MrEd

On 12/30/2020 at 11:46 AM, markyw999 said:

In very good condition and in its original transit case.  Almost appears unissued!  Asking £250.

We are near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire.

Any questions please ask.

Kind regards,

Mark

Holy thread resurrection but did this ever sell? I am looking for one of these for my ww1 artillery display 

ed

Hi Robert I don’t sorry, I swapped it for some bits for my WT 

what an amazing resto, i am constantly amazed by the skill of the people on this forum!

On 2/20/2013 at 6:40 PM, Billruston said:

Completely not helpful but I love that font 

1 hour ago, Surveyor said:

Its a 110 I have but was upgraded in operation Tithonous and was in 2 minds if a sankey would be better or stick with my Penman.

Reading this even though my one has a full clansman kit think i will stick to the penman

Stick with the penman off you have one. Much more modern trailer! I would have one if I could justify the cost  

1 hour ago, ruxy said:

I find the RB  Mk.3 widetrack a PITA to manhandle - so don't use it often unless I have a use for the tailgate getting a heavy lump inside.  I have had it sheeted over a few years with a 2.1/4 diesel stored inside.  IIRC the tailgate flap must be open to allow the towing jaw to pass through, well that was somebody's explanation but I don't recall doing so.

ISTR the wt dub difference is only by 3" extra width.

yeah the width difference isn’t much but makes a surpringly difference! 
 

I can’t remember who made my WT - I think universal, but will check tomorrow.

you don’t need to have the flap, the tailgate is designed in such a way that it avoids the towing pintle on the rear when swung down as can be seen in this photo (which is a mk3 WT)

8 minutes ago, ruxy said:

Yes , you are probably correct.  Surveyor should consider himself lucky that he missed this trailer as it was withdrawn from sale.  As he has  a Defender , he should look for a more in-keeping time line (and tyre size / track) of a widetrack.  At least he will be more aware of a bitsa lash-up , although practicable with the tailgate.

yes agreed, he has dodged a bitsa!
having towed both NT and WT with a defender, a WT is perfectly manageable and can be reversed, a NT is a bit of a nightmare behind a defender to reverse tbh as you can’t see it in the mirrors until it’s jack-knifed.

NT is great behind a series vehicle though 

4 hours ago, ruxy said:

I have both nt and wt (Reynolds Boughton)  ,  there is many more differences with wt.  The Mk1 widetrack chassis A frame was more or less same design as narrowtrack , also it had leaf spring suspension as nt.

To me the rear jaw hitch bolt holes are central on the chassis & can't be 2 or 4 used for NATO pintle.    Something else does not tally ,  if it had original equipment a pair of rear stands - then it would have rubber pads or at least the fixing bolt holes visible on tailgate.  Without the circular base-plates would be noisy when in motion - hardly acceptable design.

https://www.emlra.org/index.php/library/trailers/35-elmra-articles-sankey-trailers

This is a old article & a bit short of info.  such as the later nt tubs abt. 1975 being a different welded construction.   This could be a Ex-MOD spare rub , Paddock Spares had dozens finished in red primer stacked in their yard abt. 2005  (I don't think they were drilled for tarp. cleats).

This tailgate has no flap for bowser stem pipe , indicating not a GP Sankey that could double up as bowser.

Widetrack trailers had several  "assemblers"  with quite a few detail differences.

1.Reynolds Boughton

2.Universal Engineering  (South Dorset Engineering)

3. Viking Trailers

4. Arrow Construction Ltd.  (I think they may have only done Mk.1 Contracts)

5.  KING  ,  (these are noted by the word KING pressed across the tailgate, originally in white letters).  Seem few built - I have only seen one from a distance, part of a convoy ISTR.

 

 

 

To answer your points:

1. Look at the rear photo of my narrow track - 03es07 - look at the mount holes for the rear hitch, the lower set of holes are central between the upper and lower edges of the rear crossmember, and the upper set of holes are nearer the top edge than the bottom set of holes are.

I post the photo here again for easy reference. But zoomed in to clearer illustrate my point. I also attach a zoom of the trailer in question with 2 red dots where the holes will be on that (they are obscured by the later tub)

2. you say that the rubber pads are missing on the tub - and that is correct because they would never have been fitted to a wide track tub. The tub is a wide track tub not a narrow track tub so of course they are missing, the wide and narrow track rear leg arrangements are very different. The narrow track tubs NEVER had a tailgate in them but the wide track did.

If you look at the photo above of my NT you can see the rubber pads behind the legs. additionally on this trailer in question you can clearly see the 4 mounting holes one each side that the rear Jack legs would be bolted to. I have marked them below. These would not be present on a later wide track as the legs swing out to the sides from underneath and stow horizontally, not vertically at the back like the NT - this design change allowed the addition of a tailgate because, as you say, the rear vertical legs don’t work with a tailgate.

3. the wide track a frame was different to the narrow track, it was wider and not as deep. All wide tracks had leaf springs like the narrow track. There are various other bits in the photos of the trailer that indicate it’s a narrow track chassis and running gear - the rear skid plates, the hand brake mechanism, the front Jack leg, the longer and slimmer shape of the a frame, the evidence of the rear jacking leg mounting points. The absence of a bowser filling hole is a red herring - some had them and some didnt, on narrow tracks it was a modification in service and I have had both NT and WT that had or didn’t have them!

4. the tubs you reference at paddocks were wide track - a mate of mine purchased 2 for £100 each. Paddocks still have them, NOS, for £500 each….
 

This is not any type of interesting rare trailer. It is simply as I stated above, a narrow track chassis that has had its tub replaced by a later wide track version.
To facilitate this the rear Jack legs have been removed as the later tailgated tub would not be compatible with the rear vertical legs and they aren’t really needed in civi street so it’s would be an easy decision for someone to decide to remove them. It’s a bit of a cobbled together job tbh and far from original but probably quite useable if all you want to do is drag stuff about!

Narrow track tubs were definitely of a better construction to the wide track tubs though - having welded up both types! I can definitely vouch that a wide track tub will fit onto a narrow track chassis with some fiddling about - I have offered one up before, but decided against it and just sold the bare NT chassis.

10 hours ago, ruxy said:

.  

A proper narrowtrack had a NATO pintle secured with four bolts , only two such holes present - so I can only presume it had the more basic widetrack jaw c/w pin.

I think the top pair are covered up rather than missing - look how close they are to the top of the crossmember on a NT and then look at that blue trailer - I think they are covered by the tub lip bit at the bottom because the (incorrect) tub is overhanging the rear so is sitting ‘over’ rather than ‘on’ the chassis - a NT sits on, but a WT sits ‘over’ at the back - I can take a photo later if the detail of the WT

Also this bit under the tub isn’t right for either NT or WT - it looks like the front A frame has been lowered (probably to suit towing behind a normal landrover with a lower tow bar than a NATO on the rear hitch - like a nato on a DB or something.

you can see the holes that would have held the light and reflector mounts at either end on a NT rather, so my money is on lowered A frame rather than a piece of steel added to raise the tub.

I would have to look at my WT etc to see if a WT tub would cover the top two holes of the hitch mount on the rear of the NT chassis, they are quite near the top of the rear cross member and could easily be covered up rather than missing.

I don’t think this is any mysterious hybrid experimental trailer or anything to be honest. There is a simple explanation.

That looks like a narrow track (early Sankey with no tailgate) chassis that someone has put a wide track (later model Sankey with a tailgate) tub on. Probably because the original tub rusted away.

The narrow track tub has two rows of cleats for the canvas, and the WT has one - you can see the holes in the sides in the images for a single row of cleats. You can also see the mount for the number plate light which is WT specific. This all points at it being a later tailgate tub.

The front draw bar is clearly of NT origin (and therefore the chassis going by other features (rear cross member etc)) - the front A frame is different between the two models. So the chassis is NT

narrow track rear

wide track rear 

narrow track front

wide track front - you can see the difference between the 2

mans then side shots so you can see the tub and clear differences (ignore the wolf wheels on the NT

NT

WT

so it’s a NT chassis that’s had a later WT tub fitted to replace a rusted out original tub (that wouldn’t have had a tailgate).

NT sankeys were never made with a tailgate, but the later WT ones were made only with a tailgate. 

I also doubt this would have been done in service - the correct tub would have been fitted, the army wouldn’t fit a later tub and do all those light and A frame modifications etc - they would have fitted the correct tub or just demob the trailer in a rusty state. So, in my opinion, someone in civi street had a narrow track that the tub rusted out on - that they replaced with a WT tub (they were available as new tubs only from a few dealers for around £100 about 10 year ago) and then modified the lights etc to suit becuase they couldn’t be fitted back on on their bracketry as they didn’t fit with another and wider tub in place.
 

I have twice used Guildford radiators in Cranleigh, surrey to recore old style radiators and have been very happy 

Is the top right generator input maybe?

On 2/22/2022 at 4:25 PM, Foxtrott363 said:

Not at the moment unfortunately

One on eBay at the momenr

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Clansman-Radio-Land-Rover-Rebro-Unit-RD4C-/134031033094?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l6249&mkrid=710-127635-2958-0

When I registered my Land Rover I had it insured on the chassis number before it was registered and was legally able to drive to a pre-booked MOT without registration plates. Once I had the MoT I then was able to get a registration plate.

Only time I have legally driven a car without a number plate!

That’s a larkspur 8 section battle whip

does Dom at LR Series have any?

5 minutes ago, ruxy said:

The ROPS bar - larger dia. ?  with small loops are corners that simulate a standard 'bow' for the hood canvas  ?    I think this not a Solihull item , would have originated with Tithonus 110 (Hobsons Industries)  90" retrofit..  Do you have a standard  plain 'bow' a few inch for'ard of the ROPS  ?     A standard Ex-Works 12 volt GS would not have a FFR bow with drilled chain-plate for Dexion mounting.

I do yes, its like a standard tilt hoop immediately behind the doors - maybe 1 inch tube, then about 4 or so inches further back directly in line with the bulkhead behind the seats is the alrger ROPS bar - maybe 2.5inch tube, it was made by 'Safety Devices'

Great thank Gents.

I wasn’t planning on actually fitting it out, although I suppose I _could_ how to get the items past the wife ??

so to summarise

GS 90

likely fitted with a man pack and ancillaries 

this was all then  stripped out(apart from the wing boxes) - for reasons unknown but likely due to role change or at the withdrawal of clansman?

it did have the cable boxes behind the seats but I took them out so I could use the space for my disk lock etc. 

a follow up question - there are no mounts/tabs on my ROPS bar for Dexion - how would it have been fitted without these?

1 hour ago, ruxy said:

I can't think of a blog with a 90/110 'in-service' or MV enthusiast fitted Manpack.  A bloke at Carlisle (Time-Bandit) had a good blog website for his Lightweight 12 volt GS  and he did a Manpack rig. He probably did good research , or decided that's how it would have been done (there are a few variations) and some would be ad-lib.   It seems 3 year in storage and then abt. 20 year as a range-car at Blandford.  It probably also had a PYE Westminster or Storno fitted on drivers side of Dexion at centre seat.  ISTR packed away I have two different mounting kits for Manpack, the better looking is the 1"x1"  hollow box clip in frame that would be secured to the dexion , and the circular rucksack type frame for radio.     If it was TUAAM box , BALUN & antenna base on wing mounts - that to me indicates more involved radio fit more ground/air for tri-service helo such as RM & RN that would be operating in area.  If a 24 volt genny was not fitted they would just fit a FFR battery box/table and  recharge the batteries overnight as at a permanent base.

Try a Royal Signals website , in service/retired - state the VRM - somebody should recall what it was used for without breach of OSA of course.

Yeah I have tried reaching out to the royal signals in the past more than once - all I have been able to glean is a photo that *might* be it in a article in ‘the wire’ (RS magazine) about 11 signals and the support unit MT section.

I have seen time bandits blog, and it’s good.

you Mention Westminster or stormy fitted on the drivers side dexion, except there isn’t any mounts for the dexion to go on. The roll bar could well have been changed in service though which _could_ explain why there aren’t dexion mounts. I don’t know though.

The tuamm mounts have always puzzled me and the tub has lots of evidence of holes drilled in it, and marks where ‘things’ have been resting against the sides or the back etc. 
 

I doubt I will ever find out tbh

13 minutes ago, ruxy said:

I doubt if a GS 90 12 volt had TUAAM mounting plates at the factory.

It was in service for 20 odd years so likely added by the army sometime during that time frame?

I got it direct from withams and it had them on it then, no way withams added them - I chose it out of the Land Rover field and it was a bit of a mess when I got it, but the wing mounts were present then.

I recall something like it was the only one in its contract when I found the number in the Land Rover book, not sure how important that is or not though 

22 minutes ago, ruxy said:

Defender was different build up at Solihill for MOD.

All the Contracts start with a basic 12 volt 90" / 110" Basic Utility.  Then bolt-ons were added.   Such as a FFR pack.

If you search on the internet for the  "SUPPLEMENTARY MOD Defender PARTS CATALOGUE.

In the front - you will find a MATRIX ,   the more up-to-date the better.  This lists Contract Numbers , then you read off all the "Supplementary packages" that Solihull fitted.

This made it easier once the truck entered service , they could order extra packs as required  .   So a GS 12 volt could end up as fully  FFR , or even part FFR. 

I don't think they would / ever did alter the original nomenclature-plate.

I have that supplementary parts catalogued dated 1990 so the year before my vehicle. Will have a look.

So basically a GS without the TUAMM mounts is just simply that, but a GS with just had them fitted at the factory but they wouldnt necessarily have been used in service.

Okay thank you, does any one know where i can find, or see some photos of GS land rover 90/110 with manpack clip in sets in them? not the full fat FFR but a GS with radios - this must of happened due to the various clansman bits that allow 24v clansman battery charging off of a 12v vehicle?

ta

ed

I wonder if any of you can help me answer a question i have had about my 90 for a long time.

I have had it since it was cast from the MOD - i bought it direct from withams so it is as it was released (by which i mean there is no previous owner other than the army adding random stuff on to it for the 'looks')

This is how it got it, direct, 3 months after it was demobbed. I chose it out of a field at Withams. It spent its entire life with 11 Signals Regiment at Blandford Garrison.

It has many drilled holes in the tub, and the bulkhead behind the front seats and it has the TUAMM mounts on the front wings. It is a GS spec land rover. There is no evidence it ever had dexion racking in it - but i dont know what might have been changed or removed or added at various points in its service life. Its last role was part of Blandford Garrison Support Unit - MT so it may have been stripped of a load of stuff for that role, i dont know. I havent been able to find out either

Here are some photos of how it was when i got it you can see the TUAMM mounts etc and the alck of dexion etc.

I wonder if any one can shed any light or how it may have been fitted with man pack radios (it may never have been!) or why it would have TUAMM mounts on the front wings when it isnt an FFR?

thanks

Ed

Greta thread and what a vehicle

this is amazing, i really like the less often seen things like this. Top work.

That filter you made.... wow!