VBD2 is closed. Please go to https://vbd3.co.uk instead.

A new set of three casting variations has come to my attention on this model.
The section of chassis directly above the rear axles can contain a slot, a slot with intermediate brace, or have no slot at all:
More general photographs of the slot version are to be found here, whilst the slot with brace version is depicted here

Interestingly, both of models with slot also have the rear bumper separate from the barrel. Was this gap filled in when the chassis slot was deleted? Was the gap actually filled in, or did it simply flash over? How do these variations slot ( ) into Nick's variation table?

Idris wrote:Interestingly, both of models with slot also have the rear bumper separate from the barrel.

I see that when reviewing the various catalogue listings of this model, I wrote: "The AIM “1-75 Series Regular Wheels” catalogue (second printing, 1983) does not list the "no brace" variation, but does state the following: "The first issued models contained broken off rear base sections which were then strengthened. These were called open end although can be found on both 'a' & 'b' models" (which match Nick's codes 1 and 2). Looking at the drawing which accompanies this note, the problem looks to be associated with the rear bumper failing to form/breaking off." This now makes perfect sense in terms of the rear bumper having originally been separate from the barrel.

Hello Hugh,

I see on the images of the first and second castings with the side slot(s) they both have the rectangular brace between the tank and the pump box.

Has the variation without this brace between tank and pump box ever been shown on the forum as mentioned by Nick as code 1 and 2.

In a couple of models I have seen where this brace has been missing ( or part missing) I could see evidence that it was broken out or did not form.
On another model it did not form on one side. You can see in the image attached that the first casting has a broken section where it has not formed fully.
I tend to believe that the model without a brace was not intentional and would be an OOPS and that all early versions should have had this brace.

Do we have any member that has a model without the rectangular brace between tank and pump box please? As per Nick code 1 and 2.

Note if this brace was not formed or was broken off with fettling it would be painted over and may be difficult to see (or prove).

Bert

Hi There !

Recently a found a Refueller with partly open chassis (slot with brace) over the rear axles and open chassis in the back.

It has silver trim to front bumper, open air hole and thin ,flat brace between tanker and compartment. Closed and open I even discovered, that the chassis-floor between tanker and compartment is open. Here compared with a closed floor version

So we now have three casting modifications between the twin-slot version and the next known variation:
- Filling in of the chassis slots either side,
- Filling in of the tank/rear bumper gap,
- Filling in of the chassis floor between the cab and the tank.

Based on what we have seen with other models, what's the betting that there;s at least one intermediate variation out there waiting to be discovered?

paelzermaen wrote:Hi There !

Recently a found a Refueller with partly open chassis (slot with brace) over the rear axles and open chassis in the back.

Hello Thomas,
A beautiful example you have added to your collection.
Thanks for adding the quality photos showing each important variation aspect of this particular model as well.
Your photos show nicely why there was a need to strengthen the rear bumper which on some models did not form and others broken in the fettling process. The repair was interesting though as you can see in your photos after the brace or cross-member was added there still remained a hole either side. The reason they did not make the brace thicker to close up the holes is that further widening of the brace would impact the letter D and this would be too costly to remedy.
Here are a couple of images to show what I mean on my models.

Bert

Idris wrote:Based on what we have seen with other models, what's the betting that there;s at least one intermediate variation out there waiting to be discovered?

Probably not the new variation you were expecting to see but important nonetheless to those who like model evolution. On the early versions with the thin rectangular brace between the pump box and the tank there is NO brace inside the pump box.

Models with a round brace between the pump box and the tank have the triangular brace.
Most collectors are not likely to have seen or will never see this casting change unless the base plate is removed.
Given the difficulty in finding this model at a fair price, it is not one I would pop the base off just to check.

Interestingly this brace would have been cast to strengthen the rear pump box wall in conjunction with outside brace which ironically was overcome in the final casting by filling in the area between pump box and tank anyhow.

Bert

Finally!

Idris wrote:Finally!

Excellent Hugh, is the rear bumper intact on this one?

I was recently offered one missing the rear bumper, just waiting on clear photos to confirm if a factory fault or post factory break.
If you look at my photo above, model on the left you can see my bumper on single slot model is bent.

Bert

yellowfoden wrote:

Idris wrote:Finally!

Excellent Hugh, is the rear bumper intact on this one?

Present, but bent up (i.e. towards the tank).Neverthelss, I'm extremely pleased to have it since these seem to be as rare as hens' teeth.