Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What an amazing find that photograph is. Fantastic. Didn't make the preview but I understand that someone has now written FWD in the dust on the front of it. I will go and take some photos of it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be interested in how much it went for. Sadly I think someone may be more interested in the crane on the back, but we live in hope it will be saved as a complete unit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diamond T sold for £2200. Prices were all over the place. Some stuff went for peanuts some for a fortune. I think the T was about right as it needs a lot of work.

 

But the much nicer (condition wise) Pioneer recovery only got to £1800.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved the SUCO. John and I were trying to think of reasons not to buy it. Nowhere to put. No way to get it home. No time to restore it. So we didn't get it. When I got home my wife said she liked it and we should have bought it. Oh well.

Here are some more photos:

IMG_0593_zps7cjumuif.jpg

IMG_0594_zpskx9nmc2a.jpg

IMG_0595_zpsmwkrdr77.jpg

IMG_0596_zpsfhdvmbdg.jpg

IMG_0597_zpsk9d8hql7.jpg

IMG_0598_zpsgl3ryajo.jpg

IMG_0643_zpszxfaplzu.jpg

IMG_0644_zpsszqddz5g.jpg

IMG_0646_zpsjb1ba0la.jpg

Edited by Great War truck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been searching without any success today for a photo of one with this type of crane. It looked original to the truck. Has anybody come across such a photo?

Thanks

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost certain that the crane was added later in life, although this may of been at the time of selling off from military service, 1946-49. The reg of ECR (late 46) backs this up. Mead-Morrison built larger cranes but have not seen one this small. sm2018.jpg

Attached a picture of how they looked after assembly in UK.

If anyone knows who the new owner is I have a set of manuals, parts, operating and service, plus cab frame drawings I can copy for them.....and put them in touch with fellow su-coe owners. Please ask them to contact me via PM. In the mean time I will keep looking for any pictures of this crane fitted to anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not have been an artillery tractor, according to Bart some of these chassis's were fitted with augers for bomb digging and were fitted with smaller tyres, dual on the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Degsy, that would explain the hubs for bolt on wheels though I assume that the present wheels themselves are non original. I tend to think that although this truck seems to have been built with a winch (british type guide pulleys & rollers at the back) there seems no provision for guiding the winch rope round the winch drive chains when you run the rope up the left side of the chassis to pull from the front. I have no idea how the winch was originally driven but I suspect not as it is now (or was it a different winch?). Does anyone have a photo of a standard chassis/cab that shows the winch drive?

 

David

Edited by David Herbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that the drive set up was originally for the auger and has been adapted to drive what may be a non original winch? Just a thought and we may never know the answer. I've never seen a photo of an auger truck let alone seen one 'in the flesh'. Perhaps someone can come up with a photo but I won't hold my breath.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of 6 `Lorry mounted boring machines` L4138835-4138840. This one made it on to a Middlesex registration. FWD literature of the time states ` Modified FWD and boring machine used by British in digging up delayed action bombs in London area during World War 2. Boring tower permits digging holes up to 20 feet deep` (some brave souls using one of theses to hunt out bombs!!!!!) Auger size from 16-48 in. They were actually built on a cu-coe chassis, not a su-chassis. The difference being length of chassis and the cu-coe having a Cummins diesel engine.

Over 60 cu-coes were also used by the `Home Timber Production Department, MOS, Bristol `in the 1940-50s. All were destroyed after use as part of the lend-lease agreement. The fitting of twin rear wheels on su-coes was not uncommon, I tend to think the auctioned vehicle was a su-coe. There may be various plates on the dash of the truck which will give pointers, along with the chassis number if it is still readable on the chassis. I have most of the cu-coe chassis numbers. I understand the auctioned truck had a Gardner fitted, can anyone confirm?. Gardner`s were a common choice to replace the thirsty, original su-coe petrol engine.. Also attached layout of the winch and cable run. On the auctioned truck the winch had been turned around

note-2.jpg

cu-coe-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the drawing above shows a left hand drive truck (with the winch drive and forward pull run of the rope on the right). The Keely one is right hand drive (now).

 

The photo of the earth borer shows American style clamp on wheels, not the ten stud bolt on wheels of the Keely one. I wonder where the conversion hubs to fit bolt on wheels came from. They would have been expensive as new parts given the small benifit from using UK wheels.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gew395-3.jpg

Vast majority were fitted with `normal` wheels, but a few came out the the disposal sales during the period 1946-49 with the Amercian style bolt on wheels...nice to look at, not so nice to work on.

Right hand drive su-coes had the front winch rollers on the left of the cab (mirror image of LHD)

 

I see that the drawing above shows a left hand drive truck (with the winch drive and forward pull run of the rope on the right). The Keely one is right hand drive (now).

 

The photo of the earth borer shows American style clamp on wheels, not the ten stud bolt on wheels of the Keely one. I wonder where the conversion hubs to fit bolt on wheels came from. They would have been expensive as new parts given the small benifit from using UK wheels.

 

David

ftr593-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of 6 `Lorry mounted boring machines` L4138835-4138840. This one made it on to a Middlesex registration. FWD literature of the time states ` Modified FWD and boring machine used by British in digging up delayed action bombs in London area during World War 2. Boring tower permits digging holes up to 20 feet deep` (some brave souls using one of theses to hunt out bombs!!!!!) Auger size from 16-48 in. They were actually built on a cu-coe chassis, not a su-chassis. The difference being length of chassis and the cu-coe having a Cummins diesel engine.

Over 60 cu-coes were also used by the `Home Timber Production Department, MOS, Bristol `in the 1940-50s. All were destroyed after use as part of the lend-lease agreement. The fitting of twin rear wheels on su-coes was not uncommon, I tend to think the auctioned vehicle was a su-coe. There may be various plates on the dash of the truck which will give pointers, along with the chassis number if it is still readable on the chassis. I have most of the cu-coe chassis numbers. I understand the auctioned truck had a Gardner fitted, can anyone confirm?. Gardner`s were a common choice to replace the thirsty, original su-coe petrol engine.. Also attached layout of the winch and cable run. On the auctioned truck the winch had been turned around

[ATTACH=CONFIG]115150[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]115151[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks for posting Trevor, I wasn't expecting that:blush:.Bart says that the cu and su cargo truck were fitted with a 5 speed gearbox but the su artillery tractor had a 4 speed 'box. Is this either a mistake on Bart's part, a printing error or is it correct. Seems a bit odd to me that a vehicle used as a tractor for artillery wouldn't have the 5 speed 'box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for posting Trevor, I wasn't expecting that:blush:.Bart says that the cu and su cargo truck were fitted with a 5 speed gearbox but the su artillery tractor had a 4 speed 'box. Is this either a mistake on Bart's part, a printing error or is it correct. Seems a bit odd to me that a vehicle used as a tractor for artillery wouldn't have the 5 speed 'box.

 

According to the FWD manuals I have both cu`s and su`s were fitted with a 5 speed box. It also says the `su` gearbox was made by Fuller, no make is given for `cu`s` but I would guess Fuller would apply to both. The manuals only refer to a chassis cab. The trucks were bodied in UK. Numbers wise approx. 2699 artillery tractors (winch) and 149 GS cargo (non winch).....another guess....these numbers refer to trucks ordered or loaded on ships.......U-boats and other mishaps may of affected those numbers being landed in UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On those Medium artillery tractors supplied to Britain, the bottom gear of the 5-speed gearbox was blanked off. This info was from a wartime War Office publication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the FWD manuals I have both cu`s and su`s were fitted with a 5 speed box. It also says the `su` gearbox was made by Fuller, no make is given for `cu`s` but I would guess Fuller would apply to both. The manuals only refer to a chassis cab. The trucks were bodied in UK. Numbers wise approx. 2699 artillery tractors (winch) and 149 GS cargo (non winch).....another guess....these numbers refer to trucks ordered or loaded on ships.......U-boats and other mishaps may of affected those numbers being landed in UK

 

Re the gearbox Richard has come up with the answer. Bart quotes a total of 85 cu's supplied under Lend-Lease in 1942, presumably the reason you give above would account for the difference in quantities as mentioned in your earlier post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On those Medium artillery tractors supplied to Britain, the bottom gear of the 5-speed gearbox was blanked off. This info was from a wartime War Office publication.

 

Hi Richard, I should have known you would be the one to come up with the answer to this. I wonder what the reason was for this mod, I would have thought that a crawler gear would have been almost essential when hauling artillery off road with a vehicle which lacked a 2 speed transfer box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Richard, I should have known you would be the one to come up with the answer to this. I wonder what the reason was for this mod, I would have thought that a crawler gear would have been almost essential when hauling artillery off road with a vehicle which lacked a 2 speed transfer box.

 

Totally agree, Degsy.

 

No point whatsoever in blanking off 1st gear (or crawler or highest ratio) other than to be bloody-minded :red:

 

I would blank off top gear (or 5th, or lowest ratio) if I wanted to reduce maximum speed for safety reasons.

 

I suppose it follows that those of us who change up from 4th to 3rd would be compelled to describe 1st as top gear, whilst others who change down from 4th to 3rd would have to regard 1st as bottom gear.

 

But we all know what we mean :drive:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a GMC that the dealer told me had 5th gear blanked off to reduce top speed, when I removed the gearbox top I found half a bearing shell sticking out. To be fair to the dealer he supplied a replacement box without any hassle.

Edited by Degsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...