G-CPTN

At one stage I worked for a company that manufactured parts for automatic transmissions. As such we held all the stock of some parts for transmissions fitted to vehicles that were long since out of production. These parts were what had been left over when production ceased and constituted 'no cost' to us other than storage space (of which we had oodles). A new 'accountant' arrived and when he discovered that we had (for example) 112 years stock at current supply rates, he decided that these stocks were uneconomic (!) and that therefore they must be deleted from our stock-list and all parts scrapped! The result was that owners of these vehicles (which included early Rolls Royce and Bentley models) were henceforth without any source for spares. The company 'folded' soon afterwards (after I had left).

Crusader - Scammell or Leyland? I have always considered the Crusader to be a Scammell product, albeit that some appear badged as Leylands. Without wishing to upset sensitivities, how much influence did Leyland have in the design of the Crusader? Who can explain the nuances (and the facts) surrounding the Crusader? Where was the design work done (and by whom)?

Another view of the AEC 850 / FWD R6T:- http://www.aecsouthall.co.uk/duxford/dux_850.htm

Thank-you, I suspected it might be an FWD, and, it seems, I must have seen it myself at Duxford. I found the following:- http://www.mooresmilitarymodels.co.uk/gallery_3_aec_850_-_fwd_r6t.html and:- and:- http://www.allisons.org/ll/4/AEC/

http://www.truckandbusforum.com/gallery/files/1/2/9/7/sc083013w.jpg

According to the UK registration database:- The vehicle CSV 668, is a 2006 Renault Espace Rush (MPV). The subject of this thread is CSU 668 - your reference might be a typo:- The vehicle CSU 668, is a (1987) Scammell (Goods).

When was the FV12101 introduced? (and what is the difference that defined the MkII FV12105?) When were they discontinued? (refer me to other threads if the information is already there . . . )

I have to confess that the photograph that I 'published' wasn't the photograph to which I referred in the text. I was trying to avoid republishing a photograph that belongs to someone on a different forum and I gleaned the other one from the internet via a Googoo search which I used to make the point elsewhere that it wasn't a Thorneycroft Antar! (I had had a Dinky Toy Antar, so I knew it wasn't that.) (The other forum has very recently had a rash of photographs submitted by a member who has harvested them from websites and then claimed them as his own, and to avoid a possible confrontation (and being accused of stealing photographs) I cheated - and have been found out! It was (to me) obviously the very same vehicle so I reasoned that the substitution was allowable. I cannot vouch for the 1976 date (or the Waddington location) as the information came from the same source as the suggested registration DAU!) Anyone who is still curious can search at http://www.truckandbusforum.com . . .

Thanks for that - pleased to see that it survived for at least a while longer. I expect the date discrepancies might be due to allowing the registration to lapse and then being 're-registered'?

My guess for the registration was PSU 668 - but that didn't match any searches that I tried, then I was told (by the photographer) that it was DAU (which also doesn't match any searches). For a vehicle in such good condition (in 1976) I would have expected it to be a survivor . . .

A photograph has emerged (elsewhere) of an obvious ex-Army vehicle which was described as a Thorneycroft Antar (which I disputed). To me this is obviously a Scammell, though possibly from the same period when Antars were in use. I'm uncertain of the model type - it looks to me like a Constructor, though obviously seems to have an Army-type body fitted. The registration number is said to be DAU 668 (which no longer appears in the UK register that I have checked). Anybody know whether this vehicle still exists? The photograph was taken at Waddington in 1976.

And an AEC:-

There were single-engined artic tractors too - same general configuration (but shorter of course).

My involvement with Scammell was after they became Unipower. 'We' built several oil-field vehicles for Halliburton. Most had two identical engines and transmissions (one to power the onboard equipment). Sorry it's not a military vehicle:-

Yes, the photo is 'current'. I believe that someone has 'fixed' the windscreen glasses - but it bears signs of being a MkI Militant. I agree that the tipper body 'doesn't sit right' - and may well be from an Aveling Barford. The front-mounted pump is also 'non-original' - but might have been a 'fix' if the original PTO was u/s. Just noticed that there are no wipers . . .

Hi - I'm a retired vehicle engineer. I started out as a design engineer, then became a 'specifications clerk' - which meant collating every possible dimension and detail that body-builders (and those wishing to modify vehicles) might conceivably need (the maxim was if they could find out by legitimate means - ie buying and analysing components - then we would provide the information in 'manual' format). This meant that I learned lots and lots about things that most folk don't know exist. If only I had kept a copy of that manual! Next I moved to vehicle testing (of prototypes and experimental vehicles) where I dealt with both passenger and commercial vehicles (including military vehicles). Then I moved back to design, working on systems such as transmission and braking. I even represented the company on legislative committees when the EEC were trying to standardise things across Europe. Finally, I moved into component manufacturing and supply (brakes, then transmissions and steering). As I stated, I'm retired, but I retain my interest in vehicles - especially old ones and military vehicles. Any questions then I'll try and answer without incriminating myself . . .

I've just arrived via a Google search for MkI Militants. Anyone want to offer any comment on this found in a 'collection' of similar vehicles (not all ex-military and some considerably more recent):- I don't know whether what I have typed will work (or whether you will be able to see it without registering for 'Buck and Truss'). Be gentle with me if I'm doing it wrong . . .