The cab looks good mate,pretty sound for a 45 year old motor pannels cab!
Not sure if you’ve seen these mate,you probably have,I reckon you’d have to get up pretty early to catch you out.
Not my photos.
NZ JAMIE:
01
Not sure if you’ve seen these mate,you probably have,I reckon you’d have to get up pretty early to catch you out.
Not my photos.
You’re right there Jamie! Nonetheless, far better to post them on the off-chance than allow rare pictures to slip through the net! Cheers, Robert 
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Strange how inter brand rivalry didn’t seem to matter in favour of shared development after the foreign competition had got its way.
Those makes collaborated to build that cab- such deals were ordinary. Leyland, ERF, Foden and Atkinson were competitors, so made their own cabs (apart from the odd chassis with Motor Panels on it). There is no comparison to any of the collaborative deals.
Of course, that collaboration wasn’t difficult: Enasa and Seddon Atkinson both belonged to IH at that time, and IH had also had part ownership of DAF.
240 Gardner:
Of course, that collaboration wasn’t difficult: Enasa and Seddon Atkinson both belonged to IH at that time, and IH had also had part ownership of DAF.
So why the double standards in which we were told that we needed ‘rationalisation’ of all the different Brit marques within the Leyland empire to stop ‘internal competition’.But it’s suddenly conveniently then ‘collaboration’ not internal competition when it’s in the interests of European imports.
IE how could it have been good for SA,or the UK truck manufacturing industry in general,to help its DAF competitor,by sharing know how and development costs.But it supposedly wasn’t good for Leyland and SA to ‘collaborate’,or for that matter even Scammell and AEC,because they were all considered as rivals.Eventually to the point where the Brits were effectively competing with each other for market share in their own domestic saturated market,while at the same time helping their foreign competitors,such as in the form of SA/DAF collaboration.Not to mention Leyland having handed DAF the initiative in the form of the development potential contained in the Leyland 680 architecture v the TL12 and obviously also not wanting to go head to head with DAF,more like the opposite in the form of deliberately delayed and when it did arrive toy town cab design and the worst possible engine choice and for some reason not choosing 13 speed Fuller even when it did arrive all too late.Also bearing in mind the inexplicable delay in the E290’s availability v its actual launch date.
Eventually resulting in DAF taking control over Leyland in 1987 with a 60% interest in the resulting ‘merger’ at which point it predictably stopped production of Leyland trucks.All of which looks like deliberate sabotage to the benefit of Euro imports to me.Certainly to the point where both an SA 400 type MP cabbed,■■■■■■■ E290 powered 13 speed Fuller equipped,NGC mk 2 and Leyland T45,hitting the market in mid to late 1970’s,would have been a major threat to both DAF and Volvo at least.
Carryfast:
240 Gardner:
Of course, that collaboration wasn’t difficult: Enasa and Seddon Atkinson both belonged to IH at that time, and IH had also had part ownership of DAF.So why the double standards in which we were told that we needed ‘rationalisation’ of all the different Brit marques within the Leyland empire to stop ‘internal competition’.But it’s suddenly conveniently then ‘collaboration’ not internal competition when it’s in the interests of European imports.
IE how could it have been good for SA,or the UK truck manufacturing industry in general,to help its DAF competitor,by sharing know how and development costs…
What double standards? Both are normal examples of rationalisation. IH got its subsidiaries to share development costs of the Cabtec cab, just as Leyland had amalgamated all of its subsidiaries to develop the C40 cab. There is little or no difference.
SA did not do any of the development work on the cab. Pegaso and DAF did the job. If SA had not been part of IH, it would not have had a new cab.
I reckon Pegaso did the bulk of the work- the cab looks similar to their previous one.
Carryfast:
…Also bearing in mind the inexplicable delay in the E290’s availability v its actual launch date.Eventually resulting in DAF taking control over Leyland in 1987 with a 60% interest in the resulting ‘merger’ at which point it predictably stopped production of Leyland trucks.All of which looks like deliberate sabotage to the benefit of Euro imports to me.Certainly to the point where both an SA 400 type MP cabbed,■■■■■■■ E290 powered 13 speed Fuller equipped,NGC mk 2 and Leyland T45,hitting the market in mid to late 1970’s,would have been a major threat to both DAF and Volvo at least.
We’ve been down these roads many times.
The Big Cam ■■■■■■■ was first fitted to US chassis in 1977. The first British chassis to have an E290 entered customers’ fleets in January 1978- including the SA 400. It is normal for manufacturers to delay export launches by a few months or so. The T45 was launched late, in March 1980 but, other than that, the actual events were exactly as you say they should have been.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
240 Gardner:
Of course, that collaboration wasn’t difficult: Enasa and Seddon Atkinson both belonged to IH at that time, and IH had also had part ownership of DAF.So why the double standards in which we were told that we needed ‘rationalisation’ of all the different Brit marques within the Leyland empire to stop ‘internal competition’.But it’s suddenly conveniently then ‘collaboration’ not internal competition when it’s in the interests of European imports.
IE how could it have been good for SA,or the UK truck manufacturing industry in general,to help its DAF competitor,by sharing know how and development costs…
What double standards? Both are normal examples of rationalisation. IH got its subsidiaries to share development costs of the Cabtec cab, just as Leyland had amalgamated all of its subsidiaries to develop the C40 cab. There is little or no difference.
SA did not do any of the development work on the cab. Pegaso and DAF did the job. If SA had not been part of IH, it would not have had a new cab.
I reckon Pegaso did the bulk of the work- the cab looks similar to their previous one.
Firstly we’re actually talking about the situation as it stood in the mid 70’s in this case.
It seems strange in that case as to why Leyland wouldn’t have gone with Scammell’s outside MP cab production model,in the form of an SA 400 knock off,with the co operation of ERF.Instead of wasting money it didn’t have on its toy town T45 cab let alone the face lifted ERGO for the Marathon before it and ERF going for a plastic lash up.Bearing in mind that the 400 was also created on IH’s watch.While however you look at it DAF was a competitor to all the Brit manufacturers,including SA,not their saviour and its obvious that if there was to be any ‘collaboration’ then we should have kept it among our own manufacturers instead of handing the initiative to the foreign competition.Bearing in mind that DAF and SA were competitors under IH ownership just as much as Leyland and AEC were under Leyland ownership,in a market which wasn’t big enough for all of them and as usual we put the foreign interest first rather than our own.The same thing happened in the car industry in the closure of UK specific design and production of Ford and GM products in favour of handing it over to their foreign competitors in the form of GM and Ford Germany.IE the overall control of the group is a red herring in the case that this country’s industry was deliberately run down,in the interests of its foreign competitors, to suit US geopolitical aims in Europe.
brightspark2003:
GAZ70:
Did you work at lostock gralam,northwich,for harris road services ?My step father Hugh Lemon worked for Harris on 2 different occasions and 3 times for Barrows which was next door.
I live around the corner from Huey he was big mates with my dad jimmy Illidge he also worked for barrows & harris’s
[zb]
anorak:
We’ve been down these roads many times.The Big Cam ■■■■■■■ was first fitted to US chassis in 1977. The first British chassis to have an E290 entered customers’ fleets in January 1978- including the SA 400. It is normal for manufacturers to delay export launches by a few months or so. The T45 was launched late, in March 1980 but, other than that, the actual events were exactly as you say they should have been.
Firstly the T45 was not only launched late as I said it was launched with a toy town cab design at great cost in design and production budget which Leyland didn’t have to add insult to injury.Nor was it launched with ■■■■■■■ E290 and Fuller 13 speed.While the B series was a poverty plastic A series replacement pushed into the ‘premium’ sector to replace the NGC and a sector which was ironically also becoming established,if not dominant,in the domestic market.
While,notwithstanding the pedantics of exact E290 introduction dates,it was certainly introduced early enough to be put in an updated NGC using an SA 400 type knock off cab design in co operation with Leyland and again E290 and Fuller 13 speed.
On that note exactly what information says 1977,as opposed to 1976,for US introduction of the big cam there and as we know ■■■■■■■ engines were manufactured here no need to be ‘exported’.
Which all seems more than a bit convenient for the F10’s/12’s and DAF 2800’s chances at least in the domestic market,in the seemingly deliberate giving away of bragging rights by the Brits like ERF and Leyland at the crucial point when they needed them most.
Kenb:
0On Facebook today
Ah thanks! It’s slightly better quality version of an image we’ve had on here before, and minus the scribble. Robert
Unexpected, but that are all rabbits out of the hat…
Some pictures of the scene where a NGC did his job…the pier of the Holland America Line (HAL)
on the Wilhelminakade. For passengers leaving for the USA and a new future as well as cargo.
In the Dutch head-office (with the two towers) of HAL nowadays hotel “New York” is located and
built between quite some skyscrapers.
On the Collin-NGC…I still ‘remain’ with my information that the restoration is in Dutch hands,
but still hoping S. Jones is behind that scene and surprises us with another TransArabia.
ERF-Continental:
Unexpected, but that are all rabbits out of the hat…On the Collin-NGC…I still ‘remain’ with my information that the restoration is in Dutch hands,
but still hoping S. Jones is behind that scene and surprises us with another TransArabia.
You could try and post something on here that actually has some substance for once. 
Yawn! Robert
At last! From today you can now order Lorries of Arabia: ERF NGC Book 3 from Old Pond direct on this link:
oldpond.com/lorries-of-arab … f-ngc.html
Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
ERF-Continental:
Unexpected, but that are all rabbits out of the hat…On the Collin-NGC…I still ‘remain’ with my information that the restoration is in Dutch hands,
but still hoping S. Jones is behind that scene and surprises us with another TransArabia.You could try and post something on here that actually has some substance for once.
Nothing in the pipe line for another Tran Arabia motor I’m afraid,
pete smith:
ERF-NGC-European:
ERF-Continental:
Unexpected, but that are all rabbits out of the hat…On the Collin-NGC…I still ‘remain’ with my information that the restoration is in Dutch hands,
but still hoping S. Jones is behind that scene and surprises us with another TransArabia.You could try and post something on here that actually has some substance for once.
Nothing in the pipe line for another Tran Arabia motor I’m afraid,
Unless Jona manages to get his hands on the Collin machine 
…!
ERF-NGC-European:
Just found on-line, a much better image of the new picture I posted last week of the Collin NGC in its barn. Robert0
have you bought it yet robert
ERF-NGC-European:
ERF-Continental:
Unexpected, but that are all rabbits out of the hat…On the Collin-NGC…I still ‘remain’ with my information that the restoration is in Dutch hands,
but still hoping S. Jones is behind that scene and surprises us with another TransArabia.You could try and post something on here that actually has some substance for once.
I don’t think you have reasons for complaints on my input…and to quote you it takes time for confirmation of what is frome heard of and really confirmed by data and pictures. An example…the Cauvas-6x4 (ex 5MW with a 7MW-cab) was NEVER confirmed, by NOBODY, nor ARGUED etc etc.
Behind the scenes, the Cockerill-NGC’s didn’t deliver pictures till today and so on…
What I heard on the Collin is that “a Dutchman” purchased it (possibly with hard cash or a trade-in or whatever) and my first thoughts are on
- Lewiszong, strong in purchasing and restoring it with getting it operational for show- and professional use) or 2) XYZ with a good agenda on restoring it e.g. Groenenboom, etc etc…with ‘certainty’ not in Belgium (nor Van Steenbergen who did some attempts more earlier according to the late Frans Van Steenbergen, uncle from the Marc Van Steenbergen which whom you had contacts) etc.
Time will tell and when you dislike response on whatever, it’s your thing.
