944 Shell-BP Fuel Tanker (1963-69)

Jacques Referring back to my previous messages I have recently sent you some more photos which you specifically requested and a further e-mail to ask if you had received them. Just as what happened recently I have received no response whatsoever. I do not like using this medium but your e-mail system IS JUST NOT WORKING or are you ignoring my messages???? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR SYSTEM????? Everyone else replies when I send them messages. I am sorry but I cannot continue to use this forum to try to get you to respond to messages. I am utterly fed up of totally wasting my time an effort. David

Coming back from two days away in Paris, I am very sorry to find a very rude post from an equaly unpolite person who praises courtesy but does not have any. If he had, he would have asked me if I had received his pictures by private email and not deliberately on a public forum. He would also have thought that I may have not looked at the internet for a while. This post and his recent hypocritical behaviour towards me is unbearable, I ask the author to delete his post and as he wrote this on a public forum, I ask for his public apologies. About the Chinese Dinky, I only describe the models as I would do it for an original Dinky Toys, all the evidence exist for my descriptions which can not be considered libelous. Mattel can only be concerned by the fact that NOREV produces a high percentage of rubbish for Atlas, Atlas does not complain and accepts more poor models. Mattel could complain and witdraw it's licence to Atlas for ruining the name DINKY TOYS but their part of the profit is probably such that they do not care. I have just received this email from a good DTCA member friend, please give him the answer. I am sorry to see such a shit-storm against you on the DTCA forum regarding the Atlas issue. Why are they so angry ? Conclusion Yes David I have received your pictures, thank you for them but bl...y h..l be polite and think a bit. Jacques.

As I said in my earlier message it has nothing to do with putting the Atlas items on the site but the comments that go with them are not good. Unfortunately the only way I could get a message to you was via this site as five e-mails went unanswered, none of them bounced back so they were delivered. Dave

Bruce, There may be an other way to read your second post on page one of this thread : Enter Meccano, and it is possible that the company was given the plans of the tank in view of the time frame between the unveiling of the experimental tank and the launch of the 944 in June 1963. In fact Alfred Miles Ltd or was it Shell / BP who probably asked Meccano to make the model to promote their new tank at the time of issue. The original blue prints would have been provided to Meccano with the order as soon as the design of the tank had been completed. There is evidence that in several cases, the manufacturers asked Meccano to model their vehicle and even paid for the tooling. This was the case for the Michigan tractor dozer, Triumph and Renault cars, the Trojan Brooke Bond tea van, the liner France and certainly many others. The first run probably delivered in March or April 1963 would be paid by Miles or Shell to be used as promotionnal models given to potential buyers of fuel tankers. Were these the rare models with black or red hubs ? Meccano had already made two Miles fire engines : the ref. 259 and 276 in 1961 and 1962 so Miles and Meccano knew each other. Jacques.

Jacques As I wrote many posts ago, Meccano gave the tank its prominence no doubt due to the assistance given to them by Alfred Miles and/or Shell-BP, more likely the former as the publicity received through the Dinky model could extend to orders from other fuel companies. It is for that reason the model was never referred to as a Leyland Octopus as emphasis was on the tank as shown with the side panel details on the box that also does not mention Leyland Octopus. I have mentioned this previously. In regard to your theory that the red and black hub version could have been given out as promotional, if this was the case, then one would see a constant box style, with the lidded type being predominant. However on checking through Vectis sales, more black hub versions were packaged in an end-flap box than were in a yellow pictorial lidded box. It was also interesting to find a red hub version in a pictorial end-flap box as well as a gold window export box, the images below being courtesy of Vectis: The above model with black hubs has the usual grey chassis. This box type (providing it has not been exchanged and is in fact the original) does provide a time frame when these hubs became available which in all probability was at the same time as the grey plastic hubs were being used. This then could indicate an early, or trial issue produced exclusively for either Alfred Miles or Shell-BP. Then along came the red hub version, in its pictorial end-flap box together with a gold US Export window box. I doubt if this version with red hubs was produced for either Alfred Miles or Shell-BP, although in the Meccano world, and as the saying goes, 'anything is possible'. Kind regards Bruce (150) #650 17 June 2015

Again, on all photographs above I see the 'Shell-BP' stickers positioned exactly with their lower line above the yellow tank section, on the split line of both sections. Mine has them positioned lower - in my view correctly - using the top of the tiny yellow area (reflecting a part of the yellow colour of the lower section) in between the two crests as a mark to position it exactly there. I can imagine that it was rather difficult and unpractical to stick them exactly there in the production process. Using the divide between the two sections is much easier as a mark and it avoids the split between the sections damaging of even almost breaking the stickers there. Could this mean that those models with the lower and correctly positioned stickers are the older ones, before positioning instructions were adjusted? I have no box with mine. Accompanying boxes and stamps may deny or confirm my 'theory' . Kind regards, Jan

Jan, The drawing on the two boxes are different.

janwerner wrote: 'Again, on all photographs above I see the 'Shell-BP' stickers positioned exactly with their lower line above the yellow tank section, on the split line of both sections. Mine has them positioned lower - in my view correctly - using the top of the tiny yellow area (reflecting a part of the yellow colour of the lower section) in between the two crests as a mark to position it exactly there. I can imagine that it was rather difficult and unpractical to stick them exactly there in the production process. Using the divide between the two sections is much easier as a mark and it avoids the split between the sections damaging of even almost breaking the stickers there. Could this mean that those models with the lower and correctly positioned stickers are the older ones, before positioning instructions were adjusted? I have no box with mine. Accompanying boxes and stamps may deny or confirm my 'theory' . Kind regards, Jan' Hello Jan Amazing - I was only looking at the hubs - not the transfers and you are absolutely correct. Perhaps with later production runs, care with the actual positioning of the Shell-BP transfer was dispensed with for the sake of haste. Here are some close-ups of my 944 Shell-BP Fuel Tanker and its box: It is interesting seeing the drawing of the tank and how the Shell-BP advertising is positioned - no gap between the Shell and BP logos. The later pictorial end-flap box appears to correct this with a gap between both logos. With the image below of my model, one can see the care taken to ensure the yellow portion of the transfer is in line with the yellow lower plastic half of the tank. More care - less haste = early production with the lidded box confirming this. It would be nice to learn if most lidded boxes also had similar care. (With the exception of the model in the lidded box in my earlier post with black hubs!) Kind regards Bruce (150) #657 17 June 2015

Mr Moderator Please change the title for this Thread to: 944 SHELL-BP TANKER 1963-1969 I have given my reason for this correction in my first Post. Previously this model has been referred to as 944 Leyland Octopus Tanker 'Shell-BP' a title that Meccano never used. The date should be changed to 1963-1969, with the model not being included in the June to December 1968 Agent Order Forms sufficient stock was no doubt held by dealers for it to be included in the 1969 catalogue. Whether its deletion date should be 1968 is therefore debatable. Kind regards and Merry Christmas to you and all who read this Post on this day! Bruce (150) 25 December 2015 #727

Dear Bruce, Is'nt the title 'Shell-B.P.' fuel tanker or 4,000 gallon 'Shell-B.P.' fuel tanker ?

Dear Jacques It was only referred to as '4,000 GALLON SHELL-BP FUEL TANKER' in the advertisement on the back page of the July 1963 Meccano Magazine. Inside, Mr Toyman referred to it as 'Shell-BP Tanker' and 'Shell-BP Fuel Tanker', but in all subsequent price lists, leaflets, catalogues etc, the model is SHELL-BP FUEL TANKER, not forgetting what is written on the boxes. So, its correct title is SHELL-BP FUEL TANKER. Please note, the image after the picture of the box is not clear. Click on it to bring up the copy from the June 1968 Order Form as one example of Meccano's written reference to this model. Kind regards and Merry Christmas (which it is still in Europe and North and South America and all points in-between.) Bruce (150) #728 26 December 2015

[img]/images/sites/default/files/forum-images/9440851c (1280x1123).jpg[/img]
[img]/images/sites/default/files/forum-images/IMG - Copy.jpg[/img]
[img]/images/sites/default/files/forum-images/IMG (1280x1221).jpg[/img]

I am sorry guys but the description which says it is a Leyland Octopus is correct because it is a Leyland Octopus. Does it matter that Meccano called it a '4,000 GALLON SHELL-BP FUEL TANKER', we are talking about TOYS here, what is the fuss all about?????????? Or are we all totally pedantic?????? If so this forum is not fun anymore. Comments please Dave