fv1609

Nope Ja mein lieber Freund Neil, den Sie unbedingt richtig sind!

Nope For bonus points, can anyone work out the nationality?

I've had to censor three areas, don't want to give too much away yet Richard - as you're the only one playing!

Nope, another picture in a minute or so.

Yes a horse drawn unit, probably constructed pre-1914, although this is in action in WW1. Not a mobile bath unit though.

What is the era & role of this trailer?

Not if you're in a National Park.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Yes they seem to get everywhere, good old Brum. Although I was surprised that some of the Humber hub bearings were made in Espania.

Richard, it's odd that that is the only large prop shaft I've seen fitted. Unless of course our readers know differently! I have had the privilege of looking quite a lot of pigs, but not nearly enough! Clearly only a small fraction of the total. Although there are EMERs that introduce new components they are, as you well know, only EMERs because something has to be modified to accommodate the change. So there must have been, as you suggest, a substitution. Although in the IPLs I've seen, I have never seen an amendment for the prop shaft. But I expect it was just a single sheet of paper lost in the mists of time. But it would be nice to pin down what this prop shaft was also used in, so that in future years when we're dead & gone, the new owners will find my list of Humber equivalents to keep them running. Sobering really that our vehicles will last longer than most of us!

Mike now that sounds familiar, I think we have spoken before either email or some other forum? The chances are it would have been about Pigs or Shorlands! Clive

Richard, I wonder what dictated whether a non-standardised British vehicular component went in LV7 or LV6/MT10? It must have been something earlier than the Humber 1-Ton as if that was the first, then I imagine it would have slipped into LV9/BOE, as at that stage it would have been exclusive. I peeped in the K9 parts list but nothing. As for the newer prop shaft I have gone through piles of fiche, it is not Saxon, any Bedfords 4 - 8 Tonne & doesn't appear on the fiche stock list of a large depot shall we say. That was rather surprising as I thought it might have been something that was contemporary to Mk2 pig & to hand. I had imagined, with typical REME ingenuity, a fitter had twigged that you could squeeze the fatter one in...& it is a bit of a squeeze getting it through the oblique holes in the cross-chassis struts. PS Its odd that the later one is given the DMC of 6MT10 rather than follow the earlier structure which would have made it 7HP, given that is also an item made by Hardy Spicer.

This is not a quiz! I am trying to find the identity of a prop shaft that can be used as a replacement for the Humber 1-Ton. Some years ago I removed the prop shaft on the left from a Mk2 Pig that had come direct from service in NI. The one on the right is a genuine Humber item. It has no NSN as the parts lists pre-date NATO codification. My 1952 list gives the VAOS as LV7/HP FV17550. The 1960 parts list now gives it as LV7/HP/51-019 FV17550. Contrary to what one would expect it is not prefixed LV9/BOE which is exclusively for Humber 1-Ton. It is prefixed LV7 which is for a non-standardised British vehicle. But what does HP mean within this section? Well in VAOS Section LV6/MT1 - LV6/MT15, HP is allocated to Hardy Spicer. It seems extremely likely that this prop shaft was indeed made by Hardy Spicer. However no HP code appears in any LV7 list I have seen, nor should it appear as that section is for manufacturers of vehicles, not components. As this is not an exclusive Humber 1-Ton item (ie it is not LV9/BOE), I wonder what other vehicle it was used in? Furthermore I think the item has been wrongly codified & should be in LV6/MT10. LV6/MT10 is the VAOS Section for proprietary vehicular power transmission components, which seems much more appropriate particularly now that the HP code is for use within this Section. This brings me onto the identity of the prop shaft on the left. This is NATO codified as 2520-99-794-8119 & prefixed by the DMC of 6MT10 (a contraction of the former VAOS Section LV6/MT10) So it does look as if it is in the correct section of 6MT10, so it must be used in some other vehicle(s). But does anybody recognise it? Doing a cross check on the NSN brings up the part number 05/806316 of our old friends Hardy Spicer! There is also a part number 05/806316 for Marconi, which rather surprised me. So this long waffle throws up three questions. 1. Out of curiosity I wonder what other vehicle also used the Humber 1-Ton prop shaft? 2. What other vehicle(s) used the larger prop shaft, which could be used as a replacement if the Humber ones pack up? 3. Does anyone agree that the VAOS was wrong in allocating the Humber prop shaft as LV7/HP when it should have been LV6/MT10/HP?

Yes I agree GE, the modus operandi is not immediately obvious, in fact its downright perplexing. This is from a manual dated 1914 albeit March of that year, I doubt whether many of these Aldershot Pattern kitchens saw much usage towards the end of the year. So here goes, everyone can build one now:

Andy, I would measure the diameter of the bore. If its 3.50in its a B60 & if its 3.75in its a B61.

Yes you certainly deserved to score Neil. Let me know if you want the full instructions if you are planning a weekend barbecue for instance. If you can't get any helpers, you'll need to start work on it right now:

Yes Neil well done! It is a gridiron kitchen (Aldershot pattern). As far as I can work it out. Trenches are dug in the ground. The deep trench is lined with clay & sculptured to fit cooking vessels & kettles, the fires are lit in the tapered 18" sections & the fumes are drawn away up the chimney.

Sorry not a dungy thing.

Neil you are getting very warm(!) but have got something the wrong way round.

Sorry Richard I missed you out. Yup

Yup Nope

Looks as it might be, but nope.

Nope, nope, yup. Sorry for delay it's my bath night, don't want to have wait another week;)

Nope, but um Crispin hasn't got a tunnel then?

Looks as it might be, but nope.

Yes to go down 500ft would be irksome.