Scania Vabis LV type

[zb_anorak]

barreiros:

[zb]
anorak:

barreiros:
“Involvement with König”? What were they, lovers?

You alerted us to the parts-sharing between the two firms.

I did not. I pointed out that the design cues were similar and that their shops weren’t far apart. Jumping to the conclusion of parts-sharing is over-simplifying. And so is jumping to the conclusion that two makers must be related because some of their parts are 60% similar.

You posted pictures of van Buerden cabs, both with and without front panels almost identical to the König bus you posted. König’s front end styling is unique and rather odd. “A story emerges”, you said. OK, you did not state in exact words that König supplied the panels, but you are suggesting almost-certain collaboration. From what you have posted, a reader would guess that they shared the panels, with very high confidence. If that was not your intention, what is the probability that they shared parts or designs, in your opinion?

[zb_anorak]

barreiros:
21
0

I have not seen those 'screens on any vehicle other than Verheul. Van Buerden built some cabs on Verheul chassis. The 'screens on those particular van Buerden cabs look identical to the Verheul ones. If that is not grounds to investigate a possible sharing of parts, then I am a nutcase.

As far as I remember, it is possible to have curved windscreens made to order- for restorations- but it is expensive. Coachbuilders would prefer to use glass which is already commonplace. If van Buerden was already dealing with Verheul- building the odd cab on their chassis- Verheul would be glad to sell a few parts. Why wouldn’t they?

Earlier in the thread, I thought Verheul might have been responsible for one of the cabs, so I suggested it- hoping for confirmation or otherwise. In the event, the correct coachbuilder (Paul) was identified, so things moved on. I am not obsessed with Verheul.

[barreiros]

[zb]
anorak:

barreiros:

[zb]
anorak:

barreiros:
“Involvement with König”? What were they, lovers?

You alerted us to the parts-sharing between the two firms.

I did not. I pointed out that the design cues were similar and that their shops weren’t far apart. Jumping to the conclusion of parts-sharing is over-simplifying. And so is jumping to the conclusion that two makers must be related because some of their parts are 60% similar.

You posted pictures of van Buerden cabs, both with and without front panels almost identical to the König bus you posted. König’s front end styling is unique and rather odd. “A story emerges”, you said. OK, you did not state in exact words that König supplied the panels, but you are suggesting almost-certain collaboration. From what you have posted, a reader would guess that they shared the panels, with very high confidence. If that was not your intention, what is the probability that they shared parts or designs, in your opinion?

I simply believe that the König design inspired the panel beaters at Van Beurden, nothing more. And once a customer asked for something a bit more “flashy” than their regular design, they jumped on the chance. I think so much can be deducted from the few photographs and the location. It makes sense.
However “swapping” parts, I don’t find that logical at all. It seems to me, that you had your heyday as a panel beater in the 70s and 80s and you’re applying that mindset to it. But in the 50s things were still different, outsourcing work made things more expensive, not cheaper. All the König buses were hand-made, nothing was pre-fabbed. If you were the guy responsible for a workshop, you wouldn’t go to another shop to have a part produced and pay them for the labour plus a profit. You would pay the labour to your own panel beaters and keep the profit. Things changed when parts got mass-produced and pressed steel got introduced widely, because then it became sensible to pay someone a little profit instead of pumping hours and ours of your own labour into producing the part. They had the pressing plant, you didn’t. But in the 50s that was still not very common.
So by this logic, it would make sense to buy a Mercedes windshield, even in the 50s, because you would save money and have a replaceable part, if it ever broke. So that’s a good theory, I think. But interchangeable hand-produced parts between medium-sized workshops…, to me, than doesn’t sound reasonable at all. I don’t think it’s a theory worth following up, unless there is some more evidence, which I don’t believe there is.

I’d love to present some more photos, facts and theories, even new cabs. But if we’re jumping to conclusions and run wild with those, I’d rather not do it. I believe too much “wild” theorizing does harm, if only by flooding the thread and clouding the important, factual bits. I’ve read the whole thread three times by now, plus individual pages on occasion. But I’ve only just discovered that the cab from your avatar had been identified before. It really doesn’t help if important bits like that just go under unnoticed.

But speaking of Mercedes windshields, here’s a nice picture I found:

[zb_anorak]

Tha above was posted while I was editing my previous post. I believe it counts as common ground.

[barreiros]

[zb]
anorak:

barreiros:
21
0

If that is not grounds to investigate a possible sharing of parts, then I am a nutcase.

I hear what you are saying, but why won’t you hear me?

Let’s just say those windshields were made by Verheul for the sake of the argument. Sure, you can ask that question, but why would that be important? It would be neat to know, that’s it, nothing more.
It would also be neat to know where they got the door handles from. Or if the wiper motor came with the chassis. Or or or. It’s not the end of the rope that will help untangle the knot.
But let’s just also agree, that these are grounds to investigate and that these are questions that should be investigated thoroughly. As you say.

Then, how you’re gonna go about it? How is it that you are going to investigate further?

Raise the question, then wait if something happens? Please investigate, but raising a question to let it ripe is not investigation. It’s talking to the universe hoping for an answer back. And yes, that sounds a bit like a nutcase.

Who would jump in to answer that question thoroughly? The one Dutch guy who was responsible for filling out the order for the windshields back then? Let’s just wait a bit longer, maybe he’ll jump into the discussion once he’s 105. Or maybe his nice will kick in, her English is probably a bit better anyway, and she’ll know how to use a scanner, so she can upload all the document from back then.
Come on, don’t be naive… It would be nice, but it won’t happen. These guys actually exist, but you have to seek them out. They won’t just show up here to do the work for you.

Sitting here, waiting for someone to clear up all the questions that one raises is not the way to go. That’s all I’m saying. And if you go back and give the thread another read, you may realize why I’m saying it. Or just read the argument of the last few days, little to nothing to actually work with but lots of questions that are basically just based on unsubstantiated hunches. We could talk about those, but I don’t see the point. I can only prove what is documented and I cannot disprove anything else. And the same goes for everybody else here.

[zb_anorak]

barreiros:
I hear what you are saying, but why won’t you hear me?

Let’s just say those windshields were made by Verheul for the sake of the argument. Sure, you can ask that question, but why would that be important? It would be neat to know, that’s it, nothing more.
It would also be neat to know where they got the door handles from. Or if the wiper motor came with the chassis. Or or or. It’s not the end of the rope that will help untangle the knot.
But let’s just also agree, that these are grounds to investigate and that these are questions that should be investigated thoroughly. As you say.

The windscreens define the shape of the aperture, the shape of the door aperture and all the surrounding structure. That is a large chunk of the engineering effort of making a batch of cabs. If there are common windscreens, that is strong evidence of collaboration between firms. Such evidence does not apply to door handles.

barreiros:
Then, how you’re gonna go about it? How is it that you are going to investigate further?

Raise the question, then wait if something happens? Please investigate, but raising a question to let it ripe is not investigation. It’s talking to the universe hoping for an answer back. And yes, that sounds a bit like a nutcase.

It’s how things get started nowadays. Read the thread again- quite a few posts are from others, asking questions, providing answers.

barreiros:
Who would jump in to answer that question thoroughly? The one Dutch guy who was responsible for filling out the order for the windshields back then? Let’s just wait a bit longer, maybe he’ll jump into the discussion once he’s 105. Or maybe his nice will kick in, her English is probably a bit better anyway, and she’ll know how to use a scanner, so she can upload all the document from back then.
Come on, don’t be naive… It would be nice, but it won’t happen. These guys actually exist, but you have to seek them out. They won’t just show up here to do the work for you.

As I have said before, it is a team effort. If the questions raised prompt a chain of enquiry which results in first-hand information being shared, then raising the question was productive. Your repeated reading of the thread has at least made you think, has it not?

barreiros:
Sitting here, waiting for someone to clear up all the questions that one raises is not the way to go. That’s all I’m saying. And if you go back and give the thread another read, you may realize why I’m saying it. Or just read the argument of the last few days, little to nothing to actually work with but lots of questions that are basically just based on unsubstantiated hunches. We could talk about those, but I don’t see the point. I can only prove what is documented and I cannot disprove anything else. And the same goes for everybody else here.

If you want a big pat on the back for your successful research, here it is. Done. My efforts out of the armchair consisted of a trip to the Scania Museum, which was only a start, I admit. My mistake was to travel back through the Netherlands, without even thinking to investigate old Scanias there. I still smile at my own error- all the information was within a short distance of my route, yet that fact did not cross my mind until I had got home. What an opportunity wasted! Rather than punch the wall, I enjoy the joke, because I study old lorries for fun.

[zb_anorak]

barreiros:
…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.

There are loads of photographs of Roset cabs all over the internet. There are also loads of photographs of similar cabs, with the coachbuilding attributed to P&vW. From memory, the first Roset cabs I have seen (on LV75 chassis) date from 1959. Elsewhere on this forum, possibly on this thread, I posted a picture of a preserved coach, from that period, which shared some obvious similarities. Based on that, this is a Roset cab:

The cabs attributed to P&vW (by the people posting the pictures) have some detail differences, principally the position of the headlamps, but are identical otherwise.

Based on what you have posted, it seems that Paul and P&vW, for a time, supplied cabs like this:

At some stage, they received panels or welded structures from Roset, and supplied cabs to that design. The vehicle in my avatar might post date that period, given that it has a late (TB) registration. The square-type Paul cab came later, judging by the UB and, in some cases, ZB plates on those vehicles. I must check all of these lorries’ registrations, so we may make some estimate of the chronology of it all.

I will finish by repeating a question I have asked before: given that those Paul cabs went on vehicles registered after October 1964 and, in some cases, had LB76 grilles on them, were those vehicles actually LV76s?

Incientally, I am certain you have seen the yellow P&vW-cabbed LVS on Flickr, with the R112 in the background. Was the LVS saved for preserrvation?

[barreiros]

[zb]
anorak:
I will finish by repeating a question I have asked before: given that those Paul cabs went on vehicles registered after October 1964 and, in some cases, had LB76 grilles on them, were those vehicles actually LV76s?

No. That grille design was introduced on official Scania products in the very early 60’s, check Scanias CF76 bus type, for instance. Don’t need no pad on the back for finding that out, it was an easy google, everybody could have done that…
As you said, 1964 plates start with ZB for heavy lorries (1956 SB 1958 TB 1960 UB 1962 VB 1963 XB). But I have yet to see a Paul cabbed LV with a dutch 1964 reg, so I would be interested to have a look on the one you were speaking of.
Also, officially changing the name would have required a new registration of the design. On an otherwise unchanged design that was about to be phased out, I don’t think so. Beers was probably happy to sell the remaining stock of LV’s at a discount. Most likely, there also was a bit of a waiting list on the new 76, so the 75 would have still appealed to the customers that needed a vehicle quick. And those wouldn’t have cared if the badge said 75 or 76.

On all the rest, I won’t comment again. Let’s just agree to disagree. I understand where the Roset and P&vW comments are coming from, I can read, that is not my problem. You see some merit in asking questions that are based on pure assumptions and hearsay, I don’t. Sometimes you have to run with what you have, I get that. But that doesn’t mean that you should always do so, nor that it is a safe thing, nor that you shouldn’t look back or stop looking for actual evidence. At least if you care for the right answer, which I do, and not just some answer.
And I know this is not super important. My sister wouldn’t care one bit and she’ll survive just fine. The universe too. This all is special interest, it is hobby, it is fun, it’s just a way to spend the day. But identifying an Austrian ÖAF in this thread as a Scania and no one picking up on it makes it also rather pointless.
A little more research and scrutiny forehand would help the one or other question, at least in my opinion. That’s why I also won’t comment on those kind of questions anymore further on. I also seem to have a different eye than you and that will be just that.

[zb_anorak]

barreiros:

[zb]
anorak:
I will finish by repeating a question I have asked before: given that those Paul cabs went on vehicles registered after October 1964 and, in some cases, had LB76 grilles on them, were those vehicles actually LV76s?

No. That grille design was introduced on official Scania products in the very early 60’s, check Scanias CF76 bus type, for instance. Don’t need no pad on the back for finding that out, it was an easy google, everybody could have done that…
As you said, 1964 plates start with ZB for heavy lorries (1956 SB 1958 TB 1960 UB 1962 VB 1963 XB). But I have yet to see a Paul cabbed LV with a dutch 1964 reg, so I would be interested to have a look on the one you were speaking of.

Can’t find it now lol.

barreiros:
Also, officially changing the name would have required a new registration of the design. On an otherwise unchanged design that was about to be phased out, I don’t think so.

What is this about registration of design? Surely, if they have been making the things in 1963, then continuing to supply them in 1964 would not require any change?

barreiros:
Beers was probably happy to sell the remaining stock of LV’s at a discount. Most likely, there also was a bit of a waiting list on the new 76, so the 75 would have still appealed to the customers that needed a vehicle quick. And those wouldn’t have cared if the badge said 75 or 76.

Yes. It would still be nice to find out that these great coachbuilders supplied some lorries on later chassis. From what I have seen, some of the LV75s are more impressive vehicles than the LB76

barreiros:
On all the rest, I won’t comment again. Let’s just agree to disagree. I understand where the Roset and P&vW comments are coming from, I can read, that is not my problem. You see some merit in asking questions that are based on pure assumptions and hearsay, I don’t. Sometimes you have to run with what you have, I get that. But that doesn’t mean that you should always do so, nor that it is a safe thing, nor that you shouldn’t look back or stop looking for actual evidence. At least if you care for the right answer, which I do, and not just some answer.
And I know this is not super important. My sister wouldn’t care one bit and she’ll survive just fine. The universe too. This all is special interest, it is hobby, it is fun, it’s just a way to spend the day. But identifying an Austrian
ÖAF in this thread as a Scania and no one picking up on it makes it also rather pointless.
A little more research and scrutiny forehand would help the one or other question, at least in my opinion. That’s why I also won’t comment on those kind of questions anymore further on. I also seem to have a different eye than you and that will be just that.

Where do I state that an ÖAF is anything other than an ÖAF?

I’ll pursue my interest however I bloody well like mate. Apart from the odd cross word, from the usual suspects, most of the contributors to this thread have enjoyed posting. If you have access to first-hand information or live near people who know, then let me be the first to encourage you to use those resources.

[barreiros]

[zb]
anorak:
Here’s the last of the (so far) unidentified LVs I have found on the internet:

This is an Austrian registered ÖAF.

[erf-continental]

Probably shown earlier…and I notice a strange/short wheelbase

Paul & Van Weelde was responsible for the cab, the body is unknown

[zb_anorak]

barreiros:

[zb]
anorak:
Here’s the last of the (so far) unidentified LVs I have found on the internet:

This is an Austrian registered ÖAF.
1
0

You are right- that is a mistake. If you check the original post, I put a note under that photo, suggesting that it might be a mistake- possibly mine. It was among a batch of photos of other vehicles I was hoping to identify. The thread was/is intended for research purposes only- not exclusively for definitive statements of fact, althought those are welcome too!

It is a good idea to go back through the thread, and correct the errors/answer the unanswered questions, as the facts emerge.

[zb_anorak]

I have been considering those pre-LV75 vehicles, which crop up from time to time. One point of reference is this article:

I think there were more pages to it. Does anyone have them? I would like to translate them into English- more people being able to read it gives a greater chance of new information coming to light.

[erf-continental]

Pure ignorance or?

[zb_anorak]

ERF-Continental:
Pure ignorance or?

What is your problem?

[erf-continental]

MY problem? You’re kidding! I frequently pointed out where more details on the history could be
found but apparently you like to JUDGE it merely than to focus on facts. Sorry, no hard feelings.

[zb_anorak]

Don’t know what the nutcase above is talking about. Ban him completely please, someone. He leaves a bad stink everywhere he goes.

[erf-ngc-european]

It would seem that Barendrecht was quite a transport hub in the '60s and '70s. Robert

[zb_anorak]

First sensible post for some time^^^.

[michel]

An other nice LV tractor: