.
Carryfast
You really do not get it do you . You did not enter this thread , ( thankfully ) until page 6 , & from then on , you continue to treat us all to you telling us how it should have been . You castigate all thing Gardner , the very mention of which seems to send you into a frenzy .
It also appears ,you cannot just let anything go , shrug your shoulders & move on . No no like a dog with a bone , you have to bite & thrill us with more of the same .
The thread is titled RHD ERFs with 5MW cabs . Try & remember that please 
.
It is most certainly not A History of British Road Haulage , the Carryfast Version .
That is one we are treated to all too often , in many , many threads .
Your one man , incessant , monotonous crusade to rewrite history the way you see it is wearing more than a little thin .
History is what it is , for better for worse , Gardners & all , that is the way things panned out. It cannot be changed .
As opposed to you telling where , why & when the backward thinking operators of the day went wrong ,& what they should have been doing ad nauseam .
Back to the ERFs .
.
Evening all,
gosh, have we not sort of deviated from the original thread?
I do not know about all you other Gentlemen, but I have learned from these various ERF threads.
ERF, and the “archivist” are to be congratulated, both upon their knowledge, and also upon their diligence in unravelling the “factory” details relating to these cabs, and the various chassis to which they were fitted. A lot of time and effort have been expended, and I am sure that I am not the only person to appreciate it…Thank you!
Regarding ERF-Continental`s point on the various chassis series…I am not at all surprised at any discrepencies, for back in the 60s/70s, for any UK manufacturer to be able to construct what was actually ordered, (sold to a client, or forward ordered for a Distributor), allowing for the total disruption in component supply, (lack of material/labour disputes/delays), led to many “irregularities”, in factory records…(as a comparison I have in the office a whole series of Atkinson, “FC” chassis parts manuals, all relating to the same specification Borderer…but all significantly different)!!!
Im afraid that ( based upon limited personal experience), I still think that the MW Motor Panels structure was a rather poor driver environment having raced around the Oswestry metropolis,driving in Russell, and Gordon , (Cadwalladers) example, when in LHD form…(.Rather reinforces Bewicks view of the Seddon version)…cheap and nasty springs to mind!! My friend Pat Kennetts enthusiasm for the 7MW 335 ■■■■■■■ version, was based more on the “road rocket” performance…(and could she go…up hill and down dale…even Belgium ones)!!! than its comfortability.
Couple that with the various parts book diagrams…which had to be related to the Partsmans Microfisch, before any parts could be ordered…Mk WHAT■■? 7, 8, 2,3,4,…what really was in the head of whosoever was in charge of “Driver Enviroment” at ERF…for truly that person/committee, could never make a decision!!! And as for Sir Alfreds Motor Panels…“we press what we have available”…then send it to the customer…even if he is a slow payer!!!..oh the woes of UK manufacturing industry…
And just for our resident" doubting Thomas"…I only had 3 years selling Volvos for the redoubtable AT Hartshorne, (as in John Billows a Hire and Reward Haulier, of some repute…as was Jim Mc Kelvie), but in 3 years I saw F86, and F88/89, cabs as rotten as any from Coventry…but it was the way that the problem was dealt with, that cemented the business relationship!
Gentlemen, thank you for your contributions to these threads…there is a lot of knowledge and experience out there…(with one noteable exception)!!!
Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
I still think that the MW Motor Panels structure was a rather poor driver environment My friend Pat Kennetts enthusiasm for the 7MW 335 ■■■■■■■ version, was based more on the “road rocket” performance…(and could she go…up hill and down dale…even Belgium ones)!!! than its comfortability.Gentlemen, thank you for your contributions to these threads…there is a lot of knowledge and experience out there…(with one noteable exception)!!!
Would that be the same ‘knowledge’ that says this was a ‘poor driver environment’ by the standards of 1973.
Or which would have specced and supplied the non tilting 5 MW and a naturally aspirated engine instead up to 3 years later.
Saviem:
?..ERF, and the “archivist” are to be congratulated, both upon their knowledge, and also upon their diligence in unravelling the “factory” details relating to these cabs, and the various chassis to which they were fitted. A lot of time and effort have been expended, and I am sure that I am not the only person to appreciate it…Thank you
Thanks for that, but I’m sure I could count on the fingers of one hand those that are genuinely interested in our trying to untie the knots of this subject. We have at our disposal virtually all the information from the works, and still it’s very confusing!. We do lack their hands on experience with the cabs though of course.
These steel cabs are a relatively new diversion for me. A good friend has recently imported an 3MW unit, and that spurred me into looking at them in some detail last year, but the KV and LV cabs have always been more my forte as that is where my main restoration interest is!.
Saviem:
…Couple that with the various parts book diagrams…which had to be related to the Partsmans Microfisch, before any parts could be ordered…Mk WHAT■■? 7, 8, 2,3,4,…what really was in the head of whosoever was in charge of “Driver Enviroment” at ERF…
Absolutely.
We find one piece of evidence that seems to categorically confirm something, then a day or two later find something else that contradicts it!. It is very time consuming and frustrating, but with time and lots of effort we will bottom it out.
How they ever ordered and got the correct parts for these steel cabs is the most amazing thing about them!. I have detail difference lists for all the variations of LV cabs, but not so many for the steel cabs. The ERF photos I have posted show far more detail variations that the parts manuals allow for.
have you seen what i v seen leave it at that and say nothing PLEASE
John
3300John:
have you seen what i v seen leave it at that and say nothing PLEASE
John
Who are you referring to here John?.
Explain please!.
ERF:
3300John:
have you seen what i v seen leave it at that and say nothing PLEASE
JohnWho are you referring to here John?.
Explain please!.
have a look at the last pages of remarks on this site…some are blank well many are blank.
but just Carry on as normal…
John
3300John:
ERF:
3300John:
have you seen what i v seen leave it at that and say nothing PLEASE
JohnWho are you referring to here John?.
Explain please!.have a look at the last pages of remarks on this site…some are blank well many are blank.
but just Carry on as normal…
John
Aye, ‘Mum’s’ the word, John 
robert1952:
3300John:
ERF:
3300John:
have you seen what i v seen leave it at that and say nothing PLEASE
JohnWho are you referring to here John?.
Explain please!.have a look at the last pages of remarks on this site…some are blank well many are blank.
but just Carry on as normal…
JohnAye, ‘Mum’s’ the word, John
Ahh!
+1 then in that case!
Hiya…you never see the army crusaders with rot do you ■■?
John
3300John:
Hiya…you never see the army crusaders with rot do you ■■?
John
This isnt a criticism or maybe it is , but why so many different cabs , surely they should have ,well they did eventually concentrate on one design .Foden were the same in the 70s with a few different cabs all being produced at the same time .From a business point of view maybe Leyland were ahead of their rivals with the one size fits all when they introduced the Ergo. I`m not saying the design was great but the thinking behind it was to become the norm with a few manufacturers still around today.
ramone:
3300John:
Hiya…you never see the army crusaders with rot do you ■■?
JohnThis isn
t a criticism or maybe it is , but why so many different cabs , surely they should have ,well they did eventually concentrate on one design .Foden were the same in the70s with a few different cabs all being produced at the same time .From a business point of view maybe Leyland were ahead of their rivals with the one size fits all when they introduced the Ergo. I`m not saying the design was great but the thinking behind it was to become the norm with a few manufacturers still around today.
^ 
I think you’ve missed the bit where the oracles have established that the 7 MW was somewhere between being too good for the domestic market to being a rust prone heap that was no good at all. 
The result being that the 5 MW amongst others was considered the way to go. Meanwhile whatever you do don’t ask about the resulting issues of economies of scale or you’ll really be in the zb with the general expert consensus.
Meanwhile yes if only AEC and Scammell had got their heads together and put the 7 MW cab on the Crusader then standardised on turbo ■■■■■■■ and Rolls power in 1973.Job done ERF and Foden wiped out Leyland Group saved. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
3300John:
Hiya…you never see the army crusaders with rot do you ■■?
JohnThis isn
t a criticism or maybe it is , but why so many different cabs , surely they should have ,well they did eventually concentrate on one design .Foden were the same in the70s with a few different cabs all being produced at the same time .From a business point of view maybe Leyland were ahead of their rivals with the one size fits all when they introduced the Ergo. I`m not saying the design was great but the thinking behind it was to become the norm with a few manufacturers still around today.^
I think you’ve missed the bit where the oracles have established that the 7 MW was somewhere between being too good for the domestic market to being a rust prone heap that was no good at all.
Meanwhile yes if only AEC and Scammell had got their heads together and put the 7 MW cab on the Crusader then standardised on turbo ■■■■■■■ and Rolls power in 1973.Job done ERF and Foden wiped out Leyland Group saved.
Or maybe it was a stop gap until the B Series was introduced which did exactly what the ergo did and covered all models , I dont think you can really champion the Crusader even if it was offered with your favourite engine the one that very few opted for , and why would AEC have got their head together with Scammell when AEC were manufacturers and Scammell a specialist assembler . If we look back at some of the threads you have ruined we find that you have worked in a fire engine factory where they moved you on to driving because they thought your knowledge would be of better use , youve done a bit of night trunking and you`ve driven a gritter , well I for one sit up and take notice when you post on here Mr Fast
ramone:
This isnt a criticism or maybe it is , but why so many different cabs , surely they should have ,well they did eventually concentrate on one design .Foden were the same in the70s with a few different cabs all being produced at the same time .From a business point of view maybe Leyland were ahead of their rivals with the one size fits all when they introduced the Ergo. I`m not saying the design was great but the thinking behind it was to become the norm with a few manufacturers still around today.
Yes. In the 1950s, ERF and Foden each had one cab in production at a time. The increased prosperity of the '60s allowed them to develop new cabs more often, so that is what they did- to excess. In contrast, the Continental firms seemed to concentrate on one design and get it right.
From the top again (with corrections!)…
MV
Cabs fitted during production were 2MV, 3MV, 4MV and 5MV
The first MV cabbed ERF is recorded as chassis 13263, a 2MV cabbed model 6.4 CU220 -10’1" wheelbase 4x2 tractor unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 28th Feb 1966 and destined for ERF South Africa.
The last MV cabbed ERF is recorded as chassis 23059, a 5MV cabbed model 6.8 CU310 of 18’ wheelbase 8x4 despatched ex Sun Works on the 4th Jan 1972 to I.S & P (New Zealand Dealer) for owner L.E. Elms & Sons and was registered GC3762.
MW
Cabs fitted during production were 3MW, 4MW, 5MW 6MW and 7MW.
4MW
The very first recorded MW is chassis 16625, a 4MW2 cabbed model 6.6 RR220 - 13’1" wheelbase 6x4 tractor unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 4th November 1968. It was the first of a large batch of identical vehicles all UK registered PDD 173 to 199G and PDD 201 to 223G and delivered by road to Jordan Phosphate Mines Co., Amman, Jordan.
(Note - it has been reported by John on this forum that an MW cab was built at JH Jennings before July 1967 for an export eight wheel chassis powered by a Detroit V8 engine and bound for New Zealand. No record of this vehicle can be found despite exhaustive searches of the records - we can conclude this vehicle was not issued with an ERF chassis number, was not warrantied by ERF, but could still have been used for product development purposes).
The last 4MW was a LHD model MPR360.060 (64R205) Tractor Unit, despatched ex Sun Works on the 29th of Jan 1974 to the Chinese Petroleum Co. via Dunne Spencer.
3MW
The first 3MW cabbed ERF is chassis 17099, a model 6.6CU220, 12’7" wheelbase tipper/tractor despatched ex Sun Works on the 10th March 1969 via the dealer ‘■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium’ for customer Lecoq.
The last 3MW cabbed ERF is chassis 25230, a model 6.6.CU235-SWB. Wheelbase not set, but suit 14’4". Despatched ex Sun Works on the 18th January 1973 to dealer ‘Industrial Steel & Plant’ New Zealand.
5MW
The first 5MW cabbed ERF is chassis 18714, a model 6.8.CU235 to suit 17’0" wheelbase. Despatched ex Sun Works on the 18th January 1973 to dealer ‘Cossens & Black’ New Zealand.
The last 5MW was 31490, a model MCC360.240 (64CU220) Tractor Unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 15th of April 1976 to WT ■■■■■ Haulage Ltd UK. via HLH Commercials.
6MW
The first 6MW cabbed ERF is chassis 23208, a model 66CU310 14’ 4" wheelbase. Despatched ex Sun Works on the 8th May 1972 to Pointer Group. Registered GHY 129K.
The last two recorded 6MW’s were…
UGE 852R is chassis number 33315.
Model - MDC852.080 (66CU310)
■■■■■■■ NTC 335
Cab not recorded (in pen 6MW).
Despatch date - 24th February 1977
Customer - West of Scotland Excavations Ltd. Via dealer Bowen.
The archivist is sure this vehicle went through the hands of Pilikington, but may be mistaken.
RAN 648R is chassis number 33865 and is the very last 6MW built.
Model - MDC852.080 (66CU310)
■■■■■■■ NTC 335
Cab not recorded (in pen 6MW).
Despatch date - 29th March 1977.
Customer - Leicester Heavy Haulage Ltd.
Uprated by Cossington Commercials to 121924KG on 29th June 1981.
7MW
The first 7MW tilt cabbed ERF was chassis 22993, a model NGC 420 - A6.4.CU335 tractor unit. Recorded as a ‘Show Vehicle’. Despatched ex Sun Works on the 1st October 1973 as a stock vehicle to ‘■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium’ 623/629 Chausses de Haecht, Brussels 3, Belgium. This vehicle was subject to warranty claims for defects found on delivery, and on nine occasions subsequently, the last being the 10th March 1976.
The second 7MW was chassis 24684, a model NGC 420 - A6.4.CU335 LWB. 15’ 9" wheelbase. Despatched the 14th August 1973. Again recorded as a ‘Show Vehicle’ to the same distributor as above. Note the date - we can conclude that this was the first 7MW to actually leave the works.
The last recorded MW is chassis 31927, a model 7MW tilt cabbed model NGC 420 - A6.4.CU335 a 4x2 tractor unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 22nd of December 1977 to Falcon Freight, Jeddah.
8MW
No record of any cabs fitted.
Note - the last 3MW and first 5MW left the factory on the same day!. There was no overlap in production as I thought.
The 4MW and 6MW cabs were produced together for circa 18 months.
ramone:
Carryfast:
Meanwhile yes if only AEC and Scammell had got their heads together and put the 7 MW cab on the Crusader then standardised on turbo ■■■■■■■ and Rolls power in 1973.Job done ERF and Foden wiped out Leyland Group saved.Or maybe it was a stop gap until the B Series was introduced which did exactly what the ergo did and covered all models , I don`t think you can really champion the Crusader even if it was offered with your favourite engine the one that very few opted for , and why would AEC have got their head together with Scammell when AEC were manufacturers and Scammell a specialist assembler .
Firstly as for Leyland standardising ( rationalising ) on the 7 MW cabbed Crusader in 1973 and turbo ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ power being categorised as ‘assembly’ or ‘manufacturing’ who’d have really cared in probably being better for both AEC ( and Scammell ) than what actually happened.
While the ‘expert consensus’ so far seems to have marked the 7 MW down as an uncomfortable rust bucket. While also seeming to have no conception of the cost effects in all this multidude of parallel,often retrograde,production duplication.
In which case the obvious question then would be assuming the B series was considered as being state of the art as of 1974 how was it also possible to justify the development and costs of the 7 MW for introduction in 1973 let alone continuing with the obsolete in any case 5 MW. 
While its my bet that the answer is ERF knew that a plastic cab wasn’t going to be accepted in the export markets regardless of/despite the fact that as everyone knows steel construction rusts especially if it isn’t adequately protected.While the domestic market never even knew or cared about the differences between the 7 MW v the 5 MW it was happier with plastic wether it tilted or not when it could get it together with its liking for naturally aspirated power.
As for supposedly ‘ruining’ the thread it was you who ( rightly ) chose to continue the discussions concerning ERF’s ideas concerning product rationalisation in the day,or lack of it,not me.
ERF:
From the top again (with corrections!)…
[.
Thanks for that, ‘ERF’ - we’re getting there!
Robert
robert1952:
ERF:
From the top again (with corrections!)…
[.Thanks for that, ‘ERF’ - we’re getting there!
Robert
Now corrected ref. the last 6MW’s