Scammell Constructor Gallery.

[6 X 6]

Yes, Mike, I think you're probably right. It lives in Hungary and although I don't think it's owner understands English he did very kindly send me the above 'photos. Take a look a this website.

 

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.netlabor.hu/roncskutatas/uploads/thumbs/9555.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.netlabor.hu/roncskutatas/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php%3Fcid%3D70%26orderby%3DhitsD&h=140&w=140&sz=5&hl=en&start=608&tbnid=iS-ynntQhtfFNM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=93&prev=/images%3Fq%3DScammell%26start%3D588%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Edited May 14, 2008 by 6 X 6

[6 X 6]

Here are two well known 'photos of a LWB oilfield Constructor also in Hungary.

 

[6 X 6]

[radiomike7]

Here are two well known 'photos of a LWB oilfield Constructor also in Hungary.

 

 

I remember this one - he was trying to sell it on ebay for £10k about a year ago.

[6 X 6]

Bargain.

[gritineye]

The reason I'm interested in this is that PGK888 came home with a thrown rear prop. It had even destroyed the substantial frame cross member carrying the centre bearing :shake:. Fortunately the sale included a full set of replacment parts (including cross member) so I have no excuse not to get on with the job. But I am anxious to understand WHY it happens, and will be getting all rotating parts fully balanced before installation.

 

After a week away I'm pleased to see calm has returned to this thread :-D

 

Not wanting in any way to stir things up again but just trying to help sort your problem N.O.S. could it be that Scammells designers expected drawbar Constructors to be always ballasted to a set weight and therefore the prop angles would remain almost static on civilian road use vehicles and fifth wheel tractors would do very little light running?

:idea:

Are preserved vehicles ballasted to the correct weight? On reflection I find it hard to believe the geometry was not carefully worked out within tolerances for the intended use. Maybe they weren't meant to run around empty, the torque arms would change the angles considerably.

[abn deuce]

The other condition's to be thought about might be the speed it was operated at , that while loaded it was intended to move slowly of course and when un-loaded only a little bit faster and the other would be duration as in distance and time it was operated at those speeds??

[N.O.S.]

abn deuce, you have a good point there (it was also mentioned earlier in the thread) which also has relevance to the gearbox position, for heavy load pulling they were running at 4 - 15mph typically, and not in top gear much of the time either! These beasts were not built for speed, that comes at a high price for preserved trucks, and the gearbox wsn't built for high horsepower either, as has also been mentioned.......

 

gritineye, I do not believe ballasting would make any difference to prop angles - Constuctor springs are so thick I'm not sure any amount of ballasting would cause them to deflect! And as you say they must have worked the normal running angles out correctly, so what on earth causes the prop problem then?????

[6 X 6]

The other condition's to be thought about might be the speed it was operated at , that while loaded it was intended to move slowly of course and when un-loaded only a little bit faster and the other would be duration as in distance and time it was operated at those speeds??

 

At the time when these vehicles were designed, the speed limit on all British roads for ALL heavy goods vehicles (not just heavy haulage) drawing a trailer was 20 mph. The Ministry of Supply (see post one of this thread) set a speed limit of 5 mph for their Constructors while towing loaded trailers. Unladen, these MoS transporters would have been subject to the 20 mph limit during the 1950's.

 

Heavy haulage companies such as Pickfords ran their Constructors at these sort of speeds, 5 mph when loaded, 20 mph with unladen trailer.

 

It's hard image the design office at Scammells ever envisioning the Constructor running at speeds much above 20 mph.

 

Of course, if you shoe horn a massively more powerful engine of say, 300 BHP, into a Constructor and then run that vehicle at speeds, up to, and over 40 mph you may well experience gearbox and other problems but, hey, it's nothing that can't be explained away as "flawed design".

 

Edited May 19, 2008 by 6 X 6

[6 X 6]

I'm surprised that owners of preserved Constructors who are experiencing problems with the centre bearing, or the prop shafts to the rearmost axle, don't simply take the whole lot off ? Couldn't you just run the vehicle by powering only the first rear axle ? The front wheel drive is there and could be engaged in "sticky" situations. Surely, if one was just poncing about going to rallies and not really working the vehicle, driving only one axle wouldn't make much difference, or would it ?

[gritineye]

"Of course, if you shoe horn a massively more powerful engine of say, 300 BHP, into a Constructor and then run that vehicle at speeds, up to, and over 40 mph you may well experience gearbox and other problems but, hey, it's nothing that can't be explained away as "flawed design"."

 

Ditto Explorer propshafts!

[N.O.S.]

I'm surprised that owners of preserved Constructors who are experiencing problems with the centre bearing, or the prop shafts to the rearmost axle, don't simply take the whole lot off ? Couldn't you just run the vehicle by powering only the first rear axle ? The front wheel drive is there and could be engaged in "sticky" situations. Surely, if one was just poncing about going to rallies and not really working the vehicle, driving only one axle wouldn't make much difference, or would it ?

 

Hey, 6 X 6, we're talking Scammell Constructor here, none of those Ward laFrance quick-fixes thankyou very much :argh: :n00b:

 

But I think your previous post summed up very neatly the situation re. gearboxes and propshafts - and gives the respect deserved to "them at Watford" :tup::

[radiomike7]

I'm surprised that owners of preserved Constructors who are experiencing problems with the centre bearing, or the prop shafts to the rearmost axle, don't simply take the whole lot off ? Couldn't you just run the vehicle by powering only the first rear axle ? The front wheel drive is there and could be engaged in "sticky" situations. Surely, if one was just poncing about going to rallies and not really working the vehicle, driving only one axle wouldn't make much difference, or would it ?

 

It would be fine and would save the wind up, many 6 wheelers only drive on one axle. Only downside would be that the tyres on the first rear axle might wear quicker than on the second.

[6 X 6]

In a previous post N.O.S. says that to avoid a repartition of his Scammell throwing it's rear prop shaft he is "anxious to understand why" it had happened in the first place.

 

Having just established, in recent posts, that N.O.S. need not, if he wishes, to reinstate the rear prop shaft at all and just power the first rear axle, I thought it might be of interest for some of the people who post here to apply their undoubted experience, and expertise, to suggest the possible cause of why this Constructor misbehaved in this way. I'm just going to ask a few questions to get the ball rolling.

 

When the incident occurred was:

 

A) This Scammell performing some crowd pleasing stunt at GDSF ?

 

B) Being towed by a modern recovery vehicle at, for the Scammell,

excessive speeds ?

 

C) Free wheeling, out of cog, down a step incline somewhere in the Scottish

Highlands ?

 

D) It suffering from worn U/J's and, or, worn transfer box output

flange bearings ?

 

E) It sabotaged by members of an extremist faction of the Basingstoke Products

Supporters Organization, intent on promoting the discredited "Scammell

flawed design" theory, to cause fear and despondency within the Scammell

camp ?

 

If none of the above, what is known about this Constructor's last moments and, if

the black box survived, what does it reveal ?

[N.O.S.]

Or (and this is before Catweazle gets his oar in), was it

 

F) being chased at much too high a speed by a ............dog?

[younggun]

and wot may i ask was the certain crowd pleasing stunt at the dorset ? i seem to have missed this :???

[N.O.S.]

What can I tell you about PKG888's past? Well sadly not a great deal.

 

Was with Research and Development, Chertsey in 1955/6 when new on a M.O.S. registration plate.

 

She was with Aitkens (quarry / plant hire contractor) at Bury St.Edmunds, and I'm certain I saw her in an agricultural contractor's yard near Thaxted either before or after this. In both instances (I have pics of Aitkens yard) she looked equally as sorry as she did when I went to Northumberland to collect her on 18th Dec 1994 (no rush, guys :sweat:).

 

I'm fairly certain then, that the prop was off all that while, so might even have been demobbed in that state?

 

PGK's problems weren't quite over, as the services of a Mountaineer were required to extract her from a snug hideaway up a muddy slope to the black top, and then 3 miles up onto the Northumberland moors to the nearest parking space for a low loader.

 

While we were achieving this, the low loader driver, who was finishing on Xmas Eve (the haulage company were closing down and it was probably his last load), had succeeded in tearing off all air and electic connections whilst uncouplng the swan neck :argh:, so after loading we rushed around that bleak area to eventually find a most helpful tipper operator who let us rummage through his workshop for various odd bits of cables, airline, copper pipe and clips. It was very dark by the time we got on the move.....

 

I quite like the Basingstoke conspiracy theory :rofl:

[gritineye]

and wot may i ask was the certain crowd pleasing stunt at the dorset ? i seem to have missed this :???

 

Don't know but it may have preceded this motorist pleasing stunt :-D

 

 

[radiomike7]

N.O.S. Slightly off topic but is that Paul Badger's old Mountaineer?

[N.O.S.]

Yes, Mike, I saw it on the cover of a Vintage Commercial magazine and tracked Paul down, but could not persuade him to part with it!

 

Some while later it went to someone on the south coast, from where Donald Cook in Northumberland acquired it. A lovely truck, ex Mines Rescue with a Leyland 680. My first bout of Scammellitis!

 

And even more off topic, here is my own Mines Rescue Scammell (Meadows diesel), and I believe the only one left with an intact genset - 2 C6 Rolls in tandem driving through one output shaft to a 400Vdc generator.

 

Having said that, the Royal Navy had a short wheelbase Mountaineer artic unit, saw service later with Hills of Botley

[6 X 6]

and wot may i ask was the certain crowd pleasing stunt at the dorset ? i seem to have missed this :???

 

Younggun, I'm sure you know what I mean, it's when normally cautious and sensible owners of restored heavy haulage tractors at GDSF, often out of their minds on cider, or reefers, or both, allow themselves to get carried away by taunts of "I bet it couldn't f**king pull that". They then find they are trying to tow some almighty trailer the size of Buckingham Palace with their 50 year old pride and joy, revving it's nuts off, just to provide a bit of sport for the crowd.

Edited May 19, 2008 by 6 X 6

[radiomike7]

Very impressive, I didn't know one still existed intact. I suppose you are now looking for the mobile pithead trailer it used to drag around with just a 130bhp Meadows. For once, Scammell managed not to build in a self destructing propshaft system.

[younggun]

quote=6 X 6;79353]Younggun, I'm sure you know what I mean, it's when normally cautious and sensible owners of restored heavy haulage tractors at GDSF, often out of their minds on cider, or reefers, or both, allow themselves to get carried away by taunts of "I bet it couldn't f**king pull that". They then find they are trying to tow some almighty trailer the size of Buckingham Palace with their 50 year old pride and joy, revving it's nuts off, just to provide a bit of sport for the crowd.

 

was just won.dering wot was trying to be pulled . ime part of the Allelys gang .we have seem to have become the object of evey one in the playpens desire to move us

be warnd this year where getting a bigger loco :cool2:

Edited January 18, 2009 by younggun

[6 X 6]

Don't know but it may have preceded this motorist pleasing stunt :-D

 

 

 

The only possible explanation for how Graham gets away with this sort of thing is that he's operating some sort of force field around his vehicles that makes them invisible to the Old Bill and the Ministry. Good luck to him I say.

[abn deuce]

N.O.S. what's the estimated weight on that genset? I can understand it being on a three axle truck but it seems unless the rear tires were a bit low on air pressure to be putting quite a burden on that poor rear axle ?