim that it was a highly sophisticated and much developed version of the original A-series concept. Perhaps it was unnecessary of me to make that statement at all, given that you could probably say the same of any manufacturer’s basic components - a bit like saying that the DAF DKS motor was a highly sophisticated and much developed Leyland 0.680, perhaps!
With hindsight, it might have been better if I’d stretched the A-series imagination no further than the NGC and left the B-series out of the equation. In any case I long ago expunged this whole debate from the text of my book so I reckon we can probably let the matter lie here. I’m glad you brought it up though because it’s important to be clear about these things. Cheers. Robert
ERF:
We have to make a distinction between tractor units and rigids with a statement like this Robert.The B-Series four, six and eight wheel rigid vehicles were the first of the type to leave Sun Works to bring the chassis technology of these vehicles up-to-date. It is fact (as I have said before on this thread) that the B-Series chassis, although being based on the concept of A-Series design, is a very different animal in detail. It transmits it’s stresses in an entirely different way to the A-Series, and it took Cooke’s team many months of development to perfect, and it’s differences may not be immediately obvious to operators (or even senior REVS members).
The original Turner A-Series chassis frame was highly successful as a 4x2 tractor unit, but when stretched to even a four wheel rigid exceeded it’s design capabilities. It was never used to replace in production the old Sherratt underslung chassis on rigid vehicles sold to customers. The re-designed chassis used for the B-Series range was suitable, and did replace the old chassis on all home market load carrier chassis, but the original unrevised Turner A-Series chassis was still being used under some export 5MW cabbed units as late as 1977.
Caution should also be exercised in quoting Pat Kennett, although he was the first journalist to test the A-Series from his time with ‘Motor Transport’.
The chassis frame width of all A-Series was 37 inches (940mm). It was the old Sherratt frame that was 40 inches wide, and the width was reduced to accommodate the new outboard rear springs. Nothing directly to do with the tyres.
This has sparked my curiosity. How did the A and B series chassis differ in the transmission of stress? Why were the springs moved outboard? How did the ERF chassis compare to those of the Continental makes?
[zb]
anorak:
This has sparked my curiosity. How did the A and B series chassis differ in the transmission of stress? Why were the springs moved outboard? How did the ERF chassis compare to those of the Continental makes?
Very briefly, the Turner A-Series tractor unit chassis used welded back-to-back steel channel cross-members in the shape of a shallow X. They were bolted through the side rails at all points of high stress (ie the rear axle spring hangers etc). With the greater degree of flex experienced by a longer (rigid) vehicle chassis, the crossmembers themselves were actually too stiff and tried to prevent the chassis as a whole from flexing, which of course it must be allowed to do. This caused cracking to the ends of the crossmembers, and to the side rails at the attachment points.
The rear springs were moved outboard so that they could be increased in length (and reduced in firmness) at no cost to vehicle stability. The wider the spread of the location points, the more stable the vehicle.
I will let others answer your final question, just to say that Atkinson Vehicles moved the rear springs outboard on their ‘Borderer’ shortly after the A-Series was announced in 1970 (but I do not dispute this could have been on the drawing board at Walton-le-Dale before hand). AEC had used outboard rear springs for many years too, so had many other others, including Chrysler Dodge - from where Mr Turner came to ERF.
ERF:
[zb]
anorak:
This has sparked my curiosity. How did the A and B series chassis differ in the transmission of stress? Why were the springs moved outboard? How did the ERF chassis compare to those of the Continental makes?
Very briefly, the Turner A-Series tractor unit chassis used welded back-to-back steel channel cross-members in the shape of a shallow X. They were bolted through the side rails at all points of high stress (ie the rear axle spring hangers etc). With the greater degree of flex experienced by a longer (rigid) vehicle chassis, the crossmembers themselves were actually too stiff and tried to prevent the chassis as a whole from flexing, which of course it must be allowed to do. This caused cracking to the ends of the crossmembers, and to the side rails at the attachment points.
The rear springs were moved outboard so that they could be increased in length (and reduced in firmness) at no cost to vehicle stability. The wider the spread of the location points, the more stable the vehicle.
I will let others answer your final question, just to say that Atkinson Vehicles moved the rear springs outboard on their ‘Borderer’ shortly after the A-Series was announced in 1970 (but I do not dispute this could have been on the drawing board at Walton-le-Dale before hand).
Evening all, well after a long day "harvesting " the HAY, I am conferonted by this…
ERF had a major problem with springing, (and vehicle stability) , therefore they located the springs outwards…as did most of the Europeans!
ERF had abysmilall stability prior to this, (short wheelbase, plus higher centre of gravity with an artic)… remember prior to 64, (Barbara Castle…everything was rigid…not artic)!
They tried to respond to a changing market…but Atkinson were in front of them…(but so where SOMUAO)…and who were they!!!
Cheerio for now.