Adderley Park LCVs

[POMMReg]

What's holding us up is production figures by year...

Remembering every book quotes the Glass' Guide as reference, for example, 1970 figures; 281896-302805.

Firstly, PO mailvans 279001-279400 are quoted as 1969, in fact they were early 1970, also 2400 CKDs - bulk of these built 1971/2 - finally, approx 2300 of the 1970 contract PO vans (including the 600 mailvans with duplicated vin's), were assembled in 1971.

The question is, how many Minor LCVs were actually BUILT during 1970?

As you can see, copying isn't an option for us, hopefully this explains why we're always asking for chassis/body/ engine numbers/Lucas date combinations.

[POMMReg]

Yet ANOTHER revelation in the Minor LCV world has been uncovered - whether it was ever documented in AddPk build records I don't know - but it proves that all our years of body/engine number collecting have NOT been fruitless!

[StillGotMy1stCar]

The suspense, tell us more please.

Regards John

[POMMReg]

The suspense, tell us more please.

Regards John

Only REALLY interesting to number crunchers like me, tedious to those who ain't.....

[ManyMinors]

So......Was there any point in mentioning it then

[RussLCV]

So......Was there any point in mentioning it then

You will be lucky to get a reply to a straight question!

[POMMReg]

So......Was there any point in mentioning it then

You will be lucky to get a reply to a straight question!

Russ, please no sarcastic remarks, I thought we had both moved on since our squabbles of yesteryear(?).

The "Revelation" concerns 1969 LCV production figures, admittedly, exact details not everyones' cup of tea BUT, as I've stated several times, we're aiming to compose a book that will stand the test of time, not some rushed, half-baked twaddle.

I've requested vehicle details for years, thanks to those who have supplied info, 1969-73 complete.
Now we need to concentrate on 1964-1968 models,which will complete Adderley Park 1098cc's build figures.

I hope the above explains the books delay, both to the benefit of Russ & others who believe we should simply copy from existing publications to hurry things along.

One final thought, build information is carried on surviving vehicles, even though records have been destroyed, we CAN gather info from these numbers, as proved by our research.

Well, phew, that was a longwinded retort to a simple comment....I'm exhausted!

[RussLCV]

I have never indicated you should simply contact info so why imply I have. Quick to ask for info but not so quick to reply, e mail sent at your request that needs answering sent 7/12/201

[POMMReg]

I have never indicated you should simply contact info so why imply I have. Quick to ask for info but not so quick to reply, e mail sent at your request that needs answering sent 7/12/201

Will get around to it, I apologise, moving house has priority, but if you feel answering your questions much more important, I shall endeavour to cancel the move, and leave my furniture & everything else in the street..

[RussLCV]

Yea right

[les]

I’ve got a question. If a book/booklet, on any particular subject was planned to be made available, Is it really possible to get every detail and reference that exists on that subject included, before release ?

[RussLCV]

Good question Les, not sure you will get an answer from Chris. In my opinion publish what you have and ask the questions you don’t know and issue an update

[ManyMinors]

Appeals for information on this website (for example) will only target the relatively few Minor owners who visit this website. The book itself - if it is ever published - will be a catalyst to obtaining further information from owners and those with information from the past to add to a revised edition later.

Any book will only be worth publishing if there exists a worthwhile target audience. Surely each year that passes, that potential audience reduces? Also, those who worked on these vehicles in years gone by and have information to contribute will lessen in numbers too?

On that basis, the priority should be to publish as soon as possible shouldn't it - and then update at a later stage? Or simply publish via a website - as others have done - which is much easier to update of course?

[les]

Good question Les, not sure you will get an answer from Chris. In my opinion publish what you have and ask the questions you don’t know and issue an update

I agree, I’ve suggested in the past, that the main text could be followed by supplements if/when appropriate,
However, I don’t think Chris likes that idea, and it’s his decision but when do you know you have everything there is to know?

[RussLCV]

Simple answer Les NEVER, every day is a learning day

[ManyMinors]

You never will Les. That is the whole problem. New information will always come along in dribs and drabs and usually just when you least expect it. Probably immediately after you have published of course. The newly published book will bring people out of the woodwork who'll say: "They haven't got that right. I know 'cos I was there"

OOps! Same answer!

[POMMReg]

You never will Les. That is the whole problem. New information will always come along in dribs and drabs and usually just when you least expect it. Probably immediately after you have published of course. The newly published book will bring people out of the woodwork who'll say: "They haven't got that right. I know 'cos I was there"

OOps! Same answer!

Some info therein has come from former employee's.

Additionally, have to concider how the winter of 62/63 effected production, Strikes by BL & its suppliers, the CKD market PLUS the ratio of Civilian & GPO produced.

I freely accept my work on production figures is never going to be 100%, however, my aim is to settle with "the best that could be done", may well prove to be wrong in the future, but NOT as wrong as existing info.

[les]

[/quote

Additionally, have to concider how the winter of 62/63 effected production, Strikes by BL & its suppliers, the CKD market PLUS the ratio of Civilian & GPO produced.
[/quote]

Well that shouldn’t take long then !

[POMMReg]

[/quote

Additionally, have to concider how the winter of 62/63 effected production, Strikes by BL & its suppliers, the CKD market PLUS the ratio of Civilian & GPO produced.

Well that shouldn’t take long then !
[/quote]

Problem with stikes being how many days production effected - AddPk averaging 100 units per day - would of thought enough stock held during the Lucas stoppage of mid '70, components are month dated.
Build figures over Winter of 62/63 should be revealed at Gaydon...BUT 1098cc Civilan/GPO Minor amounts by year is going to hold things up, this is where vin/cab/engine nos prove essential...details from 10 LCVs 1965-69 surely attainable.
Scary thing was the proof copy of our book used the data from the Glass' Guide, where the total production figure is given as 326627, rather than 327227.

[RussLCV]

[/quote


Scary thing was the proof copy of our book used the data from the Glass' Guide, where the total production figure is given as 326627, rather than 327227.

If you have a proof copy from the publisher they will be keen to publish as soon as possible following amends to the proof as all printing tooling is done? or do I misunderstand?