Upon further investigation I’m fairly certain that the Austin has a coachbuilt cab by Brouwers’ out of Holwerd. Holwerd is a city next to Dokkum, where the Austin is from and other Browers cabs share a lot of similarities:
The last one also belonged to Poeze out of Hardegarijp, so the plot thickens for that Volvo, my working theory now is that this is also a Brouwers cab:
Excellent research again Señor Barreiros. The Austin’s cab is indeed almost identical to the others. The Poeze Volvo, however, only shares some of the details- the upper grille is the same, albeit with one more “stripe” than the smaller lorry. The lower grille is the same. The rest of it looks more like one of these:
(That photo came from Seniorennet.be.)
The Poeze Volvos seem to have cab parts from both Brouwers and Paul of Rotterdam. Rotterdam is miles from those Northern towns, so there’s nothing there to reinforce any theory of collaboration!
IIRC, without trawling through the archives, that one of us initially guessed that the Brouwers Austin was a Commer. The drawbar outfit above shares some similarities with an actual Commer:
machines4u.com.au/view/adve … E2/384099/
My assessment on the Volvo cab is certainly based on circumstantial observation and not on clear facts. I’d love to find a brochure or an article that clearly states the coachbuilder, but since Poeze was the only one using that particular cab, my hopes are low. It also speaks for a local coachbuilder if you don’t find any others. But like I said, circumstantial, that’s why I call it a working theory.
I’ve been researching Dutch coachbuilders for about two years now and it’s not as straight forward as just comparing trim and detail. That works on many occassions, but on the other hand, with these one-offs the customer always had the last word and copying from others wasn’t really as frowned upon as it is today, everybody did it in some way. If you consider how many different cabmakers there were and that you can only trim out a shoebox so many ways, there’s no wonder if they had a look on what worked for others and got a little inspiration there.
An example:
These are both Scanias with a Van Beurden cab. Both from about the same period and you just couldn’t tell by comparision alone.
But if you look on a broader scale for the full picture, a story evolves. Have a look at this bus featuring a König body:
And if you look at this other Van Beurden cab, you can see how both cabs could have emerged from one design:
And here’s the kicker, König’s workshop was more or less just around the corner from Van Beurden, both in western Den Haag. It always helps to investigate the regional aspect. If you find a Van Beurden cabbed lorry, the owner was in all likelihood Den Haag based also. Check all your photos of Dutch lorries and crosscheck the company’s addresses with Google maps, you’ll see a clear picture emerging. You’ll rarely find a cab that wasn’t built locally, and if you do, they usually are second-hand. Researching that way also doesn’t solve every case, but it gives you a whole lot more dots to connect than just “comparing fenders”. It certainly helped me with the research looking at all these angles. In a way, it really is detective work.
What gives me certainty on my approach on this example is that you can find both cabs on the historic section of the Van Beurden web page. Also most Van Beurden cabs are badged, you normally find it in front or behind the door on the trim level. Once you get on track to the big picture, it’s also easier to sift out the hearsay and lay it to rest. I remember that second cab being identified as Verheul made here or in some other thread, but it’s not, no matter how nice the chromed V in the grille reminds anyone of that maker. By that logic all the König bodied buses must have come from Verheul as well. So don’t get too hung up on one small detail.
Given all that, I would argue against a Paul cab on the Volvo. Regionally speaking, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Could still be, though. But also, the general design cues aren’t on par with all the Paul cabs that I know, except for the fenders. But then again, you find those fenders only on Volvos anyway. So it might be more of a Volvo thing, than an intentional design cue of the cabbuilder. Have a look a these Paul cabs that aren’t put on Volvos:
That’s why I would argue against Paul. It doesn’t make a lot of sense over all. The only dot is really the fenders, and I wouldn’t call them especially intricate or inimitable. It’s not like it takes a once in a lifetime genius to come up with that design. And even if, it’s not hard to just copy it. At that time, the rounded cabs fell out of fashion and everybody made things a little boxier and cleaner.
But speaking of Paul, here’s another Scania that doesn’t fit the bill:
You can clearly see the Paul logo in the last picture, if you squint you can even read the Paul name. That cab design was clearly a facelifted carry-over from Paul & v. Weelde:
And to me, the badge looks like Austin, not Commer.
Fascinating stuff. I like Barrieros’s commonsense approach of the ‘working theory’ as it keeps speculation usefully compartmentalised. Keep up the good work chaps! Robert
barreiros:
And if you look at this other Van Beurden cab, you can see how both cabs could have emerged from one design:6
Most Van Beurden cabs are badged, you normally find it in front or behind the door on the trim level.
Bumped up for JWK as it concerns an A.S.-chassis from Disselkoen, rare, very rare but what a machine!
barreiros:
Here’s another:2
1The first one ended up as a wrecker for Maters Huissen:
0
You’re doing a great job here. Please continue.
I will add my thoughts one at a time.
The van Buerden/König alliance is nailed-on, IMO. Some of the van Buerden cabs had König front panels, hence their similarity to complete König vehicles. I do not think the first of the Disselkoen six wheelers, is an LVS. If you look at the rear hubs, the drive axle does not look like an S-V item, to my eye. Does the “V” on the grille indicatate that it is an actual Verheul?
More later. Must go and do something saleable for a bit.
The van Oeverem vehicles have cabs which I have not previously identified, so if they are Paul & van Weelde, that is great! They do indeed look very similar to the one in my avatar. Did P&vW give up on this cab design, before turning to Roset for future orders, or did they provide the Roset-type cabs as alternatives to their own, at the customer’s request?
There are more questions than answers, in the realm of Dutch heavy vehicle history!
barreiros:
Here’s another:The first one ended up as a wrecker for Maters Huissen:
Barreiros: thank you for sharing…your two A.S.-examples are part from the seventeen known
A.S.-vehicles.
For the Scania-Vabis-enthousiasts…for which this thread is intended…something to chew on
BURG and HEIWO (previous HEIda from WOlvega) were TOP-3 suppliers of bodies. Mind that
HEIWO did have a nice cooperation (via Quicar) with Pacton (van de Ploeg) and van Weelde
with the VERLI-lightweight alu-trailers.
barreiros:
And to me, the badge looks like Austin, not Commer.
Yes, the Bakker cattle wagon at the top of the page is definitely an Austin. IIRC, previous pages contain the suggestion that it was a Commer, but it is definitely an Austin, as you say.
Coincidentally, I reckon the drawbar outfit you posted is a Commer!
barreiros:
My assessment on the Volvo cab is certainly based on circumstantial observation and not on clear facts. I’d love to find a brochure or an article that clearly states the coachbuilder, but since Poeze was the only one using that particular cab, my hopes are low. It also speaks for a local coachbuilder if you don’t find any others. But like I said, circumstantial, that’s why I call it a working theory.
Having read through this page, I am now not at all confident that Paul had anything to do with the Poeze Volvos, despite the general shape of the cab and wheelarch being similar. I think it is more likely that Brouwers built them, given the decoration on the front, even though they are a different shape to the other Brouwers cabs. Working theory is indeed the phrase.
The Jawico LVS looks like it has Verheul windscreens and wheelarches, if that helps anything! There is a picture of a similar cab on a Verheul on the van Buerden website that you linked. The cab has some similarities with de Graaff, which may be another (possibly false!) connection:
[zb]
anorak:barreiros:
Here’s another:2
1The first one ended up as a wrecker for Maters Huissen:
0
I do not think the first of the Disselkoen six wheelers, is an LVS. If you look at the rear hubs, the drive axle does not look like an S-V item, to my eye. Does the “V” on the grille indicatate that it is an actual Verheul?
I’m not really sure what you are saying here or how it relates to anything I wrote before. All the Disselkoen pictures on this page show lorries by the make AS. No Scanias, no Verheuls. Best forget about the name Verheul alltogether in this thread is what I was trying to say. Unless anybody got any shread of evidence, please not mention the name Verheul again, it will help the thread and the fact-finding. Because there are no facts leading to Verheul.
[zb]
anorak:
The van Oeverem vehicles have cabs which I have not previously identified, so if they are Paul & van Weelde, that is great! They do indeed look very similar to the one in my avatar. Did P&vW give up on this cab design, before turning to Roset for future orders, or did they provide the Roset-type cabs as alternatives to their own, at the customer’s request?There are more questions than answers, in the realm of Dutch heavy vehicle history!
Again, I’m not really sure how to answer that. Where do you take any connection between Paul and Roset from?
Paul was a cabbuilder that worked for a while together with Van Weelde, who built bodies. It made sense to combine the two enterprises to a one-stop-shop, where you could get your cab and body built. However, after a while, Paul parted again and opened a shop in Rotterdam. I’m not clear on the dates and reasons, but that’s the gist of it. Paul and Paul & v. Weelde cabs are basically the same product, unless they’ve been designed after the separation, then they’re just Paul, like the one from Veluwe Expresse shown earlier.
Here’s another Paul & v. D.:
Roset is the one that’s the most “cloudy” for me, if it is indeed Roset. I’d like to see any reliable info before speculating. But I have no information whatsoever on any Paul and Roset connection.
ERF-Continental:
BURG and HEIWO (previous HEIda from WOlvega) were TOP-3 suppliers of bodies. Mind that
HEIWO did have a nice cooperation (via Quicar) with Pacton (van de Ploeg) and van Weelde
with the VERLI-lightweight alu-trailers.
I am guessing that the first one is actually a Heida / Heiwo cab, but the guess is completely unsubstantiated, more of an “educated” gut feeling. Also it’s one of the earliest around, still on a L71 chassis. The Dutch numberplates tell you an appropriate year, SB are all early models, TB later, UB even later.
The second one is easy, this is the most documented one and maybe the very first converted L71’s. The cab is a Van Trigt. This cat had nine lives, different liveries, different trim, different combinations of both, but always the same number plate.
[zb]
anorak:
The Jawico LVS looks like it has Verheul windscreens and wheelarches, if that helps anything! There is a picture of a similar cab on a Verheul on the van Buerden website that you linked. The cab has some similarities with de Graaff, which may be another (possibly false!) connection:
Again, it’s really hard to even find an entry to untangle the knot of reasoning here. First of all, you’re basically trying to identify a cabmaker solemly by a flat piece of glass. Secondly that Verheul on the Van Beurden site actually has a Van Beurden cab. And yes, it is a De Graff cab.
There is a lot of false info on the pages of this thread and a lot of unsubstantiated theorizing here to start with. And the same goes for the rest of the internet. Always start with a reliable piece of information, however unimportant it seems at first, but it’s gotta be reliable. And then compare, compare, compare, read, read, read, as much as there is to find. And then toy with it until patterns emerge, or, even better, more subtantiated info.
barreiros:
…
There is a lot of false info on the pages of this thread and a lot of unsubstantiated theorizing here to start with. And the same goes for the rest of the internet. Always start with a reliable piece of information, however unimportant it seems at first, but it’s gotta be reliable. And then compare, compare, compare, read, read, read, as much as there is to find. And then toy with it until patterns emerge, or, even better, more subtantiated info.
The thread contains many mistakes, most or all of which are corrected later. That is the nature of the job. There is lots of observations/discussion, some of which eventually reaches a logical conclusion. If every post contained 100% corroborated certainty, that would be great, but it is never going to be that way. The thread is about half a dozen interested people-worldwide-sharing the things they see. Occasionally, one makes a deduction on which all can agree.
[zb]
anorak:
… many mistakes, most or all of which are corrected later.
According to whom? I’ve read the whole thread again and it’s still riddled with false info, agreed upon false info. That wouldn’t be a problem, because that can be corrected by someone who knows better. But how does one disprove three pages worth of rambling about Ackermann, none of it substantiated in any way. Where did that ever come from and why does it keep coming up? Nobody seems to ask. I also don’t have the stamina to dive into all that.
This thread is mangled up, and I mean badly mangled up. It’s actually hurting the fact-finding process, if something gets invented here, then picked up by some dude on Facebook and then re-posted here again as proof that all that imaginative theorizing was right. You can’t trust a source just because you want to. Facts are not a product of a democratic process, especially if you’re counting the voices of your own echo.
This thread needs to take a step back and reassess what can actually be said with confidence, what can be attributed to a reliable source. This thread needs some order if it shall actually lead somewhere.
barreiros:
[zb]
anorak:
… many mistakes, most or all of which are corrected later.According to whom? I’ve read the whole thread again and it’s still riddled with false info, agreed upon false info. That wouldn’t be a problem, because that can be corrected by someone who knows better. But how does one disprove three pages worth of rambling about Ackermann, none of it substantiated in any way. Where did that ever come from and why does it keep coming up? Nobody seems to ask. I also don’t have the stamina to dive into all that.
This thread is mangled up, and I mean badly mangled up. It’s actually hurting the fact-finding process, if something gets invented here, then picked up by some dude on Facebook and then re-posted here again as proof that all that imaginative theorizing was right. You can’t trust a source just because you want to. Facts are not a product of a democratic process, especially if you’re counting the voices of your own echo.
This thread needs to take a step back and reassess what can actually be said with confidence, what can be attributed to a reliable source. This thread needs some order if it shall actually lead somewhere.
Until stuff can be corroborated, it needs to be presented for scrutiny. It is a team effort. If one member spots a possible lead, then the best way to check it is to show it to the rest, surely? There was a possible link to Ackermann, as I remember it. As I remember it, the conclusion was that it was unlikely that Ackermann fitted cabs to LV chassis. If people on Facebook misread stuff and repeat it as fact, what can we do about it? Do we communicate by private message, until we are absolutely certain, for fear of being shot down? Of course not. As long as the uncertain stuff/speculation is highlighted as such, there should not be a problem. If the FB community is presenting part-finished work on this thread as the complete article, we may use Facebook to correct that. Who knows, some facts may come to light as a result of that intervention.
Historical writings, even those from the most respected authors, are riddled with errors which have become accepted as fact. An example is- LHD Ergomatic cabs have a cramped driving position, due to the offset engine cover. Wrong- the engine covers were handed. That fact only came to light because someone on TNUK repeated the error, sparking someone who knew the actuality to type a correction. Anyone who did not read that far down would be free to repeat the error anywhere else. We must treat these threads as works in progress. Anyone- literally anyone- can post whatever he likes, and there’s plenty of that, as you have observed. A definitive text it is not, and will never be. Eventually, someone will take the plunge and commit the V70/V71/LV75/? history to publication. Hopefully, because of error-strewn sprawls like this thread and the FB pages, that book will be free of errors like the one which blighted Mr. Kennett’s book.
I assume you are referring to that FB page which covers Ackermann. I couldn’t get my head round that either. I thought the cabs shown there were the Magirus ones, possibly sourced from Hoogeveen. There is that green mock-up, which has more of an Ackermann look about it. That intrigues me.
In support of which, ^^^^^^^^ there are many threads on here akin to this one. Such threads, unlike books, are not always conclusive and are never finished (unless deliberately terminated). Confused though they are, they do show the working out, like a page of arithmetic. It is possible to go back and cross-reference fragments of information with newer ones and make progress. It is this uniquely transparent working out that makes this sort of thread such an effective tool. The organic, interactive nature of the beast encourages contributors to undertake their research with more, not less, rigor in my opinion. Only when posters lob in complete non sequiturs does the real effectiveness evaporate.
Robert
