ERF 'European' (1975)

[erf-ngc-european]

Just thinking aloud here (so to speak). The first thing to check with models is whether the model represents a fantasy (perfectly legit!) or whether it represents a real bygone lorry. The modeller’s use of KCH 95N’s number plate strongly suggests a fantasy - I reckon we’ve all pondered on what we would do with KCH 95N if we owned her!

But to be on the safe side, the obvious next question to ask is: was Quicksilver a real company, and if so, did they run a 6x4 NGC wrecker?

I have just Googled Quicksilver transport and found a removals outfit of that name and those colours in High Wyckome. Any other leads?

EDIT: SEE THE POST AFTER NEXT - I think I’ve solved that question!

Robert

[erf-ngc-european]

Messrs Corbishley have restored KCH to a high standard and given us a lot of pleasure at shows (see pic by me below, taken on their premises). However, there’s nowt wrong with dreaming about alternative options for any restored wagon. I’ve given it a bit of thought over recent years but I must admit it never occurred to me to consider a wrecker option as shown by the modeller above.

Had KCH been a standard 4x2 unit it would have made a perfect candidate for a unit and TIR-tilt restoration in say, Eric Vick livery and been given a visor and Kysor to finish the job off. However, KCH’s unusually long wheelbase and double-drive make it an unlikely candidate for such a restoration.

Restoring it to Eyckmans livery and returning it to tractive unit status would be the most logical and the purest form of restoration. It was one of only three 6x4 conversions (Cauvas and Shamara were the others) but had a longer wheelbase than the other two so dressing it up as either of those two would be unrealistic. The Eyckmans livery is perfect for an accurate restoration using an original Eyckmans vehicle. You could remove the box and add a Fassi crane (a non-functional one would do). The stabilisers fore and aft might be expensive and tricky but would add authenticity. Then to complete the equipage, add a period pole trailer.

Another idea would be to restore it to Eyckman’s Belgian colours, add a visor (but not replace the crane), and put a classic 10m period Belgian pitch-roofed coiler spread-axle trailer on the back in the same colours. This would work perfectly as the wheel-base of the 3-axle unit I used to pull them was exactly the same (long) because in the early ‘80s there were plenty of units with hastily added rear axles to cope with new 38-tonne legislation (see pic of the one I drove below).

Another possibility is to use it as a 6x4 tractor with a low-loader. That would be perfectly feasible and legit.

Moving into the fantasy area, there is a number of things you could do with this wagon if you were prepared to create an NGC which didn’t exist in real life (like KCH is now, don’t forget).

For example, the lorry almost certainly has a long enough wheelbase for a container skelly frame and 20-foot container. Just add Jost-type coupling and an A-frame skelly trailer. This would be expensive but effective. It would also take up space. If it were un-sign-written it could effectively be done up as a M/E drawbar with the usual Kysor & visor, TIR-plates etc. For that matter, it could even be done up as drawbar TIR-tilt.

If you were prepared to play about with the truth a bit, you could dress it up in visor and Kysor and paint it in one of liveries of operators of NGCs on Middle-East work (Eric Vick, Richard Read, Vijore, Trans Arabia, Beresford, ERF demo, etc). The only things that would stand out are the long wheelbase and the double-drive. The long wheelbase issue would evaporate if it had a low-loader with an ‘open-TIR’ cargo (and plenty like that went down to the Gulf). This pic was photo-shopped by me in ‘paint’ about 4 years ago.

Robert

[erf-ngc-european]

Well after all that, I think I’ve solved the Quicksilver mystery. After a brief search I found a section of the ‘hiveminer’ website devoted to a 1:76 modeller who has created a fleet of buses/coaches called Quicksilver. He has quite skilfully supplemented his fleet with a large selection of lorry-derived wreckers (Leylands, ERFs, Sed-Atkis, Fodens and all sorts), amongst which resides the NGC at the centre of today’s discussion with myself . Cheers! Robert

[carryfast]

ERF-NGC-European:
If it were un-sign-written it could effectively be done up as a M/E drawbar with the usual Kysor & visor, TIR-plates etc. For that matter, it could even be done up as drawbar TIR-tilt.

1Robert

^ This but keep it to 6x4 spec and it gets a 380 NTA and a 13 speed.

[erf-ngc-european]

Carryfast:

ERF-NGC-European:
If it were un-sign-written it could effectively be done up as a M/E drawbar with the usual Kysor & visor, TIR-plates etc. For that matter, it could even be done up as drawbar TIR-tilt.

1Robert

^ This but keep it to 6x4 spec and it gets a 380 NTA and a 13 speed.

Yes, I had no intention of ditching the double-drive; and it already has a 13-speed ‘box. It has its original NTC 335 in good condition so no point in rendering it inauthentic by putting a later lump in . It’d be some beast tho’!

[erf-ngc-european]

I’ve just managed to get hold of a German language version of those glossy Atlas Encyclopedic [sic] cards featuring the NGC. I already have the English and French ones (on this thread somewhere IIRC). Cards and brochures about the NGC are always useful because they give us a wider foreign languages vocabulary with which we can be more create in our on-line searches. Robert

[deanb]

ERF-NGC-European:
I’ve just managed to get hold of a German language version of those glossy Atlas Encyclopedic cards featuring the NGC. I already have the English and French ones (on this thread somewhere IIRC). Cards and brochures about the NGC are always useful because they give us a wider foreign languages vocabulary with which we can be more create in our on-line searches. Robert

Robert, email me a copy of that chap,could be very useful !!

I think you are right about the model ! I have emailed the chap,awaiting a reply.

A new pic of Cauvas.

[erf-ngc-european]

DEANB:

ERF-NGC-European:
I’ve just managed to get hold of a German language version of those glossy Atlas Encyclopedic cards featuring the NGC. I already have the English and French ones (on this thread somewhere IIRC). Cards and brochures about the NGC are always useful because they give us a wider foreign languages vocabulary with which we can be more create in our on-line searches. Robert

Robert, email me a copy of that chap,could be very useful !!

I think you are right about the model ! I have emailed the chap,awaiting a reply.

A new pic of Cauvas.

0

[erf-ngc-european]

Better version of image posted on here a long time ago! Robert

[erf-continental]

0
[/quote]
Thanks again Dean for this new input and it confirms the Cauvas-unit is an hybrid!

Now, suddenly the chassis has three wipers and the axles don’t appear to be from
an ex-Volvo, hence (to my humble knowledge and confirmation) an 5MW chassis
was used with components Cauvas had in stock due to an earlier 7MWcabbed NGC
4x2 tractor. Robert1952 will surely come with his own theory as everbody does

[erf-ngc-european]

ERF-Continental:
0

Thanks again Dean for this new input and it confirms the Cauvas-unit is an hybrid!

Now, suddenly the chassis has three wipers and the axles don’t appear to be from
an ex-Volvo, hence (to my humble knowledge and confirmation) an 5MW chassis
was used with components Cauvas had in stock due to an earlier 7MWcabbed NGC
4x2 tractor. Robert1952 will surely come with his own theory as everbody does
[/quote]
EDIT: Thank you for your continued interest, A-J.

You say the rear bogie doesn’t appear to be a Volvo one. I’d be interested to see further debate on this. We have a French driver’s word that it was, against your word that it wasn’t. We need a little more detail of your ‘knowledge and confirmation’ (too vague for evidence): if you are to convince me you will need to state your sources and if necessary quote from them. Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge about Volvo rear ends could weigh in here. Over to Dean on this one, as it was he who interviewed the driver and it is he (Dean) who knows a lot more about F88s than I do!

I’m very interested in your new suggestion that the 5MW-cabbed chassis (ex-Hye) was used as the basis for this lorry, and that the 7MW cab of the 4x2 unit was used along with the 4x2’s registration number to build the finished product. That would make it a bit of a hybrid in its converted form, of course, but interesting nonetheless. I am perfectly happy to ‘buy’ that theory if it can be shown to be true. Interestingly, this is very different from your earlier position in which you claimed that Cauvas had two 7MW-cabbed units. That too may turn out to be true if the evidence turns up.

By the way, in at least five pictures of this unit, it is seen to have 3 wipers; it only has 2 wipers in the other photos but you can see where the mounting is. So it could be that they just discarded the middle wiper when it failed. The chassis remains the same throughout all the photos.

Robert

[deanb]

ERF-Continental:
0

Thanks again Dean for this new input and it confirms the Cauvas-unit is an hybrid!

Now, suddenly the chassis has three wipers and the axles don’t appear to be from
an ex-Volvo, hence (to my humble knowledge and confirmation) an 5MW chassis
was used with components Cauvas had in stock due to an earlier 7MWcabbed NGC
4x2 tractor. Robert1952 will surely come with his own theory as everbody does
[/quote]
I tell you what ERF-Continental, i will prove it when you put that picture of the Thibaut
draw-bar pic you have of it on here ■■?

[erf-continental]

DEANB:
I tell you what ERF-Continental, i will prove it when you put that picture of the Thibaut
draw-bar pic you have of it on here ■■?

Strange bargain and meanwhile you know that I will not put that picture over here.

I cab live with and without proof, it’s not a court over here

[deanb]

ERF-Continental:

DEANB:
I tell you what ERF-Continental, i will prove it when you put that picture of the Thibaut
draw-bar pic you have of it on here ■■?

Strange bargain and meanwhile you know that I will not put that picture over here.

I cab live with and without proof, it’s not a court over here

ERF-Continental , I have no idea why you will not post the picture of the Thibaut draw-bar ? Tell me ■■?

[erf-ngc-european]

OK. We appear to have a stalemate here in the form of two conflicting accounts of how Cauvas of Bonneuil en France’s 8264RW95 was converted from 4x2 to 6x4.

On one hand we have a retired heavy-haulage driver and transport historian in France, who reports that it had a Volvo rear double-drive bogie grafted on.

On the other hand we have a Dutch transport historian who reports that Cauvas acquired an older ERF 6x4 MCC 852 (66CU335) chassis previously operated by Hye brothers of Antwerpen; and that its 3MW cab was replaced by Cauvas’s 7MW cab and the registration number of the donor 4x2 unit transferred to this hybrid vehicle.

Both these positions are entirely plausible and believable.

This is a forum for discussion, but I have no wish to play chairman in this debate. Therefore I am choosing to step back from it while it plays out. We all as individuals have our own agenda on here. My own project is the quest to discover all 91 NGCs, rather than to focus on minutiae about subsequent conversions (that doesn’t mean I’m not interested though!). I will only intervene to correct obvious factual errors.

Robert

PS. To put things into perspective a little, it’s worth bearing in mind that of the 3 NGCs that were later converted to 6x4, we still know almost nothing about the rear bogies were fitted. PDR 444R/Q691 NTR’s bogie appears to have Kirkstall hub-reduction axles so we can guess that it might have had the rear end of an ERF tipper but we don’t know. Likewise, KCH 95N’s rear end has Hendrickson suspension and came from a White, but we still don’t know what make the bogie is.

[carryfast]

ERF-NGC-European:
OK. We appear to have a stalemate here in the form of two conflicting accounts of how Cauvas of Bonneuil en France’s 8264RW95 was converted from 4x2 to 6x4.

On one hand we have a retired heavy-haulage driver and transport historian in France, who reports that it had a Volvo rear double-drive bogie grafted on.

On the other hand we have a Dutch transport historian who reports that Cauvas acquired an older ERF 6x4 MCC 852 (66CU335) chassis previously operated by Hye brothers of Antwerpen; and that its 3MW cab was replaced by Cauvas’s 7MW cab and the registration number of the donor 4x2 unit transferred to this hybrid vehicle.

Both these positions are entirely plausible and believable.

This is a forum for discussion, but I have no wish to play chairman in this debate. Therefore I am choosing to step back from it while it plays out. We all as individuals have our own agenda on here. My own project is the quest to discover all 91 NGCs, rather than to focus on minutiae about subsequent conversions (that doesn’t mean I’m not interested though!). I will only intervene to correct obvious factual errors.

Robert

PS. To put things into perspective a little, it’s worth bearing in mind that of the 3 NGCs that were later converted to 6x4, we still know almost nothing about the rear bogies were fitted. PDR 444R/Q691 NTR’s bogie appears to have Kirkstall hub-reduction axles so we can guess that it might have had the rear end of an ERF tipper but we don’t know. Likewise, KCH 95N’s rear end has Hendrickson suspension and came from a White, but we still don’t know what make the bogie is.

Firstly it seems a lot easier to re cab an existing different 6 x 4 chassis than convert a 4 x 2 NGC to 6 x 4.While it might also be better to then pretend that it was the original chassis with a 6 x 4 conversion,rather than a different truck with an NGC cab,to avoid potential re registration issues.Which might explain a red herring based on that hearsay.

As for the Hendrickson rear end conversion the logical axles might be the usual US spec Dana or Rockwell suspects to go with the suspension ?.

Which leaves the question that not only did ERF seem to have lost the plot regarding the engine and gearing options for the road going 4 x 2 versions.They also missed an opportunity regarding the heavy haulage market.In this case ironically they had the right gearing but limited to the wrong axle configuration not to mention limiting the engine range to 335 as opposed to the full range including NTA versions.Bearing in mind the advertising actually refers to the full engine range as an obvious publicity angle.

IE NTA with RT Fuller and factory fit 6 x 4 would have been the definitive heavy haulage unit in the day maybe with the exception of the FTF.

[erf-ngc-european]

Carryfast:

ERF-NGC-European:
OK. We appear to have a stalemate here in the form of two conflicting accounts of how Cauvas of Bonneuil en France’s 8264RW95 was converted from 4x2 to 6x4.

On one hand we have a retired heavy-haulage driver and transport historian in France, who reports that it had a Volvo rear double-drive bogie grafted on.

On the other hand we have a Dutch transport historian who reports that Cauvas acquired an older ERF 6x4 MCC 852 (66CU335) chassis previously operated by Hye brothers of Antwerpen; and that its 3MW cab was replaced by Cauvas’s 7MW cab and the registration number of the donor 4x2 unit transferred to this hybrid vehicle.

Both these positions are entirely plausible and believable.

This is a forum for discussion, but I have no wish to play chairman in this debate. Therefore I am choosing to step back from it while it plays out. We all as individuals have our own agenda on here. My own project is the quest to discover all 91 NGCs, rather than to focus on minutiae about subsequent conversions (that doesn’t mean I’m not interested though!). I will only intervene to correct obvious factual errors.

Robert

PS. To put things into perspective a little, it’s worth bearing in mind that of the 3 NGCs that were later converted to 6x4, we still know almost nothing about the rear bogies were fitted. PDR 444R/Q691 NTR’s bogie appears to have Kirkstall hub-reduction axles so we can guess that it might have had the rear end of an ERF tipper but we don’t know. Likewise, KCH 95N’s rear end has Hendrickson suspension and came from a White, but we still don’t know what make the bogie is.

Firstly it seems a lot easier to re cab an existing different 6 x 4 chassis than convert a 4 x 2 NGC to 6 x 4.While it might also be better to then pretend that it was the original chassis with a 6 x 4 conversion,rather than a different truck with an NGC cab,to avoid potential re registration issues.Which might explain a red herring based on that hearsay.

:

As I’ve already stated: the other two 6x4 were graft-ons so I don’t see why the third one shouldn’t be.

[erf-ngc-european]

Carryfast:
As for the Hendrickson rear end conversion the logical axles might be the usual US spec Dana or Rockwell suspects to go with the suspension ?.

:

All dealt with and speculated about a few pages back. The fact remains that we don’t know who made the axles.

[erf-ngc-european]

Carryfast:
Which leaves the question that not only did ERF seem to have lost the plot regarding the engine and gearing options for the road going 4 x 2 versions.They also missed an opportunity regarding the heavy haulage market.In this case ironically they had the right gearing but limited to the wrong axle configuration not to mention limiting the engine range to 335 as opposed to the full range including NTA versions.Bearing in mind the advertising actually refers to the full engine range as an obvious publicity angle.

:

This is nonsense CF. Firstly, we’ve already established that as the NGC was designed for Continental road running there was nothing unusual or wrong with the gearing. Secondly, we’ve already established that there was no need for an NGC 6x4 because there was a perfectly good Euro-spec 5MW-cabbed 6x4 already in parallel production complete with 335 power.

You see, I’ve already had to intervene. I wanted to step back from this discussion but I won’t stand idly by when facts are distorted. Robert

[carryfast]

ERF-NGC-European:
This is nonsense CF. Firstly, we’ve already established that as the NGC was designed for Continental road running there was nothing unusual or wrong with the gearing. Secondly, we’ve already established that there was no need for an NGC 6x4 because there was a perfectly good Euro-spec 5MW-cabbed 6x4 already in parallel production complete with 335 power.

You see, I’ve already had to intervene. I wanted to step back from this discussion but I won’t stand idly by when facts are distorted. Robert

That’s fair enough Robert.

Notwithstanding the question of whether gearing a turbo ■■■■■■■ to run on the guvernor at 2,000 rpm + at even 60 mph let alone 55 mph was the right way to go at usual road going weights,regardless of geographic market UK or Euro.

Surely the ‘fact’ that there were ‘perfectly good’ other options more suited to heavy haulage applications than the NGC at least adds weight to the default choice being that of putting the better 7 MW cab on any of those versions,rather than going to all the needless aggro of converting an NGC to 6 x 4 spec,wherever possible.