Jump to content

paulbrook

Members
  • Posts

    764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by paulbrook

  1. Of course if you wanted to make it a really interesting machine then instead of the Multilift Mk4 loading system it could have a MK2 (Half the trials vehicles had Mk2 LHS - the main difference was that they were "low lift" - the bale bar was simply on the front of a totally flat flatrack rather than mounted on the A frame.)

     

    This was because as well as deciding which vehicles were best suited to the task there was a need to decide on the LHS. The Mk2 offered distinct cost and storage advantages because flatracks (and they envisaged thousands of them) would be a lot cheaper to store and easier to handle in depots.

     

    In practice the low lift was tricky to operate in comparison to the high lift, was seen to be less foolproof, was certainly less stable (always an issue with DROPS development) and as the depot end of the DROP system was never properly thought through anyway the high lift won the day.

  2. Right it just shows how rubbish my memories are - the prototype IMMLC did have S26 on the front!

     

    Anyway the prototypes had Allison auto boxes in whilst the production ones had ZFs. The picture here was taken at Crocker Barracks in Sennelager in about 1984/85

     

     

    scan00016.jpg

     

    It was a very good truck indeed, but like its Foden rival exceeded Construction and Use on both width and axle loadings. But as a military vehicle it was decided that it could be Crown Exempt.

  3. Not to say that it has not been altered but my recollection was that the prototype Scammell IMMLC did not have "S26" on the front. I was also under the impression that the prototypes went back to the manufacturers (who owned them - they did not belong to the MOD) and were re-worked as MMLC. I could be wrong there though. I also recall that the wheels were much much bigger even than the ones in the picture (it certainly did not meet construction and use regulations!) Again, I could be wrong.

     

    The Scammells that did have the "S26" were the 6x6 dumpers.

     

    One key indicator would be the gearbox. What gearbox does it have?

     

    I will try and dig some pictures out of my trials ones.

  4. It was a little after my time but my understanding was that most went for scrap - they had lots of metal and not much of anything else. Certainly they are few and far between in preservation (I am in the market for one at the moment). I am sure that the Germany ones would have been sold centrally from Recklinghausen, the UK ones from Ruddington or similar.

  5. From the "user" end of the re-work programme I can only ever recall FEC being involved - but that is not to say that there were not others, indeed some in-depth work was carried out by both Unit and Base workshops as required. The numbers are not so odd when you consider that there were probably no more than 160 Antars working hard at the time. I am also fairly certain that not all went through the programme, although I never really understood the criteria - we would loose excellent units for rebuild, whilst some of the less lovely machines had to stag on!

  6. V8s were procured in relatively small numbers after the Defender diesel engine debacle. In about 1987 it started to become very clear indeed that the diesel fitted to the relatively newly introduced Defenders was a failing with alarming regularity.

     

    Landrover refused to accept that there was anything wrong, blaming instead the military for incorrect oil topping up. The MOD responded by accepting what Landrover were telling them and re-introducing the graduated oil filling can and a set of oil checking instructions just slightly shorter than War and Peace (the novel not the event...)

     

    The situation remained unchanged, Landrover refused to budge warranty wise and the fleet went from bad to worse. Evenutally (and most reluctantly) Landrover started a series of modifications under what I seem to remember was called Op Terry.

     

    Not much improved really, until eventually Landrover revealed their solution - the so-called Mk6 (yes 6...) engine. This world beating powerhouse developed 55 BHP and all over the land rice pudding skins were breathing sighs of relief. We were given them to test in TLDT, and report back. We were also told to behave (we had previously refused to even take the RB44s on the road) because (according to Landrover) the engine was in use across the fleet of London Black Cabs without incident and so we did. We loaded them up to their design weight including trailer and set about trying to actually use them on the road. It was most scary, pulling out from any road junction was a truly heart in mouth event as oncoming vehicles were faced with what to them must have seemed like military traffic calming.

     

    In a somewhat inspired move the trials team Master Driver made contact with reps from the London cab fraternity who without batting an eyelid informed him that contrary to what landrover had told everyone, the vast majority of previously landy engine cabs had been re-engine with something that actually worked.

     

    Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Procurement Executive still wanted to press on with procuring Defenders - it took a particularly heated meeting in St Christopher House, chaired by the Master General of Ordnance himself, to put the brakes on. Even then it was touch and go, and it was not until the good General turned to the chap who had actually done the testing that common sense prevailed. The MGO was a gunner, and so as it happened was my man - albeit he was a Bombadier. When asked Bdr Barker simply told the meeting that the only vehicle that he could find in "What Car" with less horsepower was a Yugo 55.....

     

    The decision was made to halt procurement there and then of the diesels, and instead a small number of V8s would be purchased till Landrover sorted themselves out. These vehicles would go to those units where full loads and towing were the norm.

     

    As an aside the relationship between Landrover and MOD, which had been close verging on cosy, took another body blow (the first had been the Truck Utility Heavy trail) and it was never quite the same again.

     

    The trial, such as it was, of the V8 was us having a 12 seater safari V8 with all mod cons for a long weekend with instructions to get as many miles on it as possible. I appeared to be the only person on the team available that weekend so armed with a fuel card and as much kit as I could chuck in the back I spend a splendid few days in the west country burning petrol like there was no tomorrow.

     

    Happy days...

  7. It was decent kit wasn't it - and I was never convinced that later stuff had the robustness and simplicity of the earlier versions. I remember going back to Marchwood in the 90s when all the forks were Case - decent enough but fearsomely complex and there was really nothing to show in performance for that complexity. Not only that but the Elf and Safety lunatics had been about - I recall a small yellow sticker, no bigger than 5inches by 4 inches, just ahead of the centre pivot on the Case warning of the dangers of standing in the pivot area. Trouble was you had to be no more than a foot away to read the warning...

     

    Anyway I digress - in the 80s we had a D8 for port recovery, as I recall it had (big) rubber track pads and no blade. Fine machine it was. By the time we got to the 90s the Clever People had replaced it with a Foden.

  8. A Fiat-Allis methinks - they were designated RTFLT 8000Lb in 17 Port Regt RCT - we had both forks and 4in1 buckets and about half the fleet were waterproofed and could wade in 5ft of water without preparation and manage a 2ft6 swell on top of that. Great machines. They tried to replace them with Volvo 4400s but they were just too fragile.

     

    The Fiat Allis had replaced Michigans, and were themselves eventually replaced (in the port role at least) by Case.

     

    I was always a bit of a fan of a Fat Allis though!

  9. I didn't realize it's a listing belonging to a member here. I was actually trying to orient myself on what they should fetch, rather than being critical. I wound up buying a few as a fluke and wasn't sure what to do with them (import them to US or try to barter them away while they are still in UK). When I bought them, I was bidding on something else, but mistakenly put the wrong lot # and... became the proud owner of never seen, but overpriced boiling vessels!!

     

    It isn't - but I know who has listed it and I am sure that they are as in the dark as the rest of us regarding what they might or might not be worth!

     

    I have fond memories of BVs - ranging from the pitch battle we had with the beancounters to retain them in the production model DROPS trucks to the life-saving Moray Firth Boiled Eggs (even our small landing craft, the LCVP, had a BV).

  10. There is not really less mess - I have experience of both approaches and whilst there may be some slight differences in application, it is the abrasive that does the work and at the end of the day there will be a ton or two of it to clear up. Now there may be less dust with the wet system but we have found that using decent grit keeps the dust down anyway.

     

    The air fed mask is no great hardship, you will have to wear PPE anyway.

     

    One trick which we now do regularly (because it saves so much time and money) is to "kill" the existing paint first with a decent blowlamp/propane fan. No need to set fire to the whole lot, you just go over everything and scorch the paint. It has the effect of making the paint much more brittle and it peels off with the blaster so much quicker (and cleaner).

     

    As for treatment if you wet blast I did a Mack chassis 6 years ago with wet blasting - and it started to go yellowy with rust almost instantaneously. I used a garden spray full of stuff called Fertan which blackened everything. I then pressure washed it all off again (counter intuitive I know but there you go) and sprayed the lot with primer. That chassis is still in primer and is as rust free today as it was then - have a look here http://s484.photobucket.com/user/RustyTrucks/library/Mack%20May%202009

  11. As ever a simple enough question but a rather elusive answer - it depends what you are looking for! Like most lorries of the period the parts came from the usual suspects, for instance Lucas electrics, Zenith carb, Borg and Beck clutch etc etc etc. and whilst I cannot think of anyone in particular who is "Austin" the parts are out there and just need tracking down. Putting requests here, or in similar on the likes of Facebook for pointers as you go along will pay dividends I am sure. As an aside you might look up the Fire Service Preservation Group on facebook as a number of K2 ATVs are around and there are some very knowledgeable folks too.

  12. Autohome already do classic lorry recovery. When you go on their site it looks like they only cover up to 3.5t, but if you select the appropriate level in the drop down boxes you will see that other options are available. Over 16t (including drawbar and artics) runs out at £165 a year

     

    Here's the link: http://www.autohome.co.uk/content/classic-commercial-vehicle-rescue-only-9350-year

     

    They also do commercial vehicle breakdown and recovery - very reasonable rates too.

     

    I should add that I have nothing to do with them other than as a user of their services - and when I have needed them they have been really excellent.

  13. I think I have a pair of bonnet sides somewhere and I definitely made a bonnet top (which is quite a complicated blighter as I recall - have a look at the pics on http://rustytrucks.tripod.com/id29.html). The post-war coach bonnet sides were different to yours, but, as I say I have a pair of wartime ones in a corner somewhere if you are interested. As for the top I can let you have the dimensions but you will have to find the latch mechanisms!

×
×
  • Create New...